This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to establish both a valid employer-employee relationship with the beneficiary and that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation.
The AAO dismissed this H-1B appeal filed by a Colorado-based software development company seeking to employ a Hadoop engineer/tester who was actually working at a California end-client's site through a chain of intermediary vendors. The AAO found that the petitioner failed to establish a valid employer-employee relationship because documentary evidence — including the beneficiary's badge, system access records, and a purchase order — consistently identified the beneficiary as a contractor of an intermediary company, not the petitioner, and the end-client directed the beneficiary's work. The AAO also found the specialty occupation prong unmet because the job duties were described too vaguely to assess their complexity or specialization, the end-client confirmed only that specialized knowledge was needed but made no statement about a degree requirement, and an expert opinion letter was discounted because it lacked grounding in the actual work performed. The petitioner's own tax return, which showed no employee wages paid, further undermined its claim of an employer-employee relationship.
What failed: 1. The petitioner could not show it actually controlled the beneficiary's work — the end-client and an intermediary vendor directed the beneficiary's daily activities, not the petitioner. 2. Job duty descriptions were too vague and generic to demonstrate the position required a specific specialized degree, defeating the specialty occupation claim. 3. An expert opinion letter was given little weight because the expert had no firsthand knowledge of the actual work, the end-client, or its projects, and did not address the entry-level wage designation on the labor condition application.
Takeaway: In third-party placement H-1B cases, petitioners must provide detailed, consistent evidence of actual supervision and control over the beneficiary's daily work — not just assertions — and must obtain explicit statements from the end-client confirming both the degree requirement and the petitioner's role as employer. Vague job duty descriptions and expert opinions untethered to the specific worksite and project will not establish specialty occupation.
Cases like this are frequently used by attorneys when responding to RFEs or building initial petitions. The evidence patterns that worked (or failed) here directly reflect what USCIS officers look for when evaluating H-1B criteria.
● Evidence that moved the needle
- See summary above for details.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The petitioner could not show it actually controlled the beneficiary's work — the end-client and an intermediary vendor directed the beneficiary's daily activities, not the petitioner
- Job duty descriptions were too vague and generic to demonstrate the position required a specific specialized degree, defeating the specialty occupation claim
- An expert opinion letter was given little weight because the expert had no firsthand knowledge of the actual work, the end-client, or its projects, and did not address the entry-level wage designation on the labor condition application.
Beneficiary's identification badge, organization profile page, and system access page issued by end-client showing beneficiary is a contractor of Company R
Purchase order between end-client and Company R naming Company R as supplier of beneficiary's services
End-client email confirming that beneficiary should seek employment verification from Company R, not petitioner
Petitioner's 2014 tax return showing no employee salaries/wages paid but $250,302 in contract labor deductions
Vendor letters from Company I and Company R asserting petitioner supervises beneficiary — contradicted by documentary evidence
Subcontractor agreement and work order with Company I — inconsistent as to which company is the end-client's direct vendor
Petitioner's assertions that it manages and supervises beneficiary remotely from Colorado — unsupported by concrete evidence of communication or oversight
Expert opinion letter from professor at School of Management — not based on actual knowledge of end-client, end-client project, or beneficiary's work products, and did not address Level I wage designation
End-client email confirming in-depth knowledge of Hadoop required — silent on degree requirement for the position
Brief list of job duties — insufficient detail on complexity, specialization, or difficulty to establish specialty occupation
Completed
I-129 filed
Hadoop engineer and tester working with Big Data systems, including Hadoop ecosystem components such as Hive, Pig, Sqoop, and Flume
Completed
California Service Center — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2017-02-27
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to establish both a valid employer-employee relationship with the beneficiary and that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation.
If you're appealing a similar decision, I-290B must be filed within 30 days of personal service of the denial, or 33 days if mailed.
Find this useful? A coffee helps keep Case Reviewer free and ad-free.
Buy me a coffee