H-1B job offer fraud
Prasad v. United States
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied.
- What it’s about
- Abhijit Prasad challenges a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a), arguing that federal immigration law allows H-1B employers to hire workers without a specific job assignment or existing project.
- Who it affects
- The Court's refusal ends Prasad's request for Supreme Court review but does not resolve whether his conviction can stand.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
He also argues that courts cannot use that statute to criminalize conduct governed by immigration rules.
Prasad's case concerns how a federal criminal law applies to statements about H-1B jobs that he says immigration rules allow employers to offer without a specific assignment.
Question presented
1. Whether a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a) may be sustained based on representations regarding pre-existing “specific, bona fide positions,” where the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended by the Immigration Act of 1990 and the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998, together with implementing regulation 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(c)(6)(i), specifically permit petitioning employers to employ H-1B nonimmigrants without a specific job assignment or an existing project? 2. Whether a court may impose criminal liability under 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a) by striking the statute’s incorporation of “immigration laws or regulations prescribed thereunder,” which govern the conduct described in Question 1, and thereby transform conduct regulated by Congress into a federal crime?
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
New analysis added
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Show 2 moreShow fewer
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Brief added: Petition
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.