This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the record contained inconsistent and insufficient evidence to determine the substantive nature of the proffered 'product manager II' position, precluding any specialty occupation analysis. The designated SOC code (Architectural and Engineering Managers) was inconsistent with the actual duties, which more closely resembled Marketing Manager roles.
An information technology company petitioned to employ a beneficiary as a 'product manager II' under H-1B. The Director denied the petition for failure to establish specialty occupation. On appeal, the AAO found that the LCA designated the position under the 'Architectural and Engineering Managers' SOC code, while the actual job duties and the beneficiary's coursework aligned far more closely with 'Marketing Managers.' This internal inconsistency prevented the AAO from determining the substantive nature of the position, which is a threshold requirement before any specialty occupation analysis can proceed. An expert opinion letter from a marketing professor was given minimal weight because it failed to address the SOC code mismatch and suggested multiple disparate degree fields would qualify, undermining the specific-specialty requirement. The appeal was dismissed.
What failed: The LCA designated an SOC code (Architectural and Engineering Managers) that was fundamentally inconsistent with the actual job duties, which resembled Marketing Manager work. The expert opinion letter failed to resolve this contradiction and suggested broad, non-specific degree requirements, which does not satisfy the specialty occupation standard. The petitioner's own emphasis on the beneficiary's marketing coursework further highlighted the mismatch.
Takeaway: Petitioners must ensure the SOC code on the LCA accurately reflects the actual duties of the proffered position; inconsistencies between the LCA, job description, and supporting evidence can prevent any specialty occupation determination from being made. Expert opinion letters must directly address and reconcile any apparent inconsistencies in the record to carry meaningful weight.
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 LCA designated an SOC code (Architectural and Engineering Managers) that was fundamentally inconsistent with the actual job duties, which resembled Marketing Manager work
- The expert opinion letter failed to resolve this contradiction and suggested broad, non-specific degree requirements, which does not satisfy the specialty occupation standard
- The petitioner's own emphasis on the beneficiary's marketing coursework further highlighted the mismatch.
Expert opinion letter from a marketing professor, which failed to address the mismatch between the designated SOC code and the actual duties, and opined that disparate degree fields (computer science and business administration) would qualify workers, undermining the specific-specialty requirement.
Petitioner's duty description, which was inconsistent with the designated 'Architectural and Engineering Managers' SOC code and more closely resembled marketing roles.
LCA designating SOC code 11-9041 (Architectural and Engineering Managers), which was inconsistent with the described duties and the beneficiary's coursework.
The AAO did not identify errors in the lower decision per se, but found the record itself was fatally inconsistent — the LCA designated the position under SOC 11-9041 (Architectural and Engineering Managers) while the actual duties and educational background aligned with Marketing Managers, making it impossible to assess specialty occupation status.
Completed
I-129 filed
Product Manager II at an information technology company specializing in real-time online advertising
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2020-03-05
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the record contained inconsistent and insufficient evidence to determine the substantive nature of the proffered 'product manager II' position, precluding any specialty occupation analysis. The designated SOC code (Architectural and Engineering Managers) was inconsistent with the actual duties, which more closely resembled Marketing Manager roles.
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