From Consulates to Construction Sites: How Immigration Enforcement Is Following the Worker — and the Employer

By Mia Giacomazzi, Denizen Immigration PC

The Expanding Reach of Immigration Enforcement

Immigration enforcement no longer happens at the border.

It’s happening at the visa window, the worksite, the home, and even the interview room at USCIS.

Over the past year, the U.S. government has quietly expanded the definition of what it means to “enforce” immigration law. What was once limited to detecting fraud or catching unauthorized work has evolved into a multi-agency network of oversight — reaching into every stage of a visa’s lifecycle and every player in the system.

And that shift means something important: enforcement is no longer about “them.” It’s about all of us.

Whether you manage a landscaping business in Texas, a tech start-up in California, or a rotation program sending engineers from Europe to the U.S., immigration enforcement now touches every petition, every client, and every case file. It affects the worker, the petitioner, and even the lawyer.

I. The Enforcement Web: One Employee, Five Agencies

What makes today’s enforcement landscape so complex is that no single agency controls it anymore. Immigration enforcement has become interconnected, data-driven, and often, politically influenced.

Here’s what that looks like in practice:

• Consulates trigger fraud investigations based on visa interviews and social media reviews.

• FDNS (Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate) reopens approved petitions after site visits or anonymous tips.

• DOL audits wage and hour compliance, sometimes uncovering inconsistencies in visa filings.

• ICE HSI conducts worksite raids or criminal investigations based on those same referrals.

• USCIS issues Notices of Intent to Revoke (NOIRs) on the basis of “fraud indicators” found downstream.

Each agency has its own jurisdiction, but the information now flows seamlessly between them. One officer’s suspicion at a consulate can lead to an FDNS site visit, which triggers a DOL audit, which becomes a criminal investigation.

In other words: a single red flag can now echo across five agencies.

II. From Fraud Detection to Behavior Correction

When FDNS was created in 2004, its mission was clear — detect fraud in immigration benefit applications. Two decades later, its focus has shifted from “detection” to “correction.”

Today, FDNS officers don’t just verify information — they assess conduct.

They look at how employers interpret regulations, how job duties are described, and whether intent appears genuine. It’s a subtle but profound shift: enforcement is now about shaping employer behavior, not merely catching bad actors.

That means that a simple inconsistency — a remote work address that doesn’t match the LCA, or a job title that’s too general — can be labeled a “fraud indicator.”

Even honest mistakes can create a paper trail that takes months (or years) to resolve.

And perhaps most importantly, these actions are increasingly preventive and symbolic. FDNS and ICE aren’t just enforcing laws; they’re sending messages to industries that rely heavily on immigrant labor: We’re watching.

III. What Enforcement Looks Like in Practice

Here are a few real-world examples of how “routine” actions can escalate:

• A factory raid in the Midwest occurred after consular officers noticed several identical B-1 invitation letters for “training” visits. What they saw as boilerplate language was interpreted as potential visa misuse — triggering a referral to HSI.

• H-1B petitions have been revoked months after approval when FDNS site visits revealed that employees had been reassigned to remote locations not listed in the original filings.

• H-2B employers have faced DOL investigations and debarments because job titles in payroll records didn’t match those on the job orders.

• In another case, a DOL wage investigation led to an FDNS referral after auditors questioned why certain workers appeared to be performing higher-level duties than those described in the prevailing wage determination.

None of these employers believed they were committing fraud. Yet each faced serious enforcement consequences because their filings, documentation, or operational realities didn’t line up neatly on paper.

IV. The Politics of Enforcement

It’s impossible to separate enforcement from politics.

Every administration adjusts priorities — but enforcement rarely disappears. It simply shifts focus.

In the current climate, enforcement serves a dual purpose: it ensures compliance, but it also projects control. Raids and revocations make headlines. They show strength.

For employers, however, the effects are deeply personal:

• Petition revocations can devastate project timelines.

• Civil fines or DOL penalties can destabilize budgets.

• Debarment from filing future petitions can cripple an entire business model.

• And criminal referrals—though rare—remain a terrifying possibility.

The message to employers is clear: in the eyes of enforcement, ignorance is not innocence.

V. What Triggers an FDNS Fraud Action?

FDNS isn’t arbitrary. Most fraud actions begin with one of these triggers:

1. Data mismatches between USCIS systems and DOL or SSA records.

2. Tip-offs — often from former employees, competitors, or even consulates.

3. Pattern recognition — repetitive filings or identical job descriptions.

4. Unannounced site visits revealing discrepancies in location, salary, or duties.

5. Inconsistencies between forms and real-world operations.

Once triggered, FDNS conducts a Fraud Verification Memo (FVM) summarizing its findings. If the officer concludes that misrepresentation occurred, the case is referred back to adjudications — and you may receive a NOIR or NOID.

If the findings suggest willful fraud, the case can escalate to ICE HSI for potential criminal referral.

VI. Preparing Before You’re Audited

By the time you receive a Notice of Intent to Revoke, it’s already late in the game. The best defense is a proactive, structured compliance plan.

At Denizen Immigration, we advise employers to adopt “enforcement readiness” as a standing policy. That means:

• Conducting internal audits annually — reviewing petitions, LCAs, payroll, and worksite locations.

• Training managers and HR on what to do if an investigator arrives unannounced (who to contact, what to say, what not to disclose).

• Centralizing recordkeeping so digital and physical files match — incomplete or conflicting documentation is a major red flag.

• Reviewing job titles and duties before filing — ensuring they align with actual operations, not just generic O*NET language.

• Creating communication channels between departments and counsel to avoid inconsistent information being sent to agencies.

Preparation doesn’t eliminate enforcement risk, but it dramatically reduces the damage and demonstrates good faith if you are audited.

VII. The Lawyer’s Dilemma: When Enforcement Reaches Counsel

Alarmingly, lawyers are increasingly finding themselves entangled in the enforcement net.

Just last month, an immigration attorney had her phone seized upon re-entry to the U.S. — part of an ongoing investigation into client communications. It was a sobering reminder that our profession is not exempt.

As practitioners, we hold sensitive data that enforcement agencies view as potential evidence.

That means we must balance client confidentiality with practical caution.

Best practices for immigration lawyers:

• Travel with clean devices or limited local data.

• Store client records in encrypted, cloud-based platforms.

• Enable multi-factor authentication for all firm systems.

• Have a plan for what to do if your devices are searched — and know your rights.

Ethical lawyering in this climate means protecting your clients’ information as fiercely as you protect their status.

VIII. The New Normal: Enforcement as Ecosystem

Immigration enforcement today is not a linear process. It’s an ecosystem — a web of agencies, data-sharing agreements, and policy priorities that overlap and reinforce one another.

A visa applicant’s social media post can lead to a consular inquiry.

That inquiry can trigger an FDNS site visit.

The site visit can uncover an LCA inconsistency, leading to a DOL audit.

And that audit can evolve into a criminal referral if intent is inferred.

Each step builds on the last, and each agency sees the previous action as validation for the next.

For employers, that means compliance can no longer be reactive.

You have to build your systems — and your mindset — with the assumption that every document, every job title, and every address could one day be reviewed by multiple agencies at once.

IX. The Bottom Line: Audit Before You’re Audited

The best protection against enforcement is visibility — knowing what’s in your own files before someone else does.

It’s not paranoia; it’s prudence.

The landscape of 2025 and beyond rewards the employers and lawyers who are proactive, transparent, and well-documented.

Those who rely on “we’ve always done it this way” are the ones most likely to be caught off guard.

At Denizen Immigration, our advice is simple:

• Audit before you’re audited.

• Train before you’re questioned.

• Prepare before you’re visited.

Compliance is not just defense — it’s credibility.

And in this enforcement era, credibility is the strongest form of protection you have.

✍️ Author Bio

Mia Giacomazzi is the founder of Denizen Immigration PC, a U.S. immigration law firm serving employers and global professionals worldwide. Based in Amsterdam and California, she advises businesses on employment-based immigration strategy, compliance, and risk management across industries including landscaping, agriculture, construction, and logistics.--