UC Berkeley’s H-1B Practices Face Scrutiny as DOL Launches Fraud Probe

A July 14 investigation found that UC Berkeley filed more than 200 Labor Condition Applications for H-1B hires during 2025 and 2026, as the Labor Department’s inspector general launched a nationwide fraud initiative involving the university system’s broader hiring environment.

The filings cover academic and research positions. They do not, by themselves, establish that every application became an approved petition or that the agency found wrongdoing at Berkeley.

Labor Department records show 194 Berkeley LCAs certified in 2025 and 86 certified so far in 2026. The figures place the university’s sponsorship activity under a sharper federal spotlight.

The review also identified 235 approved applications over the past two years. Another 45 carried the designations “Withdrawn” or “Certified Withdrawn.”

The federal scrutiny intensified this month. Anthony P. D’Esposito, inspector general of the DOL Office of Inspector General, announced the enforcement effort July 8.

“My team, in conjunction with President Trump and Vice President Vance’s Fraud Task Force, has worked relentlessly to uncover fraud. For far too long, fraudsters believed they could game the U.S. employment-based visa system and get away with it. They were wrong. This isn’t just paperwork fraud—it’s the exploitation of vulnerable workers, forced labor, the displacement of American workers, and abusive human trafficking.”

D’Esposito said July 9 that his office had already issued “dozens of subpoenas.” The initiative targets H-1B and PERM fraud nationwide, rather than announcing a specific finding against Berkeley.

Berkeley’s filings include academic and postdoctoral roles

The applications include “Assistant Professor,” “Assistant Project Scientist,” and “Postdoctoral Scholar Employee” positions. More than 60 applications involved the postdoctoral category alone.

Those titles do not automatically determine whether a position qualifies for H-1B sponsorship. The filings instead show the range of jobs the university presented to the Labor Department.

A Labor Condition Application records an employer’s labor attestations before an H-1B petition proceeds. It is not the same as proof that a worker entered the United States, started the job, or received final immigration approval.

The distinction becomes more important when regulators examine whether the listed job, worksite, wage, and employer relationship match the actual arrangement. University-based sponsorship can also receive Requests for Evidence as officials examine cap-exempt hiring.

A former UC information officer pleaded guilty in a separate case

A federal fraud case involving another University of California entity has added pressure to the system. On April 23, two men, including Sreedhar Mada, pleaded guilty to conspiring to submit fraudulent H-1B petitions.

Mada formerly served as chief information officer for University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources. The case involved purported positions between 2020 and 2023.

Prosecutors said the men falsely represented that beneficiaries would work at the University of California. They used the institution’s name to give petitions unearned credibility, then marketed the beneficiaries to other clients.

The case does not identify Berkeley as a participant. It does show why federal investigators are examining whether university names and job descriptions accurately reflect the work being offered.

Administrators who approve sponsorship face personal legal exposure if filings misrepresent the employer, position, or work arrangement. Workers can face separate consequences when a petition collapses, even if they did not prepare the filing.

H-1B selection now favors wage and skill levels

The government also changed the selection system. A weighted process took effect February 27, 2026, replacing the random selection approach with prioritization based on wage level and skill profile.

Matthew Tragesser, a USCIS and DHS spokesman, described the policy shift December 23, 2025.

“The existing random selection process of H-1B registrations was exploited and abused by U.S. employers who were primarily seeking to import foreign workers at lower wages than they would pay American workers. The new weighted selection will better serve Congress' intent. by incentivizing American employers to petition for higher-paid, higher-skilled foreign workers.”

The policy aims to discourage volume-based sponsorship of lower-paid positions. It affects selection before an employer files the full petition, while the LCA remains part of the later compliance record.

A separate fee dispute has added another financial variable. A presidential proclamation in September 2025 sought a $100,000 H-1B fee for certain entrants.

A federal court initially struck down the fee in early June 2026. In mid-June, however, a federal district court in Massachusetts authorized USCIS to resume requiring it while an appeal continues.

Filing mechanics now carry sharper consequences

USCIS began enforcing a stricter signature policy July 10. Benefit requests must carry a wet-ink signature or an electronic signature from an explicitly authorized signer.

Improper signatures, including those made with digital tools or stamps, trigger immediate rejection without an opportunity to correct the error. The rule puts an administrative burden on sponsoring departments and their immigration counsel.

International graduates and postdoctoral scholars carry the downstream risk. A rejected filing can disrupt employment plans and create uncertainty about maintaining lawful status.

Faculty and researchers may also encounter longer processing times and more Requests for Evidence as the government audits university-based H-1B cases. Sponsoring employers must ensure that job descriptions, wage data, worksites, and signatures accurately match the petition.

Employees should review those details before filing. Their immigration status can depend on an employer’s paperwork.

The inspector general’s July initiative, the guilty plea involving Mada, and the Berkeley filing numbers now sit in the same enforcement climate. The next federal actions will determine whether scrutiny of university sponsorship produces findings tied to particular institutions or petitions.