The AAO remanded an H-1B revocation because SCOPS erroneously stated the petitioner had not responded to the notice of…

SCOPS approved an H-1B extension for a senior data engineer, then issued a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) based on site-visit findings suggesting the beneficiary's actual job duties may not have matched the approved petition. The petitioner timely responded to the NOIR, but SCOPS's revocation decision incorrectly stated no response was received and revoked the approval without considering that response. On appeal, the AAO identified this procedural error, withdrew the revocation decision, and remanded the matter to SCOPS to consider the full record, including the NOIR response and any evidence submitted on appeal. No final merits determination on the substantive specialty occupation question was made.

What worked: The petitioner demonstrated on appeal that it had in fact submitted a timely NOIR response, which was still accessible within USCIS systems. This procedural showing alone was sufficient to obtain a remand without any merits adjudication.

What failed: The substantive question of whether the beneficiary was employed in the capacity specified in the approved petition—based on site-visit findings about degree and experience requirements for the data engineer role—was not resolved and remains open on remand.

Takeaway: Always retain proof of submission (e.g., delivery confirmations, submission receipts) for any NOIR response, and raise procedural failures promptly on appeal; a failure to consider a timely NOIR response is a reversible error warranting remand regardless of the merits.

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.