Identify H1b Qualification Issues

---
name: identify-h1b-qualification-issues
task_id: immigration/identify-h1b-qualification-issues
description: Pre-filing H-1B qualification review where the memo must assess both the position's specialty occupation and the beneficiary's individual qualifications, including coursework specificity, credential evaluation adequacy, and immigration history continuity, using only generalized analytical categories and without relying on scenario-specific facts.
activates_for: [planner, solver, checker]
---

# Skill: H-1B Qualification Review — Issue Identification Memorandum

## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting

- Treating the petition as a generic resume check instead of separately testing the job’s specialty-occupation theory and the beneficiary’s qualification theory.
- Accepting a degree title without checking whether the transcript supports the claimed specialty through actual coursework, concentration, or equivalent depth.
- Accepting a foreign credential evaluation at face value without testing the evaluator’s basis, methodology, and fit to the H-1B standard being asserted.
- Reconstructing only the current petition period and missing earlier status transitions, gaps, or mixed-authority periods that can affect filing strategy.
- Conflating unauthorized work, lack of status, and unlawful presence; they are distinct and must be analyzed separately.
- Failing to reconcile the support letter, résumé, transcript, prior immigration records, and evaluation for internal consistency.
- Stating that something “needs clarification” without converting that uncertainty into a concrete pre-filing information request.
- Offering conclusions without anchoring them to the governing H-1B authorities.

## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply

- H-1B qualification analysis requires both prongs: the offered position must qualify as a specialty occupation, and the beneficiary must be qualified to perform it under the statute and regulations.
- The core authorities typically include INA § 214(i), 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4), and the specialty-occupation evidentiary framework recognized in H-1B practice.
- Specialty-occupation analysis usually turns on the regulatory alternative pathways, including a degree normally required, industry practice, employer’s normal practice, and the complexity/uniqueness of the duties.
- Beneficiary-qualification analysis must examine whether the claimed degree is in the relevant specialty or whether an equivalent mix of education, training, and experience is adequately documented.
- Foreign degrees require a credential evaluation that explains the equivalency conclusion rather than merely announcing it; the evaluator’s qualifications and reasoning matter.
- Transcript review should focus on course content and concentration, not just the degree label; a related major may still be vulnerable if the specialty coursework is thin.
- Immigration status analysis must distinguish lawful admission, valid status, authorized employment, and unlawful presence; these concepts overlap but are not interchangeable under the INA and implementing regulations.
- Any history gap analysis should be tied to the petition strategy because unresolved gaps can affect credibility, work authorization analysis, and filing posture.
- If the record contains possible inconsistencies, the memo should identify them and recommend correction before filing to avoid accuracy and misrepresentation risk.

## 4. Analytical scaffolds

1. Position theory analysis: test the position against each specialty-occupation pathway and identify the strongest theory, the weakest theory, and any documentary gap for each.
2. Degree-and-transcript analysis: read the transcript as evidence, not decoration; identify the claimed specialty, the actual coursework supporting it, and the portions of the program that do not support it.
3. Credential-evaluation analysis: assess whether the evaluation states the standard applied, describes the underlying academic record, and explains why the degree or experience is equivalent.
4. Experience-equivalency analysis: where experience is relied on, separate job duties, duration, supervision, and contemporaneous evidence; do not accept résumé labels without support.
5. Immigration timeline reconstruction: build a chronological timeline from first relevant U.S. entry through the filing date; list each status, transition, extension, and apparent gap.
6. Status-gap analysis: for each gap or ambiguous period, ask whether the beneficiary had status, had work authorization, worked, or accrued unlawful presence; analyze each independently.
7. Cross-document consistency check: compare the employer letter, beneficiary statements, résumé, I-94 or other status records, transcript, and evaluation for mismatched dates, titles, duties, employers, or education claims.
8. Pre-filing clarification analysis: convert every material uncertainty into a targeted information request that counsel can use before finalizing the petition.

## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships (only if applicable)

- Use a top-down structure: first the position, then the beneficiary, then immigration-history integrity, then cross-document inconsistencies, then pre-filing actions.
- Treat the immigration history as temporal and cumulative; earlier gaps can affect the interpretation of later status periods.
- When multiple periods, statuses, degrees, or claimed specialties appear in the record, enumerate them before analysis and address each separately rather than collapsing them into one blended narrative.
- If only one claimed specialty, one degree path, or one status gap exists, say so expressly and explain why no additional branch is being analyzed.
- Link each issue to the document set that creates it, so the reader can trace the concern back to the source materials.

## 6. Output structure conventions

- Draft a legal issue-identification memo, not an advocacy brief and not a filing cover letter.
- Open with a brief scope statement and an ordinal severity legend, using one consistent scale such as Critical / High / Medium / Low.
- Organize the memo in industry-conventional sections rather than copying any checker-specific checklist.
- For each issue, include: a concise issue statement, severity, governing authority, the factual trigger, the interaction with other source documents, the practical consequence, and the recommended resolution.
- Do not leave an issue at description only; every issue should end with a concrete next step.
- Use plain-text citations to controlling authority by name and section where possible; do not state legal propositions without identifying the governing rule.
- When multiple issues exist, present them as separately numbered items with clear subheadings.
- Include a chronology for immigration status and any gaps as a discrete section or appendix.
- End with a Recommended Actions section that assigns the action to a responsible role and ties it to a filing milestone or urgency level.
- Keep the memo self-contained, with enough structure that counsel can use it directly in pre-filing review.