Texas Attorney General Targets 30 Firms with Civil Demands in H-1B “ghost Office” Probe

(TEXAS) — Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued Civil Investigative Demands to nearly 30 North Texas businesses as part of a probe into suspected misuse of the H-1B visa program through alleged “ghost offices,” opening a state investigation that could expose payroll records, office arrangements and business practices that later draw federal scrutiny.

Paxton’s office announced the action on April 30, 2026. The state is examining whether some companies used business addresses that appeared active on paper but did not reflect real operations while sponsoring foreign workers.

The inquiry does not give Texas authority over H-1B approvals or denials, which remain a federal function. Still, the records sought in the Civil Investigative Demands, including employee information, products or services provided, financial statements and communications related to company operations, go to core compliance questions in H-1B cases: whether there is a real employer, a real job and a real worksite.

A “ghost office” is not a formal immigration-law term, but in practice it refers to an address used to create the appearance of a legitimate business location even when the company may not actually operate there as represented. In H-1B filings, the worksite matters because the petition depends on accurate information about the job, wage, location and business operations.

The Department of Labor’s Labor Condition Application process requires employers to attest to H-1B wage and working-condition obligations. The agency says the H-1B program covers specialty occupations and that employers must submit an LCA through the FLAG system before proceeding with the H-1B process.

If a company lists an office address without a meaningful business presence there, that can raise questions about whether the job offer is genuine, whether the correct wage area was used, whether workplace notices were properly posted and whether the employer can actually supervise or employ the worker. Those questions carry consequences beyond one state case.

USCIS has said it verifies H-1B wages, job duties and work locations during site visits, and that those actions are aimed at program compliance rather than targeting nonimmigrant employees. That means an approved petition does not end the compliance inquiry.

Workers can still face questions about where they physically work, who supervises them, what their daily duties are, whether they are doing the role described in the H-1B petition, whether they are being paid the wage listed in the LCA, whether they are working for the petitioning employer or a third-party client and whether a real job existed when the petition was filed. Inconsistent answers can create problems even if the approval notice is valid on its face.

The investigation also sharpens attention on records that many employers treat as routine paperwork. H-1B sponsors must maintain a Public Access File connected to the Labor Condition Application, and the Department of Labor says certain materials must be available to the public within one working day of filing the LCA, including the LCA itself, the H-1B worker’s rate of pay, the prevailing wage and source, proof that notice requirements were satisfied and a benefits summary.

In a fraud or compliance review, that file can help show whether the employer treated the H-1B filing as a real employment commitment or as a document exercise. Missing or inconsistent files can create risk for companies and leave workers exposed in disputes over pay, location, benching or status maintenance.

The Texas Attorney General’s action lands at a time when federal agencies have already tightened H-1B integrity measures. USCIS moved to a beneficiary-centric registration selection process to reduce manipulation of the lottery system and has said it continues to deny or revoke petitions and make law-enforcement referrals where it finds attempts to gain an unfair advantage.

That shift has pushed enforcement beyond whether a form was filed correctly. Agencies are looking more closely at the substance behind the filing, including the employer’s actual operations, the worker’s actual job, the wage being paid and the location where the work is performed.

The pressure falls heavily on foreign workers whose status depends on the petitioning employer, even when the worker did not personally commit fraud. A questionable petition, unsupported job offer, fake worksite or unpaid benching arrangement can lead to petition denial, revocation, visa refusal, status problems or complications in later immigration filings.

International students moving from Optional Practical Training or STEM OPT to H-1B sponsorship face a similar risk. Some students, under pressure to secure sponsorship, may accept offers from employers who promise H-1B filings without a clear job, salary, client assignment or business operation behind the offer.

That pressure can obscure basic checks. Students should verify whether the employer is a real operating business, whether it has a verifiable office, website, payroll and client base, whether the job relates directly to the student’s degree and skill set, whether the employer will pay the required wage from the required start date, whether the role qualifies as a specialty occupation and whether the employer is shifting prohibited business costs to the worker.

Selection in the H-1B registration process does not settle those issues. It gives the employer a chance to file, and the petition still must be supported by a real job and accurate evidence.

Employers also face practical questions that go well beyond Texas. Companies sponsoring H-1B workers should review whether they actually operate at each address used in immigration filings, whether LCAs and petitions match the employee’s real work location, whether the worker is being paid the required wage on time, whether actual duties match the petition, whether the Public Access File is complete and whether client letters, contracts, supervision details, tax filings, invoices, financial statements and employee records support the business activity being claimed.

Amendments also matter. If the actual job location, duties, salary, employer entity or client assignment changes, workers should ask whether an H-1B amendment is required before the change is implemented.

The warning signs described are blunt. Workers should be cautious if an employer says, “You can pay us for sponsorship,” “We will file first and find a project later,” “You do not need to be paid until placed with a client,” “We will use a different office address for paperwork,” “Do not mention where you actually work,” or “We can create experience letters or payroll records later.”

Those statements do not read like routine administrative shortcuts. They point to the same issues at the center of the Texas probe: whether an employer has a lawful business structure behind the petition and whether the filing matches the actual employment arrangement.

An investigation by itself does not automatically put every sponsored worker out of status. Allegations are not the same as findings, and some companies may be cleared or resolve documentation problems without broader fallout.

Even so, workers tied to an employer under investigation face difficult decisions around travel, visa stamping, extension filings, green card steps and job changes. Timing is critical if a worker plans to move to a new H-1B employer through a transfer petition and protection should not be assumed without legal advice specific to the worker’s facts.

Indian nationals are among the largest groups using the H-1B pathway, especially in technology, consulting, engineering, healthcare and higher-skilled business roles. That leaves Indian professionals especially exposed when staffing firms, IT consulting companies or small sponsors come under scrutiny, though many small and mid-sized employers lawfully sponsor H-1B workers.

The risk is not the size of the company but the truth of the filing. A bad H-1B employer can create problems that follow a worker for years, including during H-1B extensions, PERM labor certification, I-140 filings, adjustment of status, consular processing or naturalization review.

Texas has framed this case around ghost offices, but the investigation reaches into a broader compliance pattern that federal agencies have been examining for years. If the Civil Investigative Demands uncover payroll gaps, unsupported worksites, speculative jobs or business records that do not match immigration filings, the results could matter well beyond the nearly 30 companies now under scrutiny in North Texas.

That leaves employers with a simple test grounded in records rather than paperwork alone: whether the company can show a real office, a real business, a real wage and a real job tied to the person it sponsors. Workers whose files match those facts are in a stronger position if Texas investigators or federal immigration officers come calling.