We hope this newsletter finds you well. In this edition, we bring you important updates on various immigration matters. Please take a moment to review the following key highlights:
March 2026 Visa Bulletin Shows Major EB-2 Filing Advances; USCIS to Accept Dates for Filing
The U.S. Department of State has released the March 2026 Visa Bulletin, bringing notable forward movement in several employment-based green card categories—particularly EB-2. In the Final Action chart, EB-1 India and China advance to March 1, 2023, while remaining current for all other countries. EB-2 India moves ahead to September 15, 2013, China remains at September 1, 2021, and all other countries see a significant jump to October 15, 2024. EB-3 shows modest advancement for the Philippines and other countries, though India and China remain unchanged. EB-5 remains largely static for India and China in the unreserved category, while all other countries and EB-5 set-aside categories continue to be current.
Importantly, USCIS has confirmed it will accept adjustment of status applications in March based on the Dates for Filing chart. In a major development, EB-2 will become current for all countries except India and China for filing purposes, and EB-2 India will advance by 11 months in the filing chart. This opens a valuable filing window for many employment-based applicants seeking to submit Form I-485 in March 2026.
DOL Proposal to Revise Wage Rules in the H-1B and PERM Programs Clears Federal Review
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has advanced a proposed rule revising prevailing wage determinations in the H-1B and PERM labor certification programs after clearing federal review, signaling that formal publication may be forthcoming. While the regulatory text has not yet been released, the proposal is expected to revisit how Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) data is applied in setting wage levels—potentially resulting in higher prevailing wage requirements across various occupations and geographic areas.
This development recalls the prior Trump administration’s 2020 wage rule, which sharply increased prevailing wage levels—reportedly by 45% to 100% in many job categories—through an interim final rule. That regulation faced immediate litigation and was ultimately set aside by federal courts. The Biden administration later declined to pursue the same aggressive wage framework, instead issuing a more moderate final rule. If the current proposal signals a return to stricter wage methodologies, employers sponsoring foreign nationals under H-1B and PERM programs should prepare for potential increases in minimum salary obligations, tighter Level 1 and Level 2 wage scrutiny, and higher overall compliance costs. Careful workforce planning and compensation review will be critical as further details emerge.
DOS Updates Public Charge Guidance and Reinforces Visa Screening Standards
The U.S. Department of State (DOS) issued updated public guidance clarifying how “public charge” determinations affect visa eligibility. DOS reaffirmed that a public charge is an individual who becomes primarily dependent on the U.S. government for subsistence, including through receipt of Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), state or local General Assistance programs, or long-term institutionalized care at government expense.
The agency emphasized that nonimmigrant visa holders who abuse public benefits may face serious consequences, including visa revocation, future visa ineligibility, and possible criminal prosecution in cases involving fraud. Consular officers continue to evaluate visa applicants under longstanding authority in the Immigration and Nationality Act, assessing factors such as age, health, financial resources, education, family status, and prior use of public benefits. DOS also confirmed that foreign nationals seeking entry for medical treatment may still qualify for visas if they can demonstrate sufficient financial resources and prove they are unlikely to rely on U.S. government assistance. Visa determinations will continue to be made on a case-by-case basis.
When Must You File an H-1B Amendment?
The Common Misconceptions That Are Putting Employers and Workers at Risk:
One of the most persistent and dangerous misconceptions in H-1B compliance is the belief that changing a client — while keeping the same work location — does not require filing an H-1B amendment. This assumption is wrong, and it is costing employers and H-1B workers dearly. With the Trump administration’s FDNS (Fraud Detection and National Security) unit conducting site visits at an accelerating pace, and with Notices of Intent to Revoke (NOIRs) and Notices to Appear (NTAs) being issued in record numbers, now is not the time to rely on shortcuts or outdated assumptions.
This article breaks down exactly when an H-1B amendment is required, why the “same location” argument is a trap, what LCA posting obligations apply even when you think you are exempt, and how to protect your status before FDNS knocks on your door.
The Foundation: What Is a Material Change?
Under the H-1B regulations, an employer must file an amended H-1B petition whenever there is a “material change” in the terms and conditions of the H-1B worker’s employment. USCIS has consistently interpreted this requirement broadly. A material change is not limited to a change in job title, salary, or physical location. It includes any significant change in:
- Job duties and responsibilities
- Minimum qualifications required for the position
- End-client or employer of record
- Work site location (including remote work arrangements)
- Supervision structure or reporting relationships
- Prevailing wage level (e.g., from Level I to Level II)
If any of these elements change in a way that is not already covered by the existing approved H-1B petition and its supporting Labor Condition Application (LCA), an amendment is required. The triggering question is always: does the new arrangement fall within the scope of what USCIS already approved? If the answer is no — or even maybe — an amendment should be filed.
The “Same Location, Different Client” Trap:
Here is the scenario that catches many employers and staffing companies off guard: An H-1B worker is placed at a client site in New York. The LCA covers New York. The worker finishes the assignment and is placed at a new client — also in New York, at the same or a nearby address. The employer concludes: “The location hasn’t changed. No amendment needed.”
This reasoning is fundamentally flawed and potentially disqualifying. Here is why: The H-1B petition was approved for a specific position, with specific job duties, specific minimum qualifications, and a specific prevailing wage determination — all tied to the approved LCA. When you change clients, you are not simply changing an address. You are changing the actual work being performed and, in most cases, the requirements for that work.
Consider the following: Client A needed a software developer with two years of experience to maintain legacy systems. The LCA was filed at Wage Level I. Client B needs a senior software engineer with five years of experience to architect cloud infrastructure. That is a Level II or Level III wage position. These are not the same jobs. The fact that both clients happen to be in Manhattan does not make them the same H-1B position. A new LCA must be filed to reflect the new wage level and duties — and if a new LCA is filed, an H-1B amendment must be filed.
The rule is clear: If a new LCA is required, an H-1B amendment is required. There is no exception.
When Does a Client Change Require a New LCA?
A new LCA is required whenever the new client engagement involves:
1. Different Job Duties
- If Client B’s position involves materially different responsibilities than what was approved in the original H-1B petition, the employer needs a new LCA that accurately describes the actual work being performed. Submitting a worker to a client for work that is not described in the approved petition is a compliance violation, regardless of location.
2. Different Minimum Qualifications or Experience Requirements:
- If the new client’s position requires more experience, advanced certifications, or different educational qualifications than what was used to establish the prevailing wage in the original LCA, the wage level classification may be incorrect. Using a Level I LCA wage for a Level II position is both an LCA violation and a misrepresentation to USCIS.
3. A Different Prevailing Wage Level:
- The DOL wage levels (I through IV) reflect the complexity and seniority of a position. If the new client engagement places the worker in a more senior role, the employer must obtain a new prevailing wage determination at the correct level and file a new LCA — triggering the amendment requirement.
4. A New Physical Work Location Outside the Same MSA:
- If the new client is located in a different Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) than what was covered by the original LCA, a new LCA is definitely required. Each LCA is tied to specific geographic areas, and placing a worker at a location not covered by the approved LCA is a per se violation.
The MSA Memo Trap: Short-Term Placement Rules and LCA Posting:
Many employers — particularly staffing companies and IT consulting firms — rely on the DOL’s “area of intended employment” rules and the short-term placement memo to avoid filing new LCAs and amendments when placing workers at new client sites within the same MSA. While these provisions exist, they come with compliance obligations that are almost universally overlooked.
The Short-Term Placement Rule:
-
Under DOL regulations, an employer may place an H-1B worker at a new worksite for up to 30 workdays per year without filing a new LCA, provided the worker’s permanent worksite (as listed on the existing LCA) is already established and the worker continues to be paid at least the applicable prevailing wage for the new location. For a worker with no permanent worksite (common in consulting arrangements), this allowance shrinks to 10 workdays per location per year.
The LCA Posting Requirement That Everyone Ignores:
- Even when an employer legitimately relies on the same MSA LCA for a new client placement within the same geographic area, the employer is still required to comply with LCA posting obligations at the new worksite. Under DOL regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 655.734, the employer must post the LCA notice at the new worksite for ten consecutive business days before the worker begins work there. The posting must be placed in two conspicuous locations at the actual place of employment.
- This requirement applies regardless of whether you are relying on the same LCA and regardless of whether you believe no amendment is needed. Ask yourself: Did you actually post the LCA at the new client site before the worker started? Did you maintain documentation of that posting? If the answer is no, you are out of compliance — even if everything else about the placement was technically within the scope of the original LCA.
WARNING: During an FDNS site visit or a DOL audit, investigators specifically look for evidence of LCA postings at each worksite. Failure to maintain posting logs, copies of notices, and worksite documentation is treated as a compliance failure that can result in back wages, debarment, and revocation of H-1B petitions.
Remote Work, Home Office, and Multiple LCA Locations:
Many H-1B petitions filed during and after the COVID-19 pandemic include both an employer office location and a home office location on the LCA. This was done to accommodate remote work arrangements. However, the existence of two locations on an LCA does not provide unlimited flexibility to change clients or work arrangements without an amendment.
If the H-1B worker is assigned to a new end-client whose work requires materially different duties, qualifications, or wage levels — regardless of whether the physical work location remains the same home office address — the change in the nature of the work itself triggers the amendment requirement. USCIS examines the totality of the employment relationship, not merely the address where the laptop is open.
Furthermore, if the worker begins working remotely from a new home address in a different MSA — for example, moving from New Jersey to Texas while retaining the same H-1B employer — a new LCA covering the Texas worksite is required, followed by an H-1B amendment. The prevailing wages in Austin, Texas and Newark, New Jersey are different, and the LCA must reflect the actual place of employment.
The FDNS Site Visit Threat: Why “Good Enough” Is No Longer Good Enough:
The FDNS (Fraud Detection and National Security) directorate within USCIS has dramatically increased unannounced site visits to H-1B worksites under the Trump administration. These visits are designed to verify that the approved H-1B petition accurately reflects the actual employment relationship. Investigators speak with supervisors, examine work assignments, review pay records, and look for evidence that the worker is performing the work described in the approved petition — at the location specified in the approved LCA.
When FDNS investigators discover that a worker is placed at a client not described in the petition, performing duties not covered by the approved job description, or working at a location without a valid and posted LCA, the consequences are severe:
- Notice of Intent to Revoke (NOIR): USCIS may revoke the H-1B approval, leaving the worker out of status.
- Notice to Appear (NTA): The worker may be placed in removal proceedings before an immigration judge.
- DOL Wage and Hour Investigation: The employer may face back-wage liability and civil money penalties.
- Debarment: The employer may be barred from filing future H-1B petitions for up to three years.
- Criminal Referral: In cases involving willful misrepresentation, criminal referrals are possible.
These are not theoretical risks. NOIRs and NTAs are being issued to workers and employers who previously operated without scrutiny for years. The current enforcement environment demands strict compliance, not reasonable guesses.
Summary: When You Must File an H-1B Amendment
File an H-1B amendment immediately when any of the following occurs:
- The worker is placed at a new end-client whose position involves materially different job duties than what was approved in the original petition.
- The new client’s position requires higher experience, different qualifications, or advanced certifications that change the prevailing wage level.
- A new LCA must be filed for any reason — if a new LCA is filed, an amendment is mandatory.
- The worker’s worksite changes to a location in a different MSA than what is covered by the existing LCA.
- The worker changes to remote work from a home address that is in a different MSA or state than the approved LCA locations.
- The employer of record or petitioner changes.
- The worker’s salary drops below the prevailing wage certified on the LCA.
- The worker transitions from full-time to part-time, or changes the hours or schedule in a material way.
- The job title changes to reflect a more senior role with expanded responsibilities.
- The worker is assigned to a third-party worksite not previously covered by the petition.
When an Amendment May Not Be Required — But Compliance Still Is:
An amendment may not be required in limited circumstances — but even in these situations, employers cannot simply ignore their LCA compliance obligations:
Same MSA, Substantially Similar Duties and Wage Level:
- If the new client placement is within the same MSA as the approved LCA, involves substantially the same job duties, requires the same or lower qualifications, and the applicable prevailing wage is the same or lower than what is already certified, an amendment may not be required. However, the employer must still complete and document LCA posting at the new worksite for ten consecutive business days before the worker begins.
Short-Term Placements Within Limits:
- If the placement qualifies as a legitimate short-term placement (30 days per year for workers with a permanent home base, 10 days for roving workers), and the work duties fall within the scope of the approved petition, a new LCA may not be required. However, pay records must reflect the required wage for the new location, and careful documentation must be maintained.
Practical Guidance: The Conservative Approach Wins Every Time:
- Given the current enforcement environment, the analysis of whether to file an H-1B amendment should err heavily on the side of filing. The cost of an amendment filing — in attorney fees, USCIS filing fees, and processing time — is trivially small compared to the cost of a NOIR, an NTA, a DOL investigation, or a worker falling out of status.
Our recommended compliance protocol for every client change:
- Before placing the worker at any new client, conduct a side-by-side comparison of the new position’s duties, required qualifications, and wage level against the approved petition and LCA.
- Obtain a written job description from the new client describing the actual work to be performed.
- Have an immigration attorney evaluate whether the new assignment constitutes a material change.
- If a new LCA is needed for any reason — file it, and then file the H-1B amendment promptly.
- Even if no amendment is needed, complete LCA posting at the new worksite and document it with signed and dated posting logs.
- Maintain a Public Access File (PAF) that is current, complete, and includes documentation for every worksite.
- Audit your existing H-1B workforce annually to confirm that every worker’s approved petition accurately reflects their current duties, client, and location.
Conclusion: When in Doubt, File the Amendment:
The H-1B program was designed with strict compliance requirements for good reason: it governs the entry of foreign workers into the U.S. labor market, and the government takes violations seriously. The belief that a same-location client change does not require an amendment is a dangerous oversimplification that has already cost many employers and workers dearly.
The analysis is not about where the worker sits. It is about what work they are performing, for whom, at what wage level, and whether that arrangement is accurately reflected in an approved H-1B petition and a valid, properly posted LCA. If those facts change — in any material way — an amendment is the right answer.
In the current enforcement environment, proactive compliance is not just good practice — it is the only reliable way to protect your H-1B workforce, your business, and your workers’ futures in the United States.
Criminal Convictions & Deportation in the Trump Era: What Every Non-Citizen Must Know About Plea Bargaining
Under the Trump administration, immigration enforcement has reached an unprecedented level of aggression. Non-citizens — including lawful permanent residents, visa holders, and long-term community members — are being detained and deported for criminal convictions that were once considered minor or manageable. The harsh reality is this: a bad plea deal can cost you your life in America. Whether you have been in the United States for five years or thirty-five years, a poorly negotiated criminal plea can trigger automatic deportation, sometimes without any hearing before an immigration judge.
This article explains the immigration consequences of criminal convictions, how plea bargaining works from an immigration standpoint, and the critical strategies that can protect you from removal.
The New Reality: Any Crime Can Trigger Deportation:
Under prior administrations, enforcement priorities generally focused on non-citizens with serious or violent felony convictions. That is no longer the case. The Trump administration has expanded its enforcement priorities dramatically, targeting individuals with:
- DUI convictions
- Drug possession (even marijuana in states where it is legal)
- Theft offenses, shoplifting, and petit larceny
- Domestic violence charges, even misdemeanors
- Assault and disorderly conduct
- Fraud or misrepresentation offenses
- Any crime for which a sentence of one year or more was imposed
ICE officers are now conducting workplace raids, courthouse arrests, and community sweeps with a level of intensity not seen in decades. Non-citizens who once felt secure — even those who have raised families and paid taxes in the U.S. for decades — are being taken into custody and placed in removal proceedings based on old, minor convictions.
The Two Most Dangerous Categories: Aggravated Felonies and CIMTs:
Two categories of crimes carry the most severe immigration consequences under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Understanding these categories is essential before accepting any plea deal.
1. Aggravated Felonies:
Despite the name, an “aggravated felony” under immigration law does not require a felony charge or an aggravated offense in state court. The immigration definition is broader and often includes offenses that are classified as misdemeanors under state law. Common aggravated felonies include:
- Murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor
- Drug trafficking (even small amounts)
- Theft or burglary offenses where the sentence imposed is one year or more
- Crimes of violence where a sentence of one year or more is imposed
- Fraud or tax evasion involving losses over $10,000
- Money laundering over $10,000
- Prostitution-related offenses
CRITICAL WARNING: A conviction for an aggravated felony results in mandatory detention, removal without the possibility of most forms of relief, and a permanent bar to re-entry. There is no discretionary relief. There is no cancellation of removal. Immigration judges have no authority to grant relief in most cases. You will be deported — period.
2. Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude (CIMTs):
Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude (CIMTs) are a broader and more ambiguous category. Courts generally define a CIMT as a crime that is inherently base, vile, or depraved, contrary to the accepted rules of morality. Common examples include:
- Fraud and theft offenses
- Crimes involving intent to harm another person
- Sexual offenses
- Domestic violence in many jurisdictions
- Bribery and corruption offenses
A single CIMT conviction can make a non-citizen inadmissible or deportable. Two or more CIMT convictions at any time after admission to the U.S. result in automatic deportability, regardless of the sentences received.
Waiving Immigration Hearings: A Deadly Mistake:
One of the most devastating mistakes a non-citizen can make in criminal proceedings is to sign a waiver of immigration hearings as part of a plea agreement. Some prosecutors and criminal courts include such waivers as a condition of plea deals, particularly in immigration-adjacent jurisdictions. If you sign such a waiver — often buried in plea paperwork — you may be agreeing to be deported directly upon completion of your criminal sentence without any opportunity to appear before an immigration judge, present defenses, or seek relief. NEVER sign a waiver of immigration hearings without consulting an experienced immigration attorney.
The Art of Immigration-Safe Plea Bargaining:
A skilled criminal defense attorney who understands immigration law — or who works in close consultation with an immigration attorney — can often negotiate plea deals that minimize or eliminate immigration consequences. The following strategies are the most critical:
Strategy 1: Keep Sentences Under One Year — Even by One Day:
-
Under immigration law, the “sentence imposed” — not time actually served — determines whether a conviction qualifies as an aggravated felony for certain offenses. For crimes of violence, theft, and burglary, a sentence of one year or more triggers the aggravated felony designation. A sentence of 364 days — even one day less than one year — does not. This one-day difference can mean the difference between deportation and remaining in the United States. Attorneys should always negotiate to ensure that any sentence, including suspended sentences, stays at 364 days or less. Even if the judge is inclined to impose exactly 12 months, counsel must advocate for 364 days.
Strategy 2: Plead to Non-CIMT Offenses:
- Many state criminal codes include offenses that are not classified as CIMTs under immigration law, even though they may appear similar to CIMT offenses. For example, a disorderly conduct charge or a simple assault without the element of intent to harm may not qualify as a CIMT in many circuit courts. Similarly, reckless driving may not be a CIMT, even though it carries real penalties. A criminal defense attorney familiar with immigration consequences should research whether an alternative charge or amended plea can be structured as a non-CIMT offense. This requires careful analysis of the specific statutory elements of the crime and the jurisdiction’s case law.
Strategy 3: Use the “Petty Offense Exception” for CIMTs:
- Immigration law provides a “petty offense exception” that shields non-citizens from deportability for a single CIMT conviction, if (1) the maximum penalty possible for the crime does not exceed imprisonment of one year, and (2) the actual sentence imposed was six months or less. If a non-citizen has only one CIMT conviction and meets both criteria, they are not deportable on account of that conviction. Defense attorneys should structure plea deals to ensure that both the statutory maximum and the actual sentence fall within these thresholds wherever possible.
Strategy 4: Seek Deferred Adjudication, Diversion, or Expungement:
- In some states, a deferred adjudication — where the defendant pleads guilty but the plea is not formally entered as a conviction pending successful completion of probation — may not constitute a “conviction” under immigration law. Similarly, some diversion programs avoid a formal conviction record. However, this analysis is highly jurisdiction-specific and has changed substantially under recent court decisions. Many states’ expungements, unfortunately, do not eliminate the immigration consequences of a conviction. The Trump administration’s DHS has taken the position that most state expungements do not eliminate a “conviction” for immigration purposes. An immigration attorney must analyze the specific state’s statute carefully before relying on these options.
Strategy 5: Plead to Federal vs. State Charges Strategically:
- In cases involving both state and federal charges, the immigration consequences can differ significantly depending on which charge the defendant pleads to. Federal drug convictions, for example, often have more severe immigration consequences than state equivalents. Conversely, some state offenses may be structured to avoid certain aggravated felony definitions that federal charges would trigger. This analysis requires collaboration between an experienced criminal defense attorney and an immigration attorney working together from the very start of the criminal case — not after a plea has already been entered.
The Padilla Warning: Your Constitutional Right to Know:
In Padilla v. Kentucky (2010), the U.S. Supreme Court held that criminal defense attorneys are constitutionally required under the Sixth Amendment to advise non-citizen clients about the immigration consequences of guilty pleas. If your criminal defense attorney failed to advise you of deportation consequences before you entered a plea, you may have grounds to challenge the conviction through a post-conviction motion for ineffective assistance of counsel. This can potentially allow you to withdraw the plea and negotiate a new, immigration-safe deal. If you or a family member entered a plea without receiving this advisement, contact an immigration attorney immediately to evaluate whether a post-conviction remedy is available.
Relief Available in Immigration Court — If You Get There:
If you are placed in removal proceedings based on a criminal conviction and are not subject to mandatory deportation (i.e., your offense is not an aggravated felony), you may be eligible for relief including:
- Cancellation of removal for lawful permanent residents (requires 5 years as LPR, 7 years of continuous residence, and no aggravated felony)
- Cancellation of removal for non-LPRs (10 years of continuous presence, good moral character, exceptional hardship to a U.S. citizen or LPR spouse, parent, or child)
- Adjustment of status if an immigrant visa is immediately available
- Asylum or withholding of removal if you face persecution in your home country
- Convention Against Torture (CAT) protection
- Voluntary departure to avoid a formal removal order
These forms of relief are available only if you are not barred by an aggravated felony conviction and only if you have not waived your right to immigration hearings. This is why it is absolutely critical to fight for an immigration-safe plea deal before a conviction is entered.
What To Do Right Now:
If you or a family member is a non-citizen facing criminal charges, take these steps immediately:
- Do not accept any plea deal without consulting an immigration attorney first.
- Ensure your criminal defense attorney understands immigration consequences — if they do not, demand that they consult with an immigration lawyer before recommending any plea.
- Never sign a waiver of immigration hearings under any circumstances.
- If you have already entered a plea without immigration advisement, contact an immigration attorney to explore post-conviction remedies under Padilla.
- Keep any sentence to 364 days or less — fight for this even if the judge initially indicates 365 days or 12 months.
- Explore whether alternative charges or diversion programs are available that avoid CIMT classifications.
- Document all equities in your case: U.S. citizen or LPR family members, length of residence, employment history, military service, and community ties.
- Retain an immigration attorney who works in coordination with your criminal defense team from day one of your criminal case.
Conclusion:
The intersection of criminal law and immigration law has never been more consequential. Under the current enforcement environment, even a single misdemeanor conviction — improperly handled — can destroy a life that took decades to build in the United States. The stakes demand that non-citizens facing any criminal charge have both a skilled criminal defense attorney and an experienced immigration attorney working together, from the very first day.
Every word of a plea agreement matters. Every day of a sentence matters. Every element of every charged offense matters. Getting these details right is not a technicality — it is the difference between staying in the United States with your family and being deported to a country you may not have seen in thirty years.
Sincerely,
Keshab Raj Seadie, Esq.
Law Offices of Keshab Raj Seadie, P.C. Disclaimer: This newsletter is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always consult an attorney for personalized advice.
