The low attendance rate and the lack of checks and balances to enforce attendance lead to workers being handed counterfeit contracts, having problems with payment of wages stipulated in the contract, receiving inadequate accommodations or being asked to do a job different than the one initially promised. The Survey of Returned Migrants 2007 found that “Signing of a contract before departure was not universal, and only direct visa holders kept a copy of the contract. Only one-third of the migrants were aware of the Foreign Service Agreement (FSA).”29 The fact that such a low percentage of workers were aware of the FSA, which lists the details of the employer, their job and other basic information illustrates the lack of agency workers often have in their own migration process. It also demonstrates the perilous, and in the case of JPP’s petitioners, life-threatening consequences of being able to migrate without verifying information in person as is required by law. Pakistani missions abroad substantiated the importance of pre-departure briefings, identifying them as a vital step in preventing the trafficking of innocent migrants. Not showing up to the Protector’s office means that workers are often unaware of the fact that they have paid for State Life Insurance or have grievance redressal mechanisms available to them through the Bureau of Emigration. This means that many cases of grievances against OEPs go unreported and even in cases of reporting, conversations with the BEOE and analysis of complaints issues revealed that the cancelling of an OEP’s licence was a rarity, with first steps being to issue warnings. In some cases, OEPs, after having engaged in illegal activities, close down their offices and disappear off the radar, or still continue to operate out of their houses. In these cases, the OEP’s only loss is the BEOE forfeiting their Rs. 300,000 (USD 2,115) security fee deposit. For many who engage in the narcotics trafficking trade, this is a small price to pay. Our informal interviews with licenced OEPs in Lahore, Karachi, Peshawar and Islamabad showed that it was common practice for a fraudulent OEP to relocate and open an office under another name. Even if prospective migrants are emigrating through licenced OEPs, the first contact of many workers in their job search is with subagents who are unregulated and unlicensed. Since many migrants do not even make it to the mandatory pre-departure orientation training, they have no way of verifying the authenticity of the licence of their OEP. This also means migrants may have been compelled to pay recruitment costs to various intermediaries. Thus, even while the official costs of recruitment are low, it is common for workers to be charged more than the actual costs of their recruitment. Lack of enforcement of attendance at pre-departure briefings leaves prospective migrants unaware of their rights and protections under Pakistani law and the country they are travelling to. Briefings adequately administered also have the power of educating workers on the correct procedure for their recruitment and employment, how to identify irregularities in their recruitment, and where and how to lodge complaints about their treatment. In the absence of adequate briefings, workers are unaware that they are required to have a contract in their own language and secondly, unable to enforce or verify the authenticity of their contract 12