Accessible Version

H-2A AND H-2B VISA

PROGRAMS

Increased Protections 

Needed for Foreign 

Workers

Report to Congressional Committees

March 2015

GAO-15-154

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-15-154, a report to 

congressional committees

March 2015

H-2A AND H-2B VISA PROGRAMS

Increased Protections Needed for Foreign Workers

Why GAO Did This Study

Tens of thousands of foreign nationals 

travel to the United States each year 

under the H-2A and H-2B visa 

programs. These programs are 

designed to fill a temporary need that 

U.S. workers are unavailable to fill. 

Employers may use third parties to 

recruit these workers and recruitment 

generally takes place outside the 

United States with limited federal 

oversight. GAO was mandated to study 

foreign labor recruitment. 

This report examines (1) the number of 

H-2A and H-2B workers who enter the 

country and the occupations they fill, 

(2) how U.S. employers recruit H-2A 

and H-2B workers and what abuse 

may occur in recruitment and 

employment, and (3) how well federal 

departments and agencies protect H2A and H-2B workers. To address 

these objectives GAO conducted site 

visits to Mexico (where many workers 

originate) and Florida and Texas 

(where many work). GAO also 

analyzed relevant data from five 

federal agencies for fiscal years 2009 

through 2013 including data on 

employers’ applications for foreign 

workers, visas issued, violations 

committed by employers, and services 

provided to exploited workers. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends, among other 

actions, that DHS publish information 

on jobs and recruiters; that DOL and 

DHS finalize their data sharing 

agreement; and that DOL review its H2B enforcement efforts and collect data 

on cases affected by the debarment 

statute of limitations. The agencies 

generally agreed with our 

recommendations.

What GAO Found

More than 250,000 foreign workers entered the United States through the H-2A 

(agricultural) and H-2B (nonagricultural) visa programs in fiscal years 2009 

through 2013. U.S. employers use a process that involves multiple federal 

agencies to petition for and employ temporary foreign workers through these visa 

programs. The Department of State (State) reported that most workers using 

these visas were from Mexico. The majority of workers who entered the country 

were men and most were 40 years old or younger. Most workers were requested 

for the agriculture, horticulture, or food service industries, but the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) does not electronically maintain standardized data on 

workers’ occupations, so information on occupations held is not fully known. 

Generally, employers recruit workers in their home countries either directly or 

indirectly, using an outside third party, and some abuses—such as charging 

prohibited fees or not providing adequate job information—have been reported. 

About 44 percent of U.S. employers who hired H-2A and H-2B workers in fiscal 

year 2013 indicated on their petition to DHS that they planned to recruit workers 

indirectly. Some workers, federal officials, and advocacy groups GAO 

interviewed identified abuse during recruitment including: third-party recruiters 

charging workers prohibited fees; not providing information about a job, when 

required, such as wage level; or providing false information about job conditions. 

Stakeholders have called for providing workers with accurate job details and 

working conditions at the time of recruitment. However, DHS, which collects 

petition information from employers, does not electronically capture detailed job 

information or make these data publicly available. As a result, potential workers 

and their advocates cannot verify recruiters’ job offers. DHS officials said they 

may capture more information on employers and job offers as the department 

transitions to an electronic petition system, but specifics have not been drafted. 

To help prevent exploitation of and provide protections to workers, federal 

agencies screen employers and can impose remedies for those who violate visa 

program rules. However, certain limitations hinder the effectiveness of these 

remedies. When the Department of Labor (DOL) debars—or temporarily bans 

from program participation—employers who commit certain violations, it 

electronically captures limited information on these employers and shares it with 

DHS and State, which also screen employers’ requests to hire workers. DOL and 

DHS officials said they are working on an agreement to share more information, 

but it has not been finalized. GAO’s past work has shown that establishing 

guidelines on information sharing enhances interagency collaboration, which in 

this case could reduce the risk that some ineligible employers could be approved 

to hire workers. In addition, in fiscal years 2009 through 2013, DOL’s H-2 

employer investigations focused primarily on H-2A employers, although DOL 

identified some H-2B industries as high risk. DOL officials said they have not 

conducted a national investigations-based evaluation of H-2B employers as they 

have for H-2A employers. Without such an evaluation, it is unclear whether 

DOL’s resources are being focused appropriately. Further, GAO’s analysis found 

that about half of DOL investigations took longer than the 2-year statute of 

limitations on debarment. Because DOL does not collect data on the nature of 

the cases affected by this 2-year period, the agency cannot assess whether the 

statute of limitations has limited its ability to use debarment as a remedy.

View GAO-15-154. For more information, 

contact Andrew Sherrill, (202) 512-7215, 

sherrilla@gao.gov
Letter 1

Page i GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

Background 5

More Than 250,000 H-2A and H-2B Workers Entered the United 

States from 2009 through 2013, but the Number of Workers 

Filling Specific Occupations Is Not Fully Known 17

Employers Used Varying Methods to Recruit Workers and Some 

Workers Experienced Abuses Before and After Entering the 

United States 25

Federal Agencies Take Steps to Prevent Exploitation of Workers 

and Provide Assistance to Victims, but Vulnerabilities Persist 38

Conclusions 55

Recommendations for Executive Action 56

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 57

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 60

Section 1: Data Sources 60

Section 2: Site Visits, Interviews, Discussion Groups, and Review 

of Documentary Evidence 68

Appendix II: Summaries of H-2A and H-2B Visa Worker Discussion Groups 72

Appendix III: Characteristics of and Assistance to H-2A and H-2B Human Trafficking Victims 74

Approval of T Visas for H-2A and H-2B Workers by U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services at DHS 74

Profile of Complaints from H-2A and H-2B Visa Holders Referred 

from the National Human Trafficking Resource Center to 

Service Providers 75

Appendix IV: Details on Back Wages and Civil Money Penalties Assessed by the Department of Labor (DOL)

77

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 79

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General 82

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Labor 84

Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 87

GAO Contact 87

Staff Acknowledgments 87

Contents
Appendix IX: Accessible Data 88

Page ii GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

Related GAO Products 92

Tables

Table 1: DOL Regulations Related to Selected Employer 

Obligations under H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs 10

Table 2: Number of H-2B Workers Certified by DOL and 

Requested on Petitions Approved by DHS, Fiscal Years 

2009 through 2013a21

Table 3: Methods of Worker Recruitment in the H-2A and H-2B 

Visa Programsa25

Table 4: Types of Abuses Some Workers Reported Experiencing 

during Recruitment for the H-2 Visa Programs 29

Table 5: Select Categories of Violations That Occurred during 

Recruitment and Employment in the H-2 Visa Programs 

as Identified by DOL’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) in 

Fiscal Years 2009 through 2013, by Number and Type of 

Employer 35

Table 6: Summary of DOL Back Wages Assessed to H-2A and H2B Employers, Fiscal Years 2009 through 2013 77

Table 7: Summary of DOL Civil Money Penalties Assessed to H2A and H-2B Employers, Fiscal Years 2009 through 2013 77

Table 8: Summary of State H-2 Visa and DOL Wage and Hour 

Enforcement Data by H-2 Employers, Fiscal Years 2009 

through 2013 78

Data Table for Figure 4: U.S. Embassies and Consulates That 

Issued the Highest Percentage of H-2A and H-2B Visas, 

Fiscal Years 2009 through 2013 88

Data Tables for Figure 5: Percentage of H-2A and H-2B Workers 

Who Entered the Country in One or More Years, Fiscal 

Years 2009 through 2013 88

Data Tables for Figure 6: Percentage of Occupations Requested 

By Employers/Petitioners on New H-2A and H-2B 

Petitions,a Fiscal Years 2009 through 2013 88

Data Tables for Figure 10: U.S. Embassies and Consulates That 

Issued the Highest Percentage of H-2A and H-2B Visas 

and Country of Citizenship of H-2 Workers Approved for 

the Highest Percentage of T Visas, Fiscal Years 2009 

through 2013 90
Figures

Page iii GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

Figure 1: H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs Approval Process 7

Figure 2: U.S. Federal Agencies’ Enforcement Roles for the H-2A 

and H-2B Programs 12

Figure 3: The “3P” Paradigm of Combating Human Trafficking 16

Figure 4: U.S. Embassies and Consulates That Issued the Highest 

Percentage of H-2A and H-2B Visas, Fiscal Years 2009 

through 2013 18

Figure 5: Percentage of H-2A and H-2B Workers Who Entered the 

Country in One or More Years, Fiscal Years 2009 

through 2013 19

Figure 6: Percentage of Occupations Requested By 

Employers/Petitioners on New H-2A and H-2B Petitions,a

Fiscal Years 2009 through 2013 23

Figure 7: Types of Services Provided to Human Trafficking Victims 

Who Were Identified in Typical H-2 Industries, January 

2012 through December 2013 45

Figure 8: Approved T Visas for H-2 Workers Who Were Human 

Trafficking Victims, Fiscal Years 2009 through 2013 47

Figure 9: Summary of State H-2 Visas Issued and DOL Wage and 

Hour Enforcement Data by H-2 Employers, Fiscal Years 

2009 through 2013 48

Figure 10: U.S. Embassies and Consulates That Issued the 

Highest Percentage of H-2A and H-2B Visas and Country 

of Citizenship of H-2 Workers Approved for the Highest 

Percentage of T Visas, Fiscal Years 2009 through 2013 74

Data Table for Figure 7: Types of Services Provided to Human 

Trafficking Victims Who Were Identified in Typical H-2 

Industries, January 2012 through December 2013 89

Data Table for Figure 8: Approved T Visas for H-2 Workers Who 

Were Human Trafficking Victims, Fiscal Years 2009 

through 2013 89

Data Tables for Figure 9: Summary of State H-2 Visas Issued and 

DOL Wage and Hour Enforcement Data by H-2 

Employers, Fiscal Years 2009 through 2013 90
Page iv GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

Abbreviations

ADIS Arrival and Departure Information System 

CLAIMS 3 Computer-Linked Application Information 

Management System 3

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

CDM Centro de los Derechos del Migrante, Inc. 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

DOJ Department of Justice 

DOL Department of Labor 

DS Bureau of Diplomatic Security 

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation 

FDNS Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate 

FLSA Fair Labor Standards Act 

HAVEN Humanitarian Adjudication for Victims Enterprise 

Nationwide 

HHS Department of Health and Human Services 

HSTC Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center 

HTRS Human Trafficking Reporting System 

ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

KCC Kentucky Consular Center 

LSC Legal Services Corporation 

NAICS North American Industry Classification System 

NGO nongovernmental organization 

NHTRC National Human Trafficking Resource Center 
OFLC Office of Foreign Labor Certification 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

OVC Office for Victims of Crime 

SOC Standard Occupational Classification 

State Department of State 

TIMS Trafficking Information Management System 

TVPA Trafficking Victims Protection Act 

USCIS U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 

WHD Wage and Hour Division 

WHISARD Wage and Hour Investigative Support and 

Reporting Database 

Page v GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

March 6, 2015

Congressional Committees

Tens of thousands of foreign nationals apply for admission to the United 

States each year under the H-2A and H-2B temporary worker programs. 

These programs, which include agricultural workers on H-2A visas and 

nonagricultural workers on H-2B visas,1 strive to help employers fill 

positions for which U.S. workers are not available while at the same time 

providing protections for U.S and foreign workers.2 Federal law allows 

employers to hire these temporary workers via nonimmigrant worker 

visas.3 Employers may, in turn, hire third parties to recruit these workers 

and assist them through the visa process. These third parties can operate 

either in the United States, foreign countries, or both, limiting federal 

oversight. 

Several federal agencies are responsible for administering the H-2A and 

H-2B program requirements. The Department of Labor (DOL) and 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) screen employers who want to 

hire workers and the Department of State (State) screens workers who 

apply for H-2A and H-2B visas at U.S. embassies and consulates 

overseas.4 Once DHS admits the workers into the United States, DOL, 

 

1

In general, a visa allows a foreign citizen to travel to a U.S. port of entry and request

permission of an immigration inspection officer with the Department of Homeland 

Security’s (DHS) U.S. Customs and Border Protection to enter the United States for an 

identified period of time. A nonimmigrant visa permits travel to the United States on a 

temporary basis. 

2 H-2 program regulations state that they are construed to effectuate the purpose of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act that U.S. workers be employed whenever possible, and 

that where temporary foreign workers are admitted, that the terms and conditions for their 

employment do not result in a lowering of those for similarly employed U.S. workers. 20 

C.F.R. § 655.0(a)(3).

3

8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(A), (B).

4 A visa is not required for H-2A workers coming from Jamaica and certain other 

Caribbean countries. 8 C.F.R. § 212.1(b). In these cases, the worker may go directly to a 

designated port of entry and apply for admission. According to DHS and State officials, as 

of July 2014, rules to end this exemption from the visa requirement were being developed 

and would then be subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. Canadian 

citizens who enter the United States as temporary workers under the H-2 program are 

also visa exempt. We did not specifically review these visa exemptions as part of this 

report.

Letter
Letter

DHS, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and State provide enforcement, 

and DOJ and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 

provide funding for support services to victims of human trafficking.

Page 2 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

5

 

Despite this involvement by multiple agencies, there has been criticism 

that the protections for temporary workers provided by current laws and 

regulations vary by visa program and are not adequately enforced. 

Advocates for workers say the structure of the programs allows 

employers or their representatives to take advantage of workers, for 

example, by charging them excessive recruitment fees, misleading them 

about the wages they will receive or, at the extreme, subjecting them to 

human trafficking.6

Since 2000, multiple pieces of legislation have been enacted aimed at 

combating human trafficking, punishing traffickers, and protecting 

victims.7 In March 2013, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization 

Act of 2013 (VAWRA) was enacted, which also amended the Trafficking 

Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA).8 As part of VAWRA, GAO was 

mandated to review the use of foreign labor in the United States and 

overseas.9 This report examines the use of foreign workers in the United 

 

5 Human trafficking has been defined a number of different ways, but federal law defines 

severe forms of trafficking in persons, in part, to include the recruitment, harboring, 

transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services through the use of 

force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, 

debt bondage, or slavery. 22 U.S.C. § 7102(9). 

6 Victims of human trafficking may include all types of immigrant and nonimmigrant visa 

holders, as well as undocumented aliens and American citizens.

7 The Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-386, 114 

Stat.1464 included the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA) and the Violence 

Against Women Act of 2000. The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection 

Reauthorization Act of 2008 authorized continued appropriations for the TVPA and 

specifically prohibited fraud in foreign labor contracting. Pub. L. No. 110-457, §§ 222(e)(2), 

122 Stat. 5044, 5067 (adding 18 U.S.C. § 1351) and 301, 122 Stat. 5085. Specifically, the 

Act added a criminal provision to Title 18, United States Code, stating that “[w]hoever 

knowingly and with intent to defraud recruits, solicits, or hires a person outside the United 

States for purposes of employment in the United States by means of materially false or 

fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises regarding that employment shall be 

fined or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.”

8 Pub. L. No. 113-4, 127 Stat. 54.

9 Pub. L. No. 113-4, § 1235, 127 Stat. 54, 146. To fulfill the mandate, GAO also conducted 

a review on the use of foreign workers on federal contracts overseas. See GAO, Human 

Trafficking: Oversight of Contractors’ Use of Foreign Workers in High-Risk Environments 

Needs to Be Strengthened, GAO-15-102 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 18, 2014).
Letter

States. We focused on H-2A and H-2B workers because of the similarity 

of these two programs and our past and ongoing work reviewing other 

visa types.

Page 3 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

10 Specifically, this report addresses (1) the number of workers 

who enter the country using H-2A and H-2B visas and the occupations 

they fill; (2) how U.S. employers recruit H-2A and H-2B workers and what, 

if any, abuses may have occurred in the recruitment and employment 

processes; and (3) how well federal departments and agencies protect H2A and H-2B workers. 

To answer our research questions, we analyzed and reviewed data for 

fiscal years 2009 through 2013 from multiple federal agencies and 

departments—including DHS, DOJ, DOL, HHS, and State—that are 

involved in the administration and enforcement of the H-2A and H-2B 

programs as well as the provision of services to victims of abuse or 

human trafficking. Appendix I contains a full list of database sources. In 

addition, we reviewed nongeneralizable survey data from 

nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that serve as worker 

advocates.11 To assess the reliability of agency and NGO data, we 

reviewed agency and NGO documentation, interviewed officials, and 

conducted electronic testing, as appropriate. Based on these reviews, we 

determined the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes for which 

they are used and presented in this report. Understanding that data on 

labor exploitation and human trafficking are limited—in part because 

these victims may be unwilling or unable to report abuse—we, 

nevertheless, attempted to review federal criminal investigation and 

prosecution data on cases involving H-2A and H-2B workers.12 However, 

we were not able to do so because some law enforcement entities do not 

 

10 We have issued previous reports on the H-1B visa program (see the list of related 

products at the end of this report). We concurrently conducted a separate review of the J1 Summer Work Travel Program. Our report does not include a review of undocumented 

workers, although they may represent a significant percentage of agricultural workers, and 

limits the discussion of human trafficking to primarily labor trafficking.

11 Because it can be difficult to reach workers to discuss these issues, we used these 

NGO surveys of workers to supplement our own discussion groups.

12 GAO, Human Trafficking: A Strategic Framework Could Help Enhance the Interagency 

Collaboration Needed to Effectively Combat Trafficking Crimes, GAO-07-915

(Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2007).
Letter

systematically collect information on the immigration status of the 

victims.

Page 4 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

13

We also interviewed (1) agency officials at DHS, DOJ, DOL, HHS, and 

State; (2) worker advocacy organizations and legal aid representatives, 

(3) state workforce officials, and, as possible, (4) employers, employer 

associations, and employer agents. We conducted site visits to Florida, 

Texas, and Mexico. During our site visits to Florida and Texas, we 

interviewed federal and state officials as well as employers and an 

employer agent.14 In addition, we conducted three discussion groups with 

H-2A and H-2B workers. One group was held with Jamaican workers 

currently in the United States and two groups were held with workers who 

had returned to Mexico. We reviewed a random sample of 192 employer 

petition supplements received by DHS in fiscal year 2013 to determine 

how many employers/petitioners indicated they planned to use third 

parties to recruit workers. Finally, we reviewed relevant federal laws and 

regulations and the forms used to process employers and workers for the 

H-2A and H-2B programs. See appendix I for more information on our 

scope and methodology. 

We conducted this performance audit from June 2013 through March

2015 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 

13 Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center officials said they are developing a National 

Human Trafficking Assessment, based on data collected from over a dozen federal 

government agencies. The data collection is focused on human trafficking crimes and may 

include some information by visa type, but the final assessment was not available in time 

for inclusion in our report. The Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center was created by 

the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-458, 

§ 7202, 118 Stat. 3638, 3813, and is under the auspices of the Departments of State,

Homeland Security, and Justice.

14 We selected Florida and Texas on the basis of the number of fiscal year 2013 H-2A and 

H-2B positions certified, among other factors. In 2013, Florida received the second highest 

number of H-2A and H-2B certifications and Texas received the highest number of H-2B 

certifications. 
Letter

In 1952, the Immigration and Nationality Act authorized the H-2 temporary

worker program, which established visas for foreign workers to perform 

temporary services or labor in the United States.

Page 5 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

15

 The Immigration 

Reform and Control Act of 1986 amended the Immigration and Nationality 

Act and divided the H-2 program into two programs: the H-2A program for 

agricultural workers and the H-2B program for nonagricultural workers.16

Federal regulations outline procedures for the H-2A and H-2B programs 

which, while providing certain protections for foreign workers, state that 

they are construed to effectuate the purpose of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act that U.S workers be employed whenever possible and that 

where temporary foreign workers are admitted, that the terms and 

conditions for their employment do not result in a lowering of those for 

similarly employed U.S. workers.17 There is no annual cap on the number 

of workers who may be issued H-2A visas; for H-2B workers, there is an 

annual cap of 66,000.18 Both visas are for jobs to fill a temporary or 

seasonal need, generally defined as lasting not longer than 12 months for 

H-2A workers and 10 months for H-2B workers.19 DHS may grant H-2 

classification for up to the period of time authorized on the temporary 

labor certification or for a period of up to 1 year, with a maximum period of 

stay of 3 years.20

In the multi-step process of hiring workers, federal agencies screen 

employers to ensure they qualify to hire H-2A and H-2B workers and then 

also screen workers to ensure they are eligible for H-2A and H-2B visas 

and admissible into the United States. Employers who hire these workers 

also have obligations that they have to fulfill. To ensure the fulfillment of 

these obligations and compliance with other applicable laws, several 

agencies play an enforcement role. 

 

15 Pub. L. No. 82-414, § 101(a)(15)(H)(ii), 66 Stat. 163, 169 (1952).

16 Pub. L. No. 99-603, § 301(a), 100 Stat. 3359, 3411. 

17 20 C.F.R. § 655.0(a)(3).

18 8 U.S.C. § 1184(g)(1)(B). 

19 20 C.F.R. §§ 655.6(c), 655.103(d).

20 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(15)(ii)(C).

Background
Letter

Three federal agencies—DOL,

Page 6 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

21 DHS, and State—are involved in the

screening and approval process for H-2A and H-2B employers and 

workers before they enter the United States (see fig. 1). 

· DOL’s Office of Foreign Labor Certification (OFLC), under the H-2A 

program, reviews the employer’s application to ensure U.S. workers 

were not available for the jobs in question and the wages and working 

conditions being offered by the employer do not adversely affect U.S. 

workers similarly employed.22 Under the H-2B program, employers 

must attest that U.S. workers were not available.23 OFLC also screens 

employers’ applications to ensure ineligible employers—those who 

have been debarred—are not issued temporary labor certifications in 

the H-2A and H-2B programs. OFLC adjudicates the employer’s 

request and may approve, or certify, all the positions requested or a 

smaller number, or deny the application. With limited exceptions, 

employers must include an approved DOL certification when they 

apply to DHS.

· DHS’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) screens 

the petition submitted by the employer.24 The petition specifies the 

 

21 The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld a preliminary 

injunction granted by the District Court for the Northern District of Florida prohibiting the 

Department of Labor from enforcing final regulations it published for the H-2B program at 

77 Fed. Reg. 10,038 (Feb. 21, 2012). Bayou Lawn & Landscape Services v. Solis, 713 

F.3d 1080 (11th Cir. 2013). On Dec. 18, 2014, the District Court for the Northern District of 

Florida granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and vacated DOL’s 2012 H-2B 

regulations. Bayou Lawn & Landscape Services v. Perez, No. 12-183 (N. D. Fla. Dec. 18, 

2014) (ECF No. 74). Accordingly, in this report, all references to DOL’s H-2B regulations 

are to its 2008 regulations, unless otherwise noted, because those were the regulations 

being enforced by DOL at the time of our review. See 77 Fed. Reg. 28,764, 28,765 (May 

16, 2012). The 2008 regulations are found at 73 Fed. Reg. 78,020. We also note that, as

of Dec. 1, 2014, DOL’s 2008 regulations are the subject of litigation pending before the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, G.H. Daniels III & Associates, Inc. v. Solis, 2013 

WL 5216453 (D. Colo., Sept. 17, 2013), appeal pending, No. 13-1479 (10th Cir.). 

22 20 C.F.R. §§ 655.130, 655.161. Under the H-2A program, agricultural associations may 

also submit applications on behalf of their member employers. Employers seeking to hire 

H-2A workers complete DOL Employment and Training Administration Form 9142A and 

those seeking to hire H-2B workers complete Form 9142B. For both the H-2A and H-2B 

programs, there are specific pre-filing procedures that employers must follow, including 

attempting to recruit U.S. workers by submitting a job order to the applicable state 

workforce agency. 20 C.F.R. §§ 655.15(e), 655.121.

23 20 C.F.R. § 655.20.

24 Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker Form I-129.

H-2A and H-2B Screening 

and Program Approval 

Process
Letter

number of nonimmigrant workers needed,

Page 7 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

25 which may be less than or 

equal to the number certified by DOL.26 USCIS can either approve the 

petition—for the number of workers requested by the employer, or 

fewer—or it can deny the petition if, for example, it determines that the 

employer or the employer’s agent collected fees from the worker as a 

condition of employment and did not fully reimburse the worker. 

USCIS sends approved petitions to the State Department’s Kentucky 

Consular Center (KCC) for data entry, which makes the petition 

information accessible to U.S. embassies and consulates abroad.27

According to State officials, KCC also conducts research on all new 

petitioners. In addition, at the request of an embassy or consulate, 

KCC verifies the rate of pay, number of required workers, job titles, 

and housing arrangements for specific petitions.

· Finally, State’s consular officers are charged with adjudicating 

workers’ visa applications. Among other things, they interview H-2A 

and H-2B visa applicants, review the visa application and supporting 

documentation, and apprise applicants of their legal rights. 

Figure 1: H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs Approval Process 

 

25 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(5)(i), (6)(iii).

26 When there is a discrepancy between the number of workers requested on a certified 

labor application and the number requested on the petition, USCIS may need to review 

the application and petition to ensure the employer’s claimed need for workers is 

reasonable, according to a USCIS official.

27 KCC is a U.S. Department of State facility located in Williamsburg, Kentucky. It 

supports the worldwide operations of the Bureau of Consular Affair’s Visa Office. It 

uploads the petition information into the Petition Information Management System.
Letter

Employers may or may not use third-party services based in the United 

States or the sending country to recruit and/or facilitate moving workers 

through the process of obtaining their visas and traveling to their 

worksites. 

The Immigration and Nationality Act and relevant regulations require H2A and H-2B employers to meet certain obligations, which differ by visa 

type, related to the recruitment and employment of workers. For both 

programs, DOL’s and DHS’s regulations prohibit the payment of fees from 

a prospective worker for any activity related to obtaining labor certification 

or as an offer or condition of employment, including payment of employer 

agent or recruitment fees.

Page 8 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

28 However, employers and their agents may 

receive reimbursement from workers for any costs incurred that are the 

responsibility and primarily for the benefit of the worker.29 For example, if 

an employer paid government-required passport fees, the employer can 

receive reimbursement for those fees. In addition, DOL’s H-2A and H-2B 

regulations generally require employers to attest that they have 

contractually forbidden any foreign labor contractor or recruiter hired by 

the employer from seeking or receiving payments from prospective 

employees.30 Under both programs, employers must comply31 with all 

applicable federal, state,32 and local laws, and are subject to a criminal 

provision that prohibits them from destroying, concealing, or confiscating 

workers’ passports, visas, or other immigration documents.33 In addition, 

 

28 20 C.F.R. §§ 655.22(j), 655.135(j); 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(h)(5)(xi)(A), (6)(i)(B).

29 20 C.F.R. §§ 655.22(g)(2), 655.135(j).

30 20 C.F.R. §§ 655.22(g)(2), 655.135(k). 

31 The specific regulatory language on compliance with laws varies slightly. Under the H2A regulations, employers must comply with “all applicable Federal, State and local laws 

and regulations, including health and safety laws. In compliance with such laws,...the 

employer may not hold or confiscate workers’ passports, visas, or other immigration 

documents.” 20 C.F.R. § 655.135(e). The H-2B regulations state that employers must 

comply with “applicable Federal, State and local employment-related laws and regulations, 

including employment-related health and safety laws.” 20 C.F.R. § 655.22(d).

32 For example, in 1988 California passed, and in 2014 amended, a law that regulates the 

services of foreign labor contractors, who will be required to register with the state Labor 

Commissioner beginning in July 2016. This law also addresses employment contract 

requirements, fraudulent recruiting, and retaliation, among other things. Cal. Bus. & Prof. 

Code chap. 21.5 (2014), as amended by Senate Bill No. 477 (Sept. 28, 2014). 

33 18 U.S.C. § 1592.

Obligations of H-2A and H2B Employers
Letter

the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act 

of 2008 created a new criminal statute prohibiting the recruitment and 

hiring of persons outside the United States through false or fraudulent 

representations.

Page 9 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

34

 

Employer responsibilities are set forth in the regulations for both 

programs. Both DOL and DHS issued final H-2B regulations in 2008. DOL 

also issued new final H-2B regulations in 2012. However, during the time 

of our review, DOL was enforcing its 2008 H-2B regulations because it 

was enjoined from enforcing its 2012 regulations, which have since been 

vacated by a federal court.35 Table 1 summarizes selected provisions 

related to employer obligations under the current H-2A and H-2B 

regulations, as well as DOL’s 2012 H-2B regulations. 

 

34 Pub. L. No. 110-457, § 222(e), 122 Stat. 5044, 5070 (creating 18 U.S.C. § 1351).

35 77 Fed. Reg. 28,764, 28,765 (May 16, 2012). On Dec. 18, 2014, the District Court for 

the Northern District of Florida vacated DOL’s 2012 H-2B regulations. Bayou Lawn & 

Landscape Services v. Perez, No. 12-183 (N. D. Fla. Dec. 18, 2014) (ECF No. 74).
Letter

Table 1: DOL Regulations Related to Selected Employer Obligations under H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

Page 10 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

H-2A Regulations 2008 H-2B Regulations 2012 H-2B Regulationse

Disclosure of work 

contract

Employer must provide worker with a 

copy of the work contract, in a 

language understood by the worker, 

no later than when the worker applies 

for visa,band must post the required 

worker rights and protections poster 

in a conspicuous location.

20 C.F.R. § 655.122(q) and 

20 C.F.R. § 655.135(l).

No disclosure requirement. Same as H-2A

77 Fed. Reg. 10,038, 10,158.

77 Fed. Reg. 10,038, 10,175.

Transportation to/ from 

United Statesa

Employer required to pay inbound 

transportation and daily subsistence 

(meals and lodging, when necessary) 

if worker completes 50 percent of the 

contract period and outbound 

transportation and daily subsistence if 

worker completes work contract or is 

terminated without cause. 

20 C.F.R. § 655.122(h)(1), (2).

Worker pays transportation costs 

to the United States. Employer 

required to pay outbound 

transportation if worker is 

dismissed from employment for 

any reason before the end of the 

work contract. 

20 C.F.R. § 655.22(m)

Same as H-2A, but employer 

required to pay outbound 

transportation if worker is 

dismissed from employment for 

any reason before the end of the 

work contract.

77 Fed. Reg. 10,038, 10,158.

Housing Employer must provide free housing 

that meets applicable standards. 

20 C.F.R. § 655.122(d).

Worker pays for housing. Worker pays for housing.

Meals Employer must provide three meals a 

day cor access to cooking facilities. 

20 C.F.R. § 655.122(g).

Worker pays for meals. Worker pays for meals.

Rate of pay If paid by the hour, worker is paid the 

highest of the following:

· adverse effect wage rated

· prevailing wage (including piece 

rate)

· agreed-upon collective 

bargaining wage

· federal or state minimum wage

If paid on a piece rate, the employer 

must supplement the worker’s 

earnings, if necessary, to the amount 

the worker would have earned if paid 

at the appropriate hourly rate. 

20 C.F.R. § 655.122(l).

Worker is paid a wage that equals 

or exceeds the highest of the 

following:

· prevailing wage (which may 

be a collective bargaining 

wage)

· federal, state, or local 

minimum wage. 

The offered wage rate cannot be 

based on commissions, bonuses, 

or other incentives unless the 

employer guarantees a wage that 

equals or exceeds the prevailing 

wage, or the federal, state, or local 

minimum wage, whichever is 

highest. 

20 C.F.R. § 655.22(e); 

20 C.F.R. § 655.22(g)(1).

Same as 2008 H-2B regulations.

77 Fed. Reg. 10,038, 10,156.
Letter

Page 11 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

H-2A Regulations 2008 H-2B Regulations 2012 H-2B Regulationse

Work guarantee Employer must guarantee to offer the 

worker employment for a total number 

of work hours equal to at least threefourths of the work days of the total 

period. 

20 C.F.R. § 655.122(i)(1).

Employers must also make an 

assurance that the job is a full-time 

position of at least 35 hours per week. 

20 C.F.R. § 655.135(f).

No guarantee. Employers must 

attest that the job opportunity is a 

bona fide, full-time position. 

20 C.F.R. § 655.22(h). 

Full time is generally defined as 30 

or more hours per week. 

20 C.F.R. § 655.4.

Same as H-2A, but the 

guarantee applies to each 12-

week period (or 6-week period if 

the period of employment 

covered by the job order is less 

than 120 days).

77 Fed. Reg. 10038, 10157.

Source: GAO summary of selected DOL regulations. | GAO-15-154

Notes: 

a

According to DOL, for each category of regulations, the employer is responsible for transportation 

costs (both inbound and outbound) to the extent that such costs bring workers’ wages below the 

federal minimum wage or cut into overtime premiums in the first and last workweeks (these 

protections are afforded under the Fair Labor Standards Act).

b

In the absence of a separate, written work contract, the required terms of the job order and the 

certified Application for Temporary Employment Certification will be the work contract. 

c

As of March 5, 2014, employers may charge workers up to $11.58 a day for three meals. This rate 

changes annually and is published in the Federal Register. 20 C.F.R. § 655.173(a).

d

The adverse effect wage rate is the weighted average hourly wage for field and livestock workers 

(combined) in the states or regions as published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 20 C.F.R. § 

655.103.

e

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction granted 

by the District Court for the Northern District of Florida prohibiting the Department of Labor from 

enforcing final regulations it published for the H-2B program at 77 Fed. Reg. 10,038 (Feb. 21, 2012). 

Bayou Lawn & Landscape Services v. Solis, 713 F.3d 1080 (11th Cir. 2013). On Dec. 18, 2014, the 

District Court for the Northern District of Florida granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment 

and vacated DOL’s 2012 H-2B regulations. Bayou Lawn & Landscape Services v. Perez, No. 12-183 

(N. D. Fla. Dec. 18, 2014) (ECF No. 74). 

Employers of H-2A and H-2B workers may also be subject to the Fair 

Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in addition to H-2A and H-2B program 

requirements.36 Among other things, FLSA establishes minimum wage, 

overtime pay, and recordkeeping standards affecting certain employees 

in both private sector and government employment. 

Several federal agencies have roles in the enforcement of H-2A and H-2B 

program laws and regulations (see fig. 2). DOL has the primary authority 

to monitor and enforce H-2A and H-2B program regulations as well as 

other relevant labor laws. The agency can investigate H-2A and H-2B 

 

36 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-262.

Enforcement of the H-2A 

and H-2B Programs
Letter

employers for compliance with program requirements and impose civil 

money penalties for violations. 

Figure 2: U.S. Federal Agencies’ Enforcement Roles for the H-2A and H-2B Programs 

Page 12 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

Specifically, DOL’s Office of Foreign Labor Certification (OFLC), Wage 

and Hour Division (WHD), and Office of Inspector General all have 

enforcement roles. OFLC may audit employers after they have received 

their certifications. WHD’s responsibilities include, but are not limited to, 

ensuring the payment of required wages, the provision of transportation, 

meals, and housing, if applicable, as well as other employer obligations 

under the program. Moreover, with some variation by program, WHD has 

the authority to carry out investigative functions; impose civil money 

penalties; seek equitable and injunctive relief; and enforce employer 

obligations, including the payment of back wages.37 In addition, the 

Inspector General’s Office of Labor Racketeering and Fraud 

Investigations investigates fraudulent claims made by employers on their 

 

37 29 C.F.R. § 501.1(c).
Letter

labor application. Under the H-2A program, OFLC and WHD have 

concurrent jurisdiction to debar—or temporarily ban—an employer who 

has substantially violated a material term or condition of its temporary 

labor certification from further participation under the H-2A program.

Page 13 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

38

OFLC has authority to debar such an employer under the H-2B program 

while WHD can recommend debarment.39 Under the H-2A program, 

examples of potentially substantial violations include one or more acts of 

commission or omission by the employer involving failure to provide the 

required wages, benefits or working conditions to workers, and the 

employer’s failure to pay a necessary certification fee in a timely 

manner.40 Examples of a substantial violation under the H-2B program 

include engaging in a pattern or practice of acts that are significantly 

injurious to a significant number of workers’ wages, benefits, or working 

conditions, and fraud involving the application for temporary employment

certification.41 Employer agents and attorneys are also subject to 

debarment if they participated in the employer’s violation.42 Once the 

debarment is final, DOL must provide a copy of the notice of debarment 

to DHS.43

DHS, DOJ, and State also have enforcement responsibilities. DHS’s 

USCIS pursues administrative inquiries into petition fraud through site 

inspections.44 DHS’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 

and DOJ investigate criminal cases, including human trafficking crimes. 

DOJ also awards state and local law enforcement grants to human 

 

38 20 C.F.R. § 655.182(a); 29 C.F.R. § 501.20.

39 20 C.F.R. §§ 655.31(a)(1), 655.65(h).

40 20 C.F.R. § 655.182(d)(1)(i), (2).

41 20 C.F.R. § 655.31(d)(1)(i), (2).

42 20 C.F.R. §§ 655.31(b), 655.182(b).

43 20 C.F.R. §§ 655.31(f), 655.182(g).

44 USCIS’s Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS) Directorate conducts pre- and 

post-adjudication site inspections to verify information contained in certain petitions. 
Letter

trafficking task forces and prosecutes criminal cases.

Page 14 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

45 Finally, State’s 

Bureau of Diplomatic Security investigates passport and visa fraud 

violations.

In addition to enforcement and prosecution, several federal agencies 

work to prevent victimization of workers. For example, DOL has a 

partnership program with 11 countries to assist in the protection of labor 

rights of vulnerable workers and State distributes a “Know Your Rights” 

pamphlet to workers during their visa interviews. In terms of protection of 

workers who become victims of human trafficking, DOJ and HHS provide 

funding to service organizations.46 These organizations assist victims with 

food, shelter, clothing, and medical and legal services, in addition to other 

supports, so they can achieve self-sufficiency and rebuild their lives in the 

United States. Trafficking victims may also seek immigration relief in the 

form of T nonimmigrant status (“T visa”) or U nonimmigrant status (“U 

visa”) or continued presence, which allows the workers to remain in the 

country so they can assist with the investigation or prosecution of these 

 

45 As we previously reported, the DOJ Bureau of Justice Assistance task forces vary with 

respect to which federal agencies participate—DOJ’s Federal Bureau of Investigation, 

DHS’ Immigration and Customs Enforcement, DOL, or others; the number of state or local 

law enforcement agencies involved—single or multiple police departments and sheriff’s 

offices; and the number of nongovernmental groups that provide victim services. See 

GAO, Human Trafficking: A Strategic Framework Could Help Enhance the Interagency 

Collaboration Needed to Effectively Combat Trafficking Crimes, GAO-07-915 (Washington 

D.C.: July 26, 2007).

46 In addition to DHS, DOJ, and HHS, many other agencies are involved in combating 

human trafficking through the President’s Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat 

Trafficking in Persons. Members of the task force include the Departments of Agriculture, 

Defense, Education, the Interior, Labor, Transportation, and State; Domestic Policy 

Council; National Security Staff; Office of Management and Budget; Office of the Director 

of National Intelligence; Federal Bureau of Investigation; U.S. Agency for International 

Development; and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Letter

cases as well as receive federally funded benefits and services.

Page 15 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

47 Federal 

agencies’ anti-trafficking activities are often guided by the “3P” paradigm 

of prevention of trafficking, protection of victims, and prosecution of 

traffickers (see fig. 3). While the paradigm is generally associated with 

human trafficking, it provides a useful framework for discussing labor 

exploitation in general. 

 

47 T nonimmigrant status is available for victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons 

who have complied with any reasonable request for assistance by law enforcement in the 

investigation or prosecution of the trafficking, would suffer extreme hardship involving 

unusual and severe harm if removed from the United States, and are physically present in 

the United States on account of such trafficking. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(T). U 

nonimmigrant status is available for victims of qualifying criminal activity who have 

suffered substantial physical or mental abuse as a result of being a victim of the qualifying 

crime, possess information about the qualifying crime, and have been, are being, or are 

likely to be helpful to law enforcement or government officials in the investigation or 

prosecution of the qualifying criminal activity. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(U). Continued 

presence is a temporary immigration status provided to victims of human trafficking upon 

the application by federal law enforcement officials to DHS. 22 U.S.C. § 7105(c)(3). In 

addition, DHS regulations provide limited immigration relief, such as a 30-day extension of 

their stay, for any workers whose employer’s petition has been revoked based on the 

worker’s payment of a prohibited fee. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(5)(xi)(B) and 

§ 214.2(h)(6)(i)(B)(4). 
Letter

Figure 3: The “3P” Paradigm of Combating Human Trafficking

Page 16 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs
Letter

Page 17 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

The number of H-2A and H-2B visas issued increased from fiscal year 

2009 through fiscal year 2013 and most were issued to workers from 

Mexico. Specifically, State reported that 94 percent of H-2A visas and 71 

percent of H-2B visas, on average, were issued to Mexican nationals (see 

fig. 4).48 The number of H-2A visas issued in fiscal years 2009 through 

2013 increased by about 23 percent, from 60,112 to 74,192, while the 

number of H-2B visas issued increased by 28 percent, from 44,847 to 

57,600.49

 

48 These statistics do not take into account H-2 workers who did not need or did not obtain 

visas (for example, those from visa exempt countries).

49 We used State’s published information on nonimmigrant visa statistics, see 

http://travel.state.gov/content/visas/english/law-and-policy/statistics/non-immigrantvisas.html. We did not independently verify the reliability of these data. 

More Than 250,000 

H-2A and H-2B 

Workers Entered the 

United States from 

2009 through 2013, 

but the Number of 

Workers Filling 

Specific Occupations 

Is Not Fully Known

Most Workers Entering the 

United States on H-2A and 

H-2B Visas Were from 

Mexico, Male, and 40

Years Old or Younger 
Letter

Figure 4: U.S. Embassies and Consulates That Issued the Highest Percentage of H-2A and H-2B Visas, Fiscal Years 2009 

Page 18 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

through 2013

Note: These statistics do not take into account H-2 workers who did not need or did not obtain visas 

(for example, those from visa exempt countries).

More than 250,000 H-2A and H-2B individual workers entered the United 

States in fiscal years 2009 through 2013, mostly from Mexico.50 Of those 

workers who entered the country on H-2A visas, almost all were men—96 

percent or more for all five fiscal years. Those workers who entered on H2B visas were also mostly men; however, a higher percentage of women 

entered on H-2B visas—about 15 percent in fiscal year 2009 declining to 

 

50 In our analysis of DHS’s Arrival and Departure Information System data, we counted 

the number of individuals who entered the country, not the number of admissions. The 

number of workers who entered the country may be different from the number of H-2A and 

H-2B visas issued because some workers may have entered the country in the same year 

under different visas and not all workers who received a visa may subsequently enter the 

country. For 1.2 percent of individuals who entered the country, we were not able to 

resolve conflicting personally identifiable information. As a result, we dropped these 

individuals from our analysis. See appendix I for more information. 
Letter

about 12 percent in fiscal year 2013. Three-fourths of workers who 

entered were 40 years old or younger.

Page 19 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

51

Some H-2A and H-2B workers returned to the United States in multiple 

years (see fig. 5). Employers and government and NGO officials said 

many workers repeatedly return to the United States to work for the same 

or different employers. In our analysis, we found that, in fiscal years 2009 

through 2013, about 55 percent of H-2A and 43 percent of H-2B workers 

returned multiple times.52 Four percent of workers who entered had at 

least one entry under each visa type. 

Figure 5: Percentage of H-2A and H-2B Workers Who Entered the Country in One or More Years, Fiscal Years 2009 through 

2013

Note: Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding.

 

51 If a worker entered the country more than once in a fiscal year, we calculated their age 

upon their first entry each fiscal year.

52 Because the data did not allow us to determine if workers who entered the United 

States multiple times were entering under the same or different visas, we counted the 

worker as having one entry during a fiscal year if the worker entered the country one or 

more times during that year. 
Letter

When adjudicating H-2A and H-2B petitions, DHS’s USCIS does not 

electronically record standardized occupational information on workers 

who are approved; although, the information is available in the paperwork 

provided by the employer. Instead, when reporting to Congress on 

occupations of H-2B workers, DHS provides Congress with occupational 

data collected by DOL, which include the specific occupations employers 

want H-2B workers to fill. These data, however, do not reflect the number 

of workers who are ultimately approved by DHS to work in these 

occupations. 

DHS and State are required by law to report annually to Congress on the 

characteristics of H-2B workers, including their occupations.

Page 20 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

53 To fulfill this 

requirement, DHS cites DOL data on the number and occupations of 

workers who were certified by DOL. The data collected by DOL capture 

detailed information on workers’ occupations using the Standard 

Occupational Classification (SOC) system, which has 840 detailed 

occupations and is the system federal statistical agencies are required to 

use to increase data comparability.54 While DOL’s data provide detailed 

occupational information, they reflect the number of H-2A and H-2B 

workers that employers applied for, and that DOL certified, during the first 

step in the process of hiring workers. As a result, they generally provide 

an overestimate of the number of workers that may ultimately be 

approved in various occupations. According to a USCIS official, the 

number of workers will differ between DOL, DHS, and State because 

employers may initially request a higher number of workers than they 

ultimately need as H-2B work is seasonal and unpredictable. We found 

that from fiscal years 2009 through 2013, the number of H-2B workers 

certified by DOL and the number of workers requested by employers on 

 

53 The American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 

105-277, div. C, tit. IV, § 416, 112 Stat. 2681, 2681-655, as amended by the REAL ID Act 

of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, div. B, tit. IV, § 406, 119 Stat. 231, 320, requires that DHS 

annually report to the Senate and House Committees on the Judiciary information on the 

countries of origin of, occupations of, and compensation paid to those who were issued 

visas or otherwise granted nonimmigrant status. DHS compiles the report based on 

information provided by State, DOL, and three components within DHS: U.S. Citizenship 

and Immigration Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement. 

54 The SOC System is used by federal statistical agencies to classify workers into 

occupational categories for the purpose of collecting, calculating, or disseminating data. 

Under the SOC System, employers classify workers into one of the 840 detailed 

occupations according to their occupational title. These detailed occupations are then 

combined to form 461 broad occupations, 97 minor groups, and 23 major groups.

The Number of Workers in 

Specific Occupations Is 

Not Fully Known; 

However, Employers 

Requested Most Workers 

for the Agriculture, 

Horticulture, or Food 

Service Industries 
Letter

petitions approved by USCIS differed by thousands of workers per year 

(see table 2).

Page 21 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

55

Table 2: Number of H-2B Workers Certified by DOL and Requested on Petitions 

Approved by DHS, Fiscal Years 2009 through 2013a

H-2B Workers Certified by 

DOLb

H-2B Workers Requested on 

Petitions Approved by

DHS/USCISc Difference

FY 2009 154,489 96,308 58,181

FY 2010 86,596 74,808 11,788

FY 2011 83,152 77,960 5,192

FY 2012 75, 458 70,959 4,499

FY 2013 82,307 79,219 3,088

Source: GAO analysis of DHS USCIS petition data and review of DOL published certification data. | GAO-15-154

Notes: 

a USCIS officials said not all certifications and corresponding petitions may be approved in the same 

fiscal year. 

b

Fiscal year based on DOL’s certification decision date.

c Fiscal year based on the date the petition was received by DHS/USCIS. Includes both new and 

continuing petitions. New petitions are filed by petitioners requesting new workers or the same 

workers in a different nonimmigrant classification. Petitions for continuation are filed by petitioners 

requesting to extend a worker’s employment in the same position and nonimmigrant classification 

with the same employer.

Furthermore, USCIS may then approve fewer workers for entry into the 

United States than were requested on the petition.56 For example, we 

found that in fiscal years 2009 through 2013, a small percentage (about 

one percent) of new petitions for both H-2A and H-2B57 had split 

decisions, where USCIS officers approved some, but not all, requested 

 

55 USCIS officials said not all certifications and corresponding petitions may be approved 

in the same fiscal year. 

56 We attempted to report the number of workers approved by DHS in each fiscal year, but 

we were not able to reliably do so.

57 New petitions are filed by petitioners requesting new workers or the same workers in a 

different nonimmigrant classification. Petitions for continuation are filed by petitioners 

requesting to extend a worker’s employment in the same position and nonimmigrant 

classification with the same employer.
Letter

workers—further reducing the number of workers in various occupations 

filled by H-2B workers compared to the number certified by DOL.

Page 22 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

58

While DHS’s USCIS petition data are more accurate than DOL data in 

terms of the number of workers requested, information about the type of 

occupations those workers are requested to fill is not coded and 

maintained electronically using a standard occupational classification 

system. Specifically, when USCIS officers enter information into their 

database (CLAIMS 3) to approve the final number of H-2 workers they do 

not denote in CLAIMS 3 the SOC information provided on the DOL 

certification, which is submitted with the petition.59 Instead, they recode 

the job title from the employer’s petition using an occupational 

classification system with 15 broad categories. These categories may be 

further divided into 1 to 12 occupational codes for a total of 83 detailed 

occupations, as opposed to DOL’s 840 detailed occupations. See figure 6 

below for a breakdown of H-2A and H-2B occupations requested on 

approved petitions. Officials said USCIS’s current occupational system 

predates DOL’s use of the SOC system to classify occupations on labor 

applications. However, the broad and overlapping categories within 

USCIS’s occupational classification system make it difficult to distinguish 

the occupations filled by H-2A workers versus H-2B workers even though 

these programs are targeted to fill occupations in different sectors of the 

economy.

 

58 In addition, DHS officials said State could deny the worker’s visa, which would also 

cause the number of occupations filled by H-2B workers to be lower than the number 

certified by DOL. However, State does not collect data on the occupations workers will be 

filling in the United States on its visa application.

59 The Computer Linked Adjudication Information Management System 3, or CLAIMS 3, is 

USCIS’s electronic case management system for immigration applications and petitions.
Letter

Figure 6: Percentage of Occupations Requested By Employers/Petitioners on New H-2A and H-2B Petitions,aFiscal Years 

Page 23 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

2009 through 2013

Notes: Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding.

a New petitions are filed by petitioners requesting new workers or the same workers in a different 

nonimmigrant classification. Petitions for continuation are filed by petitioners requesting to extend a 

worker’s employment in the same position and nonimmigrant classification with the same employer. 

USCIS plans to change its occupational coding system during its 

transformation from a paper-based processing of immigration benefits to 

an electronic processing system, but it has not yet determined which 

occupational classification system it will use. Modifications have been 

contemplated, but, for financial reasons, officials said they decided to wait 

until the agency’s scheduled update of the petition form through its 

Transformation Program. 60 However, as we have previously reported, 

USCIS has faced longstanding challenges in implementing its 

Transformation Program, which raises questions about the extent to 

 

60 In 2005, USCIS embarked on a major initiative to transform its current paper-based 

petition system into an electronic system. 
Letter

which its eventual deployment will position USCIS to address the 

limitations in its data on occupations of approved workers. Specifically, in 

November 2011, we reported that USCIS had not developed reliable or 

integrated schedules for the program, and, as a result, could not reliably 

estimate when all phases would be complete.

Page 24 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

61 As of July 2014, officials 

said the petition used to request H-2A and H-2B workers is currently 

scheduled to be updated in a phase for which they have not yet set 

requirements and, therefore, have not decided which classification 

system will be used.62 The Office of Management and Budget’s 

Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, 

and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies states that 

part of data quality is data utility, including the usefulness of the 

information. By using a nonstandard occupational classification system, 

the usefulness of USCIS’s data is limited. Ensuring that the electronic 

petition for H-2A and H-2B visas uses a standardized occupation 

classification system will better position USCIS to report more reliable 

data to Congress on the H-2B workers U.S. employers use to fill specific 

occupations. 

 

61 GAO, Immigration Benefits, Consistent Adherence to DHS’s Acquisition Policy Could 

Help Improve Transformation Program Outcomes, GAO-12-66 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 

22, 2011). Since our November 2011 report, the Transformation Program schedule has 

encountered further challenges. As of February 2015, we have ongoing work that will, 

among other things, determine the current status of the Transformation Program, including 

the impact of changes made to the acquisition strategy since our 2011 report. 

62 In July 2014, the Director of USCIS testified that full deployment was expected to be 

completed by 2018 or 2019. See testimony by Leon Rodriguez, USCIS Director, before 

the House Committee on the Judiciary, Oversight of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services, July 29, 2014.
Letter

Page 25 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

Employers generally use one of several methods to recruit workers, which 

can be broadly categorized as direct or indirect methods. (See table 3 for 

a description of each method.) 

Table 3: Methods of Worker Recruitment in the H-2A and H-2B Visa Programsa

Attributes of 

recruitment 

methods

Parties involved in 

recruitment Description

Direct Employer Employers travel to foreign countries to locate and interview workers 

directly.

Indirect Informalb Returning Workers Employers use one or more returning workers to recruit additional 

workers for the next season. In some cases, a trusted foreman is 

asked to recruit workers. In other cases, the ability for workers to 

refer others for jobs in future years is seen as a way to build loyalty 

among returning workers.

Formal Contractor

or

ContractorSubcontractor(s)

Employers contract with a third party who directly recruits workers. In 

some cases, the third party may subcontract out to one or more 

additional third parties to do the work of finding and recruiting 

workers. The third parties may be employer agents, attorneys, 

staffing agencies, U.S.-based recruiters, or foreign-based recruiters. 

This model can include multiple layers of subcontractors, who may 

operate in the United States, in foreign countries, or both.

Source: GAO analysis of reports by Centro de los Derechos del Migrante, Inc. and Jornaleros SAFE, and interviews with NGOs, federal officials, and H-2A employers. | GAO-15-154

Notes:

a

The table represents our analysis of two independently derived recruitment frameworks. (1) Centro 

de los Derechos del Migrante, Inc., Recruitment Revealed: Fundamental Flaws in the H-2 Temporary 

Worker Program and Recommendations for Change (2013). Recruitment Revealed is based on 220 

interviews with H-2A and H-2B workers in Mexico conducted from 2007 through 2012. (2) Jornaleros 

SAFE Executive Summary: Mexican H2A Farmworkers in the U.S: The Invisible Workforce (2012). 

The Jornaleros SAFE report is based on interviews with 382 H-2A workers in parts of Mexico from 

2010 through 2012. 

b

The indirect informal recruitment model may be combined with the direct model. For example, an 

employer may use returning workers to recommend additional workers, but the employer will travel to 

the workers’ home country to interview and hire the workers directly.

Employers Used 

Varying Methods to 

Recruit Workers and 

Some Workers 

Experienced Abuses 

Before and After 

Entering the United 

States

Employers Used Both 

Direct and Indirect 

Recruitment Methods
Letter

In the direct method, employers locate and contact potential H-2A and H2B workers themselves. This method may be difficult for newer employers 

with few contacts in the workers’ home countries. To help employers 

directly recruit workers, officials at the U.S. Embassy in Mexico said they 

worked with local governments in 2013 to set up two job fairs where 

employers could recruit and hire workers, rather than using a third party. 

A high-level consular affairs official said while there was some 

enthusiasm for these job fairs, there were also some challenges. For 

example, the same official told us that recruiters discouraged employers 

from participating by telling them that they did not want to hire from the 

areas of the country where the job fairs were held. Nevertheless, officials 

said the fairs were useful, especially for employers who were recruiting 

workers for the first time. One employer who attended a job fair told us he 

hired approximately 36 of the 165 workers he needed and believed it was 

good augmentation to his other recruitment methods, which were 

generally based on referrals by long-term workers.

Page 26 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

63

In the indirect formal method of recruitment, employers use one or more 

contractors or third parties.64 On the basis of our analysis of a sample of 

employer petitions, we estimate that about 44 percent of H-2A and H-2B 

petitions filed in fiscal year 2013 indicated that employers intended to use 

the formal indirect recruiting model and hire a third-party staffing, 

recruitment, or similar placement agency to find workers.65 A 

nongeneralizable survey of H-2A workers in Mexico, conducted by a

coalition of NGOs, found that most of the 382 workers they interviewed 

 

63 Two employers who participated in the job fairs allowed State to share their contact 

information. Of those, one responded to our requests to set up an interview. 

64 DOL regulations generally require employers to contractually prohibit foreign labor 

contractors or recruiters that they hire from seeking or receiving any compensation,

including recruitment fees, from prospective H-2 workers. 20 C.F.R. §§ 655.22(g)(2), 

655.135(k). In addition, DHS regulations require a denial or revocation of an H-2 petition if 

the agency determines that an employer or his agent has collected prohibited fees. 8 

C.F.R. §§ 214.2(h)(5)(xi)(A), 214.2(h)(6)(i)(B).

65 When employers petition DHS for workers, they are asked to fill out an H-Supplement 

where they report whether they plan to use a staffing, recruiting, or similar placement 

service or agency to find workers and, if so, to name the agency. We reviewed a 

systematic random sample of new petitions (i.e., not petitions to continue a worker’s stay) 

to determine how many employers use one of these third parties to assist them in finding 

workers. The 95 percent confidence interval for the estimate is (36 percent, 51 percent). 
Letter

were recruited under the indirect formal model,

Page 27 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

66 while some employer 

industry groups said most employers opt for a less formal version of the 

indirect recruiting approach and use returning workers to refer additional 

workers. For example, the three H-2A employers we interviewed all used 

direct or indirect informal recruitment methods and two of them preferred 

to interview prospective workers themselves. Two of these employers 

said they had previously hired third parties to recruit workers, but stopped 

using them after experiencing problems. For example, one mentioned 

that he believed his agent was keeping a portion of the workers’ 

paychecks. Consequently, he said he now relies on returning workers to 

refer new workers for future seasons.

Federal officials, employers, advocacy groups, and industry groups said 

each recruitment model presents certain trade-offs. Generally, employers 

who directly recruit their workers maintain control over the recruitment 

process, but this process is more labor-intensive for employers. 

According to interviews with some NGO officials, employers who opt for 

indirect recruitment methods and use third parties, including returning 

workers, generally do so for ease and convenience. A formal third party 

working individually or in conjunction with other third parties—including

attorneys, employer agents, and recruiters—may offer a different 

complement of services. For example, one agent in Monterrey, Mexico, 

told us that he is hired directly by U.S. employers to shepherd workers 

through the entire process of applying for their visas,67 while another 

Monterrey-based agent told us he generally works for U.S.-based agents 

who represent employers to set up visa interviews and assist workers 

with the visa application and other employment paperwork. While using 

third-party recruiters may be convenient for the employer, it may also 

 

66 Jornaleros SAFE Executive Summary: Mexican H2A Farmworkers in the U.S: The 

Invisible Workforce (2012). Five organizations have been working on the Jornaleros SAFE 

Project, which began in May 2010. They are Centro Independiente de Trabajadores 

Agricolas, Dimension Pastoral de la Movilidad Humana, Global Workers Justice Alliance, 

United Farm Workers, and Catholic Relief Services. The Jornaleros SAFE report is based 

on interviews with 382 H-2A workers in parts of Mexico from 2010 through 2012.The 

survey is based on a non-random sample, and the results are not statistically projectable. 

See appendix I for additional information.

67 Specifically, the agent said he contacts workers, makes visa appointments, helps 

workers fill out the online visa application, and explains the job contract to workers. The 

agent said he also leads workers through biometric processing the day before the 

interview, to the interview itself, and the pass-back of passports after the visas have been 

awarded. The agent’s facilities also included a hotel for overnight stays and a bus station 

for departing to the United States. 
Letter

decrease an employer’s knowledge of and control over the recruitment 

process. Particularly when using the formal indirect model, some NGO 

officials noted that as the number of layers between the employer and the 

worker grow, there are more avenues for someone in the recruitment 

process to exploit workers. In addition, some federal officials and an 

employer we spoke to said that the informal indirect model, which relies 

on returning workers to recruit, is not always free of problems either, as 

returning workers may also charge prohibited fees when recruiting 

potential workers. For example, one employer said he paid closer 

attention to this issue after he found out that his foreman, a naturalized 

citizen who was recruiting workers from his home country, was asking 

workers to buy him items such as shoes or a watch. In exchange, the 

workers were being paid for time they did not work. This employer said 

one of his permanent employees brought the situation to his attention; the 

foreman exerted such control over the H-2A workers that they feared 

coming forward while he was on the job. 

Some workers experienced a range of abuses during recruitment, some 

of which may make workers more likely to tolerate abuses later during 

employment. Abuses in recruitment include things such as being charged 

prohibited fees to get the job or recruited for a job that does not exist. The 

NGO coalition’s nongeneralizable survey found that most of the 382 H-2A 

workers they interviewed believed themselves to have experienced 

violations of their rights under the H-2A program.

Page 28 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

68 However, our 

discussions with workers found more mixed experiences. Of the 3 worker 

discussion groups we held, one group’s experience was uniformly 

positive, another’s experience was mixed, and the last group’s experience 

 

68 Jornaleros SAFE Report, 2012. The survey responses are not representative of all H2A workers. See appendix I for more information on the survey.

Some Abuses, Such as 

Charging Prohibited Fees, 

That Occur during 

Recruitment May Increase 

the Likelihood of Workers 

Tolerating Abuse during 

Employment 
Letter

was uniformly negative.

Page 29 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

69 See appendix II for summaries of each worker 

discussion group.

Federal officials, NGOs, and workers described a range of abuses that 

may occur during recruitment. Table 4 describes some of these abuses. 

Table 4: Types of Abuses Some Workers Reported Experiencing during Recruitment for the H-2 Visa Programs

Abuse Description Mentioned by

At least one of three worker 

discussion groups held by 

GAO

Federal and 

NGO 

officials

NGO 

surveysa

Recruitment Fees – Workers pay prohibited fees to a recruiter in order to 

secure a visa and job

√ √ √

Visa Fraud – Workers pay prohibited fees to a recruiter to help them 

obtain a visa, but there is no job waiting for them when they arrive in the 

United States.b

√

Recruitment Fraud – Workers pay prohibited fees to someone posing as 

a recruiter for an opportunity to go to the United States for work, but later 

find out that the job and visa do not exist

√

Inadequate Job Information – (a) H-2A workers do not receive a written 

job contract in advance of making a financial commitment to the job, if at 

all; or (b) workers may receive a contract in a language they do not 

understand; or (c) workers may receive false information about job 

conditions

√ √ √

Source: GAO analysis of reports by Centro de los Derechos del Migrante, Inc. and Jornaleros SAFE; interviews with nongovernmental organizations and federal officials; and discussion groups with H-2A 

and H-2B workers. | GAO-15-154

Notes:

a

This column is based on the results of two non-generalizable surveys conducted by NGOs: (1) 

Centro de los Derechos del Migrante, Inc., Recruitment Revealed: Fundamental Flaws in the H-2 

Temporary Worker Program and Recommendations for Change (2013). Recruitment Revealed is 

based on interviews with 220 H-2A and H-2B workers in parts of Mexico from 2007 through 2012. (2) 

Jornaleros SAFE, Executive Summary: Mexican H2A Farmworkers in the U.S: The Invisible 

Workforce (2012). The Jornaleros SAFE report is based on interviews with 382 H-2A workers in parts 

 

69 Between November 2013 and June 2014, we conducted 3 discussion groups with 

workers who had previously participated in the H-2 visa programs. Two groups, which 

were organized with the assistance of an NGO, included H-2B workers from Mexico, and 

the third group, which was organized with the assistance of an employer agent and the 

Jamaican government agency responsible for recruitment, included H-2A workers from 

Jamaica. We sought the assistance of both an NGO and an employer in reaching out to 

workers in order to obtain a variety of workers’ views and experiences. No employers, 

agents, or government recruiters were present during the discussion groups with workers. 

The experiences of workers who participated in our discussion groups are not 

representative of the larger population of H-2A and H-2B workers. For more information 

on how these discussion groups were conducted, see appendix I. For summaries of the 

discussion groups’ comments see appendix II. 
Letter

of Mexico from 2010 through 2012. The results of these surveys are not generalizable to the entire 

population of H-2A and H-2B workers. A checkmark in this column means that one or more of the 

surveys found that 30 percent or more of workers surveyed reported experiencing this type of 

violation. 

b

Some federal officials told us that some workers knowingly pay fees for a job that doesn’t exist as a 

means to gain entry to the United States with a visa. The Immigration and Nationality Act ( 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1182(a)(6)(C)(i)) bars an alien from receiving a visa or admission into the United States if this alien 

has previously obtained or attempted to obtain a visa, other documentation, admission, or other 

benefit under the Immigration and Nationality Act by means of fraud or by willfully misrepresenting a 

material fact. 

Abuses experienced by workers during recruitment may increase a 

worker’s likelihood of tolerating further abuse during employment. For 

example, some recruiters may charge workers prohibited recruitment fees 

in order to secure a job. According to the NGO coalition survey and 

another survey conducted by the Centro de los Derechos del Migrante, 

Inc. (CDM) of workers who had returned to Mexico, many were charged 

these fees during recruitment.

Page 30 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

70 Further, some NGOs and federal officials 

we interviewed told us that in order to pay these fees and other preemployment expenses, such as transportation and passport fees, workers 

often had to take out loans, sometimes with high interest rates. Federal 

officials and NGO representatives said, in some cases, workers may put 

up their own land or property as collateral. In discussion groups, some 

workers told us they paid fees upwards of $1,250, and some said the 

interest rate on their and others’ loans was between 10 and 15 percent. 

Borrowing money at high interest rates to pay these fees can result in 

debt bondage, a possible indicator of human trafficking.71 Because of the 

need to repay these debts, workers are generally more willing to put up 

with poor work conditions or abusive situations, some NGO 

representatives said. 

 

70 The CDM report is Centro de los Derechos del Migrante, Inc., Recruitment Revealed: 

Fundamental Flaws in the H-2 Temporary Worker Program and Recommendations for 

Change (2013). Recruitment Revealed is based on 220 interviews with H-2A and H-2B 

workers in Mexico conducted from 2007 through 2012. Both the CDM and Jornaleros 

SAFE surveys represent the views of the workers interviewed and cannot be generalized 

to the population of all H-2A and H-2B workers.

71 Debt bondage is the status or condition of a debtor arising from a pledge by the debtor 

of his or her personal services or those of a person under his or her control as security for 

a debt, if the value of those services, as reasonably assessed, is not applied toward the 

liquidation of the debt. 22 U.S.C. § 7102(5). 
Letter

Recruiters may also recruit workers for visas and/or jobs that do not exist. 

Someone posing as a recruiter may charge a worker a fee and possibly 

retain the worker’s identification documents and, once paid, the recruiter 

disappears and the potential worker is left without a visa or job (see 

sidebar on Recruitment Fraud). Alternatively, visa fraud may occur when 

a worker secures a valid visa that does not have a real job associated 

with it.

Page 31 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

72 In these cases, some NGO and State officials told us that some 

workers may not be aware that there is no job associated with their visa 

while other workers knowingly paid for a visa obtained through fraudulent 

means in order to gain entry into the country. The International Labor 

Recruitment Working Group, a coalition of NGOs, reported73 that workers 

who work for employers other than those who petitioned for them may 

fear deportation and be more likely to tolerate poor working conditions or 

abusive situations.74

In addition, recruiters do not always provide potential workers with 

adequate job information, such as a written contract, or may provide the 

contract after the worker has committed financially. Also, according to the 

CDM survey of H-2A and H-2B workers, respondents said that some 

recruiters misrepresented the terms of work to prospective workers, 

including H-2B workers who are not required to receive a copy of the 

work contract.75 As we learned in our worker discussion groups, this may

 

72 This can occur if a recruiter or an employer specifies more positions than needed and 

brings workers into the United States with the intent to “sell” them to other employers.

73 The International Labor Working Recruitment Group, The American Dream Up for Sale: 

A Blueprint for Ending International Labor Recruitment Abuse (2013).

74 DHS regulations state that temporary employees, including H-2A and H-2B workers, 

are only authorized to come to the U.S. to work for an employer if petitioned for by that 

employer. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(1)(i). If a worker wants to change employers, the new 

employer must file a petition on Form I-129, which must be approved before the worker 

can begin employment with the new employer. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(D).

75 CDM’s survey results are not representative of all H-2A and H-2B workers. See 

appendix I for more information on the survey.

Recruitment Fraud According to State and 

NGO officials, in early 2013, a Mexican 

company fraudulently recruited for thousands 

of non-existent temporary jobs in the United 

States and Canada, charging potential 

workers recruitment fees and collecting 

identification documents before disappearing. 

Federal officials explained that the U.S. 

government was unable to respond directly 

because the fraud was perpetrated by nonU.S. citizens in a foreign country. As of 

November 2013, the Mexican government 

estimated that there were approximately 

9,000 victims, according to an NGO official. 

Source: GAO interviews with federal and NGO officials | GAO-15-154
Letter

lead workers to believe, for example, that they would be provided free 

housing when, in fact, they were charged rent, or that they would earn 

more money and work fewer hours than what they actually experienced 

(see sidebar on Misinformation during Recruitment).

Page 32 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

76 Without accurate 

information about the terms of the employment before making a 

commitment, prospective workers are not able to evaluate whether taking 

the job is beneficial either personally or financially. 

Several NGOs we spoke with noted that the lack of reliable information 

about genuine job offers is one of the main problems potential workers 

face when trying to protect themselves against abusive situations. DOL’s 

regulations require that H-2A employers provide workers a copy of the 

work contract, which typically includes information such as the type of 

work, wage basis and rate, and number of hours per week, no later than 

when they apply for the visa.77 Even so, some H-2A workers reported not 

receiving written contracts, a DOL official said. To address scenarios 

such as these, an NGO and international labor recruitment corporation 

collaborated to create a set of guidelines to encourage ethical behavior 

during recruitment.78 These guidelines call for providing jobseekers with 

accurate details of the job and working conditions at the time of 

recruitment in a language they understand so as to protect workers from 

experiencing abuse, such as recruitment abuse and contract fraud.79

Furthermore, federal internal control standards state that agency 

management should establish adequate means for communicating and 

exchanging information with external stakeholders, which in this case 

 

76 Employers are required to provide free housing to H-2A workers. 8 U.S.C. § 1188(c)(4), 

20 C.F.R. § 655.122(d)(1). However, there is no requirement for employers to provide 

housing to H-2B workers.

77 20 C.F.R. § 655.122(q). 

78 Verite and ManpowerGroup, An Ethical Framework for Cross-Border Labor 

Recruitment: An Industry/Stakeholder Collaboration to Reduce the Risks of Forced Labor 

and Human Trafficking, 2012. According to the report, this collaboration between Verite, 

an NGO that works with businesses to protect human and labor rights in international 

supply chains, and ManpowerGroup, an international recruitment firm, developed 

guidelines that are “aligned with principles and recommendations developed by leading 

global organizations, governments, business, labor, civil society and other stakeholder 

coalitions.” 

79 While an NGO representative involved in creating the guidelines told us the effort was 

not affiliated with any government agency, DOL’s Bureau of International Labor Affairs 

provides the guidelines as a resource in an online toolkit aimed at reducing human 

trafficking. 

Misinformation during Recruitment In one 

of our discussion groups, an H-2B worker told 

us that he received written information about 

the job to prepare him for his visa interview.

He said that the recruiter told him and other 

workers to memorize the details provided—

including type and location of work, and pay 

rate—in order to be able to respond to 

questions during the interview, and that he 

was instructed to destroy the information after 

memorizing it. According to the worker, the 

information did not reflect the conditions he 

found on the job, however, and he was paid at 

a lower rate than what was listed on the 

paper. 

Source: GAO discussion group with H-2B workers | GAO-15-154
Letter

include prospective workers, on issues that might have a significant 

impact on the agency mission, such as ensuring H-2A and H-2B program 

integrity.

Page 33 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

80

DHS and DOL collect data on the H-2A and H-2B jobs for which 

employers are seeking workers; however, some key information, 

including the identity of recruiters, is not made available to potential 

workers or their advocates during recruitment. In responding to public 

comments on its 2008 H-2B regulations, DHS acknowledged the merit of 

providing information on recruiters and their practices to the public.81

USCIS currently collects information on the petition form about available 

jobs, including wages and hours, as well as employers’ recruitment plans 

and the identity of third parties hired to recruit workers. However, USCIS 

does not maintain these data electronically or report them publicly. DHS 

plans to implement electronic petition forms during its transformation; 

however, as mentioned previously, this upgrade is still several years 

away and the agency has not yet begun to identify the specific elements 

from the petition that will be collected electronically. In addition, DHS 

does not currently have plans to make this information public. DHS 

officials said that before making job and recruitment information public, 

they would have to consider whether doing so would raise any privacy 

concerns. However, DOL already publishes some similar information from 

temporary labor applications, but these data do not reflect the number of 

worker positions ultimately approved by DHS and, therefore, are not as 

useful to potential foreign workers or their advocates.82 Furthermore, DOL 

does not currently collect any information on whether the employer plans 

to use a third party recruiter and, if so, who that recruiter is.83 Without 

accurate, accessible information about employers, recruiters, and jobs 

during the recruitment process, potential foreign workers are unable to 

 

80 GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999)

81 Changes to Requirements Affecting H-2B Nonimmigrants and Their Employers, 73 Fed. 

Reg. 78,104, 78,113 (Dec. 19, 2008).

82 DOL maintains a public job registry where H-2A job orders are posted for 50 percent of 

the contract period. In addition, on DOL’s website, OFLC makes available files with 

several years’ of annual and the most recent quarterly data on adjudicated temporary 

labor applications (both approved and denied certifications). These data are updated 

quarterly.

83 Under the 2012 H-2B regulations that have been vacated, employers would be required 

to provide information regarding their recruiters. See 77 Fed. Reg. 10,038, 10,151.
Letter

effectively evaluate the existence and nature of specific jobs or the 

legitimate parties contracted to recruit for employers, potentially making 

them more vulnerable to abuse.

Once they are in the country, workers may experience problems with pay 

or inadequate living conditions, as well as discrimination and threats.

Page 34 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

84

Regarding the H-2A and H-2B program requirements, from fiscal years 

2009 through 2013, DOL’s Wage and Hour Division found that 866 H-2A 

and 60 H-2B employers had violated one or more worker protections 

associated with these programs, or other requirements.85 See table 5 for 

violations related to employers participating in the H-2A and H-2B 

programs. 

 

84 Due to differences in H-2A and H-2B program regulations, some violations are specific

to one visa type. For example, employers are required to provide housing only under the 

H-2A program. 

85 Wage and Hour Division concluded 890 H-2A and 64 H-2B investigations from fiscal 

years 2009 through 2013. The number of investigations is larger than the number of 

employers with violations for one of two reasons: (1) investigated employers may be found 

to have no violations, and (2) employers may have been investigated more than once in 

fiscal years 2009 through 2013. Wage and Hour Division investigations are described in 

more detail later in this report.

Some Workers May 

Experience Abuses, Such 

As Violations Related to 

Pay, During Employment
Letter

Table 5: Select Categories of Violations That Occurred during Recruitment and 

Page 35 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

Employment in the H-2 Visa Programs as Identified by DOL’s Wage and Hour 

Division (WHD) in Fiscal Years 2009 through 2013, by Number and Type of 

Employer 

Category of violations Number of H-2A employers a

Violations related to pay or pay statements b766

Violations related to paycheck deductions or failure to 

pay for required employer-provided items c

400

Violations related to safety of employer-provided 

housing and transportation 393

Violations related to recruitment of foreign workers d260

Violations related to failure to abide by other 

employment laws e106

Number of H-2B employers f

Violations related to pay g27

Violations related to recruitment of foreign workers h10

Violations related to failure to abide by other 

employment laws i3

Violations related to failure to pay for required 

employer-provided items j

1

Source: GAO’s analysis and categorization of DOL’s Wage and Hour (WHISARD) data. | GAO-15-154

Note: Because investigations frequently involve violations of multiple requirements, the number of 

employers represented in each violation category may overstate the number of employers. 

Specifically, if an employer had more than one type of violation in the same category, the employer 

was counted each time the violation occurred. Unique employers were identified using company legal 

names, federal employer identification numbers, and addresses. We grouped specific violations to 

create the categories in the table above. WHD does not categorize violations in this same manner. 

For the specific WHD violations that are included in each category see the notes below.

a

In fiscal years 2009 through 2013, 31,537 H-2A employer petitions were approved by USCIS. 

Employers may have filed more than one petition during that time period. 

b

This includes violations related to failure to provide wage statements, pay wages when due, pay the 

proper or required rate, pay the three-fourths guarantee, pay with required frequency, or meet pay 

statement requirements. 

c

This includes illegal deductions and failure to provide: housing (for the entire employment period, at 

no cost); subsistence; required items or necessary supplies at no charge; and inbound and outbound 

transportation as well as transportation to and from worksite. 

d

This includes failure to provide a copy of the work contract or job order; failure to contractually forbid 

cost-shifting; and unlawful cost-shifting. 

e

This includes failure to comply with worker’s compensation requirements and other employmentrelated laws. 

f

In fiscal years 2009 through 2013, 22,802 H-2B employer petitions were approved by USCIS. 

Employers may have filed more than one petition during that time. 

g

This includes violations related to the rate of pay and offered wage. 

h

This includes failure to contractually forbid recruiters from seeking prohibited fees, or requiring 

workers to pay prohibited fees to recruiters. 

i

This includes failure to comply with other federal, state, and local employment laws.
Letter

j This includes failure to pay for outbound transportation for H-2B workers dismissed before the end of 

the certified period of employment.

Furthermore, from 2011 through 2013, the National Human Trafficking 

Resource Center (NHTRC)

Page 36 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

86 received over 1,400 complaints related to H2A or H-2B workers alleging labor violations.

87 Nearly twice as many of 

these complaints alleging labor violations involved H-2B workers than 

complaints involving H-2A workers.88 For example, more than one-third of 

the complaints were related to pay and hours worked while another 

quarter dealt with contract violations. Other common alleged abuses 

reported by NHTRC callers included wrongful termination and hazardous, 

unsafe, and unsanitary working conditions. Workers in two of our 

discussion groups said they experienced or witnessed a variety of alleged 

abuses, such as verbal or physical abuse, confiscation of identification 

documents, poor or unsafe conditions in the working or living 

environment, and problems with hours worked or pay rate, including no 

overtime pay and unfair paycheck deductions. 

In addition to labor and housing violations, in a small number of 

complaints NHTRC received, workers reported abuses severe enough to 

be categorized by NHTRC as human trafficking. From 2011 through 

2013, NHTRC received 130 complaints about the possible trafficking of 

H-2A and H-2B workers, 35 of which they found had key indicators 

related to potential human trafficking, such as force, fraud, or coercion 

(see appendix III for more information). Of these 130 complaints, the 

industries with the largest number of alleged cases of labor trafficking 

 

86 Funded by HHS, NHTRC is a toll-free, national human trafficking hotline that provides 

urgent assistance through referrals to law enforcement or service providers. It also 

provides nonurgent assistance, such as providing information and a range of other 

services. We analyzed data from 2011 through 2013 because NHTRC officials told us that 

data collection on hotline complaints has changed since it began, and the most robust 

information is available since 2011. 

87 While the focus of NHTRC is human trafficking, we found that about 90 percent of the 

complaints to the hotline related to H-2A and H-2B workers who reported labor violations 

rather than allegations of human trafficking. These numbers represent complaints and not 

substantiated findings of labor violations.

88 Of the 1,428 cases, 519 involved only H-2A workers and 909 involved only H-2B 

workers. An NHTRC official said that there are protocols in place to determine how to 

process the calls it receives. For example, when appropriate, NHTRC will refer calls to 

federal agencies, including DOL’s Wage and Hour Division or Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration, or relevant law enforcement agencies.
Letter

were agriculture, landscaping, and carnivals. Furthermore, our analysis 

found that in calendar years 2012 and 2013, DOJ-funded service 

providers

Page 37 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

89 assisted 340 workers who were victims of human trafficking

identified in typical H-2 industries.

90 Over 93 percent of these workers 

were reported to be victims of labor trafficking. See appendix III for more 

information on characteristics of human trafficking victims. 

According to our interviews with federal and NGO officials, the incidence 

of abuse may be underreported. The number of complaints of abuse 

reported to NHTRC is low compared to the number of workers who enter 

the country each year and an employer and an employer agent we 

interviewed said workers who experience problems with recruiters, 

especially those who return to the same employer each year, often 

directly report any problems to the employer. Officials also noted, 

however, that the structure of the H-2A and H-2B programs may create 

disincentives for workers to report abuse. One disincentive to reporting 

abuse is that workers can only work for the employer who petitioned for 

them. This requirement can make workers fear retaliation if they complain 

about mistreatment because the workers do not have the choice of 

working for another employer. For example, several NGOs reported that 

workers may be threatened with exclusion from future employment 

opportunities through the same employer or recruiter—commonly referred 

to as blacklisting—for speaking up about abuse. This was evident during 

one of our discussion groups in Mexico, where workers expressed 

concern about the fact that our meeting room had a window where people 

walking by could possibly see and report them to the local recruiter, 

affecting their chances for future employment in the United States. In 

addition, workers may not complain because they are afraid of not 

receiving their visa. Federal officials told us that recruiters may coach 

workers to not disclose that they paid recruitment fees, telling them that 

their visas would be denied if they admitted to paying a prohibited fee. 

 

89 These service providers are funded by DOJ’s Office for Victims of Crime. 

90 In OVC’s Trafficking Information Management System (TIMS) data, the grantees 

entered that 352 foreign national victims had an H-visa, but did not specify which type of 

H-visa. We grouped victims by their trafficking setting and other information reported in 

TIMS. According to DOJ officials, human trafficking victims are often forced or coerced to 

work in settings that are completely different from the work that the person anticipated 

they would do when they entered the United States.

Workers May Have 

Disincentives to Report 

Abuses for Several 

Reasons, Including the 

Structure of the H-2A and 

H-2B Programs and Fear 

of Retaliation
Letter

Finally, as mentioned previously, debt bondage may serve as a 

disincentive to reporting abuse. 

WHD officials told us that workers may put up with abuses such as 

underpayment because they rationalize that they are making more than 

they would at home; as a result, few complaints come from workers who 

are still on the job. They may also face other forms of retaliation, such as 

threats of deportation or physical violence. For example, officials from the 

Texas Workforce Commission said in many cases H-2A workers do not 

want to file a complaint for fear of retaliation or coercion. NGO officials 

said recruiters or other actors in home countries can use the threat of 

violence against the workers’ families as another way to exert control over 

workers. Workers in one discussion group said they and others did not 

report abuses for fear of being fired, sent home, or other retaliation 

against themselves or their families, as well as fear of the political 

connections of the local recruiter. For these reasons, among others, some 

federal officials and NGO representatives that we interviewed agreed that 

abuses are underreported in the H-2A and H-2B programs. 

Page 38 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

Federal Agencies 

Take Steps to Prevent 

Exploitation of 

Workers and Provide 

Assistance to Victims, 

but Vulnerabilities

Persist

To Help Prevent Abuse, 

Federal Agencies Provide 

Labor Rights Information 

to Workers before Arrival 

and Screen Employers for 

Eligibility, but Gaps in 

Screening Exist 
Letter

State has taken steps to educate workers and the public about labor 

rights before workers arrive in the United States. For example, at the 

consulate in Monterrey, Mexico, we observed State officials providing 

briefings to workers following their visa interviews and distributing 

brochures on their rights.

Page 39 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

91 According to NGO officials, these brochures 

have been effective in helping workers understand their rights and ask for 

help; in fact, an official from the national human trafficking hotline told us 

that the hotline has seen an increase in reported complaints by H-2 visa 

holders since State started providing these brochures. State officials in 

Monterrey also provided workers with a passport cover that had a hotline 

phone number to call if they needed assistance. In addition, the U.S. 

Embassy in Mexico launched a 2-month anti-fraud campaign in October 

2013 to increase awareness of legal employment through the H-2 

program. Officials told us the campaign targeted the rural areas of Mexico 

and provided information through billboard advertisements, brochures, 

and the radio. 

DOL officials said they have established formal partnerships with the 

embassies and consulates of 11 countries in order to assist the 

department in the protection of labor rights of vulnerable workers and to 

help communicate with workers whom the department might not 

otherwise be able to reach, including those under the H-2A and H-2B visa 

program.92 For example, in fulfillment of the 2014 United States-Mexico 

joint declaration under the North American Agreement on Labor 

Cooperation, DOL used these partnerships to disseminate information to 

visa recipients and locate migrants whose back wages have been 

recovered by DOL’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD).93 Agency officials 

told us that, as of November 2014, in response to the declaration, they 

 

91 State, in consultation with other agencies, created a “Know Your Rights” pamphlet that 

informs workers applying for employment-based nonimmigrant visas of their rights, as 

required by the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of

2008, Pub. L. No. 110-457, § 202, 122 Stat. 5044, 5055. 

92These partnerships are known as the Consular Partnership Program. The eleven 

countries are Belize, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, 

Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru, and the Philippines.

93 In April 2014, DOL and the Mexican Secretariat of Labor and Social Welfare signed a 

joint ministerial declaration aimed at informing Mexican workers entering on H-2A and H2B visas about their labor rights under U.S. law. DOL and the Mexican Secretariat of 

Labor subsequently published a work plan that lists the outreach activities contemplated 

under the joint declaration. 

State and DOL Provide 

Information to Workers before 

They Arrive In the United 

States
Letter

had conducted approximately 24 outreach events to inform workers on H2 visas about their rights and employers about their responsibilities under 

U.S. law. 

Other international organizations that receive federal funding have 

conducted a number of migration-focused awareness activities aimed at 

educating the public, including potential victims, about labor rights. For 

example, the International Organization for Migration, which receives 

funding from State, recently launched a public-private alliance that plans 

to develop practical tools for governments, recruiters, and employers, 

including an international accreditation process for employers and 

recruiters and a referral process for complaints.

Page 40 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

94

 

DOL, DHS, and State all screen employer requests to hire H-2A and H2B workers, but some relevant employer information may not be shared 

across the agencies. 

DOL faces challenges in preventing ineligible employers from hiring 

foreign workers because of certain limitations in how it reviews and uses 

information that employers submit. By statute and regulation, DOL may 

not issue a temporary labor certification for a specified period to an 

employer who has been debarred under the H-2A or H-2B programs.95

According to DOL’s standard operating procedures, it screens for these 

employers by matching new temporary labor applications to a list of 

employers, employer agents, and attorneys who have been debarred 

from participating in the programs. This can be challenging, however, 

because, according to DOL, NGO, and other federal agency officials, 

 

94 One of the tools being developed is the International Recruitment Integrity System 

(IRIS). IRIS is a consortium of international stakeholders committed to the fair recruitment 

and selection of migrant workers. Some NGOs in the United States have also proposed 

creating a registry of third-party recruiters as a means of regulating the process. However, 

representatives of one organization cautioned that the effectiveness of such a registry 

would be limited if employers are not held accountable for their recruitment practices. 

95 8 U.S.C. § 1188(b); 20 C.F.R. §§ 655.31, 655.182. DOL is statutorily authorized under 8 

U.S.C. § 1188(b) to debar an H-2A employer for up to 3 years if it finds the employer 

substantially violated a material term or condition of its labor certification. DOL has, by 

regulation, instituted a similar debarment process for H-2B employers as “a necessary and 

reasonable mechanism to enforce H-2B labor certification requirements and ensure 

compliance with the program’s statutory requirements.” 73 Fed. Reg. 78,020, 78,043 

(Dec. 19, 2008).

Agency Screening May 

Not Detect Some 

Employers Who Are 

Ineligible to Hire Workers
Letter

debarred employers may “reinvent” themselves by starting new 

companies and submitting applications with slightly different information 

in order to continue hiring workers. For example, some DOL officials said 

they have seen individuals with two last names switch the order of those 

names and continue in the program. In addition, our analysis found that 

DOL certified an employer with a different name, but the same address as 

a debarred employer. On another occasion, DOL approved an employer 

with the same employer identification number as a debarred employer, 

but with a slightly different name.

Despite these challenges, DOL does not consistently use some of the 

information it collects on employers, nor share it with DHS and State, 

which also have roles in screening employers. For example, DOL 

electronically enters the employer’s name, the city and state where it is 

located, and identification number, and uses this information in screening 

new applications for debarred employers. While DOL has additional 

identifying information available on those employers, such as street 

address and telephone number, it does not require these data to be 

electronically entered or used in screening new applications. In failing to 

use this additional information systematically, DOL may miss 

opportunities to detect some debarred employers who try to participate in 

the visa programs by changing some—but not all—of their information. 

Moreover, DOL shares limited information on debarred employers—

employer name, city, state, and period of debarment—with DHS and 

State, which also screen for debarred employers.

Page 41 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

96 DHS officials said they

compare petition information they receive from employers with DOL’s 

public list of debarred employers.97 Officials at State’s Kentucky Consular 

Center (KCC) said they compare petitions that DHS approves to DOL’s 

public debarment list and have, in fact, found a small number of approved 

petitions from debarred employers.98 Because only the limited, publicly 

 

96 DHS regulations allow the agency to deny an employer’s petition for H-2A or H-2B 

worker visas if DOL has debarred that employer. 8 C.F.R. § 214.1(k).

97 To adjudicate employer petitions, DHS uses the Validation Instrument for Business 

Enterprises, or VIBE, to verify business information. The information contained in VIBE 

may include type of business, financial standing, number of employees, ownership and 

legal status, company executives, and current physical address.

98 KCC officials said if they find an approved petition from an employer on the debarment 

list, they notify the DHS service center that adjudicated the petition and State’s consular 

affairs. Since April 2013, KCC officials said they identified four approved petitions from 

debarred employers. KCC can also submit complaints to DOL’s Wage and Hour Division. 
Letter

available information on debarred employers is shared with DHS and 

State, these agencies do not have access to the additional information 

that DOL collects. Such information may help them more thoroughly 

screen for debarred employers. Our past work has found establishing 

guidelines to share information with partners is a key practice for 

enhancing interagency collaboration.

Page 42 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

99 DOL and DHS officials told us that 

they were working on a comprehensive data sharing agreement that 

would provide for the electronic sharing of each agency’s data with the 

other. DOL officials said this agreement has been under deliberation for 

about 2 years. A State official said that the department was also originally 

involved in the agreement. State’s involvement is on hold, however, 

because its visa database contains some DHS petition data. State 

considers this DHS data to be third-party information that it cannot agree 

to share until DHS and DOL finalize their bilateral agreement. The State 

official confirmed that once this bilateral agreement is finalized, State will 

discuss sharing its visa data. As of January 2015, DOL and DHS officials 

told us that they were still negotiating an agreement. DHS officials said 

the goal is to have the agreement signed by fiscal year 2016 with 

deployment shortly thereafter. While they have not identified any 

significant technical challenges to date, the agreement must be reviewed 

and approved by many components in both agencies, officials said. 

 

99 GAO, Interagency Collaboration: Key Issues for Congressional Oversight of National 

Security Strategies, Organizations, Workforce, and Information Sharing, GAO-09-904SP

(Washington, D.C.; September, 2009).
Letter

Several federal agencies are involved in assisting victims of labor 

violations, including abuses severe enough to be categorized as human 

trafficking, which may include H-2A and H-2B workers.

Page 43 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

100 For example, 

some workers are eligible to receive legal aid funded by the Legal 

Services Corporation (LSC), which awards grants to legal services 

providers to provide legal assistance to low-income U.S. citizens and 

some eligible non-citizens.101 For all H-2A and H-2B workers, LSC 

grantees can provide brief advice and consultation by telephone that does 

not include continuous representation.102 The full range of legal 

assistance services, however, can be offered only to H-2A workers, H-2B 

workers who work in forestry, and any victims of human trafficking.103

Because the majority of H-2B workers do not work in forestry they are not 

eligible for LSC-funded legal assistance.104 NGO representatives said 

access to legal representation can be an important factor in determining 

whether workers file complaints to report abuses and DOL officials also 

confirmed that complaints brought under the H-2A and H-2B programs 

generally come from advocacy groups or attorneys. According to a recent 

NGO report, the use of private attorneys is not a viable option for several 

 

100 The President’s Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons 

released its first federal strategic action plan for fiscal years 2013 through 2017 that 

outlined several goals. The plan focuses on interagency alignment of efforts for the 

provision of services, improvement of understanding through data collection and research, 

expanded access to services through increased victim identification and targeted training, 

and improved outcomes in terms of the short and long term health, safety, and well being 

of victims.

101 In 1974, the LSC was established by statute to, among other things, provide equal 

access to the system of justice in the United States for individuals who seek redress of 

grievances and to assist in improving opportunities for low-income persons. Congress 

provides funding to the LSC, which awards grants to legal services providers for civil legal 

assistance. Pub. L. No. 93-355, § 2, 88 Stat. 378. 

102 45 C.F.R. § 1626.7(a).

103 Section 504 of LSC’s fiscal year 1996 appropriations act (Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 

Stat. 1321, 1321-54) restricted funding to recipients that provide legal assistance to aliens. 

The exceptions to this rule have been reincorporated annually in LSC’s appropriation. 

Predating the 1996 general restriction, H-2A workers became eligible to receive legal 

assistance funded by LSC in 1986. Pub. L. No. 99-603, § 305, 100 Stat. 3359, 3434. The 

fiscal year 2008 LSC appropriation extended eligibility for assistance to H-2B forestry 

workers. Pub. L. No. 110-161, div. B, Title V, § 540, 121 Stat. 1844, 1924. The authority 

for LSC grantees to provide legal services to victims of human trafficking is described in 

LSC’s Program Letter 06-2. 

104 In fiscal year 2013, less than 3 percent (or 105 out of 3,932) of all new approved H-2B 

employer petitions were for forestry and logging.

To Protect Victims of Labor 

Violations, Federal 

Agencies Provide Services 

and Immigration Relief, 

but the Range of Available 

Services Varies by Visa 

Type
Letter

reasons including prohibitive costs, language barriers, and worker 

mobility.

Page 44 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

105 In addition, a NGO representative said that it is often difficult 

for them to recruit pro bono representation for workers because the cases 

are complex and the agencies involved are difficult to navigate.106

To protect H-2A and H-2B workers who have become victims of abuse 

severe enough to be categorized as human trafficking, DOJ’s Office for 

Victims of Crime (OVC) and the Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) provide funding to grantees, which provide victim 

services.107 Our analysis of OVC’s grantee data found that from January 

2012 through December 2013,108 grantees served 340 victims of human 

trafficking identified in typical H-2 industries.109 The most common OVC-

 

105

“The American Dream Up for Sale: A Blueprint for Ending International Labor 

Recruitment Abuse”, The International Labor Recruitment Working Group, February, 

2013. The following organizations authored this report: AFL-CIO, AFT, Centro de los 

Derechos del Migrante, Inc. (CDM), the Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking 

(CAST), Department for Professional Employees (DPE), Economic Policy Institute (EPI), 

Farm Labor Organizing Committee (FLOC), Farmworker Justice, Global Workers Justice 

Alliance, National Domestic Workers Alliance (NDWA), National Employment Law Project 

(NELP), National Guestworker Alliance (NGA), Safe Horizon, SEIU, Solidarity Center, 

Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), UNITEHERE! and Verité. The following 

organizations have endorsed the content of the report: Free the Slaves, Polaris Project, 

and Vital Voices Global Partnership.

106 Pro bono legal aid is provided by volunteer attorneys and legal professionals free of 

charge to clients, often to advance a social cause.

107 We were not able to report on the services provided by HHS grantees because neither 

HHS nor the grantees collect comprehensive data on assisted victims by visa type. 

108 DOJ’s Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) provides funding, authorized through the 

Trafficking Victims Protection Act, to state and local organizations that provide emergency 

shelter, transportation, counseling, legal services, and other direct services for victims of 

human trafficking. OVC trafficking victim services grantees use an online data collection 

system, the Trafficking Information Management System (TIMS) to collect performance 

measurement data such as the number of trafficking victims served, the number of 

services provided, and other grant performance indicators. Grantees began using TIMS 

online in 2012; therefore, this report only reflects data that was entered into TIMS between 

January 2012 and December 2013. Some fields of information in the database, such as 

the type of immigration relief an individual had upon entering the United States are 

optional and, therefore, were not completed for all foreign national victims who were 

served.

109 In the TIMS data, the grantees entered that 352 foreign national victims had an H-visa, 

but did not specify which type of H-visa. We grouped victims by their trafficking setting and 

other information reported in TIMS. According to DOJ officials, human trafficking victims 

are often forced or coerced to work in settings that are completely different from the work 

that the person anticipated they would do when they entered the United States.
Letter

provided services were legal and immigration services, as well as various 

types of social services (see fig. 7).

Page 45 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

110 In addition, HHS is authorized to 

certify foreign victims of human trafficking so that they can access 

federally-funded benefits and services.111 See appendix III for more 

information on human trafficking victims and services provided. 

Figure 7: Types of Services Provided to Human Trafficking Victims Who Were 

Identified in Typical H-2 Industries, January 2012 through December 2013 

In addition to these services, DHS’s USCIS can provide immigration relief 

to H-2A and H-2B workers who are trafficking victims allowing them to 

remain in the United States to assist with the prosecution of cases. 

Workers may apply to USCIS for immigration relief in the form of a T

visa—for victims of a severe form of human trafficking who meet other 

certain criteria—or a U visa—for victims of qualifying criminal activity, 

including severe forms of human trafficking and fraud in foreign labor 

 

110 We counted services provided by type regardless of the frequency or amount of 

services provided. The type of service is based on our aggregation of detailed services 

specified in the TIMS data. For more information, see appendix I.

111 TVPA, Pub. L. No. 106-386, div. A, § 107(b)(1)(E), 114 Stat. 1464, 1476. Victims of 

human trafficking are eligible for these benefits to the same extent as refugees. According 

to HHS, these services include Refugee Cash and Medical Assistance, the Matching 

Grant Program, the Public Housing Program, and Job Corps. 
Letter

contracting, who also meet certain other criteria.

Page 46 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

112 While the number of 

H-2 workers who received T visas increased from fiscal year 2009 

through fiscal year 2013, their share of all T visa recipients remained 

relatively small at 2 and 5 percent, for H-2A and H-2B workers 

respectively (see fig. 8). See appendix III for more information on T visa 

recipients.

 

112 T nonimmigrant status was created by TVPA, Pub. L. No. 106-386, div. A, § 107(e), 

114 Stat. 1464, 1477. This form of immigration relief allows victims of severe forms of 

trafficking in persons who meet certain other criteria to remain in the United States to 

assist in an investigation or prosecution of human trafficking cases. Individuals with T 

visas are eligible for employment authorization and may be eligible for lawful permanent 

residence after a certain period of time. When applying for T visas, victims self-report their 

immigration status. DHS officials said, however, that many victims are assisted by NGOs 

or attorneys when filing their application paperwork, which likely increases the accuracy of 

this information. U nonimmigrant status was created by the Battered Immigrant Women 

Protection Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-386, § 1513(b), div. B, tit. V, 114 Stat. 1464, 1534. 

This form of immigration relief allows victims of qualifying criminal activity, including 

severe forms of trafficking in persons who have suffered substantial physical or mental 

abuse and meet certain other criteria, to remain in the United States to assist federal, 

state or local authorities investigating or prosecuting qualifying criminal activities. The 

Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 added fraud in foreign labor 

contracting to the list of qualifying criminal activities at 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(T)(iii). Pub. 

L. No. 113-4, § 1222, 127 Stat. 54, 144. DHS officials reported that, as of July 2014, they 

had received fewer than 10 U visa petitions for victims of this crime and had not yet 

approved any. 
Letter

Figure 8: Approved T Visas for H-2 Workers Who Were Human Trafficking Victims, 

Page 47 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

Fiscal Years 2009 through 2013 

DOL’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) and Office of Foreign Labor 

Certification (OFLC) seek to ensure compliance of H-2 employers with 

applicable laws and regulations through audits and investigations, but 

investigations of H-2B employers were limited in number compared to 

those of H-2A employers. 

WHD investigates both H-2A and H-2B employers; however, from fiscal 

year 2009 through fiscal year 2013, it concluded investigations of

substantially more H-2A employers than H-2B employers. Our analysis of 

WHD data shows that WHD investigated 926 H-2A and H-2B employers. 

Of those, 94 percent (or 866) were H-2A employers, while 6 percent (or 

To Enforce Employer 

Compliance, Federal 

Agencies Take A Number 

of Actions, but Targeting of 

H-2B Employers Is Limited 

Department of Labor
Letter

60) were H-2B employers. In contrast, during the same time period, 55 

percent of all H-2 visas issued (or 310,954) were for H-2A workers and 45 

percent (or 250,685) were for H-2B workers (see fig. 9). 

Figure 9: Summary of State H-2 Visas Issued and DOL Wage and Hour Enforcement 

Page 48 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

Data by H-2 Employers, Fiscal Years 2009 through 2013

Note: One employer may hire more than one H-2A or H-2B worker. In fiscal years 2009 through 2013, 

31,537 H-2A and 22,802 H-2B employer petitions were approved by USCIS. Employers may have 

filed more than one petition during that time period. Employers may be counted more than once if 

they were investigated in more than one fiscal year. See appendix IV for a unique count of employers 

per fiscal year. 

Based on our analysis of agency data, although WHD investigated 

relatively few H-2B employers, a high percentage of those investigations 

resulted in substantiated violations with remedies being assessed. 

Specifically, in 87 percent of the H-2B investigations, employers were 

required to pay back wages or assessed civil money penalties. DOL 

assessed back wages totaling $400,000 to H-2B employers from fiscal 

year 2009 through 2013. For the same period, DOL assessed civil money 

penalties totaling $700,000 to H-2B employers (for further information on 

the amount of back wages and civil money penalties assessed for H-2A 

and H-2B employer violations, see appendix IV).
Letter

Our analysis also shows there were fewer debarments of H-2B employers 

compared to H-2A employers in fiscal years 2009 through 2013. During 

this period, 72 H-2A employers and 10 H-2B employers were debarred. 

Officials from OFLC said that the lower number of H-2B employer 

debarments could be due to the more stringent H-2B debarment 

regulations.

Page 49 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

113

 OFLC implemented a program in 2011 that conducts 

audits of selected employers once their applications are certified.114

Based on the results of the audit, OFLC can find the employer in 

compliance, issue a warning, or debar the employer from program 

participation for a specified period of time. The number of H-2A and H-2B 

debarments increased from 8 in fiscal year 2011 to 37 in fiscal year 2013, 

which OFLC officials attributed, at least in part, to the audit program. The 

majority of debarments were the result of the employer not responding to 

a post-certification audit or not paying certification fees. 

WHD officials said that there could be several reasons for the apparent 

imbalance in the number of investigations between the two programs and 

resultant remedies. In particular, while WHD has had the authority to 

investigate H-2A cases since 1987, it has had such authority relative to H2B cases only since 2009 and has needed time to implement an H-2B 

investigation program.115 In addition, since H-2A workers receive 

employer-provided housing and H-2B workers do not, H-2B workers may 

not be housed together, which may make it harder for agency officials to 

reach them. Moreover, H-2B workers are spread out in a wide range of 

industries, some of which may be missed by an investigative approach 

 

113 Under the H-2B program, DOL’s regulations define a substantial violation of an 

employer’s labor certification as a pattern or practice of acts that shows a significant 

failure of the employer to comply with various requirements of the program. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 655.31(d)(1).The H-2A regulations, by contrast, define a substantial violation as one or 

more such acts. 20 C.F.R. § 655.182(d)(1).

114 OFLC uses random and non-random sampling techniques to select certified temporary 

labor certifications for audits.

115 DOL officials told us that because it took a couple of years to ramp up their 

investigations of H-2B employers, data from fiscal years 2011 through 2013 would provide 

a better characterization of their efforts. We found that in fiscal years 2011 through 2013, 

WHD concluded investigations of a total of 698 H-2 employers. Of those, 92 percent (or 

640) were H-2A employers, while 8 percent (or 58) were H-2B employers. During the 

same time period, 55 percent of all H-2 visas issued (or 194,921) were for H-2A workers 

and 45 percent (or 158,435) were for H-2B workers. Because the differences in 

percentages were small between our original time frame (fiscal years 2009 through 2013) 

and WHD’s suggested time frame (fiscal years 2011 through 2013), we chose not to redo 

all of our analyses using data only from fiscal years 2011 through 2013.
Letter

focused on industries with large concentrations of vulnerable workers. 

Also, officials said the number of H-2B complaints received is small, 

although this may be a reflection of workers’ reluctance to come forward. 

WHD officials said they see a high number of violations and low number 

of complaints in the agriculture industry, which uses H-2A workers, but 

also in the hotel, construction, and landscaping industries, which use H2B workers. DOL officials noted that they investigate these industries and,

as a result, some H-2B employers. Finally, WHD officials told us that 

WHD was evaluating the H-2A program and as part of that effort, they 

investigated random samples of H-2A employers, thus increasing the 

number of investigations of H-2A employers.

Page 50 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

116 DOL officials said that 

they conducted this evaluation to help identify patterns of violations and 

better target future investigations, but have not conducted a similar 

evaluation for H-2B workers. 

WHD officials said their enforcement strategy does not rely only on 

complaints but also targets specific industries identified to be most at risk 

for committing labor law violations, including those with H-2A and H-2B 

workers. The priority industries identified by a study conducted for the 

WHD,117 which officials said helps guide their enforcement efforts, include 

food service, hospitality (hotel/motel), and landscaping/horticultural 

services, all of which hire H-2B workers. This study recommended that 

WHD prioritize industries with large numbers of vulnerable workers. Some 

federal officials and NGOs told us that they believed there were 

proportionately more abuses in the H-2B program. For example, a DOL 

Office of Inspector General (OIG) official told us that his office 

 

116 Specifically, in fiscal years 2010, 2011 and 2012, WHD investigated nationally 

representative samples of H-2A employers. The total number of H-2A employers 

investigated in fiscal years 2011 and 2012, including the representative samples, was 177 

and 224, respectively. However, the number of employers investigated did not decline in 

the year following the investigations-based evaluation of H-2A employers. In fact, in fiscal 

year 2013—the year after the data collection for the evaluation—the number of H-2A 

employers investigated slightly increased to 239. However, the litigation surrounding the 

issuance of DOL’s 2012 H-2B regulations may have affected the targeting of WHD 

enforcement efforts with respect to H-2A and H-2B employers. 

117 Weil, David. Improving Workplace Conditions Through Strategic Enforcement: A 

Report to the Wage and Hour Division. Boston University. May 2010. 
Letter

investigates more H-2B cases than other temporary worker programs.

Page 51 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

118

In particular, of the total of 103 cases investigated by the DOL OIG in 

fiscal years 2009 through 2014, at least one case involved H-2A workers 

and at least 21 cases involved H-2B workers.119 According to the OIG 

official, some employers inflate the total number of H-2B workers needed 

or employer agents fraudulently submit applications on behalf of an 

employer without the employer’s knowledge. As a result, workers are 

sometimes “sold”, or provided for use by other employers, once they 

enter the country. 

The WHD study also stated that workers in many of the industries with 

the highest levels of noncompliance with labor laws are often the most 

reluctant to trigger investigations through complaints due to their 

immigration status, lack of knowledge of rights, or fears about 

employment security. The study recommended that WHD prioritize these 

industries where the workforce is unlikely to step forward, among other 

factors. Many H-2B workers may be reluctant to file complaints, in part, 

because they do not have access to legal aid through the Legal Services 

Corporation, among other reasons. 

The study also recommended that WHD expand the use of investigationsbased surveys to evaluate its enforcement efforts and to better 

understand factors associated with compliance. Despite the vulnerability 

of H-2B workers and their potential reluctance to file complaints, WHD 

has not evaluated compliance among H-2B employers nor its 

enforcement efforts through a national investigations-based survey of H2B employers, as it has for H-2A employers. Without this type of 

evaluation, it is unclear whether DOL’s investigative resources are being 

focused appropriately and the degree to which H-2B employers are 

complying with program regulations, which may increase the risk of H-2B 

workers remaining vulnerable to exploitation. 

 

118 The DOL OIG specifically investigates alleged fraud related to the H-2A, H-2B, H-1B, 

and permanent visa certification processes. It does not, however, track cases by program 

type. We identified these cases by reviewing case notes for references to H-2A and H-2B 

workers. There may have been additional cases involving these workers that we were not 

able to identify. 

119 Based on our analysis of data provided by DOL OIG, 76 defendants at 17 criminal 

trials were found guilty or entered a plea of guilty or no contest. These cases resulted in 

fines, asset forfeiture, or restitution.
Letter

DOL’s ability to use debarment as a remedy may be limited by the 2-year 

statute of limitations on debarring employers. By statute and regulation, 

DOL may debar an H-2A or H-2B employer who has committed certain 

violations from program participation for up to three years,

Page 52 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

120 which is one 

of the remedies it can use to enforce compliance. The Immigration and 

Nationality Act, however, stipulates a 2-year statute of limitations on 

debarment for the H-2A program and, through regulation, DOL has 

implemented the same 2-year period for debarment under the H-2B 

program.121 To stay within the statute of limitations, DOL must complete 

an investigation and issue a notice of intent to debar within 2 years after 

the violation occurred. However, as previously discussed, workers may 

have disincentives to report violations when they occur, which may cause 

delays in reporting abusive employers and WHD’s opening of 

investigations. 

Officials from three DOL offices involved in debarment or the investigation 

of violations—OFLC, WHD, and the DOL OIG— all said the 2-year statute 

of limitations often hinders the department’s ability to implement 

appropriate administrative remedies for employers who violate prescribed 

program requirements. For example, OIG and WHD officials said by the 

time a case has been investigated or gone through the court system 2 

years might have elapsed. WHD officials said this may be especially true 

if the violation occurs early in the employment process such as during 

recruitment. Because certain violations can only be substantiated through 

interviews, as opposed to using records and observations, if a relevant 

worker leaves the country before he or she can be interviewed and 

cannot be located, investigators may need to wait until the worker returns 

the next season, according to a WHD official. 

Our analysis of WHD investigation data found that the median length of 

time from the beginning to the end of investigations that concluded in 

fiscal years 2009 through 2013 was 24 months, which means that 50 

percent of the investigations took longer than 2 years.122 While officials 

raised the statute of limitations as possibly restricting the use of 

 

120 8 U.S.C. § 1188(b); 20 C.F.R. §§ 655.31, 655.182.

121 8 U.S.C. § 1188(b)(2)(A); 20 C.F.R. §§ 655.182(c)(1), 655.31(b)(2).

122 We calculated the median length of time (in months) from the beginning date of the 

investigation to its end date. There was also an investigation “concluded” date in WHD’s 

data, which resulted in a median of 28 months. 
Letter

debarment as a remedy, none of the offices involved collects data on the 

extent to which the 2-year statute of limitations affected the number of 

cases that may have been considered for debarment. The inability to 

consider debarment as a remedy in cases where employers have 

committed substantiated violations could result in employers who would 

have been debarred continuing to participate in the programs and hiring 

workers. 

State, DHS, and DOJ also have enforcement authorities related to the H2A and H-2B programs. According to officials from State’s Bureau of 

Diplomatic Security (DS), the investigations that most often result in 

successful prosecutions come from partnerships with other federal 

agencies that investigate individuals or businesses that exploit foreign 

workers.

Page 53 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

123 DS investigators develop criminal cases of passport and visa 

crimes, refer cases to other agencies, and enter cases in an electronic 

system to alert other federal agencies and law enforcement entities about 

individuals of concern.124 DS officials said they have had very few H-2A 

investigations and convictions since multiple H-2A program regulations 

may make it harder to exploit H-2A workers. One reason for the high 

number of successful prosecutions of H-2B cases, they said, is that they 

have DS agents in Mexico who work closely with embassy staff and 

sometimes talk with workers directly during their visa interviews. 

DHS and DOJ can also pursue administrative and criminal cases. 

Officials from DHS’s USCIS Fraud Detection and National Security 

(FDNS) Directorate told us that they often investigate employers or 

employer agents who are under suspicion of farming out excess workers 

to employers other than the ones who petitioned for them.125 While FDNS 

investigates administrative violations, the U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE), along with DOJ’s Federal Bureau of Investigation

 

123 We were not able to report on DS cases because the visa type of the foreign workers 

involved was not collected as a reportable data field.

124 The electronic system used by State is the TECS (not an acronym) system, which is 

the updated and modified version of the former Treasury Enforcement Communications 

System. TECS is owned and managed by DHS’s Customs and Border Protection (CBP). 

TECS is a mainframe-based system used to disseminate data to federal agencies in 

support of border enforcement and the inspection and security screening of travelers and 

cargo entering or exiting the US.

125 We were not able to report on FDNS Directorate site visits because the visa type of the 

foreign workers requested on the petition was not collected as a reportable data field.

Other Agencies 
Letter

(FBI), investigate criminal cases, including human trafficking crimes.

Page 54 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

126

Once the Civil Rights Division at DOJ receives labor trafficking 

investigations from law enforcement agencies, its Human Trafficking 

Prosecution Unit may elect to prosecute some of these cases (see the 

sidebar on the case prosecuted by DOJ). 

In their investigation and prosecution of H-2 labor exploitation cases, 

officials from these agencies identified important challenges. In instances 

where fees were charged, State officials said it is often hard for workers 

to determine which fees are prohibited and which ones are not, as 

recruiters may bundle and charge for services together. Further, an ICE 

official said that when fees are paid in Mexico, the agency has no 

jurisdiction to investigate. In addition, not all H-2 workers are willing to 

testify. State officials noted that they are only able to develop criminal 

charges for about 3 percent of all investigated H-visa cases largely due to 

lack of evidence as some witnesses refuse to testify for fear of 

deportation. Moreover, it is hard for victims of human trafficking to come 

to prosecutors for help. For example, according to an official from the Civil 

Rights Division at DOJ, it is extremely rare for victims to come forward on

their own or go directly to a law enforcement entity since victims are often 

frightened by threats from their traffickers. Also, victims often do not 

understand U.S. laws or that they have been victimized, which constrains 

reporting to law enforcement. In addition, victims may need to be mentally 

and psychologically stabilized before they can testify. These challenges 

present a barrier to prosecution. 

 

126 We were not able to report on ICE investigations because the visa type of the foreign 

workers involved was not collected as a reportable data field. We requested data from 

DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Assistance Human Trafficking Reporting System, which tracks 

information from the human trafficking task forces. However, we are not reporting on those 

cases due to a very small sample size of reported incidents involving H-2A and H-2B 

workers. In addition, we requested FBI data on investigated cases that included H-2A and 

H-2B workers. These data were collected through a file review that the FBI conducted at 

the request of the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center (HSTC). However, the FBI’s 

input to HSTC was considered deliberative information and HSTC’s report was not 

published in time for its inclusion in this report. 

A case prosecuted by DOJ involving illegal 

recruitment and labor practices: United 

States v. Askarkhodjaev

The defendant and 11 co-defendants were 

indicted by a federal grand jury in Kansas 

City, Missouri, for their participation in a 

racketeering conspiracy that included forced 

labor trafficking. According to DOJ, 

Askarkhodjaev owned and operated a labor 

leasing company, Giant Labor Solutions, in 

Kansas City. He was the leader of a criminal 

enterprise that fraudulently recruited and 

petitioned for hundreds of foreign workers, 

including H-2B workers, from the Dominican 

Republic, the Philippines, Eastern Europe,

Central Asia, and elsewhere, among other 

things. The H-2B workers were charged from 

$400 to $5,000 per person for fees associated 

with obtaining or extending their visas. Once 

workers were in the United States, the 

enterprise fraudulently changed the 

petitioning employer in violation of the visa 

terms. The workers were compelled into 

service in various jobs, including 

housekeeping and cleaning services, in 14 

different states. They were forced to live in 

overcrowded, high-rent apartments and 

coerced through threats of deportation and 

wage withholding. The fees paid, high rents, 

and wage withholding often resulted in 

negative earnings. DOJ prosecuted this case 

under the statute prohibiting fraud in foreign 

labor contracting enacted as part of the 

Trafficking Victims Reauthorization Act of 

2008. Askarkhodjaev pleaded guilty and, on 

May 9, 2011, was sentenced to 12 years in 

prison and three years of supervised release. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOJ documents | GAO-15-154
Letter

DHS is currently not providing Congress the information it needs on the 

specific occupations of approved H-2B workers because the information it 

maintains electronically is not sufficiently detailed or standardized. By not 

using a standardized occupational classification system to report the 

occupations of approved workers, DHS is limited in its ability to provide 

Congress with reliable information about the specific occupations of H-2B 

workers. As DHS moves forward with its transformation to an electronic 

petition form, it has the opportunity to update its system requirements in 

such a way that would better meet the information needs of Congress.

In addition, DHS does not make certain details about H-2A and H-2B jobs 

available to potential workers or their advocates even though it collects 

this information on employers’ petitions. Given the large number of 

individuals who were issued H-2A and H-2B visas in fiscal years 2009 

through 2013 and who experienced some type of abuse during their 

recruitment, employment, or both, it is important that reliable job 

information be available to potential workers and their advocates. Without 

access to such information, potential workers may remain at an increased 

risk of abuse during their recruitment and, possibly, during their 

employment.

Identifying and investigating exploitative employment situations and then 

preventing employers who committed certain violations from further 

participating in the H-2A and H-2B programs is critical to protecting 

workers. To its credit, DOL’s Office of Foreign Labor Certification collects 

detailed information, such as phone numbers and addresses, on 

employers who have been debarred. However, the agency neither uses 

all of this information to screen new employer applications nor shares it 

with DHS and State for their screening processes. Without this 

information, agencies could approve debarred employers’ requests to hire 

workers, especially if the employers had changed some of their 

information to avoid detection. The data sharing agreement currently 

being negotiated by DOL and DHS provides an opportunity to strengthen 

agencies’ efforts to ensure that debarred employers do not evade the 

screening process and continue to hire workers.

Further, H-2A and H-2B program rules require employers to fulfill certain 

obligations, and federal agencies can use certain enforcement remedies, 

such as debarment, if employers have been found to violate specified 

program requirements. However, in fiscal years 2009 through 2013, 

DOL’s enforcement strategy was substantially more focused on H-2A 

employers than it was on their H-2B counterparts. Without an evaluation 

of its enforcement efforts for H-2B employers—similar to the one 

Page 55 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

Conclusions
Letter

conducted for H-2A employers—it remains unclear whether DOL’s 

enforcement resources are being appropriately targeted. In addition, 

when DOL finds that an employer, agent, or attorney committed a 

violation warranting debarment, it must issue a notice of intent to debar 

within the 2-year statute of limitations. However, without having collected 

data on the nature of cases where debarment could not be pursued 

because the statute of limitations had expired, the agency is not able to 

assess to what extent, if any, this statute of limitations has affected its 

ability to debar employers who have violated program requirements.

We are making the following recommendations:

To better report the occupations filled by H-2B workers who have been 

approved by DHS, the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services should implement during its transformation process to an 

electronic petition form, an occupation classification system that conforms 

to a national standard. 

To help potential H-2A and H-2B workers and their advocates better 

assess employment offers and reduce their vulnerability to abuse, the 

Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, during its 

transformation to an electronic petition form, ensure that petition job 

information is collected in an electronic manner and made available to the 

public as soon as possible following a final adjudication decision. Such 

job information should include number of positions, wage, and any 

staffing, placement or recruitment agency the employer plans to use.

To help protect workers from being hired by employers who have been 

debarred from program participation, the Director of U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services and the Secretary of Labor should finalize and 

implement their agreement to share data, including those on debarred 

employers.

To help protect workers from being hired by employers who have been 

debarred from program participation, the Secretary of Labor should direct 

the Assistant Secretary, Employment and Training Administration, to use 

all employer-related information it collects on debarred employers to 

screen new applications. 

To ensure that H-2B workers are adequately protected and that DOL’s 

investigative resources are appropriately focused, the Secretary of Labor 

should direct the Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, to review its 

Page 56 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
Letter

enforcement efforts and conduct a national investigations-based 

evaluation of H-2B employers. 

To determine to what extent, if any, the 2-year statute of limitations on 

debarment limits its use as a remedy for employers who violate program 

requirements: 

· The Secretary of Labor should direct the Assistant Secretary, 

Employment and Training Administration, and the Administrator, 

Wage and Hour Division, to collect data on the nature of the cases 

where debarment would have been recommended but was not 

because the 2-year statute of limitations had expired, and based 

on that data determine whether to pursue a legislative proposal to 

extend the statute of limitations.

· The Department of Labor Inspector General should direct the 

Assistant Inspector General, Office of Labor Racketeering and 

Fraud Investigations to provide the Assistant Secretary, 

Employment and Training Administration, and the Administrator, 

Wage and Hour Division, data on the number of referrals for 

debarment that the Inspector General’s Office sent to the 

department after the 2-year statute of limitations had expired.

The Departments of Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, 

Justice, Labor, and State were provided a draft of this report for review 

and comment. All the agencies provided technical comments that we 

incorporated, as appropriate. The Department of Homeland Security 

provided written comments, reproduced in appendix V, and agreed with 

our recommendations. The Department of Labor (DOL), Office of 

Inspector General (OIG) provided written comments, which are 

reproduced in appendix VI. While the OIG supported our recommendation 

that DOL determine whether the 2-year statute of limitations on 

debarment limits its use as a remedy for employers who violate program 

requirements and indicated it would take steps to support this effort, it 

also clarified that it does not make recommendations about debarment on 

the cases it refers to DOL. In response, we revised the recommendation 

to the OIG to clarify that its focus is on the OIG providing data on the 

number of referrals it sent to DOL after the 2-year statute of limitations 

had expired. 

Finally, DOL also provided written comments, which are reproduced in 

appendix VII. The department generally agreed with all of our 

Page 57 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Letter

recommendations. In response to our recommendation that the 

Employment and Training Administration (ETA) and the Wage and Hour 

Division (WHD) collect data on the nature of the cases where debarment 

would have been recommended but the 2-year statute of limitations had 

expired, the department said it would consider undertaking this type of 

data collection on a limited basis. This data collection would help DOL 

understand the impact of the 2-year statute of limitations on its ability to 

debar employers who have committed certain violations, which we 

believe is important for protecting workers. Further, in comments on our 

draft report, the DOL OIG stated that in 2010 it issued an audit report 

recommending that debarment authority be used more extensively in 

foreign labor certifications and that ETA and WHD should take steps to 

assure that debarment is considered and decisions documented for 

anyone convicted of foreign labor certification violations.

Page 58 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

127

 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of Health and 

Human Services, Homeland Security, Labor, and State; the Attorney 

General; appropriate congressional committees; and other interested 

parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO 

Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-7215 or sherrilla@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices 

of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 

page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report 

are listed in appendix VIII.

Andrew Sherrill, Director

Education, Workforce

 and Income Security

 

127 Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General, Debarment Authority Should Be 

Used More Extensively in Foreign labor Certification Programs, 05-10-002-03-321

(Washington. D.C.: Sept. 30, 2010).
Letter

List of Committees

The Honorable Lamar Alexander

Chairman

The Honorable Patty Murray

Ranking Member

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

United States Senate 

The Honorable Chuck Grassley 

Chairman

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy

Ranking Member

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

The Honorable John Kline

Chairman 

The Honorable Robert Scott

Ranking Member

Committee on Education and the Workforce

House of Representatives

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte

Chairman

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 

Ranking Member

Committee on the Judiciary

House of Representatives

Page 59 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

As part of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, 

GAO was mandated to review the recruitment of foreign workers.

Page 60 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

1 We 

focused on H-2A and H-2B workers because of the similarity of these two 

programs and our recent work reviewing other visa types.2 We examined 

(1) the number of workers who enter the country under H-2A and H-2B 

visas and the occupations they fill, (2) how U.S. employers recruit H-2A 

and H-2B workers and what, if any, abuses may have occurred in the 

recruitment and employment processes, and (3) how well federal 

departments and agencies protect H-2A and H-2B workers. 

This appendix provides a detailed account of the information sources 

used to answer these questions, the analyses we conducted, and any 

limitations we encountered. This appendix is organized into two sections. 

Section 1 describes the key data sources used for the report. Section 2 

describes our site visits, interviews, and review of documentary evidence. 

Our information sources included electronic datasets administered by the 

Departments of Labor (DOL), Homeland Security (DHS), Justice (DOJ), 

and State (State), and by a nongovernmental organization (NGO). We 

reviewed data covering fiscal years 2009 through 2013 because the 2008 

reauthorization of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act prohibited fraud in 

foreign labor contracting. Details on the scope and purpose of these data 

are described below. For each of the datasets, we conducted a data 

reliability assessment of selected variables by conducting some or all of 

the following, depending on the dataset: electronic data testing for 

completeness and accuracy: reviewing documentation on the dataset; 

and interviewing knowledgeable officials about how the data are collected 

and maintained, their appropriate uses, and any limitations. For the 

purposes of our analysis, we found the variables that we reported to be 

sufficiently reliable. 

 

1 Pub. L. No. 113-4, § 1235, 127 Stat. 54, 146. To fulfill this mandate, we also conducted 

a review on the use of foreign workers in federal contracts overseas. See GAO, Human 

Trafficking: Oversight of Contractors’ Use of Foreign Workers in High-Risk Environments 

Needs to Be Strengthened, GAO-15-102 (Washington, D.C., Nov. 2014).

2 We have issued a number of reports on the H-1B visa program (see list of related 

products at the end of this report). GAO concurrently conducted a separate review of the 

J-1 Summer Work Travel Program. 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Section 1: Data 

Sources
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

WHD’s Wage and Hour Investigative Support and Reporting Database 

(WHISARD) contains information on investigations related to the H-2A 

and H-2B programs. For fiscal years 2009 through 2013, we requested all 

case-level data for H-2A and H-2B investigations and assessed their 

reliability through review of related documents, interviews with relevant 

officials, and electronic data testing. For the purposes of our analysis, we 

found the variables that we reported to be sufficiently reliable given the 

context in which they are presented in the report. We analyzed the 

investigations and resulting violations by number of employers rather than 

by number of employees (or workers) because, according to DOL 

officials, H-2A violations can involve H-2A workers as well as 

corresponding domestic workers. We analyzed the number of employers 

who had repeat violations (i.e., the same violation) and recurring 

violations (i.e., not the same violation) by visa type. In addition, for those 

investigations that resulted in some type of remedy, we analyzed the 

amount of back wages due to workers and civil money penalties 

assessed. We also analyzed these remedies by industry using the North 

American Industry Classification System (NAICS) to classify employers.

Page 61 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

3

We used the 2-digit level—which designates the industry sector—and the 

3-digit level—which designates the industry subsector—for each 

employer. In 11 cases, the same employer had more than one NAICS 

code. We reviewed each of these cases based on the NAICS codes and 

selected one code for each employer. Finally, we analyzed the duration of 

investigations—the length of time from the beginning of the investigation 

to the conclusion. 

We obtained temporary labor certification data from fiscal years 2009 

through 2013, a list of employers who were debarred from participating in 

the H-2A or H-2B programs at any point during fiscal years 2009 through 

2013, and the temporary labor certifications that were associated with 

those debarred employers. We assessed the reliability of these data 

through review of related documentation, interviews with relevant officials, 

and electronic data testing. For the purposes of our analysis, we found 

 

3 NAICS is the standard used by federal statistical agencies in classifying business 

establishments for the purposes of collecting, analyzing, and publishing statistical data 

related to the U.S. economy. It groups establishments into industries according to 

similarity in the processes used to produce goods and services. The NAICS code has two 

to six digits with each additional digit offering greater classification detail. 

Department of Labor

Wage and Hour Division 

(WHD)

Office of Foreign Labor 

Certification (OFLC)
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

the variables that we reported to be sufficiently reliable given the context 

in which they are presented in the report. We used debarred employers’ 

temporary labor certifications to create a more robust set of information 

about each employer than what DOL maintains in their list (including the 

name, address, and contact phone number of the employer or employer 

agent who filed the certification). To identify any temporary labor 

certifications that were filed and/or approved during an employer’s period 

of debarment, we ran an electronic comparison of the 2009-2013 

temporary labor certification data and then compiled information on 

debarred employers, focusing on particular data fields, including name, 

address, phone number, and employer agent/attorney name. We also 

compared the dates of debarment with the certification dates of all 

applications. 

We also reviewed publicly available data on employer applications for H2B workers from fiscal years 2009 through 2013. OFLC posts these data 

to their website and refers to them as Disclosure Data. 

As part of its responsibilities, Labor’s Office of Inspector General 

conducts investigations into alleged fraud related to the H-2A, H-2B, H1B, and permanent visa certification processes. To determine which 

cases involved H-2A or H-2B victims, we reviewed summary data from 

the OIG’s Investigative Management Information System (IMIS) on closed 

human trafficking and fraud cases for fiscal years 2009 through 2013. To 

assess the reliability of these data we reviewed related documentation 

and interviewed relevant officials. For the purposes of our analysis, we 

found the variables that we reported to be sufficiently reliable given the 

context in which they are presented in the report. 

There was a limitation to these data, however, because they included H1B and permanent labor certification cases as well as H-2A and H-2B 

cases, and the types of visas held by victims in each case were not 

always identified. Therefore, we read through the case notes for all of the 

103 cases to determine which cases specifically identified H-2A and/or H2B victims and analyzed data on those cases. However, there may have 

been additional cases that involved H-2A or H-2B workers, but the case 

notes did not identify them and, therefore, they were not included in our 

analysis. 

Page 62 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

Office of Inspector General

Department of Homeland 

Security
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

To analyze the occupations filled by H-2A and H-2B workers, we obtained 

petition data from the Computer Linked Application Information 

Management System 3 (CLAIMS 3) for fiscal years 2009 through 2013 

(we determined a petition’s fiscal year using the date it was received by 

USCIS) and assessed their reliability by reviewing related documentation, 

interviewing relevant officials, and conducting electronic data testing. For 

the purposes of our analysis, we found the variables that we reported to 

be sufficiently reliable given the context in which they are presented in the 

report. Using the CLAIMS 3 data we analyzed the occupational codes 

that had been coded in the database by USCIS staff based on the job title 

provided by the employer on approved petitions. A list defining the 

occupation codes was provided by USCIS. To determine which petitions 

were approved and how many workers were requested on those 

petitions, we met with USCIS officials to determine which data field(s) to 

use. We also calculated the number of petitions with split decisions.

Page 63 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

4 We 

also used the petition data to select potential employers/petitioners to 

interview during our site visits to Texas and Florida. We created a list of 

petitioners who were within the same or nearby cities where we had other 

interviews planned. We attempted to reach petitioners from a variety of 

industries. Once likely employers or employer agents were identified, we 

attempted to find contact information on the internet as the petition data 

did not include phone numbers or email addresses. We were not able to 

find contact information for all the employers or employer agents we 

identified. We contacted employers or employer agents until we had two 

or three scheduled for each of our site visits. Ultimately, we interviewed 

two H-2A employers and one H-2B employer agent. 

Finally, to understand how many employers planned to use a third party 

to recruit workers, we reviewed a random sample of petition Hsupplements from fiscal year 2013. Employers petitioning for H-2A or H2B workers must fill out an H-supplement in addition to the basic petition 

form. On the supplement, employers must indicate if they plan to use a 

staffing, recruiting, or similar placement service or agent to locate 

workers. The supplement information is kept only in hardcopy in the 

employer’s case file and therefore had to be reviewed manually. Both the 

H-2A and H-2B petition supplement sample frames were sorted by the 

number of approved workers. We calculated this number using the 

 

4 According to USCIS officials, petitions can have split decisions where only a partial 

number of the workers requested by the employer are approved. For these split decisions 

we were not able to determine the number of workers that were approved. 

U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services (USCIS)-

CLAIMS 3 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

method communicated to us by USCIS from February through May 2014. 

We then selected a systematic random sample of 96 H-2A petitions and 

96 H-2B petitions for a total sample size of 192 supplements. We treated 

the data as a simple random sample for estimation purposes and, 

therefore, the results are unweighted. USCIS made those files available 

for our review at their facility in Harrisonburg, Virginia. All requested files, 

but one, were available. Each file was reviewed and categorized by one 

analyst and then those categorizations were confirmed by another 

analyst. Because we followed a probability procedure based on random 

selections, our sample is only one of a large number of samples that we 

might have drawn. Since each sample could have provided different 

estimates, we express our confidence in the precision of our particular 

sample’s results as a 95 percent confidence interval (e.g., plus or minus 

10 percentage points). This is the interval that would contain the actual 

population value for 95 percent of the samples we could have drawn. All 

percentage estimates from the file review have margins of error at the 95 

percent confidence level of plus or minus 10 percentage points, unless 

otherwise noted.

To determine the number and demographics of H-2A and H-2B workers 

who entered the country, we obtained data from the Arrival and Departure 

Information System (ADIS) and assessed their reliability by reviewing 

related information, interviewing relevant officials, and conducting 

electronic data testing. For the purposes of our analysis, we found the 

variables that we reported to be sufficiently reliable given the context in 

which they are presented in the report. Among other things, ADIS houses 

data that are collected on noncitizens at the point of entry into the United 

States. We identified arrival records for those individuals who originally 

entered the country with an H-2A or H-2B visa. About one percent of 

these individuals had entry records with conflicting personally identifiable 

information, such as date of birth, citizenship, etc., or had an unknown 

gender or country of citizenship. We excluded these records from our 

analysis.

Page 64 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

5

In addition, about 10 percent of the entry records corresponded 

to a smaller number of individuals that appeared to have entered multiple 

times within the same day. Because we were not able to determine if a 

worker with multiple entries was entering the country on one visa or more 

 

5 We talked with CBP officials about this exclusion. While it might have been possible to 

match these conflicting records based on more extensive analysis of each record, we 

chose not to do so because we did not have all the data fields available in ADIS and 

because of resource constraints. 

U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP)
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

than one visa, we counted workers who entered one or more times in a

fiscal year as entering once that fiscal year.

Page 65 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

6

To analyze the profile of trafficking victims who received T visas, we 

obtained data covering fiscal years 2009 through 2013 from the 

Humanitarian Adjudication for Victims Enterprise Nationwide (HAVEN) 

database. Due to privacy concerns, DHS provided statistical information 

summarized in tables, which included information on approved T visas by 

fiscal year and visa type, and which were further disaggregated by state 

of residence, gender, age of approval, country of birth and citizenship, 

and certifying agency. To assess the reliability of these data we reviewed 

related documentation and interviewed relevant officials. For the 

purposes of our analysis, we found the variables that we reported to be 

sufficiently reliable given the context in which they are presented in the 

report. 

We requested data on ICE human trafficking investigations that were 

collected through a file review conducted by the Human Smuggling and 

Trafficking Center (HSTC). However, HSTC’s National Human Trafficking 

Assessment report was not finalized in time to be included in our report.

In order to report the number of human trafficking prosecutions that 

involve H-2A and H-2B workers, we interviewed a senior official in the 

Human Trafficking Prosecution Unit. We were not able to use the data 

collected by this office, however, because of the way in which cases were 

coded and the fact that officials told us the database does not have a data 

field that captures the type of visa a victim might have used to enter the 

country. 

To understand the number of H-2A and H-2B workers who were identified

to be victims of human trafficking and served through DOJ-funded 

taskforces and service providers, we obtained data on victims who 

entered the country under an H-visa from the Human Trafficking 

Reporting System (HTRS) for fiscal years 2010 through 2013 and the 

Trafficking Information Management System (TIMS) for calendar years 

 

6 We discussed this decision rule with CBP officials who agreed with this approach. 

USCIS-HAVEN

U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE)

Department of Justice 

Criminal Department, Civil 

Rights Division

Office of Justice Programs
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

2012 through 2013.

Page 66 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

7 HTRS tracks information from DOJ’s Human 

Trafficking Task Forces. However, we did not report on HTRS cases due 

to the small sample size of reported incidents involving H-2A and H-2B 

workers. TIMS captures information on services to trafficking victims that 

were provided through DOJ-funded grantees and we assessed the 

reliability of these data by reviewing related documentation and 

interviewing relevant officials. For the purposes of our analysis, we found 

the variables that we reported to be sufficiently reliable given the context 

in which they are presented in the report. The DOJ-funded grantees 

entered into the TIMS data that 352 foreign national victims had an Hvisa, but did not specify which type of H-visa. We grouped victims by their 

trafficking setting and other information reported in TIMS.8 However, 

given the nature of the TIMS data, these victims could have entered the 

country under any type of H-visa and been trafficked into these industries. 

We grouped the types of services provided into five categories—legal and 

immigration services, social services, medical and logistical support, 

coordination of services, and other services.9 Social services include 

housing assistance, social service advocacy and explanation of benefits, 

emotional and moral support, and protection and safety planning. Medical 

and logistical support includes medical, dental and mental health 

assistance, substance abuse treatment, and help with transportation and 

translation services. Coordination of services includes client intake, 

orientation, and ongoing case management. Other services include 

assistance with family reunification, repatriation, financial aid, personal 

items, education, and other types of assistance. To analyze victims’ 

demographic profiles, suffered abuses, and services received, we 

analyzed the data by gender; country of origin; type of trafficking such as 

labor or sex; trafficking setting such as hotel, restaurant, construction site, 

agricultural field, residential home, etc.; trafficking subtype such as 

domestic servitude, commercial cleaning, herding, traveling carnival, 

 

7 We requested different time periods from each database based on the availability of 

electronic data. 

8 Since this report focuses on H-2 workers, we excluded 12 H-visa workers who were 

either engaged in teaching or for which their employment information was missing. We 

included six victims who had a trafficking setting of massage parlor or brothel, among 

others, with a trafficking subtype of prostitution and pornography production.

9 We counted services provided by type regardless of the frequency or amount of services 

provided. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

hospitality and others; and provided services such as immigration and 

legal, housing, etc. 

We also requested a list of organizations that are contracted by the Office 

of Justice Programs to provide services to victims and interviewed some 

of these organizations during our site visits. See Section 2 below. 

We requested data on FBI human trafficking investigations that were 

collected through a file review conducted at the request of HSTC. 

However, HSTC’s National Human Trafficking Assessment report was not 

finalized in time to be included in our report.

Page 67 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

To report the number of H-2A and H-2B visas issued in fiscal years 2009 

through 2013, we reviewed summary data on visa issuance published by 

State on its Nonimmigrant Visa Statistics website.10 We assessed the 

reliability of these data by reviewing related information and interviewing 

relevant officials. For the purposes of our analysis, we found the variables 

that we reported to be sufficiently reliable given the context in which they 

are presented in the report. 

HHS collects data from its grantees that support local anti-trafficking 

coalitions, conduct outreach and public awareness activities, and provide 

training and technical assistance related to human trafficking. Since HHS 

officials told us grantees’ monitoring data do not include information on 

visa status, we reached out to all 11 Rescue and Restore regional 

grantees and requested any available data collected by visa type. No 

grantees responded that they collected data in this manner.

We also requested data from the National Human Trafficking Resource 

Center (NHTRC) maintained by the Polaris Project and funded by HHS 

 

10 State publishes nonimmigrant visa issuances by visa class, nationality, and year. See 

http://travel.state.gov/content/visas/english/law-and-policy/statistics/non-immigrantvisas.html.

Federal Bureau of Investigation 

(FBI)

Department of State 

Bureau of Consular Affairs

Department of Health and 

Human Services

HHS Rescue and Restore 

Regional Grantees

HHS National Human 

Trafficking Resource Center
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

and assessed their reliability by reviewing related documentation and 

interviewing relevant officials. For the purposes of our analysis, we found 

the variables that we reported to be sufficiently reliable given the context 

in which they are presented in the report. These data consist of reports of 

alleged abuse and do not contain legally substantiated information. We 

analyzed data that was coded by severity of the case and urgency of the 

response. We analyzed a total of 1,564 cases, which included cases 

alleging possible human trafficking as well as cases alleging labor 

violations (seven cases were eliminated because the visa status did not 

clearly indicate that the victims were H-2A or H-2B workers). We 

analyzed the data by visa type (H-2A or H-2B) with respect to a number 

of victim characteristics: type of abuse (such as wage and hour abuse; 

contract violation; wrongful termination; hazardous, unsafe, or unsanitary 

working conditions; verbal or physical abuse); as well as industry, type of 

trafficking, country of origin, and number of referrals to other services. 

To answer our objectives, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 

agency officials; employers, employer agents, and trade groups; a union 

representative; law enforcement agents; H-2A and H-2B workers in the 

United States and Mexico; and NGO representatives. We identified those 

we interviewed through prior GAO work on these issues; transcripts of 

congressional hearings, agency staff, organizations involved in 

immigration reform, and through other interviewees. 

We also conducted four site visits. To understand how H-2A and H-2B 

workers are processed and interviewed for their visas we visited the U.S. 

Embassy in Mexico City, Mexico, and the U.S. Consulate in Monterrey, 

Mexico. We chose Mexico primarily because of the high percentage of 

both H-2A and H-2B workers who come from there, but also considered 

the country’s tier in the State Department’s Trafficking in Persons report, 

among other factors. In both Mexico City and Monterrey, we interviewed 

State Department officials who are involved in adjudicating H-2A and H2B visa applications, interviewing workers, and preventing fraud. In 

Mexico City, we also met with Mexican officials at the state and local level 

to learn about issues that migrants from Mexico may face and the support 

services provided to them. We also met with representatives of NGOs 

working on issues related to Mexican H-2A and H-2B workers. Further, in 

Monterrey, we met with two employer agents who process workers for 

employers; toured the State Department’s Applicant Service Center; and 

observed the visa interview and pass-back processes where approved 

visas are distributed to workers. Following our site visit to Mexico, we 

asked to interview some of the U.S. employers who attended the 2013 job 

Page 68 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

Section 2: Site Visits, 

Interviews, 

Discussion Groups, 

and Review of 

Documentary 

Evidence
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

fairs that the U.S. Consulate in Monterrey helped to coordinate in San 

Luis Potosi and Nogales, Mexico, in order to understand the fairs’ 

usefulness in helping employers find workers. Two employers who 

attended the job fairs agreed to have the consulate provide us with their 

contact information. One H-2A employer agreed to be interviewed. 

For the site visits in the United States, we selected the states of Texas 

and Florida primarily based on the number of nonimmigrant positions 

certified by state, but also considered state laws or regulations governing 

guest worker programs or human trafficking, innovative recruitment or 

employment programs within a state, the number of reported victims of 

labor violations or trafficking, and the location of Anti-Human Trafficking 

Coordination Teams, among other factors. 

In Texas, we traveled to Dallas, Austin, and Houston. We interviewed 

officials from the DOL Office of Inspector General’s Office of Labor 

Racketeering and Fraud Investigations, DOL Wage and Hour Division, 

and DHS’s ICE Homeland Security Investigations. We also interviewed 

officials at the Texas Workforce Commission. In addition, we interviewed 

officials from DOJ service providers, an H-2A employer, and an H-2B 

employer agent (for how we selected employers to interview see Section 

1, Department of Homeland Security, USCIS). In Florida, we traveled to 

Tampa and Miami. We interviewed officials from the DOL Wage and Hour 

Division and DHS’s ICE Homeland Security Investigations and AntiHuman Trafficking Coordination Team. We also interviewed an H-2A 

employer and officials from NGOs and DOJ service providers. 

To determine if Texas or Florida had any state statutes that relate to 

recruiting H-2A and H-2B workers, we searched the Westlaw and Lexis 

legal databases in October 2014 using a range of relevant search terms. 

To understand the processing of H-2A and H-2B applications, we visited 

DOL’s Chicago National Processing Center where we interviewed 

analysts and lead analysts and observed as they adjudicated 

applications. We also interviewed certifying officers for both the H-2A and 

H-2B programs. 

To locate workers for discussion groups, we were assisted by an NGO, 

an employer agent, and a Jamaican government agency responsible for 

recruitment. We sought the assistance of both an NGO and an 

employer/employer’s representative in order to obtain a variety of worker 

Page 69 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

Worker Discussion Groups
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

views and experiences; however, no employers, agents, or government 

recruiters were present during the discussion groups. Specifically, we:

· Conducted two discussion groups in Mexico with male H-2B 

workers who had previously worked in the United States in 

different industries. We identified the workers through an NGO 

working in the United States and Mexico, Centro de los Derechos 

del Migrante, Inc. (CDM), and traveled to the state of Puebla to 

interview the workers. To protect the identities of the workers, we 

did not ask for or collect their real names. A GAO facilitator led the 

discussion groups assisted by a contracted translator. 

· Conducted a discussion group with male H-2A workers from 

Jamaica. We identified the workers through the New England 

Apple Council and Jamaican Central Labour Organization. We 

conducted the discussion in Massachusetts. A GAO facilitator led 

the discussion assisted by a GAO employee who was fluent in 

Patois. 

The results of these discussion groups cannot be generalized to the 

larger population of H-2A and H-2B workers. 

We attempted to conduct additional interviews by video teleconference 

with H-2A workers in Mexico with the assistance of the Global Workers 

Justice Alliance. We were not able to conduct these interviews, however, 

because many workers were working in the United States during the time 

frame in which we were trying to conduct the discussion group. Moreover, 

according to a Global Workers Justice Alliance representative, workers 

who remained in Mexico declined to talk with us. Finally, with the 

assistance of CDM, we attempted to conduct a discussion group with 

female H-2B workers who were currently in the United States. According 

to CDM officials, however, these workers also declined to talk with us.

To better understand the recruitment and employment experiences of 

workers as well as recruitment models used by employers, we reviewed 

reports documenting two surveys conducted by NGOs—CDM and a 

Page 70 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

NGO Surveys of H-2A and 

H-2B Workers 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

coalition of NGOs working on a project called Jornaleros SAFE.

Page 71 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

11 CDM 

officials said they interviewed more than 200 H-2A and H-2B workers 

from several Mexican states over a 5-year period for their Justice in 

Recruitment Project.12 Workers were interviewed primarily at worker rights 

workshops. The survey is based on migration episodes rather than 

individuals so some workers may be interviewed more than once. 

Officials said their survey represented a convenience sample and could 

not be generalized beyond the population they interviewed. 

Officials associated with Jornaleros SAFE said they interviewed over 350 

H-2A workers or worker’s family members.13 In order to be interviewed, 

workers had to have an H-2A visa in their passport. While officials told us 

that they interviewed a very small number of H-2B workers, the focus of 

the project was on H-2A workers and the number of H-2B interviews 

conducted was negligible. Workers were located through community 

leaders and interviewed in their homes and churches. Similar to CDM’s 

report, these survey results are not generalizable.

To address all objectives, we reviewed relevant federal laws and 

regulations, news media articles, and agency and NGO reports on 

migrant workers and human trafficking, which we selected through 

various sources, including discussions with GAO staff with experience in 

these issues, agency staff, and other interviewees, among others. 

We conducted this performance audit from June 2013 through March

2015 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

 

11 Five organizations have been working on the Jornaleros SAFE Project, which began in 

May 2010. They are Centro Independiente de Trabajadores Agricolas, Dimension Pastoral 

de la Movilidad Humana, Global Workers Justice Alliance, United Farm Workers, and 

Catholic Relief Services.

12 Centro de los Derechos del Migrante, Inc., Recruitment Revealed: Fundamental Flaws 

in the H-2 Temporary Worker Program and Recommendations for Change (2013).

13 Jornaleros SAFE, Executive Summary: Mexican H2A Farmworkers in the U.S: The 

Invisible Workforce (2012).
Appendix II: Summaries of H-2A and H-2B Visa 

Worker Discussion Groups

Discussion Group 1: H-2B workers from Mexico – Centro de los Derechos 

Page 72 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

del Migrante, Inc. (CDM), a transnational NGO working on issues 

affecting Mexican migrant workers, assisted us in setting up this 

discussion group. We spoke to four workers who entered the United 

States on visas over several years while working for different employers. 

Some of the workers reported paying recruitment fees in Mexico of more 

than $350 to cover transportation to the Consulate and the cost of the 

visa. Some of the workers said they took out loans in order to pay the 

fees. 

Across their variety of experiences, workers told us that they had better 

experiences with some employers than others. For example, one worker 

told us that one employer housed workers in trailers with access to 

bathroom facilities while other workers reported that employers had them

sleep on pallets or bathe using cold water. 

Workers reported experiencing or witnessing a number of abuses, 

including employers confiscating their passports and visas, being required 

to work outside during thunderstorms, underpayment of wages, and 

physical abuse. However, workers told us they were generally too afraid 

to report these abuses because they feared being fired or that something 

might happen to their families at home in Mexico. 

Discussion Group 2: H-2B workers from Mexico – CDM assisted us in 

setting up this discussion group. We spoke to seven workers who entered 

the United States together in 2011 to work for the same forestry 

company. In Mexico, they said they paid recruitment fees of 

approximately $1,250, which included things such as employment 

paperwork, transportation to the Embassy, visa application, and 

transportation to the job site. The workers all said they took out loans to 

pay the fees. The workers reported that they were told they would earn 

$10 per hour working 8 hours per day and $15 per hour when they 

worked more than 40 hours per week.

Upon arrival in the United States, the workers learned they would be paid 

based on the amount of work completed, not the hours worked. They 

claimed their paychecks reflected deductions for equipment and safety 

vests they were required to use. After 2 weeks of working 10-11 hours per 

day, the workers said they earned $133 and owed $100 in rent. 

Discussion Group 3: H-2A workers from Jamaica – The New England 

Apple Council and the Jamaican Central Labour Organization assisted us 

in setting up this discussion group. We spoke to five workers, all of whom 

Appendix II: Summaries of H-2A and H-2B 

Visa Worker Discussion Groups
Appendix II: Summaries of H-2A and H-2B Visa 

Worker Discussion Groups

participated in the visa program for multiple years and generally worked 

for the same employers each time. The workers reported having positive 

experiences during recruitment and with their employers. Workers told us 

that they received contracts before leaving Jamaica and did not have to 

pay any money during recruitment. They also told us that their employers 

generally provided nice housing for the workers and some training prior to 

beginning work. 

The Jamaican government plays an active role in the H-2A program and, 

according to a Jamaican government official, conducts all recruitment 

activities for Jamaicans who wish to participate in the program. 

Page 73 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs
Appendix III: Characteristics of and Assistance 

to H-2A and H-2B Human Trafficking Victims

A critical protection for human trafficking victims is their ability to lawfully 

extend their stay in the United States by obtaining T nonimmigrant status 

from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. From fiscal years 2009 

through 2013, 49 H-2A and 137 H-2B workers obtained T visas. Almost 

90 percent of H-2A victims were men while three-quarters of H-2B victims 

were men and one-quarter were women. For both visa types, over three 

quarters of the victims were between 31 and 50 years old. Thailand was

the most frequent country of citizenship for H-2A victims (47 percent on 

average from fiscal years 2009 through 2013) and the Philippines was the 

most frequent country of citizenship for H-2B victims (59 percent) (see fig. 

12). This contrasts with the small number (less than two percent) of visas 

issued to workers from these countries. An NGO official told us that 

workers from Thailand, for example, may be more vulnerable because 

trafficking networks in that country may be more organized and there are 

fewer social supports for these workers when they arrive in the United 

States. 

Figure 10: U.S. Embassies and Consulates That Issued the Highest Percentage of H-2A and H-2B Visas and Country of 

Page 74 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

Citizenship of H-2 Workers Approved for the Highest Percentage of T Visas, Fiscal Years 2009 through 2013

Appendix III: Characteristics of and 

Assistance to H-2A and H-2B Human 

Trafficking Victims

Approval of T Visas 

for H-2A and H-2B 

Workers by U.S. 

Citizenship and 

Immigration Services 

at DHS
Appendix III: Characteristics of and Assistance 

to H-2A and H-2B Human Trafficking Victims

Note: The above percentages on H-2 visas issued do not take into account H-2 workers who did not 

need or did not obtain visas (for example, those from visa exempt countries).

As a hotline funded by the Department of Health and Human Services

(HHS), the National Human Trafficking Resource Center (NHTRC) helps 

connect victims with services. From 2011 through 2013 the hotline 

received a total of over 1,500 complaints from H-2A and H-2B workers. 

Almost all complaints involved alleged labor exploitation. The industries 

most commonly reported to NHTRC by complainants for both visa types 

were agriculture and landscaping (over 80 percent for H-2A workers and 

over 30 percent for H-2B workers). 

· About 92 percent of the complaints did not have indicators of 

trafficking (i.e., force, fraud, and coercion) but involved commonly 

reported abuses such as wage and hour complaints (39 and 36 

percent for H-2A and H-2B workers, respectively), as well as other 

contract violations (20 and 28 percent for H-2A and H-2B workers, 

respectively). Other commonly identified abuses by those hotline 

complainants included wrongful termination and hazardous, unsafe, 

and unsanitary working conditions. 

Page 75 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

Profile of Complaints 

from H-2A and H-2B 

Visa Holders Referred 

from the National 

Human Trafficking 

Resource Center to 

Service Providers
Appendix III: Characteristics of and Assistance 

to H-2A and H-2B Human Trafficking Victims

· About 8 percent of complaints demonstrated key indicators related to 

potential human trafficking. These calls involved mostly male workers 

and the main countries of origin were Mexico and Philippines (73 and 

15 cases, respectively). 

As a follow up, NHTRC most often provided H-2A and H-2B workers with 

referrals to two or more service providers who offer victim assistance 

services.

Page 76 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs
Appendix IV: Details on Back Wages and Civil 

Money Penalties Assessed by the Department 

of Labor (DOL)

Table 6: Summary of DOL Back Wages Assessed to H-2A and H-2B Employers, Fiscal Years 2009 through 2013

Page 77 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

Number of 

Employers Total Average Minimum Maximum Median

H-2A 2009 69 $452,803 $6,562 $39 $57,231 $2,511 

2010 47 $398,970 $8,489 $35 $153,076 $2,129 

2011 100 $855,673 $8,557 $22 $193,526 $3,049 

2012 108 $1,905,999 $17,648 $45 $937,690 $2,838 

2013 118 $4,928,457 $41,767 $21 $2,338,700 $3,998 

All* 433 $8,541,901 $19,326 $21 $2,338,700 $3,171 

H-2B 2011 2 $14,293 $7,147 $567 $13,726 $7,147 

2012 11 $204,002 $18,546 $881 $93,507 $8,720

2013 18 $190,373 $10,576 $147 $58,617 $5,916 

All* 31 $408,668 $13,183 $147 $93,507 $6,266 

Source: GAO analysis of DOL WHISARD data. | GAO-15-154

*Note: Total number of employers for all years shows the number of unique employers and thus is smaller than the simple sum over the fiscal years, 

since some employers may have been assessed back wages more than once.

Table 7: Summary of DOL Civil Money Penalties Assessed to H-2A and H-2B Employers, Fiscal Years 2009 through 2013

Number of 

Employers Total Average Minimum Maximum Median

H-2A 2009 55 $326,838 $5,943 $250. $58,800 $2,100 

2010 51 $369,085 $7,237 $250 $101,200 $2,000 

2011 106 $840,280 $7,927 $200 $84,900 $2,950 

2012 136 $3,384,189 $24,884 $300 $1,507,900 $3,600 

2013 158 $6,435,788 $40,733 $500 $3,129,900 $7,075 

All* 493 $11,356,179 $22,443 $200 $3,129,900 $4,000 

H-2B 2012 18 $289,968 $16,109 $2,500 $65,000 $11,398 

2013 29 $412,676 $14,230 $1,500 $82,968 $10,000

All* 47 $702,645 $14,950 $1,500 $82,968 $11,076 

Source: GAO analysis of DOL WHISARD data. | GAO-15-154

*Note: Total number of employers for all years shows the number of unique employers and thus is smaller than the simple sum over the fiscal years, 

since some employers may have been assessed civil monetary penalties more than once.

Appendix IV: Details on Back Wages and 

Civil Money Penalties Assessed by the 

Department of Labor (DOL)
Appendix IV: Details on Back Wages and Civil 

Money Penalties Assessed by the Department 

of Labor (DOL)

Table 8: Summary of State H-2 Visa and DOL Wage and Hour Enforcement Data by H-2 Employers, Fiscal Years 2009 through 

Page 78 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

2013

FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total*

Total (% of 

Total 

H2)

Total (% of 

Total 

H2)

Total (% of

Total 

H2)

Total (% of 

Total 

H2)

Total (% of 

Total 

H2)

Total (% of 

Total 

H2)

Number of 

Visas Issued to 

Workers

H-2A 60,112 57% 55,921 54% 55,384 52% 65,345 57% 74,192 56% 310,954 55%

H-2B

 44,847 43% 47,403 46% 50,826 48% 50,009 43% 57,600 44% 250,685 45%

Number of 

Employers 

Investigated

H-2A 121 100% 105 98% 177 98% 224 91% 239 88% 866 94%

H-2B 0 0% 2 2% 4 2% 21 9% 33 12% 60 6%

Number of 

Employers 

Assessed

Back Wages 

and/or Civil 

Money 

Penalties

H-2A

90

74% of 

121 68

65% of 

105 135

76% of 

177 163

73% of 

224 176

74% of 

239 632

73% of 

866

H-2B

0 0% 0 0% 2

50% of 

4 18

86% of 

21 32

97% of 

33 52

87% 

of 60

Source: GAO review of State Nonimmigrant Visa System statistics and analysis of DOL WHISARD data. | GAO-15-154

Note: One employer may hire more than one H-2A or H-2B worker. The table represents a unique count of employers per fiscal year. 

*In the total for all years employers may be counted more than once if they were investigated in more than one fiscal year.
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 79 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 80 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 81 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department 

of Labor, Office of Inspector General

Page 82 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

Appendix VI: Comments from the 

Department of Labor, Office of Inspector 

General
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department 

of Labor, Office of Inspector General

Page 83 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department 

of Labor

Page 84 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

Appendix VII: Comments from the 

Department of Labor
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department 

of Labor

Page 85 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department 

of Labor

Page 86 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs
Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Andrew Sherrill, (202) 512-7215 or sherrilla@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Nagla’a El-Hodiri (Assistant 

Director), Hiwotte Amare, Amy Anderson, Susan Aschoff, Gergana 

Danailova-Trainor, Isabella Johnson, Revae E. Moran, James Rebbe, 

Salvatore Sorbello, Jr., Walter Vance, and Shana Wallace made key 

contributions to this report. Other contributors included Rob Ball, Carl 

Barden, James Bennett, Kathryn Bernet, Gary Bianchi, Kurt Burgeson, 

Sara Daleski, Holly Dye, Rebecca Gambler, Gloria Hernandez-Saunders, 

Leslie Holen, Catherine Hurley, Kathy Leslie, Ted Leslie, Sheila McCoy, 

Wayne McElrath, Thomas Melito, George Ogilvie, Michael Pahr, Lerone 

Reid, Stephen Sanford, Brian Schwartz, Andrew Stavisky, Daren 

Sweeney, Rosemary Torres Lerma, Emily Wilson, Amber Yancey Carroll, 

and Chris Zbrozek.

Page 87 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments
Appendix IX: Accessible Data

Data Table for Figure 4: U.S. Embassies and Consulates That Issued the Highest 

Page 88 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

Percentage of H-2A and H-2B Visas, Fiscal Years 2009 through 2013

Average percentage of visas issued from FY2009 to FY2013

H-2A visas H-2B visas

Mexico 94 71

Peru 1

Guatemala 1 5

Jamaica 9

Nicaragua 0.5

South Africa 2 3

Philippines 2

Source: GAO review of Department of State Nonimmigrant Visa System summary data; National Atlas (base map). GAO-15-154.

Data Tables for Figure 5: Percentage of H-2A and H-2B Workers Who Entered the 

Country in One or More Years, Fiscal Years 2009 through 2013

Number of years entering U.S. H-2A H-2B

1 of 5 45.26% 58.41%

2 of 5 18.87% 17.65%

3 of 5 11.07% 11%

4 of 5 9.11% 8.03%

All 5 15.68% 6%

H-2A and H-2B workers 

entering the United States

96% entered on one visa 

type

4% entered on both visa 

types

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Homeland Security Arrival and Departure Information System data. GAO-15-154.

Data Tables for Figure 6: Percentage of Occupations Requested By 

Employers/Petitioners on New H-2A and H-2B Petitions,aFiscal Years 2009 through 

2013

H-2A petitions

Agricultural/ horticultural 96%

Forestry and logging 1%

Other 3%

Appendix IX: Accessible Data
Appendix IX: Accessible Data

Page 89 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

H-2B petitions

Agricultural/ horticultural 39%

Agricultural packers; handlers, helpers, and laborers; and 

stagehands, grips, and laborers

11%

Food service 10%

Building service 8%

Construction trade 4%

Personal service/child care (not in a private home) 4%

Fishing/ hunting/ trapping 3%

Athletes and related 3%

Precision food production 2%

Forestry and logging 2%

Marketing and sales 1%

Engine/machine/computer repair 1%

Other 11%

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Homeland Security’s Computer Linked Adjudication Information Management System 3 

(CLAIMS 3) data. GAO-15-154.

Data Table for Figure 7: Types of Services Provided to Human Trafficking Victims 

Who Were Identified in Typical H-2 Industries, January 2012 through December 

2013 

Types of Services

Legal and immigration services 29%

Social services 23%

Coordination of services 17%

Medical and logistical support 13%

Other services 18%

Source: GAO analysis of data from the Department of Justice Office for Victims of Crime’s Trafficking Information Management System 

(TIMS). GAO-15-194.

Data Table for Figure 8: Approved T Visas for H-2 Workers Who Were Human 

Trafficking Victims, Fiscal Years 2009 through 2013 

Number of T-visa recipients

H-2A workers H-2B workers Total T-visas

2009 7 2 9

2010 2 4 6

2011 6 20 26
Appendix IX: Accessible Data

Page 90 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

H-2A workers H-2B workers Total T-visas

2012 16 36 52

2013 18 75 93

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Homeland Security’s Humanitarian Adjudication for Victims Enterprise Nationwide summary 

data. GAO-15-154.

Data Tables for Figure 9: Summary of State H-2 Visas Issued and DOL Wage and 

Hour Enforcement Data by H-2 Employers, Fiscal Years 2009 through 2013

Visas issued to workers

H-2A 310,954

H-2B 250,685

Percentage of 

866 total H-2A employers investigated Enforcement

73% (632) Assessed back wages or civil monetary 

penalties

27% (234) Not assessed back wages or civil monetary 

penalties

Percentage of 

60 total H-2B employers investigated Enforcement

87% (52) Assessed back wages or civil monetary 

penalties

13% (8) Not assessed back wages or civil monetary 

penalties

Source: GAO analysis of State Nonimmigrant Visa System data and analysis of Department of Labor Wage and Hour Investigative 

Support and Reporting Database (WHISARD). GAO-15-154.

Data Tables for Figure 10: U.S. Embassies and Consulates That Issued the Highest 

Percentage of H-2A and H-2B Visas and Country of Citizenship of H-2 Workers 

Approved for the Highest Percentage of T Visas, Fiscal Years 2009 through 2013

U.S. embassies and consulates that issued the highest percentage of H-2A and H-2B visas

H-2A visas H-2B visas

Mexico 94 71

Peru 1

Guatemala 1 5

Jamaica 9

Nicaragua 0.5

South Africa 2 3
Appendix IX: Accessible Data

Page 91 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

H-2A visas H-2B visas

Philippines 2

Source: GAO review of Department of State Nonimmigrant Visa System summary data; National Atlas (base map). GAO-15-154.

Country of citizenship of H-2 workers approved for the highest percentage of T-visas

H-2A visas H-2B visas

Mexico 8 1

Peru 18

Guatemala 14

Jamaica 1

Nicaragua 0.5

Philippines 59

Bolivia 1

Chile 1

Dominican Republic 1

Thailand 47 1

India 20

China 2

Vietnam 22 8

Indonesia 4

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Homeland Security’s Humanitarian Adjudication for Victims Enterprise Nationwide summary

data; National Atlas (base map). GAO-15-154.
Related GAO Products

Human Trafficking: Oversight of Contractors’ Use of Foreign Workers in 

High-Risk Environments Needs to Be Strengthened. GAO-15-102

(Washington, D.C.: November 18, 2014).

H-2A Visa Program: Modernization and Improved Guidance Could 

Reduce Employer Application Burden. GAO-12-706 (Washington, D.C.: 

September 12, 2012).

Immigration Benefits: Consistent Adherence to DHS’s Acquisition Policy 

Could Help Improve Transformation Program Outcomes. GAO-12-66

(Washington, D.C.: November 22, 2011). 

H-1B Visa Program: Reforms Are Needed to Minimize the Risks and 

Costs of Current Program. GAO-11-26 (Washington, D.C.: January 14, 

2011).

H-2B Visa Program: Closed Civil and Criminal Cases Illustrate Instances 

of H-2B Workers Being Targets of Fraud and Abuse. GAO-10-1053

(Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2010).

Human Trafficking: A Strategic Framework Could Help Enhance the 

Interagency Collaboration Needed to Effectively Combat Trafficking 

Crimes. GAO-07-915 (Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2007).

Human Trafficking: Better Data, Strategy, and Reporting Needed to 

Enhance U.S. Antitrafficking Efforts Abroad. GAO-06-825 (Washington, 

D.C.: July 18, 2006).

H-1B Visa Program: Labor Could Improve Its Oversight and Increase 

Information Sharing with Homeland Security. GAO-06-720 (Washington, 

D.C.: June 22, 2006).

Page 92 GAO-15-154 H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs

Related GAO Products

(131251)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

PleasrintoRecyldPapr.