No. The actual arrangement must satisfy the applicable requirements, including the restrictions on principally client-controlled work and arrangements essentially providing labour for hire.
Assess the substance of the placement
Explain supervision, deliverables and the need for knowledge specific to the petitioning employer. Neither the client address nor a favourable contractual label replaces an assessment of what the employee will actually do and who will direct it.
Describe relevant methods, adaptations or processes and the applicant’s actual capability. Explain the actual expertise under the special or advanced knowledge standard and how it supports the US work. Concrete indicators help separate a genuine specialized-knowledge placement from an arrangement that merely supplies labor. Reviewers look at who assigns and reassigns daily tasks, who conducts performance evaluations, and who has authority to remove the applicant from an assignment; retained authority over these decisions points toward the petitioning employer rather than the site where work happens. Equally important is whether the specific process, tool, or methodology that makes the applicant valuable originated with and remains controlled by the petitioning organization, or whether the applicant is simply applying general skills that any qualified worker at that location could supply. Reporting lines matter too: an applicant who escalates technical problems to the petitioning employer, rather than resolving them independently under another organization's direction, demonstrates the kind of ongoing dependency the classification anticipates. Correspondence, incident logs, and internal escalation records can document these distinctions more persuasively than a general description of the assignment.