Dallas-based immigration attorney Chand Parvathaneni has issued a detailed response to a viral social media video and subsequent political commentary that accused him of approving hundreds of thousands of H-1B visa applications, calling the claims “inaccurate and misleading” and warning against the spread of false narratives around the US immigration system.
The Chand Parvathaneni H-1B visa controversy erupted after right-wing influencer Kaylee Campbell posted a video alleging that Parvathaneni had personally approved more than 400,000 H-1B visas nationwide by 2024 and over 700,000 in Texas in 2025. The video quickly gained traction across conservative social media circles before being amplified by several MAGA-aligned commentators.
The controversy escalated further when US Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene shared the video on X, asserting that “North Texas seems to have a serious H-1B visa fraud scam going,” and claiming that a single immigration attorney had brought in more than 700,000 H-1B workers in one year. Greene used the claim to urge Republican support for her proposed legislation seeking to end the H-1B visa programme altogether.
Chand Parvathaneni: “I Do Not Approve Visas,”
Responding publicly for the first time, Parvathaneni categorically denied the allegations, stating that he has no authority to approve or deny visas or any immigration benefits.
“I do not approve visas, nor do I have any authority to approve or deny any kind of immigration benefit,” Parvathaneni said, according to New India Broad. “All petitions are adjudicated solely by the US government through US Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Department of Labor.”
He clarified that immigration attorneys function only as legal representatives who prepare and file applications on behalf of employers and employees, while all final decisions rest exclusively with federal agencies.
Clarifying the Numbers Behind the Claims
Addressing the headline-grabbing figures, Parvathaneni said the numbers cited in the viral video were not only misleading but mathematically implausible. He explained that over the course of his entire legal career, he has filed approximately 20,000 Labor Condition Applications (LCAs), many of which were repeat filings for the same individuals.
“These include extensions, amendments, and location changes that the law requires to be filed separately,” he said. “They are not new workers, and they certainly do not represent hundreds of thousands of people.”
Several social media users and immigration experts independently fact-checked the claims, pointing out that the total number of H-1B visas issued annually by the US government does not align with the figures mentioned in the video.
Chand Parvathaneni: Wages and Work-From-Home Allegations Addressed
As part of the Chand Parvathaneni H-1B visa controversy, online commentators also accused him of facilitating low wages and improper work-from-home arrangements for foreign workers. Parvathaneni rejected these claims, noting that employers are legally required to pay prevailing wages determined by the Department of Labor.
“Employers set salaries to meet or exceed legally mandated prevailing wages,” he said, adding that attorneys have no role in arbitrarily lowering compensation. He also dismissed allegations of undisclosed remote work, explaining that employers must clearly disclose job location and work arrangements during the filing process.
Call for Constructive Debate, Not False Allegations
While defending himself, Parvathaneni said he welcomed policy discussions on reforming the H-1B programme, provided they are grounded in facts and do not harm US workers.
“I encourage constructive criticism,” he said. “Criticism to refine the H-1B program should be done in a way that not a single US worker is impacted. But please do not lay out any false allegations.”
Video Deleted Amid Backlash
Campbell deleted her original video before Parvathaneni’s response was made public, following mounting backlash and scrutiny over the claims. Online users highlighted inconsistencies in the figures cited and questioned how a private attorney could wield authority reserved for federal agencies.