This appeal was fully successful
The AAO sustained the appeal and remanded for a new decision because SCOPS failed to evaluate whether the beneficiary qualified for the licensing exemption under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(v)(C)(2)(ii). Additionally, the beneficiary had since obtained his New York pharmacist license, resolving the original denial basis.
A consumer health company petitioned for H-1B classification for a staff pharmacist, but SCOPS denied the petition because the beneficiary lacked a New York pharmacist license at the time of adjudication. SCOPS did not assess whether the beneficiary qualified for the regulatory exemption covering applicants whose only obstacle to licensure is the lack of a Social Security number or U.S. employment authorization. On appeal, the AAO found this omission to be a legal error. Furthermore, the New York State Education Department had since issued the beneficiary's pharmacist license, fully resolving the denial issue. The AAO sustained the appeal and found the beneficiary qualified to perform services in the specialty occupation.
What worked: The beneficiary obtained his New York pharmacist license before the appeal was decided, directly resolving SCOPS's denial ground. The petitioner also effectively argued that SCOPS improperly ignored the applicable licensing exemption regulation, which was a clear procedural error.
What failed: No significant evidence was found insufficient in this case; the denial was based on an incomplete SCOPS analysis rather than a lack of qualifying evidence.
Takeaway: When an H-1B denial is based on an applicant's lack of a required state license, petitioners should both challenge whether the licensing exemption at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(v)(C)(2)(ii) applies and proactively pursue licensure so that it can be submitted on appeal if obtained.
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
- The beneficiary obtained his New York pharmacist license before the appeal was decided, directly resolving SCOPS's denial ground
- The petitioner also effectively argued that SCOPS improperly ignored the applicable licensing exemption regulation, which was a clear procedural error.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- No significant evidence was found insufficient in this case
- the denial was based on an incomplete SCOPS analysis rather than a lack of qualifying evidence.
Beneficiary's Doctor of Pharmacy degree
New York State Education Department Office of the Professions pharmacist license issued to the beneficiary
National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP) profile showing the beneficiary applied to take NAPLEX and MPJE exams
Evidence that the offered position requires the theoretical and practical application of highly specialized knowledge and a bachelor's degree or higher in the specific specialty
SCOPS failed to analyze whether the beneficiary qualified for the licensing exemption under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(v)(C)(2)(ii), which covers situations where the only obstacle to licensure is lack of a Social Security number, lack of employment authorization, or a similar technical requirement precluding licensure prior to H-1B status.
Completed
I-129 filed
Staff pharmacist
Completed
SCOPS — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2026-03-19
AAO decision — Sustained
The AAO sustained the appeal and remanded for a new decision because SCOPS failed to evaluate whether the beneficiary qualified for the licensing exemption under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(v)(C)(2)(ii). Additionally, the beneficiary had since obtained his New York pharmacist license, resolving the original denial basis.
Find this useful? A coffee helps keep Case Reviewer free and ad-free.
Buy me a coffee