This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the Beneficiary failed to demonstrate qualification for a specialty occupation position. Neither of the two degree-equivalency evaluations submitted met the applicable regulatory standards.
The petitioner sought H-1B classification for a beneficiary in a computer information systems role but could not show the beneficiary held the required degree. Two degree-equivalency evaluations were submitted: the first improperly combined a three-year foreign degree with work experience under a provision that does not allow it, and the second had a professor apply the 'three-for-one' experience substitution formula that only USCIS is authorized to use. While the AAO found that SCOPS had applied the wrong regulatory standard when criticizing the professor's letter, it reached the same denial conclusion for independent reasons. The resume alone was insufficient to verify work experience claims, and the single employment letter lacked adequate detail about duties and responsibilities.
What failed: 1. The initial credentials evaluation improperly included work experience when equating a three-year foreign degree — this is not permitted under the applicable regulation for credentials evaluation services. 2. The professor's second evaluation used a 'three-for-one' experience-to-education substitution formula that only USCIS is authorized to apply, rendering it legally ineffective. 3. A self-authored resume without corroborating employer letters is insufficient to prove work experience, and the single employer verification letter was too thin on detail about job duties.
Takeaway: When a beneficiary holds only a three-year foreign degree and must rely on work experience to meet H-1B qualification requirements, petitioners should obtain a properly scoped university official evaluation that does not apply the 'three-for-one' USCIS-only formula, and must supplement it with detailed employer letters — not just a resume — that describe actual duties, responsibilities, and the specialized nature of the work performed.
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
- See summary above for details.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The initial credentials evaluation improperly included work experience when equating a three-year foreign degree — this is not permitted under the applicable regulation for credentials evaluation services
- The professor's second evaluation used a 'three-for-one' experience-to-education substitution formula that only USCIS is authorized to apply, rendering it legally ineffective
- A self-authored resume without corroborating employer letters is insufficient to prove work experience, and the single employer verification letter was too thin on detail about job duties.
Completed
I-129 filed
Computer information systems / SAP implementation specialist
Completed
SCOPS — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2026-05-07
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the Beneficiary failed to demonstrate qualification for a specialty occupation position. Neither of the two degree-equivalency evaluations submitted met the applicable regulatory standards.
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.