Compare Immigration

---
name: compare-perm-credentials-against-beneficiary
task_id: immigration/compare-immigration
description: Gap analysis comparing a position’s stated minimum requirements against an individual’s actual credentials, with attention to whether superficial matches on degree field and experience totals conceal qualification-defeating deficiencies in certification specificity, pre-degree experience countability, and concurrent academic-work periods.
activates_for: [planner, solver, checker]
---

# Skill: Compare PERM Requirements Against Beneficiary Credentials

## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting

- Agents treat a foreign credential evaluation as dispositive without checking whether the named degree, field, or certification requirement is actually matched by the beneficiary’s record.
- Experience totals are accepted at face value without separating pre-degree, concurrent-enrollment, and post-degree periods that may count differently.
- The analysis compares only headline years and ignores the chronology needed to test whether the beneficiary had the required qualification at the relevant time.
- Position duties and the beneficiary’s actual work history are described as generally similar, but the analysis does not say whether the mismatch matters for the filing as drafted.
- Remedial options are omitted, leaving the reader with a gap description but no practical path to cure, refile, supplement, or revise strategy.

## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply

- Test the beneficiary against each minimum requirement stated for the offered position, as of the filing-relevant date, rather than against a generalized “similar occupation” description.
- Where a position requires a particular degree level, field, or certification, assess the exact requirement first; treat an asserted equivalent only if the record identifies a recognized basis for equivalency.
- Countable experience must be analyzed chronologically. Separate education, employment, training, and any overlap periods before concluding that experience is qualifying.
- Experience acquired before the required degree is completed may be non-countable for purposes of a degree-plus-experience requirement, depending on the governing framework and the evidentiary record.
- Work performed while enrolled full time in an academic program may not be safely counted as independent professional experience without a careful record-based justification.
- Foreign credential evaluations translate academic equivalency, but they do not eliminate the need to reconcile transcripts, dates, and program structure against the job requirements.
- A gap analysis memo should identify the deficiency, its severity, the controlling rule or filing convention supporting that assessment, and the available cure or mitigation path.

## 4. Analytical scaffolds

1. Requirement extraction: enumerate each stated minimum requirement in the PERM record, including education, field, experience, certifications, and special skills.
2. Credential inventory: enumerate the beneficiary’s degrees, certifications, employment periods, academic enrollment periods, and any credential evaluations, with dates.
3. Qualification-by-qualification comparison: compare each requirement to the supporting credential or work record and note whether the match is direct, inferred, or absent.
4. Chronology construction: build a single timeline that places education, enrollment, employment, and training in sequence and identifies overlaps.
5. Countability analysis: mark each experience segment as countable, potentially countable, or non-countable based on timing and the documented qualification path.
6. Severity assignment: classify each gap as Critical, High, Medium, or Low, using the same ordinal scale throughout.
7. Remedy analysis: for every material gap, identify the most plausible corrective path, such as supplemental evidence, revised filing strategy, alternative qualification theory, or record clarification.

## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships

- Treat the position requirements as the top row of the comparison and the beneficiary’s actual record as the bottom row; do not blur the two.
- When a requirement depends on a sequence, preserve that sequence explicitly: degree first, then experience, then any certification or specialization as required by the filing.
- If the record contains overlapping school and work periods, flag the overlap before counting experience and explain why the overlap matters.
- If multiple credentials could arguably satisfy one requirement, list them separately and analyze each rather than collapsing them into one blended match.
- If the record is ambiguous on dates, identify the ambiguity and state whether it prevents a confident countability conclusion.

## 6. Output structure conventions

- Begin with a short memorandum summary stating whether the beneficiary appears to meet the PERM minimum requirements, and where the principal gaps lie.
- Include a comparison table with columns for Requirement, Beneficiary Evidence, Match Assessment, Severity, and Authority/Convention Relying On.
- Add a chronology appendix that shows education, enrollment, employment, and any overlap periods in a single timeline.
- For each material gap, include a concise explanation that ties together the requirement, the supporting record, the governing rule or convention, and the downstream impact on filing viability.
- End with a Recommended Actions section. Each recommendation should use an imperative verb, identify the responsible role if available from the source record, and include a timing anchor tied to the filing or response posture.
- Use plain, export-safe prose; do not rely on formatting alone to convey conclusions.
- Keep the memo focused on the operative comparison and remedial path; do not narrate the whole case history unless it affects countability or qualification.