We've had denied applicants scream at us that they can afford the place and just need a chance to prove it, and I'm guessing they really could make it work.  

Remind them of your application fee and that it won't be refunded if they are denied, too.Then, make an appointment with them. 

Let your first applicant be a protected class and apply when you jack the income requirement up to 4X and see what happens, it's sure going to look like you jacked the qualification up beyond reasonable and customary to deny them!!!

you might want to check with an attorney on that one to see if you can deny it.  

I already denied one of the applicants.  

Landlord denies application by saying one of the two adult applicants doesn't speak English well enough to enter into a legal contract.  

Even though language is not a protected class HUD went after after a landlord that denied tenancy based on a language barrier.  

If we have sufficient information to deny them at that point, we let them know about it and let them know they may want to reconsider putting in an application and paying the application fee, as from what they have shared with us thus far, it appears they will not meet our minimum criteria to rent. 

Also, if they have a restricted breed, and that would cause a hardship (if you'd lose your insurance because one of your tenants had a pit bull, for instance) then you can deny that animal. 

tenant A loves dogs but the building policy prohibits pets. one day, tenant A notices thru the front window that tenant B moved in with 2 dogs (a pit bull mix and a german sheperd mix) with the PM present and no issue was apparently raised; landlord even pet and played with the dogs. tenant A feels betrayed and goes out and buys a yorkie. landlord finds out and issues notice of breach of contract and to vacate or restore the apt to its pet-free requirements.tenant A contronts landlord and demands explanation as to why tenant B has 2 big dogs but tenant A cant have 1 tiny one. landlord discloses tenant B provided proof that each of the 2 dogs are emotional support animals.tenant A asks tenant B why does she have 2 emotional support animals, and for a referral to a professional that could also recommend 2 or 3 dogs so he can keep his yorkie and get a playmate for his and maybe even the yorkie's 'emotional support' each.tenant B is insulted and files a HUD complaint that landlord shared that she needs emotional support (per Fair Housing Act, landlords may not divulge that a tenant has any disability to any third party).meanwhile, tenant C whose toddler was soon after mauled to death by tenant B's sheperd mix, has just won a case in California Supreme Court finding the landlord to be a statutory owner of the dog since it was accepted onto the premises simply based on a letter written by a 'pet therapist' without regard - and consequentially, with negligence - to the other tenants' safety and thus responsible for $2,000,000 in compensation to tenant C for the loss of precious human life, regardless of whether landlord was negligent or not, and regardless of whether animal was a service/support animal or pet.landlord, having lost his countersuit against tenant B for vicious 'support' animal's lethal actions, files claim for his homeowner's insurance to cover the $250 million he owes tenant C but claim is denied altogether on basis that building had a no pet policy and dogs were not declared and the pit bull mix, though recommended, was never even licensed.last but not least, landlord receives summons, subpoenas, etc from HUD and appears for trial in Federal Civil Court. judge finds landlord guilty of divulging that tenant has a disability and orders landlord to pay the statutory $16,000 for one county of housing discrimination,  plus 300,000 in actual damages for the complainant (and of course, her attorneys fees) for she is emotionally scarred for life!