This appeal was not successful at this stage
The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish that the proffered PeopleSoft technical analyst position qualifies as a specialty occupation and failed to demonstrate sufficient non-speculative work for the entire requested three-year validity period.
An information technology company petitioned to continue employing a beneficiary as a PeopleSoft technical analyst under H-1B status. The AAO upheld the denial on two independent grounds: first, the petitioner failed to describe the position's duties in sufficient detail and relied on a broad, generalized degree requirement (including 'business' or 'science') that did not establish a specialty occupation; second, the client contracts on record expired well before the requested 2020 end date, and the petitioner's stated plans for future in-house work were speculative. Because the beneficiary was to work at third-party client sites, documentation from those clients specifying duties and educational requirements was essential but was not provided in a form specific to the beneficiary. The decision reinforces that IT staffing companies must supply detailed, client-specific documentation and concrete work assignments for the entire validity period when petitioning for H-1B workers placed at end clients.
What failed: 1. The petitioner listed 'business' and 'science' as acceptable degree fields without sufficient specificity, which is inadequate to establish a specialty occupation. 2. No client-specific documentation tied the beneficiary to defined duties or educational requirements at the end-client sites. 3. Client contracts expired in 2017, far short of the 2020 validity period requested, and plans for future work were found to be speculative.
Takeaway: IT staffing companies placing workers at end-client sites must obtain client-specific statements of work and duty descriptions that clearly mandate a specialized degree for H-1B petitions, and must provide contracts or letters of intent covering the entire requested validity period to avoid denial for speculative employment.
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 listed 'business' and 'science' as acceptable degree fields without sufficient specificity, which is inadequate to establish a specialty occupation
- No client-specific documentation tied the beneficiary to defined duties or educational requirements at the end-client sites
- Client contracts expired in 2017, far short of the 2020 validity period requested, and plans for future work were found to be speculative.
Past relationship between the petitioner and end clients CB and PJ was acknowledged
Prior Standard Contract Amendment with CB (August 2013 to August 2016) demonstrated an established business relationship
Petitioner's own annotated duty list was insufficient to establish the substantive nature of the proffered position
Client documentation from CB and PJ was not specific to the beneficiary and lacked adequate detail about job duties and minimum education requirements
Statement of Work from PJ only covered 600 hours within calendar year 2017, well short of the three-year validity period requested
CB Standard Contract Amendment expired August 21, 2017, far short of the 2020 end date
Newest CB Standard Contract Document lacked required signatures, undermining its reliability
Petitioner's claim that the beneficiary would join an in-house development team for future unspecified projects was deemed speculative
Degree requirement stated as 'business' or 'science' without specialization was insufficient to establish specialty occupation
Completed
I-129 filed
PeopleSoft technical analyst performing IT project work for end clients
Completed
California Service Center — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2017-10-05
AAO decision — Dismissed
The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish that the proffered PeopleSoft technical analyst position qualifies as a specialty occupation and failed to demonstrate sufficient non-speculative work for the entire requested three-year validity period.
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