What is the process for professionals to appeal or regain credential recognition after the Department of Education’s 2025 decision?

1. Who handles appeals about individual foreign credentials — not the Department of Education

If you are a professional whose foreign degree or license was assessed and you want to appeal, the U.S. Department of Education’s guidance directs you to the appeals processes maintained by private credential evaluation services or the admitting/licensing authority (school, employer, licensing board); the federal government does not operate an individual credential-appeal mechanism ^[1]. In practice that means you must use the evaluator’s internal appeal procedure or the admissions or licensing body’s review process — the Department’s public guidance explicitly tells applicants to “make use of the appeals process provided by the credential evaluation service” ^[1].

2. How accrediting-agency recognition and appeals intersect with individual credentials

When questions concern the recognition status of an accrediting agency itself (which can affect institutions and indirectly professionals), the Department’s notices describe formal scopes of recognition that extend to an agency’s Executive Committee and Appeals Body for decisions on denial/withdrawal of candidacy, probation, or denial/withdrawal of accreditation ^[3]. The Department solicits public comment on agencies undergoing recognition review and requires those comments to relate to the specific criteria cited in compliance reports or appeal decisions ^[4]. That is a distinct pathway from individual credential appeals: it addresses whether an accreditor meets federal criteria, not whether a person’s degree is equivalent.

3. Practical steps professionals should expect to take

Available sources recommend these practical steps: request a reevaluation or file the formal appeal with the credential evaluation service that prepared the report; contact the institution, employer, or licensing board that made the recognition decision to ask about their internal review or reconsideration procedures; and, where relevant, submit supplemental documentation that clarifies course content, syllabi, or institutional status ^{[1] [5]}. The U.S. Department of State and federal hiring guidance note that applicants routinely submit evaluations from member organizations of national credential-evaluation associations — implying that selecting a different recognized evaluator (e.g., a member of NACES) can be part of a remediation strategy ^{[5] [6]}.

4. If the issue stems from accreditor recognition, public comment and appeals matter

If a denial or withdrawal of accreditation by an accrediting agency (and thus downstream credential recognition) is at stake, affected parties can engage the Department’s oversight process: the Department’s Federal Register notices invite written third‑party comments and tie those comments to the recognition criteria cited in Department correspondence or appeal decisions ^[4]. Notices also detail that recognition scope includes appeals bodies for accrediting agencies and that stakeholders can submit comments during public review windows ^{[3] [4]}.

5. Where federal authority stops and private/regional systems start

The Department explicitly distances itself from accrediting or endorsing individual credential evaluators: it does not accredit or recommend specific private evaluation services, and there is no federal accreditation of those services — a reality reiterated in independent reporting and guidance about credential evaluation in the U.S. ^{[1] [7]}. That creates a fragmented system: federal oversight focuses on accrediting bodies and state approval agencies (which must apply for recognition via the Department’s Accreditation Group), while the assessments that determine individual professionals’ standing are produced by nongovernmental evaluators or licensing boards ^{[2] [1]}.

6. Alternative remedies and international models to watch

For professionals seeking other avenues, sources point to models and resources outside the Department: national trade associations of credential evaluators (like NACES) and established private evaluators can reissue or re-evaluate reports, and some jurisdictions (or countries) have formal appeal processes documented in recognition frameworks (for example, ENIC‑NARIC systems outline rights and possibilities for appeal in their charters) — these illustrate templates for transparent appeals though they are not federal mechanisms in the U.S. ^{[6] [8]}.

7. Limitations and what reporting does not say

Available sources do not mention a new, centralized federal appeals mechanism created in 2025 that allows individuals to “regain” credential recognition directly through the Department of Education; they instead document existing private-service appeals and Department actions aimed at accrediting agencies ^{[1] [4]}. The Department’s public materials and related notices therefore recommend using evaluator and licensing/institutional appeal processes while engaging federal comment mechanisms only when the recognition status of an accreditor itself is contested ^{[1] [4]}.