Filing address: San Francisco, CAworksites: CA, WA, NY, TX, NJ (5 of 25 states)
Historical filed wages are not verified amounts paid to workers. USCIS decisions do not estimate an individual petition’s outcome. Current sponsorship for a particular role is not verified here. One LCA is not one job.
Filing names grouped on this page may differ across sources. The record does not establish which legal entity would employ or petition for you.
Not to be confused with LCA outcomes. An LCA is a Department of Labor filing that precedes the visa petition; nearly every employer's LCAs are certified at 99–100%, which tells you almost nothing about petition outcomes. The figures on this page come from USCIS petition decisions instead. The two are often reported interchangeably; they measure different things. Why these are two different datasets.
For change-of-employer petitions matched to this page, 1 was denied out of 363 decisions in FY2021–FY2025 combined. These historical decisions do not estimate the outcome of an individual petition. The year-by-year split is in the second table below. USCIS · FY2021–FY2025 combined
The table below splits petitions by filing type, over FY2021–FY2025 combined. Application categories describe the petitions in the source data; they do not determine which category or outcome applies to an individual.
| Filing type | Approved | Denied | n | Denied share |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Change of employerPetitions classified as a change of employer | 362 | 1 | 363 | 0.3% |
| New employmentPetitions classified as new employment | 90 | 3 | 93 | 3% |
| ContinuationPetitions classified as continuation of employment | 215 | 0 | 215 | 0.0% |
| AmendedA change at the same employer | 72 | 1 | 73 | 1% |
| Change with same employerNew role, same employer | 0 | 0 | 0 | — |
| New concurrentA second, simultaneous H-1B | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 decision |
Where fewer than 20 petitions were decided we print the count instead of a percentage. A percentage drawn from a handful of cases reads like a probability, and it is not one. How the sample thresholds are set.
Year by year, change-of-employer petitions only. The headline above combines the FY2021–FY2025 rows of this table (marked in window); the other years are shown because the denial climate in earlier years was not the same one.
| Fiscal year | Approved | Denied | n | Denied share | Window |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FY2026 (through Q3) | 25 | 0 | 25 | 0% | — |
| FY2025 | 30 | 0 | 30 | 0% | in window |
| FY2024 | 17 | 0 | 17 | 17 decisions | in window |
| FY2023 | 32 | 0 | 32 | 0% | in window |
| FY2022 | 92 | 1 | 93 | 1% | in window |
| FY2021 | 191 | 0 | 191 | 0.0% | in window |
| FY2020 | 44 | 0 | 44 | 0% | — |
| FY2019 | 24 | 0 | 24 | 0% | — |
| FY2018 | 19 | 1 | 20 | 5% | — |
| FY2017 | 5 | 1 | 6 | 6 decisions | — |
| FY2016 | 9 | 0 | 9 | 9 decisions | — |
| FY2015 | 11 | 0 | 11 | 11 decisions | — |
| FY2014 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 3 decisions | — |
Source USCIS H-1B Employer Data Hub ·Coverage FY2009–FY2026 (through Q3) ·Loaded 2026-08-28 ·Files and method · Combined decision window FY2021–FY2025 combined
The source reports separate application categories. We keep them separate and use change-of-employer decisions for the headline, rather than blend different categories. These historical categories do not determine the process or outcome for a current role.
A single year of one employer's petitions is often a handful of cases, and a percentage drawn from a handful reads like a probability. Combining fiscal years raises the count — but only if the years belong to the same period. Across all employers in our data, the share of change-of-employer petitions denied ran at 9.54% in FY2018, 9.42% in FY2019 and 4.99% in FY2020, and has stayed between 1.28% and 1.99% in every one of the 5 years from FY2021 through FY2025. Averaging the earlier years together with FY2025 would not produce a steadier estimate; it would produce a number that describes no period at all. So the window stops where the earlier adjudication climate begins, and every figure drawn from it is labelled with the years it covers.
FY2025 median, from 109 certified filings. DOL LCA · FY2025
| Fiscal year | Filed wage | Wage sample (n) | Certified | Withdrawn | Denied |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FY2026 (through Q3) | $200,000 · median of 102 | 102 | 102 | 33 | 0 |
| FY2025 | $190,000 · median of 109 | 109 | 109 | 52 | 0 |
| FY2024 | $190,000 · median of 151 | 151 | 151 | 47 | 0 |
| FY2023 | $190,000 · median of 113 | 113 | 113 | 34 | 0 |
| FY2022 | $170,000 · median of 147 | 147 | 148 | 51 | 0 |
| FY2021 | $170,000 · median of 213 | 213 | 213 | 11 | 1 |
Source U.S. Department of Labor — OFLC LCA disclosure files ·Coverage FY2021–FY2026 (through Q3) ·Loaded 2026-08-28 ·Files and method · Basis certified filings only; records whose wage unit is clearly mis-entered are excluded ·how wages are computed
Filed wages exclude bonuses and equity and do not confirm actual pay. DOL LCA Denied counts are not USCIS petition decisions.
These figures come from Labor Condition Applications (LCAs) the employer filed with the U.S. Department of Labor. They are the base wage the employer committed to pay — they exclude bonuses, equity, and other compensation, and they do not confirm what any individual was actually paid. A filing is not a hire.
A "denied" count near zero is normal here. The Department of Labor checks whether the form complies, not whether the person can get a visa. What decides that is the USCIS petition — the module above.
| Job title | Filed wage | Wage sample (n) |
|---|---|---|
| Software Engineer across 3 seniority levels: $155,000 – $225,000 By seniority (4)Senior: $190,000 · median of 185 | $190,000 median of 277 | 277 |
| Machine Learning Engineer across 2 seniority levels: $166,500 – $195,000 By seniority (5)Senior: $195,000 · median of 61 | $190,000 median of 91 | 91 |
| Data Scientist across 2 seniority levels: $150,000 – $180,000 By seniority (2)Senior: $180,000 · median of 43 | $175,000 median of 66 | 66 |
Product ManagerBy seniority (4)Senior: $190,000 · median of 22 | $185,000 median of 35 | 35 |
Data AnalystBy seniority (2)Senior: 6 filings — too few for a median | 7 filings — too few for a median | 7 |
Security EngineerBy seniority (3)Senior: 4 filings — too few for a median | 6 filings — too few for a median | 6 |
Data EngineerBy seniority (2)Senior: 3 filings — too few for a median | 4 filings — too few for a median | 4 |
ArchitectBy seniority (2)Senior: $180,000 · 1 filing | 2 filings — too few for a median | 2 |
Business AnalystBy seniority (1)Senior: 2 filings — too few for a median | 2 filings — too few for a median | 2 |
Site Reliability EngineerBy seniority (1)Senior: 2 filings — too few for a median | 2 filings — too few for a median | 2 |
Showing the 10 largest of 13 job titles this employer filed for. This list is truncated, not complete.
Titles come from the job title as filed, reduced to a known family — see how titles are grouped. Reported wages are from LCA filings, not verified amounts paid to workers. Each value is labeled as a single filing, a median with its sample size, or a withheld small sample; a seniority breakdown is shown where the filing stated one.
Source U.S. Department of Labor — OFLC LCA disclosure files ·Coverage FY2021–FY2026 (through Q3) ·Loaded 2026-08-28 ·Files and method · Basis certified filings with a stated wage; single-file values or medians above the sample threshold; not averages
Every LCA names a prevailing wage — the government's reference rate for that job, in that place, at one of four experience tiers. Level I is entry-level; Level IV is the most senior. Two things matter here: which tier the employer files at, and how its filed wage compares with that reference. These are historical filings, not verified offers.
Filed wages sit 12.7% above the prevailing wage for the same jobs and tiers. A figure near zero means the employer files at close to the government reference rate; a large one means it files well above.
| Wage tier as filed | Filings (n) | Filed wage | Prevailing wage | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Level I | 26 | $127,500 · median of 26 | $117,665 · median of 26 | +8.4% |
| Level II | 87 | $170,000 · median of 87 | $155,605 · median of 87 | +9.3% |
| Level III | 225 | $165,000 · median of 225 | $145,246 · median of 225 | +13.6% |
| Level IV | 489 | $190,000 · median of 489 | $167,710 · median of 489 | +13.3% |
| Not stated on the filing | 8 | 8 filings — too few for a median | 8 filings — too few for a median | — |
Source U.S. Department of Labor — OFLC LCA disclosure files ·Coverage FY2021–FY2026 (through Q3) ·Loaded 2026-08-28 ·Files and method · Basis certified filings only; single-file values or medians above the sample threshold; not averages
PERM records do not establish current employer policy or an individual’s green-card outcome. Certified-expired is kept separate from Denied.
69 permanent labor certification records are present across FY2021–FY2026 (through Q3), 42 of them in FY2026 (through Q3).
| Fiscal year | Certified | Certified-expired | Denied | Withdrawn | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FY2026 (through Q3) | 18 | 0 | 0 | 24 | 42 |
| FY2025 | 10 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 26 |
| FY2024 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Source U.S. Department of Labor — OFLC PERM disclosure files ·Coverage FY2021–FY2026 (through Q3) ·Loaded 2026-08-28 ·Files and method
Certified-expired is a status recorded in the PERM source files. We show it separately from certified, denied and withdrawn. These aggregate records do not establish whether a later immigration filing was made, why a record has this status, or whether an individual received a green card.
Each row is a source record at its filed location. Multiple locations and repeated or amended records are retained; these rows are not a count of independent layoff events or unique people. Entity matching may be incomplete.
| Notice date | Effective | Filed as | Location as filed | Type | Employees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-02-13 | 2024-02-16 | Maplebear | 50 Beale Street, #600 San Francisco CA 94107 · CA | Layoff Permanent | 105 |
Source State WARN layoff notices ·Coverage CA · 2018-11-15 to 2026-08-24 ·Loaded 2026-08-28 ·Files and method
Maplebear Inc.
https://thesponsorfile.com/employer/maplebear-inc
These questions are prompted by the historical records and data gaps on this page. They are not conclusions about current policy or advice about an individual case.
To print this checklist, choose Print in your browser’s menu. Only this checklist and its evidence will print. No answers are collected or saved here.
Observed on this page: Maplebear Inc. is the page display name. 3 filing-name variants are grouped here. Page scope: grouped filing names; source matching may differ. No group relationship is recorded here; independence is not verified. The future employing or petitioning legal entity is not verified.
Ask the employer: Which legal entity would employ me and file any petition for this role? How does it relate to the filing names shown here?
Evidence: https://thesponsorfile.com/employer/maplebear-inc#filing-names
Observed on this page: FY2025: $190,000; n=109 filings with a wage; median of 109. Certified filings with valid annualized wages. Employer-wide filing samples can differ in role, level and location; this is not a like-for-like offer comparison. Filed wages are not verified pay or total compensation.
Ask the employer: What base pay, job title, level and work location are specified for this role, and how do they relate to the historical filings shown here?
See records: Pay and work location
Evidence: https://thesponsorfile.com/employer/maplebear-inc#wages
Observed on this page: FY2021–FY2025 combined: 362 approved / 1 denied matched change-of-employer decisions; n=363.
Ask the employer: Does the employer currently support the petition type required for this role, and who can explain the process and timing? These historical counts do not establish current policy.
See records: Current petition policy
Evidence: https://thesponsorfile.com/employer/maplebear-inc#outcomes
Observed on this page: 69 matched PERM records across FY2021–FY2026 (through Q3). n=69 source records across all covered years. This is not a count of green cards issued.
Ask the employer: What is the employer’s current policy for starting an employment-based permanent-residence process for this role, and which entity would handle it? Historical PERM records do not confirm a commitment for this role.
See records: Current permanent-residence policy
Evidence: https://thesponsorfile.com/employer/maplebear-inc#perm
Observed on this page: 1 matched California WARN source records; CA · 2018-11-15 to 2026-08-24. 1 source observations Loaded states: CA. Worksite states not loaded: WA, NY, TX, NJ, IL, GA, OH, FL, VA, IN, NC, MA, MN, AZ, PA, UT, AR, CO, CT, KS, LA, MD, MO, NV. Source observations may include different locations or revisions, not independent events or unique people. Entity matching may be incomplete; this does not establish that no notices were filed or no changes occurred.
Ask the employer: Do any of the work locations in these records relate to this role, and can you clarify the current status of the team and worksite?
See records: Current team and worksite changes
Evidence: https://thesponsorfile.com/employer/maplebear-inc#warn
Current sponsorship, pay, hiring plans and policy for a specific role remain unverified. Loaded dates identify our data version, not a human review date. For advice on an individual immigration case, consult a qualified professional.
This page groups the filing names listed below. Grouping may differ across sources and does not establish which legal entity would employ or petition for you.
| Name as filed | FEIN (last 4) | Filings |
|---|---|---|
| Maplebear Inc. | 3335 | 1,065 |
Showing the 1 most common of 3 filing names.
Different tax IDs in this list are normal — large companies file through several legal entities. We never group by tax ID alone: placeholder and mistyped IDs are common enough that doing so would merge unrelated companies. Grouping here comes from the filing names themselves, plus recorded human judgement where two entities are publicly one company.
Roles. Maplebear Inc. is among the top filers for Machine Learning Engineer. Those pages show the median filed wage for the role across all employers.
Places. It is among the top filers in San Bruno, CA, West Lafayette, IN, Castro Valley, CA, Stanford, CA, New Jersey, NJ, Daly City, CA, Johnson City, NY and Newcastle, WA. Filings are counted by worksite, not by where the company is headquartered.
These are the city and role pages on which this employer ranks among the largest filers — not a complete list of everywhere it files.
Browse all cities and job titles, or read how filings are grouped.
These employers filed LCAs but have fewer than 10 certified records, which is not enough to build a page on. They are listed so that "not shown" never gets read as "does not sponsor".
11x AI Inc. (9) · ABC Technologies California, LLC (9) · Accurate Engineering, Inc. (9) · Achievekids (9) · Acies Engineering, Inc. (9) · ACORE Capital Mortgage, LP. (9) · Acquest law Inc. (9) · Adicet Bio, Inc. (9)
Showing the 8 with the most filings — 8+ employers in CA are below the threshold. This list is truncated, not complete.