In recent months, we have seen an increase in Requests for Evidence (RFEs) and Notices of Intent to Revoke (NOIRs) focused on whether H-1B employees are working at the locations listed in the certified Labor Condition Application (LCA). In many of these cases, USCIS has flagged that the employee was not located within the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) covered by the prior LCA, and that an H-1B amendment was filed late or not at all.

Although H-1B amendment requirements for worksite changes have long been part of the regulatory framework, enforcement appears to be intensifying. Employers should revisit their internal processes to ensure that worksite and position changes are identified and addressed before they create status risk.

When Is an H-1B Amendment Required? The Legal Standard

An H-1B amendment is required when there is a material change in the terms and conditions of employment. The governing regulation at 8 C.F.R. §214.2(h)(2)(i)(E) requires a petitioner to file an amended or new petition to reflect material changes. In practical terms, this means that when the employment described in the approved petition changes in a way that affects eligibility, an H-1B amendment must be filed before the change takes effect.

In Matter of Simeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542 (AAO 2015), USCIS clarified that a change in the place of employment to a geographical area requiring a corresponding certified LCA is a material change. If the employee will work outside the geographic area covered by the certified LCA, an H-1B amendment is generally required before the employee begins working at the new location, unless the short-term placement provisions apply.

While worksite changes are the most common trigger, location is not the only consideration. An H-1B amendment may also be required where there is a substantial change in job duties or a restructuring that materially alters the terms and conditions of employment described in the original petition. Routine career progression or incremental expansion of duties within the same specialty occupation does not automatically require an amendment. The inquiry is whether the changes rise to the level of a material modification that would have affected the original adjudication or the underlying LCA.

Why MSA Boundaries Matter More Than Employers Realize

Many employers assume that a transfer within the same company, or even within the same state, does not trigger H-1B amendment requirements. That assumption can be incorrect. The relevant question is not whether the employer remains the same, but whether the new worksite is within the same MSA listed on the certified LCA.

We are seeing RFEs where USCIS compares the LCA location to payroll records, pay statements, and employee address information. In some cases, the discrepancy appears to have been identified because the employee’s residential address or pay records reflected a different city than the LCA worksite. In third-party placement cases, USCIS has examined client letters and statements of work to determine whether the actual worksite matches what was represented in the petition.

Even internal office moves can create exposure. A transfer from one corporate office to another within the same company may still require an H-1B amendment if the new office is outside the original MSA. In several recent matters, the delay was not intentional; HR or management simply did not notify immigration counsel of the move in real time. The absence of intent, however, does not eliminate compliance risk.

When these changes are not identified in advance, the issue often surfaces months later during an extension filing, site visit, or broader USCIS review.

 

Late Amendments and Worksite Discrepancies: How Administrative Lapses Become Status Risk

One of the most concerning patterns we are seeing is the filing of H-1B amendments months after a worksite change has already occurred. In many cases, the delay is administrative rather than deliberate. An employee transfers between offices, begins long-term remote work, or moves to a new client location without immigration review at the time of the change. Once the issue is identified, the employer attempts to file an H-1B amendment to correct the record. However, a late-filed amendment does not automatically cure the period during which the employee was working outside the approved MSA.

When USCIS determines that an employee began working at a location not covered by the certified LCA before an H-1B amendment was filed, the agency may question whether the employee maintained H-1B status during that period. In some cases, USCIS issues an RFE seeking clarification of the timeline and the scope of work performed at the new site. In more serious matters, Notices of Intent to Revoke have alleged failure to adhere to the terms of the approved petition and certified LCA.

What begins as an internal administrative oversight can escalate into a broader compliance review. Location discrepancies may prompt scrutiny of wage obligations, LCA posting requirements, and the accuracy of representations made in the original filing. USCIS appears increasingly willing to verify employment details through direct employer contact, site visits, and follow-up inquiries, rather than relying solely on the documents submitted with the petition. Where inconsistencies are identified, the agency may request additional evidence or initiate further review to determine whether the approved petition accurately reflects the employee’s actual employment conditions.

Compliance Strategies to Reduce H-1B Amendment Exposure

Because H-1B amendment issues most often arise from internal communication gaps rather than deliberate noncompliance, prevention requires structured internal processes. Employers should implement clear reporting protocols requiring advance notice to HR or immigration counsel before any material change in work location, long-term remote work arrangement outside the original MSA, transition to a new client site, or substantial modification of job duties or title.

Periodic internal audits can further reduce risk. Comparing active LCAs and approved petitions against current payroll records, tax withholding locations, worksite assignments, and actual job responsibilities allows employers to identify discrepancies before they surface in an RFE or site visit. Employers should also verify MSA boundaries rather than assuming geographic proximity, or remaining within the same state, is sufficient to avoid amendment requirements.

This proactive approach is particularly important in the current adjudication environment. In prior years, some employers addressed potential maintenance concerns by filing a new H-1B petition for consular processing rather than requesting a change of status, thereby avoiding a direct adjudication of whether the employee had continuously maintained status in the United States. Under the current fee framework, however, maintenance findings may carry significantly greater consequences. A failure to maintain status may result not only in denial of a change of status request, but also in substantial additional filing fee exposure. As a result, worksite discrepancies or unreported material job changes that once might have been viewed as administrative corrections now present materially higher financial and adjudicatory risk.

For these reasons, when an H-1B amendment is required due to a worksite change or substantial position modification, it should be filed before the change takes effect. Early review and timely filing remain the most effective tools for reducing exposure.

Practical Takeaways for Employers

While the governing H-1B amendment standards have not changed, the practical risk environment has. Recent RFEs and NOIRs suggest that USCIS is placing renewed emphasis on whether employers are adhering to the geographic and positional scope of their certified LCAs and approved petitions.

Employers that treat location or title changes as purely administrative decisions may face downstream risk, including findings that the employee failed to maintain status or that the petition approval should be revoked. By contrast, employers that implement structured reporting, periodic review, and timely H-1B amendment filing procedures can substantially reduce exposure.

Worksite and position compliance are no longer peripheral considerations in the H-1B process. They are active enforcement priorities.

By: Adena Bowman

Adena Bowman is a Senior Associate Attorney at Reddy Neumann Brown PC with over 12 years of experience in U.S. immigration law. She helps clients ranging from small businesses to large multinational corporations bring workers to the U.S. and stay compliant with immigration regulations. She also guides individual clients through employment, investment, and family-based immigration matters. Clients rely on her for clear guidance, strategic planning, and personalized support in navigating complex immigration challenges.