As the H-1B registration period comes to a close, employers are now entering the most consequential phase of the process: petition filing. For those selected in the lottery, the window between April 1 and June 30 will determine whether a case is approved, delayed through Requests for Evidence (RFEs), or denied outright.

In recent years, the registration process has become relatively simple. Many employers have even handled registrations internally, given the streamlined nature of the online system. That simplicity, however, can create a false sense of confidence. Petition filing is an entirely different exercise. It is not a form-driven process. It is a legal one.

USCIS scrutiny has increased significantly, particularly in evaluating whether the offered role qualifies as a bona fide specialty occupation. This trend continues despite no meaningful statutory change, and it is now reinforced by the 2025 H-1B Final Rule, which refines how adjudicators assess degree requirements, job duties, and the relationship between the two.

The practical reality is that H-1B petitions today must be prepared with the expectation that they will be challenged by USCIS. Success depends not just on eligibility, but on how well the case is structured, supported, and defended from the outset. Employers who approach this stage casually, or assume that a basic filing will suffice, often find themselves facing avoidable RFEs or denials.

The New Standard: A Clear and Logical Connection

The 2025 Final Rule places significant emphasis on whether there is a direct and logical connection between the required degree and the job duties. This is not a new concept, but it is now being applied with greater rigor and consistency across adjudications.

It is no longer enough to state that a position requires a bachelor’s degree. USCIS is increasingly focused on whether the employer can clearly explain how the knowledge gained through a specific field of study is necessary to perform the duties of the role. Generalized statements or broad degree requirements are often viewed with skepticism, particularly where the connection between education and duties is not immediately apparent.

The rule also allows for multiple qualifying degree fields, but that flexibility comes with a burden. Each field must independently relate to the position. If a role accepts degrees in computer science, engineering, and information systems, the petition must explain how each of those disciplines provides the specialized knowledge required to perform the job. This often requires a more nuanced discussion of coursework, technical competencies, and how those competencies translate into real-world job functions.

This is where many cases begin to break down. Without a clear and consistent narrative tying duties to education, USCIS will often conclude that the position does not require a specific specialty and therefore does not qualify. The absence of that connection, even in an otherwise strong case, can be enough to trigger an RFE or denial.

The Importance of a Bona Fide Position

One of the most common issues in current adjudications is whether the position itself is bona fide. USCIS is increasingly focused on whether the role is real, clearly defined, and supported by actual business needs at the time of filing. It is, obviously, important not to file for a hypothetical role that doesn’t exist, but USCIS’ regulation goes beyond just that. 

Petitions that rely on generic job descriptions or describe future or anticipated work often face challenges. Adjudicators are looking for evidence that the position exists in a concrete and immediate sense, with defined responsibilities that require specialized knowledge from the start date. If the role appears speculative, or if the duties are framed in a way that suggests they may evolve into something more complex later, USCIS may question whether the position qualifies at all.

A strong petition should clearly explain how the role fits within the company’s operations, what the employee will actually be doing on a day-to-day basis, and why those responsibilities require a specialized academic background. This includes providing context about the business need for the position, how it supports the company’s objectives, and where it sits within the organizational structure.

The more grounded the role is in real business activity, the more credible the case becomes. This is particularly important in an environment where USCIS is increasingly willing to challenge whether the position itself exists in the manner described.

Where Specialty Occupation Cases Go Wrong

The most frequent issue in H-1B RFEs and denials continues to be the specialty occupation analysis. While the regulatory framework has not changed, the expectations around evidence and explanation have become more demanding.

Many cases rely too heavily on general references to industry standards or the Occupational Outlook Handbook without explaining how those sources apply to the specific position. Others describe job duties at a high level without demonstrating the complexity or specialization involved. In some cases, petitions include strong evidence but fail to tie that evidence together into a coherent argument.

Under the current adjudication trends, this is not sufficient. USCIS is looking for a detailed explanation of what the job entails and why it requires specialized knowledge. That means breaking down duties into specific functions, explaining how those functions are performed, and connecting them directly to the knowledge typically gained through a particular course of study. There are many unique strategies that go into specialty occupation, not just throwing the duties into ChatGPT. It is important to understand how the evidence can help, or hurt, you in a response.

It is not enough to show that a degree is common in the field. The petition must show that the degree is necessary for this position, in this company, performing these duties. When that level of specificity is missing, the case becomes vulnerable, regardless of the underlying merits.

Overbroad Degree Requirements as a Structural Weakness

Another common issue arises when degree requirements are defined too broadly. Phrases like “computer science, engineering, or related field” are frequently used, but without further explanation, they can undermine the case in subtle but significant ways.

USCIS often interprets broad degree requirements as evidence that the role does not require a specific specialty. If multiple, unrelated fields are acceptable, the agency may conclude that a general educational background is sufficient. This directly conflicts with the regulatory requirement that the position require a degree in a specific specialty.

To avoid this, degree requirements must be carefully considered and clearly justified. If multiple fields are included, the petition should explain how each field provides the specific knowledge needed to perform the job. This may involve discussing differences between degree programs, identifying overlapping areas of study, and explaining how those areas relate to the duties of the role.

This level of analysis takes time and experience. It requires moving beyond shorthand descriptions and developing a clear, defensable rationale for why the position requires the degrees listed. Without that, even otherwise strong cases can face unnecessary challenges.

The Disconnect Between Duties and Complexity

Another recurring issue is the mismatch between how job duties are described and the level of knowledge they appear to require. Duties that are written in generic or operational terms often lead USCIS to conclude that the role does not require specialized education.

For example, descriptions such as “analyze data,” “develop solutions,” or “support applications” provide little insight into the complexity of the work. Without additional detail, these duties can appear routine or administrative, even if the actual role is far more complex.

A well-prepared petition goes deeper. It explains the tools, methodologies, and frameworks used in the role, as well as the types of problems the employee is expected to solve. It highlights the level of independent judgment required and the technical expertise needed to perform the work effectively.

The goal is to make it clear that the position involves the application of specialized knowledge that is typically acquired through formal education. When that connection is clearly articulated, it becomes much more difficult for USCIS to argue that the role does not qualify.

 

RFEs Are Not Routine; They Are Legal Challenges

One of the biggest mistakes employers make is treating RFEs as routine follow-ups rather than substantive challenges to the case. In today’s environment, an RFE is often a signal that USCIS has identified a fundamental issue with the petition, not just a missing document. You are one step away from a denial, and need to take it as seriously as that.

Responding effectively requires more than submitting additional evidence. It requires understanding the underlying concern, addressing it directly, and reframing the case where necessary. This often involves applying regulatory standards, clarifying ambiguities in the original filing, and strengthening the connection between job duties and degree requirements. It requires legal analysis and citations to the text, structure, and history of the statute, regulations, and USCIS policy guidance.

This is where a company’s experience becomes critical. Knowing how USCIS is currently framing issues, what arguments are effective, and how to structure a response can make the difference between approval and denial. A well-crafted RFE response does more than answer questions. It rebuilds the case in a way that addresses the agency’s concerns while reinforcing the overall narrative. It becomes the crux of any future challenges that may arise.

It is also where many cases are won or lost from a litigation perspective. If a case is denied and challenged in federal court, the administrative record created during the petition and RFE stages will be the foundation of that lawsuit. A weak response can limit options later. A strong one can preserve them. Even though litigation is never the goal with an H-1B petition, it sometimes is where things end up, especially in an adversarial administration. Building a strong administrative record, which the petitioner and their attorney control, creates a strong lawsuit if a frivolous denial occurs.

The Value of Experience in a Changing Adjudication Environment

One of the most important realities of the current H-1B landscape is that trends matter. USCIS does not adjudicate cases in isolation. Patterns emerge in RFEs, interpretations evolve, and certain arguments become more or less effective over time.

This is why experience is so important. Working with someone who has seen these trends firsthand allows employers to anticipate issues before they arise, structure petitions to avoid common pitfalls, and respond effectively when challenges occur. It also allows for more strategic decision-making at the outset, including how to frame job duties, define degree requirements, and present supporting evidence. Companies that take on these resources will be highly successful compared to those that think it is just filing out the I-129.

For employers who handled registration internally, this distinction is especially important. Registration is a preliminary step that involves limited information and minimal analysis. Petition filing and RFE responses, by contrast, require a much deeper understanding of legal standards, evidentiary requirements, and current adjudication trends.

The difference between these stages cannot be overstated. What appears simple at the registration phase becomes significantly more complex once a full petition must be prepared and defended.

Building a Case That Can Be Defended in Court

In today’s environment, every H-1B petition should be prepared with the understanding that it may not end with USCIS. Increasingly, Article III courts are becoming a central battleground in all immigration, and employment-based immigration is not left out of this. This is particularly true where adjudications reflect inconsistent reasoning, shifting standards, or a failure to properly apply governing regulations or statutes.

For employers, this fundamentally changes how H-1B petitions must be approached. The objective is no longer limited to securing an approval at the agency level. Instead, the goal is to build a case that can withstand scrutiny at every stage, including judicial review if necessary.

Central to this approach is the concept of the administrative record. In an Administrative Procedure Act challenge, a federal court’s review is generally confined to the evidence that was before the agency at the time of its decision. This means that the petition and any RFE response together form the record that will be evaluated by a judge. There is no opportunity to supplement the record later to fix omissions or clarify points that were not adequately addressed.

This reality places significant control in the hands of the petitioner. The administrative record is not simply something produced by USCIS. It is shaped, in large part, by the employer and its counsel through the initial filing and subsequent responses. A well-developed record can expose weaknesses in the agency’s reasoning and provide a strong basis for challenging a denial. A poorly constructed record can make even a meritorious case difficult to defend.

As a result, every submission should be prepared with an eye toward how it will read in federal court. Job duties must be detailed, consistent, and clearly tied to specialized knowledge. Degree requirements must be precise and supported by a logical explanation. Any ambiguities or potential weaknesses should be addressed directly, rather than left open to interpretation.

RFE responses are particularly critical in this process. They are not merely an opportunity to provide additional documentation. In many cases, they represent the final opportunity to shape the administrative record before a decision is made. A strong response engages directly with USCIS’s concerns, corrects any misunderstandings, and reinforces the legal and factual basis for approval. It also ensures that the record clearly reflects the petitioner’s position on key issues, which can be essential in any subsequent litigation.

As Article III litigation continues to expand in the immigration context, the petition process itself has effectively become the first stage of that potential litigation. Decisions made during filing and RFE response will determine what arguments are available later and how effectively they can be presented.

Employers who recognize this shift, and who work with counsel experienced not only in petition preparation but also in federal court litigation, are better positioned to navigate this landscape. They are able to avoid common pitfalls at the agency level while preserving the ability to challenge adverse decisions when necessary. In an environment where scrutiny is high and outcomes are less predictable, that dual capability is increasingly important.

Conclusion

The H-1B process in 2026 is no longer just about meeting basic eligibility requirements. It is about presenting a case that is clear, consistent, and defensible from the outset.

While the registration process may be simple enough for employers to handle on their own, petition filing is where the real work begins. It requires a detailed understanding of how USCIS is evaluating cases, how to avoid common pitfalls, and how to respond effectively when challenges arise.

In this environment, strategy matters. Experience matters. Having your team equipped with an understanding of not just the law, but how the law is being applied in real time, can make the difference between a smooth approval and a prolonged, uncertain process.

Employers who take a thoughtful and proactive approach will be far better positioned to navigate the process successfully and protect their workforce planning in an increasingly complex immigration landscape.

Reddy Neumann Brown PC located in Houston, Texas, has been serving the business immigration community for over 25 years and is Houston’s largest immigration law firm focused solely on U.S. Employment-based and investor-based immigration. We work with employers, employees and investors helping them navigate the immigration process quickly and cost-effectively.

By:  Steven Brown

Steven A. Brown is a Partner at Reddy Neumann Brown PC, where he leads the firm’s Litigation Team, addressing delays and denials of immigration benefits, FOIA requests, and policy and regulatory challenges. Steven is dedicated to delivering practical and effective solutions for clients facing unreasonably delayed or unlawfully withheld immigration benefits, including Employment Authorization Documents (EADs), advance parole, green cards, 221(g) decisions, EB-5 delays, and other immigration-related matters. His litigation efforts were instrumental in Shergill, et al. v. Mayorkas, a landmark case that led to the U.S. government recognizing that under the INA, L-2 and E visa spouses are authorized to work incident to their status, eliminating the need for separate EAD applications. This case has transformed work authorization for thousands of families across the United States.