Staffing exec pleads guilty to visa fraud
Staffing exec pleads guilty to visa fraud
main content
The owner of a San Jose, California-based staffing firm pleaded guilty to visa fraud and conspiracy to commit visa fraud, the US Department of Justice announced Nov. 6.
Kishore Dattapuram of Santa Clara, California, was the third defendant to plead guilty in the case. He admitted to collaborating with Kumar Aswapathi, of Austin, Texas, and Santosh Giri, of San Jose, California, to submit H-1B applications falsely stating that foreign workers had specific jobs waiting for them at designated end-client companies, according to the Department of Justice. Those jobs did not exist. In addition, Dattapuram on multiple occasions paid companies to be listed as end clients for foreign workers he knew would not be employed by those firms.
Dattapuram’s attorney has been contacted for comment.
The scheme enabled Nanosemantics, the staffing firm owned by Dattapuram and Aswapathi, to obtain H-1B visas before job placements were arranged, according to the department. The firm was able to place those workers with employers as soon as jobs became available — providing an unfair advantage over competitors, the department said.
H-1B visas are used to bring in foreign temporary skilled workers such as IT, engineering and healthcare professionals.
Giri, who worked closely with Nanosemantics, owned LexGiri, a separate outsourcing firm providing visa and immigration services for the legal industry.
All three were indicted on Feb. 28, 2019, each charged with one count of conspiracy to commit visa fraud and 10 counts of substantive visa fraud. Aswapathi pleaded guilty to all counts on Oct. 19, 2020, while Giri entered his guilty plea on Oct. 28, 2024.
Dattapuram and Giri are scheduled for sentencing on Feb. 24, 2025, while Aswapathi has a status hearing on Nov. 25, 2024. Each faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison, a $250,000 fine for each visa fraud count and up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine on the conspiracy count.
USA vs. Dattapuram et al; US District Court for the Northern District of California; 5:19-cr-00099