An H-1B employee who moves to a new city without notifying their employer's immigration team is, in most cases, violating the terms of their visa. The employer may not find out until USCIS raises it at the next extension filing, by which point the employee has been out of compliance for months or years. This article explains the rules, the consequences, and what HR should have in place to prevent it.
Last updated June 2026. Immigration rules are subject to change. Confirm current requirements with qualified immigration counsel before making employment decisions.
Key takeaways
- Every location where an H-1B employee works, including their home, generally needs to be covered by a Labor Condition Application (LCA). This applies whether the employee works remotely full-time or on a hybrid schedule.
- If an employee moves within the same Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), the government-defined geographic boundary around a core city and its surrounding counties, an amendment may not be required, but the employer should post an LCA notice at the new address and update the Public Access File.
- If an employee moves to a different MSA, the employer may need to file an amended H-1B petition with a new LCA before the employee starts working from the new location. Working there first can create significant compliance exposure.
- The most common failure: HR updates payroll and internal systems when an employee reports a new address, but does not notify immigration counsel. The clock starts ticking from the day the employee began working from the uncovered location.
- Immigration attorneys are increasingly seeing location discrepancies flagged at extension time, often years after a move, based on address and employment records pulled during adjudication. By the time it surfaces, the options for correcting it are limited.
- DOL penalties for willful violations reach up to $67,367 per violation, plus backpay. Multi-year, multi-employee violations can reach seven figures.
The fundamental rule: LCA coverage for every work location
Under Department of Labor regulations, every location where an H-1B employee performs work generally needs to be listed on a Labor Condition Application and covered by the underlying petition. This includes the employee's home when they work remotely.
When an employee works from home, their residence is treated as a worksite for immigration and labor law purposes. In practice, that means the home address should appear on the LCA, the prevailing wage determination should account for that location's geographic market, Public Access File requirements apply there, and LCA posting obligations are triggered.
The 2025 H-1B Modernization Rule, which took effect January 17, 2025, codified the authority of USCIS's Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS) unit to conduct site visits at every location where an H-1B employee works, has worked, or will work, including home offices. Employers who refuse to cooperate with a site visit can face petition denial or revocation.
Three scenarios and what each requires
Where the employee is moving to, relative to where their current LCA covers, generally determines what the employer may need to do. The specifics depend on the situation, which is why looping in immigration counsel before a move is finalized matters.
The MSA is the government-defined boundary that groups a core city with its surrounding counties. Dallas/Fort Worth is one MSA. San Francisco/Oakland/Berkeley is another. Moving from Dallas to a suburb in the same metro area likely stays within the same MSA. Moving from Dallas to Houston crosses into a different one.
If the employee's new work location falls within the same MSA as the address on their current LCA, an amendment may not be required and a new LCA may not need to be filed.
However, two steps are still generally expected. The employer should post an LCA notice in two conspicuous places at the new address for 10 consecutive business days. The Public Access File should be updated to reflect the new location.
The common failure here: HR updates payroll and the internal directory, but no one notifies immigration counsel. The posting never happens. The Public Access File is never updated. The violation is administrative, but it becomes a compliance gap that creates exposure during a DOL audit.
If the employee relocates to a geographic area not covered by their current LCA, the employer may need to file an amended H-1B petition with a new LCA before the employee begins working from the new location.
The new LCA should reflect the prevailing wage for the position in the new location. Different metro areas have significantly different prevailing wage rates. An employee paid appropriately for Dallas may be underpaid relative to the San Francisco prevailing wage. The amended petition may need to bring the salary into compliance with the new location's requirements.
In practice, working first and filing later creates significant compliance exposure. The moment an employee starts working from an uncovered location, the work may fall outside the terms of their H-1B. The general expectation from immigration counsel is to have the amendment in place before work begins at the new site.
DOL regulations provide a short-term placement exception for temporary work at a location not covered by the existing LCA. An employer may place an H-1B employee at an uncovered location for up to 30 days in a year without a new LCA, or up to 60 days if the employee's primary worksite is covered by the existing LCA and they continue to use it as their base.
This exception generally covers genuinely temporary situations: a client site visit, a training, a short-term project assignment. It is not designed as a workaround for a permanent or long-running remote arrangement. If the employee is working from another location on a recurring or indefinite basis, the short-term exception may not apply regardless of the number of days logged.
What this looks like when it goes wrong
A software engineer on H-1B status was hired to work in Dallas, Texas, at a Level 4 prevailing wage of $156,998 annually. Her employer's remote work policy allowed employees to work from home, and her LCA listed her Dallas residence as a worksite.
One year into her three-year H-1B, she relocated to San Francisco to be closer to family. She notified HR and payroll, and her tax records were updated to reflect California. No one notified immigration counsel.
The San Francisco prevailing wage for the same Level 4 position was approximately $213,512, a difference of $56,514 per year. Her move to a different MSA required a new LCA and an amended petition filed before she began working from San Francisco. None of that happened.
Two years later, when her employer filed her extension petition, USCIS flagged a discrepancy between the approved Dallas worksite and the address and employment records reflected in the petition and issued a Request for Evidence. By that point, the employer had two years of prevailing wage underpayment ($113,028) and an employee who had been working without proper LCA coverage for the entire period. The extension itself was at risk.
The resolution required: corrective amended petitions and LCAs, prevailing wage backpay, specialized RFE response preparation, and enhanced compliance procedures across the company's entire H-1B population. A communication gap at the address-change stage turned into a six-figure problem with lasting consequences for the employee's immigration timeline.
How USCIS and DOL find these violations
Location violations used to be easy to miss. That is no longer the case. Government agencies are sharing data and using automated cross-referencing in ways that make these gaps far more likely to surface than they were even a few years ago.
What's at stake
The consequences fall on both the employee and the employer, and they compound over time.
For the employee
A status violation finding can affect every future immigration filing. An H-1B extension, an I-485 green card application, and a consular visa renewal all involve a review of the applicant's immigration history. A period of unauthorized work, even one that arose from an employer's administrative failure, can surface at any of these stages. In serious cases, a finding of unlawful presence can result in a bar on re-entering the United States.
For the employer
DOL penalties for LCA violations are assessed per violation under 20 CFR 655.810, with 2025 penalty amounts as follows:
| Violation type | Maximum civil penalty | Additional liability |
|---|---|---|
| Willful violation | Up to $67,367 per violation | Plus backpay to affected employees |
| Substantial failure | Up to $9,624 per violation | Plus backpay to affected employees |
| Technical violation | Up to $2,364 per violation | Plus backpay to affected employees |
For employers with multiple affected employees or multi-year violations, total exposure can reach seven figures. Systemic violations can also trigger debarment from the H-1B program for up to three years, which prohibits filing any new H-1B petitions during the debarment period.
What HR should put in place
The root cause of most location violations is a communication gap: the employee tells HR, HR updates payroll, and no one tells immigration counsel. The fix is a process, not a policy document that sits in the handbook.
-
1Treat every address change as an immigration eventAny change of address for an H-1B employee, even within the same city, should trigger a notification to immigration counsel before it is processed in payroll or HR systems. In my experience, the LCA posting step gets missed more often than any other, even for same-MSA moves. Getting immigration counsel involved first prevents that.
-
2Build immigration review into your remote work approval workflowBefore any H-1B employee is approved to work remotely from a new location, immigration counsel should confirm whether the location is covered by the existing LCA, and if not, what may need to be filed and when. Approval of a remote work arrangement and immigration clearance for that arrangement are two separate things. Both should happen before the employee begins working from the new location.
-
3Conduct a current-population auditCompare the work locations on file with immigration counsel against the home addresses in payroll and HR systems. Discrepancies identify employees who may already be out of compliance. Catching these proactively, before an extension is filed, gives you options that catching them at the extension stage does not.
-
4Tell employees what to report and why it mattersMany employees on H-1B status do not know that moving to another city requires their employer to file immigration paperwork before they start working from the new address. They inform HR, assume the matter is handled, and carry on. A direct conversation about the reporting obligation and its consequences should be part of onboarding and any remote work policy communication.
-
5Check your Public Access FilesDOL audits examine whether the Public Access File for each H-1B employee is current and complete. For employees with home offices or multiple worksites, that file should include documentation for each location. Gaps in the PAF are among the easiest violations for auditors to identify.
The compliance gap in most location violations comes down to a workflow problem: a process that touches payroll and HR never reaches immigration counsel. Closing that gap is a process design question. The question is whether the right people are informed at the right moment, before work begins at the new location.
Frequently asked questions
Within the same MSA, a new LCA and amendment may not be required. However, the employer should post an LCA notice at the new address for 10 consecutive business days and update the Public Access File. Contact immigration counsel before the move is finalized so the posting is handled correctly.
Contact immigration counsel immediately. The response depends on how long the employee has been working from the uncovered location, whether an extension is approaching, and the specific geographic change involved. In some cases, a corrective amendment can be filed. The exposure cannot be eliminated retroactively, but acting quickly limits it. The worst outcome is discovering the violation at extension time with no corrective filings on record.
Probably not, if it is genuinely temporary and within the short-term placement exception. The exception covers up to 30 days per year at an uncovered location, or up to 60 days if the employee's primary worksite is actively being used. Document the arrangement in case it is ever reviewed. If these workcations are recurring or if the same employee is spending significant time in another state across multiple trips, consult immigration counsel to confirm the exception still applies.
Only if the prevailing wage for the position in the new location is higher than what the employee is currently earning. The amended LCA should reflect the actual prevailing wage for the SOC code and location. If the new location's prevailing wage exceeds the employee's current salary, the salary may need to come up before the amendment is filed. This is one reason to run the compliance check before approving a move, not after.
Business travel and short-term stays generally fall within the short-term placement exception, as long as the employee's primary worksite is covered and the duration stays within the allowed limits. What distinguishes this from a compliance-triggering situation is that the employee is not changing their primary place of employment. If the employee is working from a hotel in another state for months at a time, that is no longer travel and should be reviewed by immigration counsel.
Yes. H-1B employees should update their address through their myUSCIS online account when they move. This keeps their record current with USCIS independent of whatever immigration filings the employer handles. It is a simple step that employees often overlook, and it is worth including in any communication you send when an employee reports a new address.
Generally, yes. The LCA requirements for E-3 (Australian nationals) and H-1B1 (Chilean and Singaporean nationals) are substantially similar to H-1B. Every work location generally needs to be covered, MSA rules apply, and DOL posting requirements apply at each worksite including home offices. The amendment triggers and potential penalties are similar. Confirm specifics with immigration counsel for each visa category.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult qualified immigration counsel before making decisions about your sponsored workforce.
Get actionable insights for workforce planning. Delivered once a week.
.svg)
