Scenario 02

---
name: identify-rfe-issues-scenario-02
task_id: immigration/identify-rfe-issues/scenario-02
description: H-1B request-for-evidence issue-identification memorandum. The analysis should go beyond the stated agency concerns to review the petition record for independent factual inaccuracies, internal inconsistencies, and sequence problems in the petitioner’s own submissions, and should assess how any such issues may affect the response strategy and the underlying petition record.
activates_for: [planner, solver, checker]
---

# Skill: H-1B RFE Issue Identification Memorandum

## 1. Subject-matter triage
- Treat the RFE notice as the organizing spine, but do not let it define the full scope of review.
- Review the entire petition record for issues in the petitioner’s own materials that may affect response strategy, record integrity, or credibility.
- This task is an issue-spotting and advisory exercise, not a merits brief; the output should identify concerns, not argue them away.
- If multiple RFE grounds are present, enumerate them first in the order presented and analyze each separately.

## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting
- The analysis stops at the agency’s stated concerns and misses independent defects in the filed record.
- Documents from the petitioner are assumed accurate simply because they were submitted, even when they contain internal errors or contradictions.
- Filing chronology problems are overlooked even when the record creates a mismatch between a prerequisite filing, a status description, and the petition narrative.
- The response strategy is treated as identical for all problems, without distinguishing technical deficiencies from broader accuracy or credibility concerns.
- The memorandum identifies concerns without ranking their seriousness or stating what practical consequences they create.

## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply
- Apply the H-1B framework implicated by the record, including specialty-occupation analysis, employer-employee/control analysis, job-description alignment, organizational-consistency review, and sequence/prerequisite compliance where relevant.
- Use the petition record’s own chronology as a governing reference point; if the documents describe a prerequisite filing, status, or event, test those descriptions against the petition timeline and each other.
- A discrepancy in the petitioner’s own submission can matter even if it is not the express basis of the RFE, because it may undercut the response, invite follow-up scrutiny, or require correction before submission.
- When a petitioner-facing document contains an error, assess whether it should be corrected directly in the RFE response, supported by an updated exhibit, or handled through a separate corrective filing strategy.
- State the controlling legal or regulatory authority for each proposition relied on, using the relevant statute, regulation, or recognized agency framework for the H-1B issue being discussed.

## 4. Analytical scaffolds
1. Parse the RFE notice: enumerate each agency-identified ground in the order presented and tie it to the evidence the agency appears to be missing or questioning.
2. Inventory the record: separate the petition support letter, prerequisite filings, organizational materials, job materials, beneficiary materials, and any chronologically sensitive exhibits.
3. Review each RFE ground: for each one, identify the issue, the governing H-1B element, the record documents that bear on it, and the practical response posture.
4. Check petitioner-authored documents independently: read them for factual accuracy, internal consistency, date/order alignment, title or role consistency, and consistency with supporting exhibits.
5. Verify chronology: test whether the record reflects the correct sequence of events and whether any document describes that sequence inconsistently or ambiguously.
6. Classify each issue: distinguish a technical defect from an accuracy, inconsistency, or credibility concern; then assign a severity level and explain the basis for that ranking.
7. Close each issue: state the evidentiary hook, the cross-document interaction, and the downstream consequence for the petition or response strategy.
8. Recommend the fix: identify whether the issue should be corrected in the response package, supported with a clarifying exhibit, or handled outside the response.

## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships
- Track relationships across time, not just within a single document: filing date, prerequisite date, employment start date, projected validity period, and any later-referenced event must be consistent across the record.
- Track relationships across document types: a support letter, form filing, exhibit list, organizational chart, and employment letter should describe the same job and the same sequence without drift.
- If a document references another filing or event, verify that the referenced item exists in the record and that the reference is accurate.
- If one document corrects another, note whether the correction is explicit, complete, and consistent with the remainder of the packet.
- Treat inconsistencies in sequence or status as more than clerical issues when they affect eligibility, credibility, or the clarity of the response narrative.

## 6. Output structure conventions
- Produce a memorandum organized by RFE category, followed by independently identified issues from the petitioner’s documents.
- Use one consistent entry format for every issue:
  - Issue title
  - Severity
  - Relevant authority
  - Record basis
  - Why it matters
  - Response or correction strategy
  - Supporting evidence needed
- Define the severity scale once and apply it uniformly across the memo, using an ordinal ranking such as Critical / High / Medium / Low.
- For each issue, include a concise statement of the downstream consequence for the petition, response, or record integrity.
- Distinguish clearly between issues raised by the agency and issues found independently in the record.
- End with an overall risk assessment and a Recommended Actions block with imperative steps, the responsible role, and a timing anchor tied to the RFE deadline or other filing milestone.