- Thirteen House Republicans asked Attorney General Todd Blanche to review H-1B recruitment allegations tied to P33 Chicago H-1B Connect.
- The request challenges an August 12, 2026 dismissal involving Boston Consulting Group; it does not reopen the case.
- As of October 13, the Justice Department had not announced a review, and the dismissal remains in place.
Thirteen House Republicans asked Attorney General Todd Blanche on October 9, 2026, to investigate alleged H-1B recruitment tied to P33 Chicago H-1B Connect. They also want him to review the dismissal of a discrimination case involving Boston Consulting Group. The request does not reopen the case.
The lawmakers contend that the Chicago initiative sought H-1B visa holders while discouraging U.S. citizens from applying for jobs. They say the recruitment may violate INA § 274B, the federal provision codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1324b that bars certain unfair employment practices based on citizenship status or national origin.
Free toolCSPA Age-Out Calculator Online
Their letter also challenges an August 12, 2026, dismissal by a Justice Department administrative law judge in U.S. Tech Workers v. Boston Consulting Group. The judge found that the 2024 case did not allege enough facts to support its discrimination claims. No finding of visa fraud followed.
The lawmakers argue that the decision could narrow how the law applies to recruitment advertising, not just hiring decisions. They asked Blanche to examine both the allegations and the judge’s interpretation. The dismissal remains in place unless the department acts.
The lawmakers say recruitment advertising can discourage U.S. applicants
The underlying complaint accused the consulting firm of taking part in a Chicago-area program that targeted H-1B workers and deterred U.S. citizens from applying. Those claims remain allegations. The congressional letter says an employer should not avoid anti-discrimination rules by outsourcing recruitment or by shaping job notices to favor nonimmigrant visa holders.
The lawmakers pointed to three practices they believe merit scrutiny: recruiting through outside programs or platforms, advertising positions specifically for nonimmigrant visa holders, and writing job announcements in ways that exclude or discourage U.S. workers. They contend the law’s protections apply even when an alleged preference appears in an advertisement rather than in a final hiring decision.
The letter tied those protections to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Gosar and Roy wrote that the law was enacted to protect U.S. workers from discrimination based on citizenship status and national origin.
“If employers can expressly target foreign workers while discouraging Americans from applying, those protections are substantially weakened.”
The representatives said the administrative ruling suggested that the statute might not create a claim for discriminatory advertising. They also objected to the apparent conclusion that advertising favoring nonimmigrants based on citizenship or national origin may not, by itself, discriminate against American workers. They called that interpretation deserving of “careful review.”
OCAHO dismissed the case, leaving the advertising question contested
The decision came from the Justice Department’s Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, known as OCAHO. The office conducts administrative hearings under parts of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Immigration Act of 1990. The judge dismissed the case after finding the complaint’s factual allegations insufficient.
The dispute centers on the reach of the employment-discrimination provision. The lawmakers say it should cover recruitment practices that deter U.S. workers. Their letter objects to treating an ad’s preference for nonimmigrant applicants as legally distinct from discriminatory treatment based on citizenship or national origin.
The administrative dismissal is not a criminal judgment, and the congressional request is not a DOJ finding that the company broke the law. The request also does not order an investigation or automatically restore the complaint. The department would need to take further action for the matter to be reopened or reviewed.
Gosar and Roy led a 13-member Republican delegation
Representatives Paul Gosar of Arizona and Chip Roy of Texas led the group. Other identified signers were Brian Babin, Keith Self and Randy Weber, all Republicans from Texas, and Mary Miller, the only Illinois member named among the signers.
Roy represents Austin, Self represents McKinney, Weber represents Friendswood and Babin represents Woodville, Texas. The other members were Republicans representing Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Ohio, South Carolina and Virginia. The delegation’s letter described a total of 13 House members.
Roy said he wanted Blanche’s review to help “end widespread H-1B abuse once and for all.” The lawmakers also placed the Chicago allegations alongside a separate DOJ settlement with OpenAI, which they described as involving allegations that the company favored workers with temporary employment visas over U.S. workers.
“We believe those efforts should be applied consistently.”
The comparison also invokes employment-based permanent residence sponsorship. Under that process, employers generally must conduct good-faith recruitment and be unable to find qualified U.S. workers before sponsoring a foreign worker for permanent residence. The representatives argue that similar scrutiny should apply to recruitment involving temporary visa holders.
The August order remains in place while DOJ considers the request
U.S. Tech Workers welcomed the lawmakers’ request in a post on X on October 12, 2026. The organization wrote: “The Attorney General has until the middle of this week to decide whether he will review the case. We certainly hope he will.”
As of October 13, 2026, Blanche’s office had not announced a review. The department and the company had not responded to requests for comment. The August 12 dismissal remained the operative administrative decision, and the material describes no criminal charges, civil penalty or finding of visa fraud against the company.
Any next step would come from the department, not from the lawmakers’ letter itself. The allegations against the employer and the Chicago recruitment initiative remain unresolved.
This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your specific case.
