We have received a series of reversals and remands from the USCIS appeals office (“AAO”) where we had argued that the USCIS had erroneously and illegally revoked approved I-140 petitions. The grounds of appeal in the cases involved:
Failure to prove qualifications of employee because the documentation of experience was insufficient;
Successorship-in-interest of companies, where one company was acquired by another;
Legality of “roving jobs,” consulting positions that require periodic relocation.
We represented an IT consulting company and a Senior Software Engineer employed by them from the point forward where they received an RFE. USCIS issued a Request for Evidence (RFE) questioning accreditation of the Indian universities where the applicant received his degrees. We researched the universities in question and documented that both are highly regarded and world renowned institutions. Additionally, we received an expert opinion that noted that both universities were accredited at the time the applicant received his degrees.
We were called upon to correct a situation. USCIS sent an RFE stating that the degree and field of study did not match with the labor certification requirements. The I-140 beneficiary had a degree in agricultural science. The employer's requirement in the labor certification was a BS degree in Computer Science, Engineering, and Mathematics.
We were hired to respond to an RFE. Client filed an EB2 I-140, where the PERM Petition required a Bachelor's and 5 years of experience. The client received an RFE in which USCIS argued the Beneficiary's degree, a Bachelor's in Commerce from India, equates to a 3-year degree and cannot be considered for an EB2 case. The Beneficiary possessed a four year Bachelor's Degree, however, this was not clearly established on his Degree. The client obtained his BS in Commerce before India switched to a standard 3-year program for his particular degree.
A beneficiary had two three-year bachelor degrees from India and consequently his I-140 petition was denied on the grounds that the beneficiary did not have a four-year bachelor's degree. We were retained after the denial. Our firm was successful in appealing and winning in less than one month. Of course, this case had unique facts. We cannot assume that all three-year degree cases will go trough this smoothly.
We won a case for Alien of Extraordinary Ability a Mathematician holding a Doctorate of Mathematical Science, numerous “invited” publications and presentations as well as several prestigious international awards. We were able to provide evidence of extraordinary ability through letters of recommendation from leading mathematicians around the world. This applicant had strong support from the U.S. government and industry.
We won a case for Alien of Extraordinary Ability in environmental sciences with 9 publications, numerous “invited” committee memberships, a judge of the work of many other leading scientists and considered one of the leading experts in his field. We were able to provide evidence to show that his work was innovative and pioneering.
We discussed: Working concurrently with H-1 cap exempt and quota employers, immigration issues if we have a special needs (cerebral palsy) child, applied B-2 to main status while F-1 is expiring, Section 245(k) and illegal work, DETAILED DISCUSSION OF I-140 REVOCATION IMPLICATIONS INCLUDING AC21, impact on H-1 of reentry on advance parole, Section 13 green card for diplomats, who can co-sponsor affidavit of support I-864, proving cross chargeability, transfer of priority dates for a future job approval
An I-140 petition, or Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, is filed to petition an alien worker to become a permanent resident in the United States. The employer must file an I-140 Petition on your behalf within 180 days from the date your Labor Certification is approved by the U. S. Department of Labor. An I-140 Petition may be filed without a Labor Certification where the beneficiary qualifies under EB-1 classification.

I have finished my first review of H-4 EAD Regulations (effective 26 May 2015). Here are the takeaway points:
We won this case for an applicant with expertise in computer science utilizing his skills in the development of e-Government. His work was considered pioneering worldwide. We provided evidence that he was frequently called upon to present his work. He also served on numerous program committees.
This entry is now old law. The new law is at http://www.immigration.com/blogs/i-140-ead-regulations-effective-17-jan…
5 November 2015: After some flip flops, USCIS has gone back to allowing carry forward of priority dates even if I-140 is revoked by employer - as described in this discussion. So, we are good for now.
In a recent meeting, Nebraska Service Center has clarified why, some times, in cases of pending I-485 applications, USCIS approves AOS interchanging the applications of the derivative and principal applicant:
Based on many posts by users of these boards, I’ve decided to write-up a fairly comprehensive posting regarding ability to pay issues and how to overcome RFE’s, Denials and appeals.
Background:
Law governing ability to pay – 8 CFR 204.5(g)(2)
We won an Alien of Extraordinary Ability case for the applicant having advanced degrees from the prestigious Indian Institute of Technology, one of the most premier institutes in India. His research work was so highly regarded that he was awarded a two-year post-doctoral fellow at the Institute. This is a very high honor in that only “a select few” are considered for this position. The applicant had numerous books on civil engineering published and utilized by prestigious teaching institutes.