H-1B RFE employer-employee relationship

USCIS wants to see more than a statement that the company supervises the employee. The response should identify who sets goals, reviews performance, approves leave, assigns projects, and determines compensation. If the beneficiary works at a client site, explain how the petitioner still directs the engagement through internal managers, reporting lines, regular check-ins, and documented escalation procedures. Concrete workflow details help the officer understand that day-to-day control remains with the petitioner even when services are delivered to another business.

Third-party cases often succeed or fail on the paperwork between entities. Master service agreements, statements of work, work orders, and vendor letters should be assembled to show the chain from petitioner to end client, the role being performed, and the expected duration of the assignment. The best records also avoid contradictions. If one document says the beneficiary reports to the client while another says the petitioner directs all work, USCIS will focus on the inconsistency rather than the explanation. Clean contract evidence is often as important as the legal argument.

Common weak points include missing end-client confirmation, vague itineraries, no explanation of off-site supervision, or evidence that only proves the existence of a project but not the petitioner's authority over the worker. The response letter should walk through each concern in sequence and match it to exhibits. Organizational charts, offer letters, payroll records, manager attestations, and assignment documents can reinforce the core point: the petitioner retains the right to control the beneficiary's employment for the period requested.