Resources

Since the Supreme Court's decision in Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), one principle has remained settled law: States have no role in the deportation or removal process. Immigration enforcement belongs exclusively to the federal government.

That principle has not changed. But something else has.

Recent breakthroughs in H-1B credential fraud investigations have handed state and local prosecutors a powerful new tool. A fraud tool grounded entirely in their own state criminal statutes. When that tool is used and produces a felony conviction, federal immigration law takes over. The conviction supplies DHS with exactly what it needs to initiate removal proceedings, denaturalization actions, or both.

State and county prosecutors still cannot deport anyone. What they can do is investigate and prosecute fraud committed against institutions in their jurisdiction, setting in motion a chain of federal consequences.

Recent Reports of Credential Fraud

Law enforcement in India recently seized nearly 100,000 fake degree certificates linked to at least 28 universities, covering engineering, medicine, and nursing. Some of these fraudulent credentials were allegedly used to support H-1B visa applications in the United States. Individual certificates reportedly sold for as little as $1,400.

Credential fraud is a global industry, thriving wherever educational credentials carry value, verification is lax, and demand outstrips legitimate supply. The Indian investigation matters because it produced concrete, documentary evidence, including names of issuing institutions, serial numbers, patterns, and issuance dates. All of that information is now flowing into U.S. government databases. This information can be matched against historical visa and immigration records.

The legal machinery does not care where the investigation originates. Any credential fraud probe that surfaces verifiable data can trigger the same consequences. The Indian credential case is likely not an outlier; it is a preview.

Why States and Counties Can Prosecute This

The constitutional line drawn in Arizona v. United States remains clear: States cannot enforce immigration law, arrest individuals for immigration violations, or create their own deportation procedures. Federal law occupies the field.

But submitting a fake degree to a state university is not an immigration violation. It can be considered fraud against a domestic institution. It may be forgery. It may be falsification of records. Every state has criminal statutes addressing exactly this conduct. A prosecutor pursuing these charges is enforcing state law, not immigration law. The defendant’s immigration status is irrelevant to the state case.

This distinction is the entire mechanism. Local prosecutors can now target criminal conduct that produces significant federal immigration consequences.

Examples abound. In New York, Penal Law § 190.65 (Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree) is a Class E felony punishable by up to four years in prison. It applies when a person obtains property through false pretenses. A fake degree submitted to CUNY, SUNY, or a private New York university fits squarely within this statute, with the “property” being the admission slot and associated educational benefits.

In Texas, Penal Code § 37.10 (Tampering with Governmental Records) elevates to a second-degree felony when done with intent to defraud. State university admissions records qualify as governmental records. Recent legislation, including Senate Bill 1379 (effective September 1, 2025), further strengthened forgery penalties.

In Ohio, Ohio Revised Code § 2913.42 (Tampering with Records) becomes a third-degree felony when the victim’s loss exceeds $150,000. Ohio State Medical School admission, with its substantial subsidized value, can readily meet this threshold. Separately, Ohio Revised Code § 2921.13 creates a civil cause of action for harmed parties, potentially benefiting displaced legitimate applicants.

In California, Penal Code § 487 (Grand Theft by False Pretenses) is a felony when the value taken exceeds $950, an amount that could be easily satisfied by access to a UC or CSU program.

This Is Not Just a State AG Story

This pipeline is not limited to attorneys general or high-profile statewide actions. It is available to every elected county prosecutor in any jurisdiction with a college or university.

The Franklin County Prosecutor in Ohio has jurisdiction over crimes at Ohio State University. The Travis County District Attorney in Texas covers the University of Texas at Austin. The same is true for prosecutors in Brazos County (Texas A&M), Erie County (SUNY Buffalo), and countless others. These local officials need no special authorization, no task force, and no coordination with federal agencies. They only need a complaint, university referral, or independent investigation, and then they may present charges to their Grand Jury.

The Fingerprint Pipeline: How a State Arrest Becomes a Federal Case

Under the federal Secure Communities program, fingerprints of every person arrested by state or local law enforcement are automatically transmitted to ICE and checked against federal immigration databases, usually the same day. No special agreement or referral is required.

Once ICE matches the fingerprints to an immigration file involving suspected credential fraud, a detainer can be issued. In states with mandatory cooperation laws, such as Texas under Senate Bill 8 (effective January 1, 2026), local jails must honor the detainer. The individual can move from local custody directly into federal immigration detention.

What a Felony Conviction Does: Immigration Consequences

A felony fraud conviction triggers multiple mandatory or near-mandatory consequences under federal immigration law:

• Crime Involving Moral Turpitude (CIMT): Nearly all fraud convictions qualify. Under INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(i), this renders many lawful permanent residents deportable and creates inadmissibility for nonimmigrants.
• Aggravated Felony: Under INA § 101(a)(43)(M)(i), a fraud or deceit offense involving a loss to the victim exceeding $10,000 is an aggravated felony. Admission to a four-year university may represent a substantial economic benefit. State subsidies and institutional resources that are supported by taxpayer funds may far exceed this threshold over the course of a degree program. At professional schools (medicine, law, engineering), the value can reach hundreds of thousands of dollars. In most credential fraud cases involving university admissions, this could easily satisfy the loss requirement, particularly when prosecutors document tuition, subsidies, or harm to displaced legitimate applicants.

An aggravated felony triggers mandatory detention (INA § 236(c)), mandatory removal (INA § 238), and eliminates most forms of relief, including cancellation of removal, asylum, and withholding based on hardship. Equities such as length of residence or U.S. citizen family members become irrelevant.

Additional bars apply: a permanent re-entry bar (INA § 212(a)(9)(A)(i)) and document fraud grounds under INA § 237(a)(3) that independently block cancellation of removal.

Denaturalization Trigger

For naturalized citizens, such a conviction provides powerful evidence for denaturalization under 8 U.S.C. § 1451. Under Maslenjak v. United States, 582 U.S. 335 (2017), the government must show the fraud was material to naturalization. A state conviction for submitting a fake credential supplies direct evidence of exactly that fraud, dramatically strengthening and accelerating the federal case.

What This Means Going Forward

The Indian investigation is one data point in a larger global pattern. Each new probe, regardless of the country where it is initiated, generates fresh institutional data that feeds into U.S. databases and matches against historical visa applications.

State and county prosecutors now possess specific, actionable information: named institutions, document patterns, and a public narrative that makes credential fraud prosecutable. They also possess long-standing fraud statutes that may cover this conduct.

A county district attorney who has never considered H-1B issues can still investigate and prosecute admissions fraud at the local university. The immigration consequences flow from these local convictions into federal immigration law, independent of the prosecutor’s intent.

States have never been able to deport anyone, and they still cannot. But through routine enforcement of their own criminal laws, local prosecutors now have a pipeline that can produce swift and severe federal immigration consequences.

If you have questions about how state criminal statutes may intersect with federal immigration enforcement or related compliance risks, please contact Member Rob Ratliff at raratliff@bmdllc.com for more information.