Findream / Sinocontech Case (2019–2020)
In one sentence
This is an OPT case, not a CPT case, but it shows the employer's role — providing the position — more completely than any other: the fake employer went to prison; USCIS was the deceived party in the criminal case, and years later treated the work authorization it had itself approved as a benefit the student obtained by fraud.
The name is often misspelled "Finddream."
Facts
How the companies worked
Weiyun "Kelly" Huang incorporated Findream in California on August 30, 2013, and Sinocontech in Delaware in December 2016. According to the indictment and plea agreement:
- She recruited F-1 students looking for OPT jobs or H-1B sponsorship through a China-based website, "Chinese Looking for Job," and a China-based WeChat platform, "Job Hunters of North America."
- The companies listed addresses in Mountain View, New York, Chicago, and elsewhere, with no office at any of them. When FBI agents checked the Chicago address in May 2018, it was a Regus shared office, and neither the receptionist nor the building's security guard had heard of Findream.
- She signed offer letters, employment verifications, and Forms I-983 under invented employee names, including a "Director of Human Resources."
- She sold students fake offer letters, fake employment verification letters, Forms I-983 signed under penalty of perjury, and fake payroll funded by the customers themselves and paid back into their own accounts as "wages," along with Form 1099 tax forms.
The investigation relied on bank records, PayPal and Venmo records, and search warrants for email and Google Drive accounts.
Why there are two numbers
| Source | Figures |
|---|---|
| Criminal complaint, March 2019 | About 1,900 F-1 students had listed Findream as their OPT employer in SEVIS since 2013; from May 2013 to June 2018 Huang deposited about $1.64 million into her own accounts, over $985,000 of it from PayPal, Venmo, and similar transfers |
| Plea agreement, December 2019 | About 2,693 customers listed Findream or Sinocontech as their employer; Huang admitted receiving at least about $1.5 million |
The two figures measure different things: the complaint counted only those who had listed Findream up to that point, while the plea agreement counts all customers of both companies.
Outcomes by party
| Party | Finding | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Employer (Huang and both companies) | Held responsible | Charged in the Northern District of Illinois (1:19-cr-275); pleaded guilty in December 2019 to one count of conspiracy to commit visa fraud (18 U.S.C. 371); sentenced on June 26, 2020 to 37 months, plus forfeiture. The plea agreement states the offense is an aggravated felony and removal is "presumptively mandatory" |
| Issuer: USCIS (OPT EAD) | Deceived party | The plea agreement states that USCIS would not have approved the OPT extension had it known the offer letter was false |
| School | Deceived party | The indictment says a fake offer letter was given to a Chicago university (called "University A") to get it to issue an I-20; the school was not a defendant |
| SEVP / ICE | Not in primary sources | No primary record was found of a mass SEVIS termination of all customers |
| Students | Not charged; faced consequences one by one, later | See below |
From the plea agreement:
Defendant understood that if USCIS knew the offer letter was false, USCIS would not have approved an extension of stay under the OPT program for Individual XQ.
The connection to the Ji Chaoqun case
The case carries a "national security" association because it intersects with the Ji Chaoqun case. But the two were prosecuted separately, on different charges.
- Ji Chaoqun was a Findream customer. The criminal complaint against Huang uses him as an example: he came to Chicago to study in 2013 and, after his master's degree, listed Findream as his OPT and STEM OPT employer; Huang's Google Drive held his offer letter dated April 2016 and an employment verification letter dated January 2017; he paid $200 in May 2016 and $900 in November 2016; his I-983 listed 25 hours a week at $20 an hour, yet his bank records show no income from Findream.
- He was not arrested for visa fraud. On September 25, 2018 he was arrested on a charge of acting as an agent of the Chinese government without notifying the Attorney General. The complaint records that in his interview he admitted paying Findream, never working there, never being paid, and using the company to falsely verify his OPT employment.
- How each case ended: in September 2022 a jury convicted Ji on three counts — conspiracy to act as an agent of a foreign government, acting as an agent of the PRC without notification, and making a false statement to the U.S. Army — and acquitted him on two wire fraud counts; in January 2023 he was sentenced to eight years. Huang pleaded guilty to visa fraud conspiracy and was sentenced to 37 months.
- Commutation: in November 2024 President Biden commuted Ji's sentence to time served, on condition that he leave the United States and not return.
What happened to students years later
The students were not charged, but in later applications they were found, one by one, to have made willful misrepresentations (INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i)):
| Case | What happened |
|---|---|
| Wang v. Noem (C.D. Cal. 2025) | In 2023 USCIS, reviewing an H-1B extension filed by his employer, found that "Findream was not a legitimate employer," and the employer withdrew the petition; his later I-539 was denied and his lawsuit dismissed. One adverse factor USCIS cited was that he knew he had not worked for Findream yet never reported the interruption in employment to his DSO |
| Fu v. DHS (N.D. Cal. 2025) | She joined Findream in 2016, was never given any work, and a few months later moved to another company and updated her I-20. In 2024 USCIS denied her I-539 extension, finding a misrepresentation on her 2016 I-765; the court held it lacked jurisdiction to review |
| Shi v. Miller (D. Neb. 2026) | She had only accepted a Findream offer. In 2020 her H-1B visa was physically cancelled at the port of entry, and consular officers later refused her visa on the same ground. The court denied the government's motion to dismiss; the case is pending |
| Shu v. DHS (D. Colo. 2020) | A naturalization case. He admitted paying Findream for a Form I-983, and USCIS found on that basis that he lacked good moral character; the court remanded the application to USCIS to decide |
Common misreadings
| Claim | Public record |
|---|---|
| "The case never ended in a conviction" | Huang pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 37 months in 2020. Ji was convicted by a jury in 2022, sentenced to eight years in 2023, and left the U.S. after his sentence was commuted in 2024 |
| "The core charge was not immigration fraud but a substitute for an espionage case that lacked evidence" | The two cases were prosecuted separately. Huang's charge was visa fraud conspiracy; Ji's were acting as a foreign agent and a false statement to the Army. Huang's complaint uses Ji as an example of a Findream customer; nothing in the public record says Huang's case was a substitute for an espionage case |
| "The case set a precedent" | Huang pleaded guilty, so no court ruled on a contested question, and there is no precedent. Later lawsuits by students against the government (Wang, Fu) did produce decisions, but on whether the courts had jurisdiction |
| "USCIS will prosecute students who paid for fake employment" | USCIS adjudicates applications; it does not bring criminal cases, which are brought by the Department of Justice. No student in this case was charged |
| "Students who weren't charged are in the clear" | Years later, students were found one by one to have made willful misrepresentations in H-1B, H-4, entry, and naturalization applications; see above |
| "Every student's SEVIS record was terminated and they were removed"; "all of the company's employees were investigated" | No primary record was found. The documented consequences are findings of misrepresentation in individual students' applications |
What this case shows
- In OPT cases the fake employer itself is prosecuted, because the offer letter, the employment verification, and the I-983 are all signed by the employer. Whoever signs bears the criminal liability.
- An EAD approved by USCIS does not mean the matter is closed. USCIS is the deceived party in the criminal case and the party finding fraud in the student's next application.
- The consequences for students come late, and courts can rarely review them: both Wang and Fu ended with the court finding it lacked jurisdiction.
- Fu, who "joined, was given no work, and moved on," was found to have misrepresented, while a 2025 AAO decision found a student with similar facts had not committed fraud. The difference is whether the record shows the student did not know at the time.