H1B Database: Employer Guide to Data & Compliance

The H-1B visa program is one of the most data-rich areas of U.S. immigration, and employers are expected to evidence compliance using that data. Petitions must be supported by the correct wage, location and job classification documentation, and much of the underlying information is publicly available. In practice, what many call the “H-1B database” is a set of official datasets published by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Department of Labor (DOL). Used properly, these datasets help employers benchmark pay, understand adjudication trends, and prepare defensible records for audits and site visits.

What this article is about: This guide explains how HR, legal and compliance teams can locate, interpret and apply H-1B data to improve workforce planning, wage governance and documentation quality. It clarifies what each official dataset does (and does not) show, how to avoid common analytical mistakes, and how to integrate external data with internal systems to strengthen compliance—covering topics such as material-change amendments, Public Access Files (PAFs) and anti-discrimination duties.

By understanding how the H-1B data ecosystem works, employers can:

• Benchmark salaries lawfully against DOL prevailing wage levels and internal pay bands.
• Analyse approval and RFE patterns using the USCIS Employer Data Hub to anticipate scrutiny.
• Compare regional wage differences by MSA to inform location and remote/hybrid decisions.
• Improve audit readiness through consistent documentation and timely amendments for material changes.
• Build dashboards that track status, expiries and compliance KPIs with proper privacy and access controls.

Section A: Understanding H-1B Data Sources

There is no single, unified “H-1B database.” Instead, employers must work across a constellation of official releases that each capture different attributes—approvals and denials, wages and worksites, occupations and industries—on different refresh cycles. Knowing what each source contains, what it omits and how current it is will determine whether your analysis is accurate and your compliance posture defensible.

1) USCIS H-1B Employer Data Hub

The USCIS H-1B Employer Data Hub aggregates first-decision outcomes on H-1B petitions (initial and continuing). It reports, by fiscal year, employer name and the last four digits of the employer’s tax ID, petition type, and geography filters (e.g., city, state, ZIP, NAICS). Pending cases are excluded, and refreshes are periodic, often with a time lag. Critically, the Hub does not publish wage amounts, detailed RFE/denial reasons or a unique key that ties a USCIS petition directly to a specific LCA.

How to use it: Treat Hub figures as directional evidence for trend analysis—approval ratios, initial vs continuing mix, and occupation or geography patterns. Pair the trends with DOL wage and worksite data before you draw any salary conclusions or design policy changes.

2) DOL OFLC LCA Disclosure Data

The DOL Office of Foreign Labor Certification releases disclosure files covering certified LCAs. These files typically include employer name, FEIN, SOC code/title, prevailing wage source and level (I–IV), offered wage (and unit), full-time/part-time flag, H-1B-dependency/willful-violator indicators, and worksite geography (city/county/state/ZIP). This is the primary public source for lawful wage benchmarking and location analysis for H-1B purposes.

Scope and caveats: Disclosure data reflects determinations (e.g., Certified, Certified-Withdrawn, Withdrawn, Denied) for LCAs only; certification does not guarantee USCIS petition approval. Multi-employee or multi-location LCAs complicate interpretation, and timing differences between certification and subsequent USCIS adjudication can produce apparent mismatches.

PAF alignment: Employers must create the Public Access File within one working day of filing the LCA and include, among other items, the certified LCA, the wage rate statement, the prevailing-wage source/version and posting evidence. Cross-check disclosure entries against your PAF and payroll data for internal consistency.

3) Prevailing Wage Data (BLS OES) vs Offered Wage

Prevailing wages for H-1B generally rely on Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) data, as implemented by DOL, mapped to SOC 2018 occupations and local wage areas. Employers must pay the higher of the prevailing wage or the actual wage paid to similarly employed workers. Comparing the LCA’s offered wage to the correct OES-based prevailing wage for the SOC and area is the compliant way to validate pay.

Practice points: Make sure the SOC reflects the job’s primary duties (not just its title); confirm the wage area (MSA/county) matches the place of employment; and record the exact wage source and year in the PAF so an auditor can reproduce your figure against the then-current OES table.

4) PERM Data vs LCA Data

PERM (permanent labor certification) and H-1B LCA filings serve different purposes and apply different evidentiary standards. PERM roles often require higher minimums in practice and can attract higher prevailing wages. Using PERM figures to benchmark H-1B pay can therefore overstate required wages. For H-1B pay policies and filings, rely on LCA data and its underlying prevailing wage for the specific SOC and worksite.

5) Identifiers and Codes (FEIN, NAICS, SOC, MSA)

Reliable analysis depends on clean identifiers. FEIN distinguishes companies with similar names; NAICS provides industry context; SOC maps duties to wage grids; and MSA/county anchors the geographic wage area. Maintain internal crosswalks from company job architecture to SOC codes; store worksite geocodes; and deduplicate on FEIN + SOC + worksite + LCA number where available. Reconcile HRIS titles to SOC duty statements and flag records where offered wage is below the prevailing wage for the same SOC/area/level.

6) Data Gaps and Common Pitfalls

• Job title variance: vendor-specific or inflated titles skew comparisons—anchor to SOC duties and tasks.
• Multiple LCAs per role: common in consulting; interpret wage ranges cautiously and match to actual assignments.
• Remote/hybrid worksites: wage area follows where work is performed; verify LCA coverage when home/client sites change.
• Update lags: USCIS refreshes are periodic; OFLC is quarterly/annual; align dashboards and review cadences accordingly.
• No universal key: USCIS and DOL files lack a shared unique ID; expect approximate joins and validate with internal case numbers.

Section A Summary: Think of the H-1B “database” as an ecosystem. USCIS outcome data reveals adjudication trends, while DOL disclosure files and OES wage tables govern lawful pay and location analysis. Mastering scope limits, refresh cycles and identifier hygiene is the foundation for accurate benchmarking and defensible reporting.

Section B: Practical Use Cases for Employers

For employers managing H-1B programs, the real value of public data emerges when it is translated into practical insight. The official datasets can help organisations align pay with law and market trends, manage headcount strategically, and anticipate areas of risk. This section sets out the principal use cases for lawful, data-driven decision-making within HR and immigration governance frameworks.

1) Salary Benchmarking

Wage benchmarking begins with mapping internal job titles to the correct Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) codes and wage levels. Once that alignment is in place, employers can compare offered wages on certified LCAs with DOL wage levels I–IV and prevailing-market medians for the same location. Ensuring consistency across filings supports compliance with 20 CFR § 655.731, which requires payment of the higher of the prevailing wage or the actual wage paid to similarly employed workers.

Best practice: Record the prevailing-wage source, level, and year in the Public Access File; confirm that hybrid or remote employees are linked to the correct worksite geography; and cross-check that every offered wage meets or exceeds the prevailing rate for that SOC and MSA before submission. This recordkeeping demonstrates good-faith compliance during audits or site visits.

2) Headcount and Cap Planning

The USCIS Employer Data Hub distinguishes between initial and continuing employment petitions, enabling HR and legal teams to forecast renewals and track the six-year statutory limit (subject to AC21 extensions). Analysing prior fiscal-year patterns helps balance workforce resources between cap-subject and cap-exempt roles and to anticipate future registration cycles.

Planning tools: Integrate approval and denial ratios into internal dashboards; tag petitions by fiscal year, petition type, and expiry; and implement automated 90/60/30-day alerts to avoid lapses in authorisation. Include portability and AC21-extension fields to preserve continuity of employment and lawful status.

3) Location Strategy

Prevailing wages vary significantly across Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). Employers operating hybrid or remote models must ensure each worksite is covered by a certified LCA reflecting the physical place of employment. Comparative analysis of OFLC wage data allows organisations to identify compliant yet cost-efficient regions for growth while preventing underpayment exposure.

Legal reminder: Under Matter of Simeio Solutions (2015), a move outside the area of intended employment listed on the certified LCA generally requires an amended LCA and H-1B petition before relocation. Short-term placements of up to 30 days (or 60 days if specific criteria are met) may rely on the limited exemption in 20 CFR § 655.735, provided all documentary conditions are satisfied.

4) Vendor and Third-Party Placement Monitoring

Consulting and project-based employers often deploy H-1B workers to client sites. In such cases, the LCA must list each actual worksite and reflect accurate geographic information. OFLC disclosure data reveals the worksite city and county, allowing employers to verify that filings correspond to the worker’s true assignment.

Governance tip: Maintain a central register of client worksites linked to corresponding LCAs, contracts, and statements of work. Expired or mismatched LCAs at client locations present a high-risk category for DOL and FDNS enforcement. Routine reconciliation of that register supports timely amendments and mitigates risk of debarment or civil penalty.

5) RFE and Risk Forecasting

Patterns within USCIS outcome data help predict where scrutiny is intensifying. Occupations showing higher Request-for-Evidence (RFE) ratios—such as some computer-related categories—signal the need for more robust petition documentation. Monitoring these patterns allows employers to strengthen evidence packages proactively.

Action step: Track approval-to-RFE ratios by SOC and fiscal year. Prepare supplemental documentation on degree relevance, detailed duty statements, and organisational charts for categories with heightened RFE activity. Such anticipatory compliance reduces response times and supports faster adjudication.

6) Budgeting and Cost Modelling

Integrating wage, government-fee, and professional-cost data enables accurate financial forecasting for the H-1B programme. Employers can calculate per-employee costs, model geographic wage differentials, and project total petition expenditure by fiscal year. Comparing payroll data against DOL wage levels safeguards parity and helps identify any back-pay exposure.

Internal controls: Link petition and cost data within your database; reconcile annually against USCIS-fee changes and external-counsel invoices; and maintain documentation for at least three years post-employment to substantiate reasonableness in any audit review.

Section B Summary: Applying H-1B data pragmatically converts compliance obligations into operational foresight. Salary benchmarking enforces wage integrity, headcount analytics guide resource planning, and risk-trend tracking prepares employers for evolving adjudication standards. Structured, data-literate interpretation of official releases empowers HR and legal teams to anticipate and document every requirement across the H-1B lifecycle.

Section C: Compliance, Governance & Risk

The H-1B framework unites immigration control with U.S. labour-standards enforcement. Employers must comply with obligations under both the Department of Labor (DOL) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Understanding how public data reflects these compliance requirements allows HR and legal teams to manage wage, amendment, and anti-discrimination risks before they escalate into enforcement actions or civil penalties. This section translates regulatory expectations into practical governance steps.

1) LCA Compliance Obligations

Every H-1B petition must rest on a certified Labor Condition Application (LCA) filed through the DOL’s Foreign Labor Application Gateway (FLAG). By filing the LCA, an employer attests that it will:

• Pay at least the required wage—whichever is higher between the prevailing and actual wage;
• Provide working conditions that will not adversely affect similarly employed U.S. workers;
• Ensure there is no strike or lock-out in the occupational classification at the worksite; and
• Provide notice of the LCA filing to employees or bargaining representatives.

Within one working day of filing the LCA, a compliant Public Access File (PAF) must be created under 20 CFR §§ 655.730–655.734. The PAF must contain the certified LCA, wage-rate statement, prevailing-wage documentation, proof of posting, and summary of benefits offered to H-1B workers and similarly employed U.S. workers. Employers should cross-check each entry in the DOL disclosure data against internal payroll and PAF records to confirm consistency. Keep the PAF for at least one year beyond the last employment date under that LCA, and retain payroll and related records for three years.

2) Wage Obligations and Nonproductive Status

Under 20 CFR § 655.731(c), an H-1B worker must receive the full required wage even during nonproductive periods caused by the employer—known informally as “benching.” Only limited exceptions apply when the worker is unavailable for personal reasons or voluntary leave. Failure to pay the required wage during employer-caused downtime is a common basis for DOL enforcement and back-wage orders.

Compliance practice: Integrate payroll data with your internal H-1B database to flag any pay periods below the certified rate. Document reasons for any unpaid absences and maintain contemporaneous evidence of voluntary leave. Review promotions, duty changes, and location changes promptly to ensure continued alignment with prevailing-wage levels and LCA terms.

3) Material Change and Amendment Requirements

A “material change” in an H-1B worker’s terms or conditions—such as a new worksite outside the certified area, substantial changes in duties, or altered compensation—requires an amended petition under Matter of Simeio Solutions, 26 I&N Dec. 542 (AAO 2015). The amended petition must be filed before the employee begins work at the new location. Failing to amend can invalidate status and expose the employer to liability for unauthorized employment.

Short-term placements: 20 CFR § 655.735 allows certain limited assignments of up to 30 days (or 60 days for itinerant staff maintaining a U.S. base of operations) without filing a new LCA, if strict documentation conditions are met. Employers should record the dates, locations, and nature of such assignments in a centralized log and configure database alerts to trigger amendment filings once thresholds are exceeded.

4) Employer–Employee Relationship Standards

USCIS adjudicators assess whether the petitioner maintains control over the H-1B worker’s duties and supervision as required under 8 CFR § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). Where the worker performs services at a client site, the employer must show the continuing right to assign, supervise, evaluate, and terminate the employee. Contracts, statements of work, and timesheets demonstrating that right are essential evidence.

Governance controls: Maintain uniform contract language confirming the petitioner’s right of control; ensure managers or project leads are trained to document supervision; and periodically audit client-site arrangements for consistency with petition representations. These steps mitigate risk during Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS) site visits.

5) FDNS Site Visit Readiness

The FDNS directorate conducts unannounced site inspections to confirm that employment conditions match those described in H-1B petitions. Officers verify the employee’s location, duties, and wage against the certified LCA. An organised internal database allows immediate retrieval of relevant documents—certified LCAs, wage proofs, assignment letters, and payroll summaries—facilitating a fast, transparent response.

Audit trail management: Maintain electronic logs showing who accessed or modified immigration records, with timestamps. Preserve these logs for a minimum of three years post-employment. Consistent audit-trail practices demonstrate governance integrity and good-faith compliance.

6) Anti-Discrimination and Fair Recruitment

Section 274B of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) prohibits discrimination based on citizenship or immigration status in hiring, firing, or recruitment. Employers must ensure equal opportunity for U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and other work-authorized individuals. Preference statements such as “H-1B only” or “OPT preferred” may trigger Department of Justice (DOJ) investigations by the Immigrant and Employee Rights (IER) Section.

Compliance steps: Post the DOJ IER anti-discrimination notice in all recruiting areas and digital onboarding platforms; train recruiters to use neutral criteria focused on skills and experience; and retain records of recruitment outreach and selection rationales for at least one year. Equal-treatment measures reinforce lawful sponsorship practices and support corporate diversity goals.

Section C Summary: Public data and regulatory obligations converge within the H-1B programme. By linking USCIS and DOL information to internal HR, payroll, and case-management systems, employers can evidence continuous compliance. Rigorous amendment tracking, accurate wage documentation, and non-discriminatory hiring frameworks establish a defensible posture during DOL or FDNS scrutiny and safeguard business continuity.

Section D: Building an Internal H-1B Database & Dashboards

Public data alone does not ensure compliance. Employers must pair these external datasets with disciplined internal record-keeping to manage risk and anticipate renewal or amendment requirements. A structured internal H-1B database integrates immigration, HR, and payroll information, enabling real-time visibility into programme costs, expiry dates, and audit readiness. This section outlines how to design, govern, and maintain such a system lawfully.

1) Core Data Schema

An effective H-1B database must capture all elements required for statutory record-keeping and audit defence. The recommended schema includes:

• Employee record: full name, employee ID, position title, start date, and petition type (cap-subject or cap-exempt).
• Petition data: receipt number, validity period, status (pending, approved, withdrawn), RFE type, and decision outcome.
• LCA details: SOC code, prevailing-wage source/year, wage level, offered wage, full-time/part-time indicator, and MSA/county.
• Worksite data: address, city, state, client (if applicable), and related contract reference.
• Audit triggers: amendment indicators, non-productive status flags, and maximum-stay countdowns.

Legal note: Each certified LCA and its supporting wage documentation must be retained for the period required by 20 CFR § 655.760—at least one year beyond employment termination and three years for payroll data. Accurate indexing within the database ensures that any record can be produced promptly during DOL or FDNS inspection.

2) Data Pipeline and Integration

Data accuracy depends on integration from verified sources. Employers should establish automated feeds from:

• USCIS Employer Data Hub: for petition-decision statistics and trend tracking.
• DOL OFLC Disclosure Data: for certified LCA details, worksite geography, and wage levels.
• HRIS and Payroll Systems: for current wages, promotions, and worksite assignments.
• Case-management systems or immigration counsel dashboards: for petition filings, RFEs, and amendments.

Deduplicate using a combination of FEIN, employee ID, or petition receipt number. Maintain reconciliation logs showing when data quality checks were completed and by whom—these serve as evidence of internal control during an audit.

3) Quality Control and Governance

Data integrity and confidentiality underpin compliance. Employers should appoint a data custodian responsible for validation, version control, and retention. Access must be restricted to authorised personnel, with change logs preserved for at least three years after employment ends. Personal data should be encrypted and handled in line with applicable state privacy laws such as the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA/CPRA) and internal corporate policies. The federal Privacy Act of 1974 applies to government agencies, not private employers, so internal privacy frameworks must fill that governance gap.

4) Analytics and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

Transforming the database into a strategic tool requires defined metrics. Core H-1B KPIs include:

• Approval and RFE rates by occupation, location, and department.
• Cycle time from case initiation to petition filing and adjudication.
• Expiry forecasts for visas, LCAs, and I-94 records.
• Average wage variance (offered vs prevailing) per SOC and region.
• Budget utilisation and variance by fiscal year.

Dashboards refreshed quarterly to coincide with USCIS data updates and annually with BLS OES wage releases provide continuous oversight and help management spot anomalies early.

5) Automation and Alerts

Automation reduces manual error and missed deadlines. Configure rule-based alerts for:

• Upcoming LCA or petition expiries (90/60/30-day tiers);
• Employees approaching the six-year H-1B limit;
• Material changes in duties, wage, or location triggering amendment requirements;
• Non-productive status exceeding permitted duration under 20 CFR § 655.731.

Integrate these alerts with calendars and workflow tools so that HR, payroll, and immigration counsel receive coordinated reminders. Automated notifications ensure continuity of lawful employment and support evidence of proactive compliance.

6) Executive Reporting and Oversight

Regular executive oversight transforms immigration compliance from an administrative task into a business-risk discipline. Management reports should summarise key metrics—approval trends, wage compliance status, cost forecasts, and renewal volumes—allowing leadership to allocate resources effectively. Cross-functional visibility also demonstrates due diligence if the organisation faces a government inquiry or audit.

Section D Summary: Integrating USCIS, DOL, and internal data into a unified system converts static information into actionable intelligence. Automation, privacy safeguards, and governance oversight create a defensible audit posture and enable employers to plan confidently while meeting every statutory and documentary duty.

FAQs: H-1B Employer Data & Salary Database

Employers often have practical questions when applying H-1B datasets for wage benchmarking and compliance analysis. The following FAQs clarify recurring issues under U.S. immigration and labour law.

1) What is the difference between prevailing wage and offered wage in LCA data?

The prevailing wage is the legally mandated minimum for an occupation and location, determined by the DOL using OES or another approved source. The offered wage is what the employer certifies on the LCA. Under 20 CFR § 655.731, the H-1B employee must be paid the higher of the two. Employers must retain evidence of both figures in the PAF to defend audits or investigations.

2) Are commercial salary websites reliable for compliance purposes?

No. Private pay surveys can supplement internal planning but have no legal standing in establishing prevailing wages. Only DOL OFLC disclosure data and BLS OES tables are authoritative for LCA filings. Use external surveys only to inform compensation strategy, not to meet statutory wage obligations.

3) Can we use H-1B data to predict approval chances?

Historical data from the USCIS Employer Data Hub shows approval and RFE rates by employer and occupation, but these figures cannot guarantee outcomes. Employers can use them to identify trends and reinforce petition evidence for high-scrutiny job categories.

4) How do remote or hybrid arrangements affect LCA requirements?

The wage area is defined by where the employee physically performs work. If an employee moves outside the certified MSA or county, a new LCA and amended H-1B petition are usually required under Matter of Simeio Solutions (2015). Maintain records of each worksite and verify that payroll and tax data align with the certified geographic wage area.

5) When must a material change trigger a new filing?

An amendment is required whenever the change is material—for example, a different MSA, substantially altered duties or salary, or a change in hours affecting the wage level. Document minor project adjustments internally, but seek counsel if uncertain. Failure to amend can invalidate status and lead to back-pay liability.

6) How should we justify SOC code selection when titles do not match?

Align each role to the SOC that best represents its primary duties, not its title. Use the DOL’s O*NET database for task examples and retain written rationale in the PAF. This documentation demonstrates good-faith classification during audits.

7) What factors commonly trigger RFEs?

• Degree-field mismatch with the designated specialty occupation.
• Vague or generic job descriptions lacking technical duties.
• Insufficient evidence of supervision at client sites.
• Low wage levels inconsistent with required qualifications.
• Reuse of identical LCAs across distinct positions or locations.

8) How can we prove the employer–employee relationship at a client site?

Maintain contracts, assignment letters, and timesheets showing the petitioning employer’s right to assign, direct, and terminate work. These records demonstrate control as required by 8 CFR § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) and are routinely examined during FDNS inspections.

9) What must the Public Access File contain and how long is it kept?

Each PAF must include the certified LCA, wage-rate statement, prevailing-wage source, posting evidence, and benefits summary. It must be available within one working day of filing and retained for at least one year after the end of employment under that LCA. Payroll and benefit records have a three-year retention period under 20 CFR § 655.760.

10) How often should we update internal dashboards?

Refresh quarterly in line with USCIS Employer Data Hub updates and annually following the release of new BLS OES wage data. Automated ETL processes keep alerts and analytics current and prevent decisions based on outdated information.

FAQs Summary: Understanding prevailing-wage rules, material-change triggers, and record-retention requirements allows employers to use H-1B data responsibly. Regular data updates and structured documentation support a defensible, transparent immigration programme.

Conclusion

Using official H-1B data proactively turns immigration compliance into a strategic advantage. USCIS datasets highlight adjudication trends; DOL disclosure files confirm wage compliance; and BLS OES tables set lawful baselines for compensation planning. When these datasets are integrated with internal dashboards and audit-ready records, employers can monitor every stage of the H-1B lifecycle with precision.

• Map each role to the correct SOC and geographic wage area.
• Maintain PAFs within one working day of each LCA filing.
• Document employer–employee control for hybrid or client-site roles.
• Set automated alerts for LCA, I-94, and petition expiries.
• Apply state-level privacy standards (CCPA/CPRA or equivalent) and log all record updates.

Conclusion Summary: An internal H-1B database should operate as a compliance engine—tracking, analysing, and governing every visa record. By merging statutory datasets with robust internal oversight, employers can manage risk, ensure equitable pay, and sustain lawful workforce planning under U.S. immigration law.

Glossary

Useful Links