Third-party worksites in LCA data

What the secondary-entity field records

The Labor Condition Application includes a field for a secondary entity — a client or end-user company where the H-1B worker will actually perform the job, when that location is different from the petitioning employer's own office. When this field is populated, the LCA is disclosing that the worker's day-to-day worksite is not the sponsoring employer's premises but a separate company's location. As covered in how to read an LCA, the worksite field and the secondary-entity field together describe where and under whose roof the work happens, which is distinct from who legally petitions for and employs the worker.

DOL requires this disclosure so that the wage and working-condition attestations on the LCA can be verified against the place the work is actually performed, since prevailing wage is calculated using the worksite's geographic area. The field exists because the petitioning employer and the site of work are not always the same company, and the program's wage-parity purpose depends on knowing where the job sits, not just who signs the paperwork. DOL's own program description and disclosure data for the LCA process are published on the DOL H-1B, H-1B1 and E-3 program page.

Client-site placement in consulting and staffing

Third-party placement is a standard feature of the IT consulting and staffing business model, in which a company employs workers directly — sets their pay, benefits, and legal employment relationship — and then places them at client companies to work on projects, sometimes for the duration of a single engagement and sometimes for years. This model is common across the technology consulting industry generally, used by firms of many sizes and national origins, and is not specific to any one type of employer. It exists alongside a second, equally common model in which the petitioning employer and the worksite are the same company, such as when a technology, retail, or manufacturing employer sponsors workers for roles at its own offices.

Neither model is inherently more or less compliant with program rules; the LCA and its wage attestations apply the same way regardless of which model an employer follows. What differs is administrative: in the third-party model, the petitioning employer must track and re-file amendments as the worker moves between client engagements, described below, while in the direct-hire model the worksite typically stays fixed for the duration of the position.

How VisaBench states this figure

VisaBench publishes each employer's share of certified LCAs that name a secondary worksite entity as benchmark G7 on the methodology page, defined there as "share of certified LCAs that name a secondary worksite entity... the number is stated without judgment." That is a deliberate editorial choice: the figure describes a business-model fact drawn directly from the disclosure data, not an assessment of the employer's practices. A high or low G7 share simply indicates how much of an employer's certified LCA volume involves client-site placement versus placement at the employer's own locations. Employer pages that carry this benchmark, such as Infosys, present it alongside the same sourcing and period statement as every other figure on the page.

What it means for a worker practically

For a worker whose LCA and H-1B petition name a secondary worksite entity, a few practical consequences follow from how the program treats worksite changes. First, the worksite listed on the certified LCA and petition is the one USCIS and DOL expect the worker to be performing services at; a move to a new client site, especially one in a different metropolitan statistical area with a different prevailing wage, generally requires the employer to file a new or amended LCA and, in many cases, an amended H-1B petition before the worker begins at the new location. This is a compliance step the petitioning employer is responsible for, not something the worker files.

Second, because the worksite can change over the life of the H-1B period — particularly for workers who move between client engagements — a worker placed under this model may see more worksite-related paperwork over time than a worker whose petition names one fixed employer location for the full validity period. That is a structural feature of project-based placement, not an indicator of anything about a given filing's validity.

Third, if a worker's placement at a client site ends and the petitioning employer does not have a new assignment ready, the same wage and status obligations that apply to any H-1B employment relationship continue to apply; workers considering a move between employers, or trying to understand what happens when a placement or role ends, may find H-1B transfer and changing employers and WARN notices and H-1B workers useful starting points, alongside advice from a qualified attorney.

This guide is general information, not legal advice; consult a licensed immigration attorney about your case. This is especially true before relying on any worksite-change or amendment timeline, since program requirements are detailed and fact-specific.