Sara Gonzales of BlazeTV tracked a puzzling company in Plano, Texas, that sponsors multiple H-1B workers yet appears to operate out of an empty office and a dead phone line, and her on-camera confrontation with the listed director turned heated. She traces company records, ownership changes, and USCIS listings, visits both the business address and the director’s home, and presses for public access files that could clarify whether visa rules were respected. The resulting exchange raises fresh questions about how some visa-dependent setups might be structured and whether enforcement is keeping pace with paperwork. This piece follows that investigation and the tense conversation it produced.
Sara started by describing the company’s paper trail and odd signals: a business registered in 2017, an apparently inactive Plano office, and a website and phone number that no longer worked. She says the original officers were from Andhra Pradesh, India, and notes a change in the company’s official leadership linked to family ties. The pattern she outlines points to a possible setup where nominal owners, dependents, and visa holders shift roles on paper in ways that deserve scrutiny.
“Let me give you the details on this company,” says Sara. “In 2017 they formed this company with officers from Andhra Pradesh, India. They moved to Razor Boulevard allegedly in 2019, and in 2024, the previous owners, Laxmi Boggula and another gentleman, removed themselves as the directors and listed Nagarjuna Reddy Sakam as shareholder and director,” she explains.
“Now what we presume after doing some digging is that this new director, Nagarjuna … is actually the old director Laxmi’s husband. So it seems like we may be stumbling upon an H-1B/H-4 dependent situation where the woman opens the business and the H-1B visa worker actually runs it,” she continues. That line of inquiry is familiar to anyone watching how immigration rules and family ties can be used to blur employer responsibilities. For Republicans who favor strong rule of law, it’s the kind of case that stokes calls for clearer oversight and tougher enforcement.
The confrontation moved from documents to doorsteps when Sara visited the man now listed as director at his personal residence. She asked pointed questions about the empty office, the defunct contact points, and the number of H-1B workers the company reportedly sponsors. He told her the public access files were at a new location in Frisco, shifting the trail rather than answering the core questions.
That refusal to directly reconcile the public data with on-the-ground reality pushed the exchange toward raised voices. After Sara said she would go to the Frisco address to pull the files, the director bristled and accused her of “creating nonsense.” The conversation spiraled when he said, “Who the f**k are you come ask all these things?” and the reporter fired back with equal force. Sara’s pushback kept returning to a simple point: if everything is aboveboard, why worry about an outside reporter’s questions?
Sara pressed on about who actually ran the company before the ownership transfer. “Who was running the business at that time?” she asked, and he first answered, “Me.” He then adjusted to say, “We [he and his wife] both are running [the business].” Those admissions matter because H-1B holders are not supposed to be simultaneously employed by a sponsoring company in ways that conflict with visa rules. “You’re admitting that you were running a company that’s generating income. That’s against the H-1B rules,” Sara said plainly.
The encounter closed on a legal threat when the director warned he would sue after being recorded without permission, and Sara promised to report what she’d found to the proper channels. This is exactly the kind of on-the-ground journalism that turns paperwork anomalies into enforceable leads, and it shows why public access documents and visits still matter. For anyone watching, the episode underscores the gaps between filing records and real workplace reality.
– YouTube
