Search

We were approached by an employer in the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry to respond to an RFE (Request for Evidence) for an Operations Research Analyst. The RFE indicated that the job duties were vague, and did not allow the USCIS to ascertain the minimum requirements for the position, or determine whether it constituted a specialty occupation.

We assisted in the filing of an H-1B petition for a newly established company in the healthcare industry for a computer and information systems manager. We received a request for evidence (RFE), asking for details about the employer and questioning the employee’s qualifications. Oddly, the RFE specifically questioned the credentials of the professor, who had assessed the employee’s educational background and experiential qualifications.

We filed an H-1B extension petition for a small software company that offers customer software and technology solutions to the local clientele. USCIS approved the classification portion of the petition, but denied the portion of the petition requesting an extension of stay. USCIS stated that beneficiary had failed to maintain his nonimmigrant status because his H-1B status had expired prior to the filing of the H-1B extension petition and he was only  in an authorized period of stay because of a pending extension request from the previous employer.

We filed an H-1B petition for a company that provides IT related services, on behalf of the beneficiary, a  software developer. An RFE was subsequently issued, responded to and then denied as failing to prove that petitioner established that sufficient speciality occupation work was available and that the position qualified as a specialty occupation. We filed an appeal with the Administrative Appeals Office, the appeal was sustained and the petition was remanded back for issuance of an approval notice.

We filed an H-1B extension petition for a software consulting and professional services firm on behalf of a software architect requesting status and work authorization for a duration of three years. The extension was, however, approved for a duration much shorter than requested and the approval notice was both dated and received after the shorter validity period had already expired, thereby destroying the legal status of the employee and causing him to accrue unlawful presence.