Findream / Sinocontech Case (2019–2020)
In one sentence
This is an OPT case, not a CPT case, but it shows the employer's role — providing the position — more completely than any other: the fake employer went to prison; USCIS was the deceived party in the criminal case, and years later treated the work authorization it had itself approved as a benefit the student obtained by fraud.
Facts
Weiyun "Kelly" Huang registered two companies, Findream in California and Sinocontech in Delaware. From September 2013 to April 2019 she sold F-1 students:
- fake offer letters and employment verification letters;
- Forms I-983 signed under penalty of perjury;
- fake payroll funded by the customers themselves and paid back into their own accounts as "wages," along with Form 1099 tax forms.
Her plea agreement admits that about 2,693 customers listed the two companies as their employer and that she received at least about $1.5 million. She was arrested in March 2019.
Outcomes by party
| Party | Finding | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Employer (Huang and both companies) | Held responsible | Charged in the Northern District of Illinois (1:19-cr-275); pleaded guilty in December 2019 to one count of conspiracy to commit visa fraud (18 U.S.C. 371); sentenced on June 26, 2020 to 37 months, plus forfeiture. The plea agreement states the offense is an aggravated felony and removal is "presumptively mandatory" |
| Issuer: USCIS (OPT EAD) | Deceived party | The plea agreement states that USCIS would not have approved the OPT extension had it known the offer letter was false |
| School | Deceived party | The indictment says a fake offer letter was given to a Chicago university (called "University A") to get it to issue an I-20; the school was not a defendant |
| SEVP / ICE | Not in primary sources | No primary record was found of a mass SEVIS termination of all customers |
| Students | Not charged; faced consequences one by one, later | See below |
From the plea agreement:
Defendant understood that if USCIS knew the offer letter was false, USCIS would not have approved an extension of stay under the OPT program for Individual XQ.
What happened to students years later
The students were not charged, but in later applications they were found, one by one, to have made willful misrepresentations (INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i)):
| Case | What happened |
|---|---|
| Wang v. Noem (C.D. Cal. 2025) | In 2023 USCIS, reviewing an H-1B extension filed by his employer, found that "Findream was not a legitimate employer," and the employer withdrew the petition; his later I-539 was denied and his lawsuit dismissed. One adverse factor USCIS cited was that he knew he had not worked for Findream yet never reported the interruption in employment to his DSO |
| Fu v. DHS (N.D. Cal. 2025) | She joined Findream in 2016, was never given any work, and a few months later moved to another company and updated her I-20. In 2024 USCIS denied her I-539 extension, finding a misrepresentation on her 2016 I-765; the court held it lacked jurisdiction to review |
| Shi v. Miller (D. Neb. 2026) | She had only accepted a Findream offer. In 2020 her H-1B visa was physically cancelled at the port of entry, and consular officers later refused her visa on the same ground. The court denied the government's motion to dismiss; the case is pending |
| Shu v. DHS (D. Colo. 2020) | A naturalization case. He admitted paying Findream for a Form I-983, and USCIS found on that basis that he lacked good moral character; the court remanded the application to USCIS to decide |
What this case shows
- In OPT cases the fake employer itself is prosecuted, because the offer letter, the employment verification, and the I-983 are all signed by the employer. Whoever signs bears the criminal liability.
- An EAD approved by USCIS does not mean the matter is closed. USCIS is the deceived party in the criminal case and the party finding fraud in the student's next application.
- The consequences for students come late, and courts can rarely review them: both Wang and Fu ended with the court finding it lacked jurisdiction.
- Fu, who "joined, was given no work, and moved on," was found to have misrepresented, while a 2025 AAO decision found a student with similar facts had not committed fraud. The difference is whether the record shows the student did not know at the time.