This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to establish the substantive nature of the work the beneficiary would actually perform for the end-client, making it impossible to evaluate whether the position qualified as a specialty occupation. The record showed only speculative employment through a vague staffing arrangement.
A software company filed an H-1B petition to place a beneficiary as a software application developer at an end-client through a managed service provider arrangement. The California Service Center denied the petition, and the AAO affirmed on de novo review. The core problem was that the submitted documents — a vague supplier services agreement, a brief engagement record, and a two-sentence end-client letter — failed to describe the beneficiary's actual duties, project scope, or work timeline in sufficient detail. Because the substantive nature of the work was never established, the AAO could not evaluate any of the four specialty occupation criteria. The AAO also found the employment speculative because there was no reliable evidence that the project would continue through the full requested period.
What failed: 1. The staffing/MSP arrangement created a problematic documentation chain — the SMSA between petitioner and MSP had no commitment to specific services, location, or duration for the beneficiary. 2. The end-client letter was far too brief, providing only two sentences about the project with no description of duties, project scope, team structure, or complexity. 3. The engagement printout showed an end date of December 2019, contradicting the petition period extending to September 2022, and no corroborating contracts bridged this gap.
Takeaway: When an H-1B worker is placed at an end-client through a staffing or MSP arrangement, petitioners must submit detailed, corroborating documentation from the end-client — including specific job duties, project scope, team structure, timelines, and contracts covering the full requested period — not just a brief confirmation letter. Vague framework agreements between intermediaries will not satisfy the requirement to show actual, non-speculative specialty occupation work.
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 staffing/MSP arrangement created a problematic documentation chain — the SMSA between petitioner and MSP had no commitment to specific services, location, or duration for the beneficiary
- The end-client letter was far too brief, providing only two sentences about the project with no description of duties, project scope, team structure, or complexity
- The engagement printout showed an end date of December 2019, contradicting the petition period extending to September 2022, and no corroborating contracts bridged this gap.
End-client letter confirming a working relationship with the beneficiary and that the beneficiary was contracted as a software developer
Supplier Master Services Agreement (SMSA) between petitioner and managed service provider — too vague, no commitment to specific services, period, or location
Website 'Engagement' printout — lacked job title, duties, project scope, budget, and team information; also showed end date of December 31, 2019 inconsistent with petition period
End-client letter — only two sentences about the project; failed to explain duties, project scope, team structure, delegation of responsibilities, timeline, or complexity
No contracts or corroborating evidence that the project would continue through September 2022 as requested
Completed
I-129 filed
Software application developer placed at an end-client through a managed service provider arrangement
Completed
California Service Center — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2020-03-26
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to establish the substantive nature of the work the beneficiary would actually perform for the end-client, making it impossible to evaluate whether the position qualified as a specialty occupation. The record showed only speculative employment through a vague staffing arrangement.
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