Support letters generic or unsupported

What this objection usually means

Expert letters are advisory. Officers give little weight to letters that repeat the same language, lack first-hand knowledge, or describe no concrete achievement backed by other evidence.

What has tended to answer it

Letters from independent experts with first-hand knowledge that name specific contributions, how others used them, and why they position the person for the endeavor, each corroborated by exhibits.

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

The rule

“Letters may be persuasive when they are from experts in the person’s field who have first-hand knowledge of the person’s achievements, describe those achievements, provide specific examples of how the person is well positioned to advance the person’s endeavor, and are supported by other independent evidence.”

USCIS Policy Manual, Vol. 6, Pt. F, Ch. 5(D)(3) (second prong)

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

• Dismissed2026-08-20Engineering

  He also submitted copies of publications that provide generalized information about workforce training, and letters of recommendation.

  Read decision AUG202026_01B5203
• Dismissed2026-08-19Computing, AI & data

  M-P-M-'s letter also pointed to the value of having robust anti-fraud initiatives in the digital advertising industry, but the issue here is not the importance of the Petitioner's field or industry in general.

  Read decision AUG192026_01B5203
• Dismissed2026-08-12Aviation & transport

  Further, these letters do not include details about the training, and they are not corroborated by additional evidence to show how programs he has developed would have an impact on workforce shortages or aviation safety.

  Read decision AUG122026_01B5203
• Dismissed2026-08-03Business & finance

  However, the authors' opinions are largely conclusory and do not adequately explain how the Petitioner's work would produce such nationally important impacts.

  Read decision AUG032026_01B5203
• Dismissed2026-07-30Engineering

  Overall, the letters provide general descriptions of the Petitioner's various research projects and praise the Petitioner's knowledge and skills.

  Read decision JUL302026_01B5203
• Dismissed2026-07-29Business & finance

  Although some ofthe letters broadly state that the Petitioner's endeavor will benefit the United States, they lack specific details and corroborating evidence to substantiate their claims.

  Read decision JUL292026_02B5203

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

• Remanded2026-07-16Engineering

  SCOPS' decision also stated that "[t]he record is not supported by any letters from interested U.S. government agencies or quasi-governmental entities in the United States (e.g., federally-funded research and development centers) establishing that the agency or entity has expertise in the proposed endeavor and that the proposed endeavor promises to advance a critical and emerging technology or is otherwise important for purposes of maintaining the United States' technological prominence."

  Read decision JUL162026_01B5203
• Remanded2026-05-15Computing, AI & data

  On appeal, the Petitioner generally contends that SCOPS "failed to apply a holistic, totality-of-theevidence assessment, mischaracterized the Petitioner's original research infrastructure as generic industry descriptions, and improperly elevated evidentiary requirements for recommendation letters."

  Read decision MAY152026_01B5203
• Remanded2025-10-27Engineering

  The benefit to the United States is considered especially weighty where the endeavor has the potential to support U.S. national security or enhance U.S. economic competitiveness, or when the petition is supported by letters from interested U.S. government agencies. 7 In determining the Petitioner's eligibility with respect to the third prong of Dhanasar, SCOPS stated the following: General assertions that the petitioner's work has influence in this field [do] not persuasively show that it would be beneficial to the United States to waive requirements of a job offer and thus waive the labor cer…

  Read decision OCT272025_01B5203
• Remanded2025-09-24Engineering

  appreciation for him"; SCOPS summarily concluded that "the letters lack specific, detailed information to show he is well positioned."

  Read decision SEP242025_02B5203
• Remanded2025-08-27Biomedical & life sciences

  Specifically, SCOPS stated that his recommendation letter failed to provide specific examples of how the Petitioner's work has influenced the biochemistry field and that the Petitioner failed to provide independent objective evidence demonstrating how his works have influenced the field beyond adding to the general pool of knowledge.

  Read decision AUG272025_01B5203
• Sustained2024-10-16Business & finance

  Specifically, the Director placed little weight on numerous testimonial letters with the observation that the letters do not provide specific examples of the Petitioner's influence on the field "beyond adding to the general pool of knowledge."

  Read decision OCT162024_02B5203