Good news — this case cleared the first bar
The AAO withdrew SCOPS' erroneous finding that an advanced degree is required and that the Beneficiary's research experience could not be counted, then remanded for SCOPS to evaluate the regulatory criteria and conduct a final merits determination.
SCOPS denied this EB-1B petition for an outstanding researcher in data science, incorrectly concluding that the regulation requires an advanced degree and that research experience gained outside of degree programs could not count. The AAO reversed both findings, clarifying that the three-year experience requirement under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iii) does not mandate an advanced degree—it only restricts experience earned while pursuing one. Because SCOPS never evaluated whether the Beneficiary met at least two of the six regulatory criteria, the AAO remanded for that assessment and, if the threshold is cleared, a final merits determination on international recognition as an outstanding researcher.
What worked: The Beneficiary's post-degree industry research experience (over five years across two employers) was accepted as qualifying under the regulation, successfully rebutting SCOPS' legal error about the advanced degree requirement.
What failed: SCOPS never reached the evidentiary criteria analysis, so no criteria were evaluated; the case was remanded without any finding on whether the Beneficiary is internationally recognized as outstanding.
Takeaway: For EB-1B petitions, researchers without advanced degrees can still qualify if their three years of teaching or research experience were gained outside of degree programs—make this argument explicitly to avoid misapplication of the regulation. Ensure the petition brief directly addresses the regulatory text of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iii) to preempt adjudicator misreading.
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 EB-1B criteria.
● Evidence that moved the needle
- The Beneficiary's post-degree industry research experience (over five years across two employers) was accepted as qualifying under the regulation, successfully rebutting SCOPS' legal error about the advanced degree requirement.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- SCOPS never reached the evidentiary criteria analysis, so no criteria were evaluated
- the case was remanded without any finding on whether the Beneficiary is internationally recognized as outstanding.
Letter from prior employer documenting research experience from April 2018 to July 2023
Letter from petitioning employer documenting research experience from July 2023 to July 2025
Bachelor of Technology in Electronics & Communication Engineering as baseline educational credential
SCOPS incorrectly interpreted 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iii) as requiring an advanced degree for EB-1B classification
SCOPS improperly disregarded the Beneficiary's research experience with his employers because he did not hold an advanced degree, when in fact the regulation only restricts experience gained while pursuing an advanced degree
Completed
I-140 filed
Data science researcher
Completed
SCOPS — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2026-02-24
AAO decision — Remanded
The AAO withdrew SCOPS' erroneous finding that an advanced degree is required and that the Beneficiary's research experience could not be counted, then remanded for SCOPS to evaluate the regulatory criteria and conduct a final merits determination.
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