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.
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.