This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner provided multiple contradictory statements about the minimum educational requirements for the offered position—first requiring an MBA, then a bachelor's in a technical field, then a business administration degree—without reconciling these inconsistencies, failing to meet the preponderance of evidence standard.
A U.S. company petitioned to employ a foreign worker as a Product Manager III - Technical - MBA under the H-1B visa program. SCOPS denied the petition for failure to establish a specialty occupation, and the AAO dismissed the appeal. The core problem was that the petitioner described three different minimum educational requirements across the initial filing, the RFE response, and a quoted expert opinion letter, without ever reconciling these contradictions. The AAO found that the petitioner's own job advertisements actually showed a consistent internal degree requirement (bachelor's in CS, engineering, math, or related technical field), but the petitioner's shifting and unexplained accounts of the position's requirements prevented the record from meeting the preponderance of evidence standard. The AAO also noted that counsel's appeal brief mischaracterized the content of the hiring manager's letter.
What failed: 1. The petitioner changed the stated minimum degree requirement three times (MBA → technical bachelor's → business administration bachelor's) without explanation, fatally undermining credibility. 2. An expert opinion letter introduced yet another inconsistent degree requirement, and the petitioner highlighted it in a way that conflicted with its own RFE position. 3. Counsel's appeal brief misattributed language to the hiring manager's letter that did not actually appear there, further damaging the petitioner's credibility.
Takeaway: Before filing or responding to an RFE, ensure all descriptions of a position's minimum educational requirements are internally consistent across the petition, supporting letters, and expert opinions—any unexplained shift in stated requirements will undermine the entire record and likely result in denial. If requirements must be clarified or amended, provide a clear, documented explanation for the change.
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
- See summary above for details.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The petitioner changed the stated minimum degree requirement three times (MBA → technical bachelor's → business administration bachelor's) without explanation, fatally undermining credibility
- An expert opinion letter introduced yet another inconsistent degree requirement, and the petitioner highlighted it in a way that conflicted with its own RFE position
- Counsel's appeal brief misattributed language to the hiring manager's letter that did not actually appear there, further damaging the petitioner's credibility.
Eleven of petitioner's own job advertisements, which showed a consistent internal pattern requiring a bachelor's degree in computer science, engineering, math, or a related technical field, with MBA listed as preferred or an alternative
Initial filing characterizing the role as requiring an MBA — abandoned without explanation
RFE response characterizing the role as requiring a bachelor's degree in a technical field (computer science or engineering) — contradicted prior filing and opinion letter
Expert opinion letter from retired professor concluding the position required a bachelor's degree in business administration — inconsistent with petitioner's own stated requirements
Counsel's characterization in the appeal brief attributing 'bachelor's degree in Business Administration' to the hiring manager's letter — not supported by that letter's actual content
Hiring manager's letter — not relied upon as independently dispositive due to surrounding inconsistencies
Petitioner shifted minimum educational requirement from MBA to bachelor's in technical field without explanation
Counsel's appeal brief misrepresented the content of the hiring manager's letter by attributing a 'bachelor's degree in Business Administration' requirement that did not appear in that letter
Petitioner's own job advertisements and opinion letter introduced a third inconsistent degree requirement (business administration), further undermining the record
Completed
I-129 filed
Technical product manager at a U.S. employer
Completed
SCOPS — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2026-04-30
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner provided multiple contradictory statements about the minimum educational requirements for the offered position—first requiring an MBA, then a bachelor's in a technical field, then a business administration degree—without reconciling these inconsistencies, failing to meet the preponderance of evidence standard.
If you're appealing a similar decision, I-290B must be filed within 30 days of personal service of the denial, or 33 days if mailed.
Find this useful? A coffee helps keep Case Reviewer free and ad-free.
Buy me a coffee