This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump's Sept. 19 proclamation imposing a $100,000 fee on all new H-1B petitions while acknowledging that the program has unjustly displaced many American workers has put the whole H-1B visa program under sharp scrutiny. It is the first time a presidential administration has admitted publicly that the program has inflicted measurable harm on Americans.
The H-1B promise vs. reality
The H-1B visa was created in 1990 under the Immigration and Nationality Act. It was meant to let companies bring in foreign workers for "specialty occupations" when no American worker could be found. Congress set the cap at 65,000 visas per year, later raising it to 85,000.
On paper, it looked like a narrow tool for filling rare shortages. In practice, the safeguards never existed and abuse has exploded.
Employers don't have to prove there's truly a shortage. They only need to claim they'll pay a "prevailing wage." Yet in reality, those wages are often well below market pay. On top of that, spouses and dependents arrive on H-4 visas, many of them also thus eligible to work. What was sold as a limited program has ballooned into a pipeline far larger than the statutory cap suggests.
U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector
A 'cap' that isn't a cap
What most people don't know is that there are entire categories of employers, universities, research institutions and qualifying nonprofits that are legally exempt from the annual cap. Which means they can sponsor unlimited numbers of foreign workers year-round.
An even lesser-known loophole makes the system even more porous: Once a worker is hired by a cap-exempt employer, that same worker can hold a second job at a private company that normally would be subject to the cap. This effectively allows corporations to skip the H-1B lottery and gain unlimited access to foreign workers under the protection of nonprofit sponsorship.
The Build Fellowship: A nonprofit mask for corporate labor
The Open Avenues Foundation/Build Fellowship shows how these exemptions are being commercialized. Marketed as an educational fellowship, it advertises itself as a way to connect foreign professionals with U.S. universities. But the program's own documents reveal its business model is actually a visa pipeline.
Fellows are placed in nominal nonprofit roles for just five hours per week. That's enough to qualify them for a cap-exempt H-1B visa. Once they've cleared that hurdle, they move into full-time jobs at private companies through concurrent H-1B filings.
Universities like George Washington University lend the program legitimacy. Through GW's Market Discovery Program, international startups gain access to American markets under the guise of academic collaboration, with subsidized office space in Washington, D.C.'s Penn West "innovation district."
Other nonprofit partners, like DREAM Venture Labs repeat the same pattern. They openly pitch the fellowship as a way for immigrant entrepreneurs to obtain nonprofit roles that open the door to cap-exempt visas.
Universities from Boston University to Ohio State, Vanderbilt and Illinois Tech provide the legal foundation, giving the program an aura of academic respectability. In reality, these partnerships act as visa gateways, enabling a parallel immigration system outside the federal cap.
By layering nonprofit sponsorship over private-sector jobs, Build allows companies to bypass the federal H-1B lottery, avoid stronger wage requirements and slip foreign workers into U.S. jobs with minimal oversight. In its 2023 annual report, Open Avenues proudly describes itself as a "cap-exempt H-1B provider" with a "solid track record."
The report reveals its goals:
* Market the cap-exempt model nationwide, licensing it to other nonprofits.
* "Open source" the approach to scale it across the country.
* Promote it as a repeatable pathway for global workers to secure careers in the U.S.
In practice, this means nonprofits and universities are converted into labor sponsors, their nonprofit status used as cover while corporations gain steady streams of foreign hires. It's a structure that looks academic on the outside, but functions as a staffing pipeline.
When Build claims that immigrant workers participate in the labor force at higher rates than native-born Americans, it is not evidence of a high-skilled labor shortage. It reflects a stacked system of visa programs like the H-1B, F-1/OPT, L-1, H-4 EAD and others that enable employers to sideline qualified Americans in favor of cheaper foreign labor.
Discrimination hidden under 'diversity' branding
The Build Fellowship markets itself as a champion of "diverse teams," claiming diversity as a central benefit of its model. But its own documents reveal that the program brings real problems, from communication barriers to outright discrimination. Instead of treating these as failures to fix, the fellowship brushes them off as acceptable trade-offs, arguing that the program's benefits outweigh the harms.
What's left unsaid is crucial: Diversity is not a legal basis for an H-1B visa. By law, the H-1B can be used only for specialty occupations and then only when no qualified American is available. It doesn't matter whether that American worker is "diverse" or not; the law is about protecting U.S. jobs, not advancing corporate diversity campaigns.
The reliance on diversity as justification is not unique. Recent congressional oversight has raised alarms that H-1B visas are being used to staff Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) roles at universities, hospitals and public institutions, positions that do not meet the statutory definition of a specialty occupation under federal law.
The core issue is not only statutory compliance, however, but the real impact on American workers. By importing foreign nationals to fill positions labeled as "diversity" roles, employers bypass U.S. talent, including members of America's own minority populations. Instead of opening pathways for underrepresented Americans, these roles are diverted to foreign nationals whose continued presence in the United States depends on maintaining employment. This creates a system where the goal of increasing diversity within American institutions is achieved not by advancing opportunities for historically disadvantaged U.S. groups, but by expanding visa pipelines that place foreign workers into these roles.
Control, not talent
Build Fellowship materials highlight that visa sponsorship makes workers "much less likely to leave." In this model, retention is not driven by performance, merit or opportunity; it is secured through immigration status. A fellow's ability to remain in the United States depends entirely on a sponsoring employer. Federal anti-trafficking guidance identifies this dependency as a potential indicator of labor exploitation, since a worker's legal right to stay is contingent on keeping the job, regardless of working conditions.
This arrangement departs from the original purpose of the H-1B program. Congress designed the visa to address narrow shortages in specialty occupations, with wage and worksite safeguards in place. Under models like Build, however, the visa operates as a tool to control labor supply. It becomes less about meeting genuine skill needs, and more about leverage, binding the worker to the employer through paperwork and legal dependency.
Federal oversight bodies have repeatedly warned that this structure is vulnerable to abuse. The Department of Labor's Office of Inspector General has reported criminal investigations exposing employers who misused temporary visa programs to commit labor trafficking. In one case, defendants tied to a transnational criminal organization allegedly exploited visa workers by charging unlawful fees, confiscating immigration documents, forcing them into physically demanding labor for little or no pay, housing them in degrading and unsanitary conditions and threatening deportation or violence.
The Office of Inspector General has also concluded that the H-1B program is "susceptible to significant fraud and abuse" by certain immigration agents, attorneys, labor brokers, employers and organized criminal groups.
The result is not a pipeline of specialized talent, but a system of dependency. Sponsorship functions less as a means of skills exchange and more as leverage, keeping workers tied to the employer who controls their legal status. For employers, this dependency brings clear financial advantages: Sponsored workers are less likely to leave for higher pay, less likely to demand competitive wages and less able to challenge conditions. Turnover costs are reduced, labor expenses are contained and the balance of power remains firmly with the sponsoring organization.
Build's fellowship structure capitalizes on this dependency, packaging visa sponsorship as a retention tool that guarantees employer control.
The benefactors' loophole
Build's benefactor guide reveals how the finances work. Every applicant must secure a "benefactor" to cover the cost of his or her visa. That benefactor can be an employer, a foreign company or even a shell LLC formed by the worker or a relative.
To qualify, applicants are required to make payments from a business account and demonstrate at least $250,000 in available funds or, alternatively, bypass the proof of funds by prepaying six months of fees in advance.
Build boasts a "99% acceptance rate," essentially turning immigration benefits into a purchasable commodity.
No employment commitment is required of the benefactor and payments can originate from entities outside the United States. Together, these elements create a system vulnerable to displacement of U.S. workers, manipulation of immigration rules and potential misuse of funds. For American professionals already navigating a competitive labor market, the effect is a system in which visa access can be financed and traded, while statutory protections for U.S. jobs are bypassed.
The pay-to-play pipeline
According to Build's pricing model, companies pay $4,000 per month for each participant. For that fee, Build places the worker in a token nonprofit role and secures cap-exempt status. From there, spouses and dependents also gain work authorization, multiplying the labor supply.
Nonprofits profit, too: They earn upfront fees, monthly "salary shares" and profits of $100 to $225 per fellow per month. A nonprofit hosting 50 fellows could generate more than $600,000 per year.
Build even offers to act directly as the visa sponsor, charging companies over $75 per hour for workers it places. At that point, it functions as both staffing agency and visa broker.
The numbers don't lie
Open Avenues has published extensive materials promoting its cap-exempt H-1B framework as a nonprofit innovation. The numbers, however, provide the clearest picture of how the model has been put into practice.
Between 2019 and 2025, Open Avenues filed 351 H-1B applications. In 2025 alone, it submitted 128 with most at the two lowest wage levels recognized by the Department of Labor. Many listed salaries under $60,000, well below industry standards.
The roles weren't limited to high-tech shortages. Petitions covered jobs in real estate, human resources, market research, finance and even graphic design, far outside the program's original purpose.
Nationwide, nonprofit and university-affiliated organizations secured 16,536 H-1B approvals in 2021, 23,079 in 2022, 25,019 in 2023 and 25,585 in 2024. By 2025, more than 3,200 nonprofit employers were listed as cap-exempt petitioners.
Taken together, the filings, federal statistics and Open Avenue's impressive list of "Company Partners" show how the nonprofit exemption has been operationalized into a very successful business model.
The bigger picture
Co-founder Danielle Goldman has been clear that her perspective is rooted in immigration law, citing her father's career as an immigration attorney and stating publicly, "We've always known the value of foreign talent in the United States." Michael Cruse, the fellowship's Immigration Program Co-Director, spent more than 15 years as an immigration lawyer for corporate and nonprofit clients before taking on the role of designing and managing its visa processes. Together, these backgrounds illustrate how the program has been constructed with insider legal expertise, ensuring that cap-exempt provisions are not incidental advantages, but central to its operating model.
The Build Fellowship by Open Avenues "law Firm Networks"
Closing the gap with cap
The Build Fellowship demonstrates how the system has drifted away from serving American interests. What was originally intended to address rare labor shortages has instead become a marketplace where visas are bought, sold and scaled, leaving American workers excluded.
Each loophole erodes fairness in the labor market. Every carve-out forces U.S. workers to compete not against genuine shortages, but against a system deliberately structured to undercut them. For American families, this translates into lost jobs, lower wages and diminished opportunities for future generations. For the nation, it represents a loss of sovereignty over who works and who benefits from the economy.
The H-1B cap was designed as a safeguard for American workers. Programs like Build reveal that, in practice, the cap no longer functions and unless the system is corrected, American workers will continue to bear the cost.
WND contacted the Build Fellowship with questions regarding its role in the H-1B cap-exempt process. In particular, Build was asked to address the contrast between its public branding as an educational fellowship and its own reports marketing the program as a cap-exempt H-1B model designed to scale nationally and provide corporations with steady access to foreign workers.
As of publication, Build has not responded. This article will be updated as the story develops.
