BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales is back again with yet another case of suspected H-1B fraud in the state of Texas.
This investigation took Sara to the city of Allen to a day care called “Allen Infant Care Center” and its neighboring autism behavioral therapy clinic, “DFW ABA Center” — both of which are owned by Golden Qi Holdings LLC.
When Sara visited these two locations, she witnessed the same thing she’s been seeing in these investigations: nothing — no people, no operations, no anything but empty facilities.
And yet according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, collectively these two businesses have sponsored at least 37 H-1B workers and filed more than 50 labor condition applications since their openings.
“The thing that is so curious about this one, when you go digging in the data and the LCAs, is that you wouldn't think that a day-care center would need market research analysts or supply chain analysts,” says Sara, “and yet this company actually told the United States government that they needed foreign workers to fill those jobs.”
On this episode of “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered,” Sara brings her audience along as she busts what appears to be another potential H-1B scam in Texas.
During her investigation, Sara happened to run into a whistleblower, who gave her the insider scoop on the alleged sham companies.
The whistleblower claims a man named Yao is behind a pay-to-play visa scheme, allegedly selling visas to foreigners.
“I know that he has sponsored people with visas, and then he gets them to work for him for next to nothing,” the whistleblower said, noting that these recipients are from “families of means” and are able to pay $20,000 for their visas.
“Someone's paying their rent, paying their car payments and all of that stuff, because when they’re working here, they're not earning enough to make rent. So the arrangement is made in China. … Once they get here, he either puts them to work for cheap, or they set about trying to find work where someone will genuinely sponsor them,” the whistleblower continued, adding that most of these people are young, highly educated women here on student visas.
The whistleblower also told Sara that Mr. Yao’s father is “high up in the [Chinese] government.”
“What turned me was seeing how much — I’m talking hundreds of thousands of dollars — for PPP loans. … Then there was another handout from Texas Workforce Commission for child care centers,” the whistleblower continues.
But despite these substantial government assistance programs, Mr. Yao, argues the whistleblower, has used “none of it” on anything related to the day care or autism center.
Sara then did what she always does: confront the alleged culprit.
In the next part of the video, she speaks with Mr. Yao, who is driving a metallic BMW sports car, and asks him to explain his visa sponsorships and share his public access files.
After an unsuccessful back-and-forth, Mr. Yao failed to answer any questions and promised his attorney would call.
Afterward, Sara did some more digging and found even more suspicious information.
“They had PPP loans in both the first and second round of the loans given and forgiven upwards of $100,000. They had a 2022 bankruptcy filing. On top of that, a lot of their employees are listed elsewhere, including Los Angeles, California,” she says. “I'm not sure what someone living in L.A. could actually do for a day-care center, but I'd like to find out.”
“Interestingly enough, there was one LCA that was filed that, I guess, would fit the vibe of this place for a kindergarten teacher, but then the obvious question becomes: Why would you need to import a foreign kindergarten teacher? You can't find any here?” she asks.
Sara vows to send all of the information she has gathered on Mr. Yao and his businesses to her contacts at the USCIS and the Department of Labor.
“We’re going to get you,” she warned Mr. Yao as he drove away.
To see the footage of Sara’s reporting, watch the video above.
Want more from Sara Gonzales?To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Donald Trump has survived another assassination attempt from a deranged progressive. Thankfully, Cole Allen was never able to get a clear shot at the president, but the fact that another radical leftist managed to smuggle a long gun into the event site should alarm everyone. Despite multiple attempts on Trump’s life and the tragic assassination of Charlie Kirk, progressives have only intensified their rhetoric, including open calls for violence. Democrats are not interested in turning down the temperature or abandoning political violence; they are only disappointed that the “lone wolves” they inspired have been unsuccessful. Progressives see political violence as their birthright and will not stop deploying it unless they are stopped with immediate and severe consequences.
While Democrats will deliver tired platitudes about political violence having no place in our country, the truth is that violence has been central to their strategy for a long time. From the race riots of the 1960s to the terror bombings of the 1970s to modern-day assassinations, leftists have regularly wielded violence. It is comforting to pretend that our political system is one in which peaceful negotiation and intellectual debate drive every outcome, but that simply is not the case. Whether it’s the intimidation of Supreme Court justices or the shooting of members of Congress, Democrats understand the power of violence and do not hesitate to use it.
The Trump administration has not undertaken any serious action after multiple attempts on the president’s life or the successful murder of Charlie Kirk.
Violence is the ultimate political argument, the most powerful tool one can deploy in furthering one's cause. This is why our founding fathers referred to the revolution as an "Appeal to Heaven," the final attempt to secure their rights as Englishmen when all else had failed. Violence is powerful but destabilizing; no one wants to live in a constant state of war, where every political and personal disagreement is resolved by force. That is why the first duty of the state is to secure a monopoly on sanctioned violence, taking that powerful but dangerous weapon off the table.
Some political systems believe the civil magistrate has been granted stewardship over violence by God; others see it as a social contract in which we collectively give up our right to violence in exchange for the protection of the state. However you frame it, a monopoly on violence is critical to maintaining order. A country that allows other entities inside its jurisdiction to use violence, like gangs or cartels, is generally considered a failed state because the citizens cannot rely on the government to maintain order. The population will feel compelled to go outside the sanctioned system to meet their security needs, and whoever reliably delivers on those needs tends to become the new government.
This might all sound obvious, but in the modern world, it must be repeated because we have lost touch with this basic truth. America and much of the Western world have been safe and stable for so long that we have forgotten the historical norm. Free debate and inquiry leading to a democratic consensus that is then peacefully enacted by a civilian government is fantastic, but it is far from the standard throughout history. Amazingly, we have been able to enjoy this extended period of stability, but it can also blind us to reality when the nature of our situation changes.
The cliché is that violence is never the answer; the truth is that violence is the ultimate answer, and we forget that at our own peril. That is why the state must take violence off the table by maintaining its monopoly on violence. Once violence is introduced into the equation, it quickly spreads across all domains because it outcompetes all other political strategies. In an orderly society, political violence must carry the ultimate taboo, not because it does not work, but because it works all too well.
The January 6 protest was far from the violent insurrection the media portrayed it as; those entering the Capitol did not have guns, but the Biden administration did not play games. The regime did not stop at arresting those who entered the building; they arrested people outside, they arrested people who had discussions with those who went in, they arrested people who were hundreds of miles away but could tangentially be connected. One can disagree with those arrests, but the message was clear — we have the monopoly on violence, and if you even imply that you will take some form of kinetic action, you will be crushed.
The Trump administration has not undertaken any serious action after multiple attempts on the president’s life or the successful murder of Charlie Kirk. In fact, the murder of Kirk might have been the most successful political assassination in American history. It threw the right into disarray, derailing the MAGA agenda and causing conservatives to collapse into a civil war. The fact that the latest assassination attempt came just days after the administration finally took its first serious action against a progressive organization like the Southern Poverty Law Center cannot go unnoticed.
Many conservatives seem to have already internalized regular assassination attempts as part of day-to-day American politics in the same way they have accepted frequent race riots deployed by the left. Lazy speeches about double standards and hypocrisy are delivered to shame the left into better behavior, but this is delusional. Democrats have had a monopoly on political violence for decades, and they are fully aware of what an enormous advantage that is. There is zero chance of progressives yielding such a powerful tool simply because someone delivered a lecture on the importance of democratic norms. The left will stop being violent when it pays a January 6-style price for it and not one minute before.
In all fairness to the Trump administration, this is a problem it inherited, not one it created. The left has had the exclusive right to domestic political violence for at least 70 years, and except for Richard Nixon, no Republican president has taken that issue seriously. Progressives now see exclusive access to violence as their natural birthright, and many conservatives seem to agree. But while Trump did not create this state of affairs, he also cannot allow it to remain in place. Something must change, and it must change drastically, because leftists are now ramping up the frequency and severity of the violent outbursts they feel entitled to.
Political violence is a fire that will expand and consume everything if it is allowed to. After progressive assassins failed to kill Trump multiple times, they pivoted to targets with less security like Charlie Kirk. How many more failed attempts at killing the president will it take before a leftist terrorist decides that crowds of Trump supporters would be an easier target? The 250th anniversary of America is rapidly approaching, where thousands of patriotic Trump supporters will be gathering across the country. If you think this has escaped the notice of domestic terror networks like Antifa, you are sadly mistaken. The Trump administration needs to drop a mighty hammer on the left to let them know that violence is off the table. Failure to take action will ensure that things become much, much worse.