This appeal was fully successful
The AAO sustained the appeal, finding that the record preponderantly established how each listed field of study directly related to the duties of the offered position, and that the position qualifies as a specialty occupation.
SCOPS denied the H-1B petition on the ground that the offered position allowed entry from too many disparate fields of study, suggesting it was not a specialty occupation. The AAO noted inconsistencies in how SCOPS characterized those fields between the RFE and the denial. On de novo review, the AAO found that the Petitioner had sufficiently explained how each listed field of study directly relates to the complex duties of the offered position. The AAO concluded the position satisfies 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4) and qualifies as a specialty occupation, and that the Beneficiary — who holds both a bachelor's and a U.S. master's degree — is qualified to perform the duties.
What worked: The Petitioner provided detailed explanations in support letters demonstrating how each listed degree field directly connects to the specialized duties of the position. The position description, viewed in the context of the employer's operations, showed duties complex enough to require a qualifying degree. The Beneficiary's academic credentials (bachelor's and U.S. master's degree) further supported qualification.
What failed: SCOPS' denial was undermined by its own inconsistency in describing which fields it found objectionable, and its failure to credit the Petitioner's substantive explanations of the relationship between the listed fields and the position duties.
Takeaway: When a position allows entry from multiple fields of study, petitioners should proactively and thoroughly explain how each field directly relates to the specific duties of the role. Documenting the complexity of the position within the context of the employer's broader operations strengthens the specialty occupation argument.
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
- The Petitioner provided detailed explanations in support letters demonstrating how each listed degree field directly connects to the specialized duties of the position
- The position description, viewed in the context of the employer's operations, showed duties complex enough to require a qualifying degree
- The Beneficiary's academic credentials (bachelor's and U.S
- master's degree) further supported qualification.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- SCOPS' denial was undermined by its own inconsistency in describing which fields it found objectionable, and its failure to credit the Petitioner's substantive explanations of the relationship between the listed fields and the position duties.
Completed
I-129 filed
Specialty occupation worker in a quantitative/analytical field requiring advanced degree
Completed
SCOPS — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2026-04-27
AAO decision — Sustained
The AAO sustained the appeal, finding that the record preponderantly established how each listed field of study directly related to the duties of the offered position, and that the position qualifies as a specialty occupation.