This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the Petitioner provided inconsistent and shifting educational and experience requirements for the offered position throughout proceedings, and also made material changes to the petition after filing that could not cure its deficiencies.
The Petitioner filed an H-1B petition for an Applied Scientist II role but provided contradictory information about the position's minimum requirements across different stages of proceedings — initially claiming only a bachelor's degree was needed, then adding an experience requirement, while its own job ads required a master's degree or equivalent. SCOPS denied the petition on multiple grounds including that the position did not qualify as a specialty occupation and the beneficiary was unqualified. On appeal, the AAO focused on the unresolved inconsistencies and material changes to the petition, invoking binding precedent that prohibits curing a deficient petition through post-filing amendments. Because the true prerequisites for the position could not be determined, the AAO dismissed the appeal without reaching the merits of specialty occupation or beneficiary qualification.
What failed: The petitioner undermined its own case by stating different education and experience requirements at different stages: only a bachelor's degree in the initial petition, then an unspecified experience requirement in the RFE response (unsupported by the supervisor's letter), and then a five-year experience requirement on appeal. The petitioner's own job advertisements further contradicted these positions by requiring a master's degree as the primary qualification. These inconsistencies, left unresolved, prevented the AAO from determining the position's true prerequisites.
Takeaway: Petitioners must establish consistent, well-documented position requirements from the outset of the H-1B filing; introducing new or different requirements in response to an RFE or on appeal will be treated as impermissible material changes and can independently doom the petition regardless of other 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.
● Evidence that moved the needle
- See summary above for details.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The petitioner undermined its own case by stating different education and experience requirements at different stages: only a bachelor's degree in the initial petition, then an unspecified experience requirement in the RFE response (unsupported by the supervisor's letter), and then a five-year experience requirement on appeal
- The petitioner's own job advertisements further contradicted these positions by requiring a master's degree as the primary qualification
- These inconsistencies, left unresolved, prevented the AAO from determining the position's true prerequisites.
Completed
I-129 filed
Applied Scientist II in machine learning or related technical field
Completed
SCOPS — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2026-05-05
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the Petitioner provided inconsistent and shifting educational and experience requirements for the offered position throughout proceedings, and also made material changes to the petition after filing that could not cure its deficiencies.
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.