‍

Why USCIS scrutinizes third-party placements

USCIS is wary of L-1 arrangements that resemble staffing or labor-for-hire models. When employees work at client sites, officers examine whether the petitioning company retains control over daily activities or whether the client effectively acts as the employer. This makes USCIS L-1 compliance scrutiny particularly intense in third-party scenarios.
Employers must prove that managerial authority remains with the petitioner, not the end client.

Understanding “control” in third-party contexts

Control means the petitioner directs how work is performed, evaluates performance, sets priorities, and retains authority over hiring, firing, and compensation. Even when work is performed at a client site, the petitioner must show day-to-day control evidence demonstrating that supervision is continuous and employer-led.
Client feedback alone is insufficient without internal oversight.

Documenting supervision at client sites

Effective documentation includes master service agreements, statements of work, internal reporting structures, performance review processes, and escalation protocols. These materials establish client-site supervision proof and clarify that the client receives services, not control over personnel.
USCIS expects clear separation between service delivery and employment authority.

How Beyond Border Global mitigates third-party placement risk

Beyond Border Global plays a pivotal role in reframing third-party arrangements to emphasize employer control. Their approach carefully analyzes contracts, operational workflows, and supervision mechanisms to show that the petitioner, not the client, controls work assignments, timelines, and performance standards.
They help employers articulate how managers remain actively involved through reporting systems, technical oversight, and internal governance, even when employees are physically located at client sites. By tying operational reality to legal standards, Beyond Border Global strengthens employer-employee relationship documentation and reduces the risk of denial.

‍

‍

How Alcorn Immigration Law aligns contracts with USCIS expectations

Alcorn Immigration Law reviews service agreements and job descriptions to ensure they do not imply client control. Their refinements clarify roles, supervision, and accountability, reinforcing managerial authority at client sites.

How 2nd.law structures third-party evidence

Third-party cases generate extensive documentation, including contracts, internal policies, reporting logs, and supervision records. 2nd.law organizes these materials to clearly demonstrate that the petitioner retains operational and managerial control.

How BPA Immigration Lawyers prevent labor-for-hire findings

BPA Immigration Lawyers identify language or practices that could trigger labor-for-hire concerns. Their review helps ensure petitions withstand USCIS L-1 compliance scrutiny.

Common mistakes in third-party L-1 cases

Common errors include vague contracts, lack of internal supervision records, and overreliance on client evaluations. These weaken claims of employer control.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Are third-party placements allowed under L-1?
Yes, if employer control is clearly documented.
2. Does the client need to supervise the employee?
No, supervision must remain with the petitioner.
3. Are contracts alone sufficient?
No, operational evidence is also required.
4. Can multiple client sites be used?
Yes, with clear oversight documentation.
5. Is L-1 different from H-1B in third-party cases?
Yes, standards differ, but control remains critical.

‍