Inconsistencies in the record

What this objection usually means

Unresolved inconsistencies undermine the credibility of the whole record and must be resolved with independent, objective evidence.

What has tended to answer it

Cross-check every fact across the CV, forms, letters and exhibits before filing.

General patterns drawn from past decisions, not legal advice for your case. Ask a licensed immigration attorney how this applies to you.

The rule

Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582 (BIA 1988)

Quoted from the USCIS Policy Manual current as of Sept 23, 2026. Check the online manual before filing.

Where it sank the appeal

Recent dismissed appeals raising this objection

• Dismissed2026-08-11Clinical & health

  That interpretation is inconsistent with the purpose of the first prong, which requires evidence that the endeavor itself-not just the policy area in which it is situated-is likely to produce consequences of national importance.

  Read decision AUG112026_01B5203
• Dismissed2026-07-31Business & finance

  That interpretation is inconsistent with the purpose of the first prong, which requires evidence that the endeavor itself-not just the policy area in which it is situated-is likely to produce consequences of national importance.

  Read decision JUL312026_02B5203
• Dismissed2026-07-29Business & finance

  Likewise, C-O- wrote that the Petitioner's "work, which requires an in-depth understanding of global supply chains, an ability to be a generalist across many areas of law, as well as domestic and foreign law, and a willingness to push the bounds of existing law, directly addresses inconsistencies in global enforcement."

  Read decision JUL292026_01B5203
• Dismissed2026-07-23Business & finance

  Although the record also contains an employment offer letter dated August 2022 stating that~-----~ purportedly offered the Petitioner the position of "productivity manager,''3 this too is inconsistent with the Petitioner's resume, which states that she had assumed the position of product manager in March 2018 and had been working in that position for over four years as of the date listed on the job offer letter.

  Read decision JUL232026_04B5203
• Dismissed2026-07-23Business & finance

  Before analyzing the Petitioner's claims to the evidentiary criteria, we initially note that there are inconsistencies in the record regarding the Petitioner's proposed endeavor that were alluded to in SCOPS' decision and directly impact his eligibility for the EB-2 classification.

  Read decision JUL232026_01B5203
• Dismissed2026-07-13Business & finance

  Also, users properly scrutinized certain evidence that appears to be inconsistent or incongruous with other materials presented in the record.

  Read decision JUL132026_03B5203

Where the petitioner still won or got a remand

Sustained or remanded decisions where this issue was discussed: read them to see what answered it

• Remanded2026-01-28Computing, AI & data

  The denial then proceeded to state in contradiction that the Petitioner had established eligibility under the second prong of Dhanasar.

  Read decision JAN282026_07B5203
• Remanded2025-08-27Biomedical & life sciences

  SCOPS characterized the varying staii dates as, "greatly discrepant," noting that discrepancies encountered in the evidence call into question the petitioner's ability to meet their burden of proof.

  Read decision AUG272025_01B5203
• Remanded2025-07-25Biomedical & life sciences

  SCOPS found that the change in terminology was a material change in the proposed endeavor and characterized the term change as a "inconsistent and discrepant," noting that discrepancies encountered in the evidence call into question the petitioner's ability to meet their burden of proof.

  Read decision JUL252025_01B5203
• Remanded2025-06-26Computing, AI & data

  We agree with the Petitioner that, given the contradictory conclusions in the denial notice, the best course of action is to remand the matter to SCOPS for farther consideration.

  Read decision JUN262025_07B5203
• Remanded2025-06-10Engineering

  Further, some statements in the decision are contradictory to the conclusion that the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor has national importance.

  Read decision JUN102025_05B5203
• Remanded2025-06-10Engineering

  As to the second Dhanasar prong, the decision contains contradictory statements, stating both that the evidence does not demonstrate that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the endeavor, and that the Petitioner has met this prong.

  Read decision JUN102025_07B5203