This applicant was a data recovery specialist under contract with the U.S. government providing critical skills to a high-level project. It was noted by referees that his knowledge and background were rare and greatly needed in the interest of our national defense. We provided documentation of his academic achievements as well as additional specialized training.

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 five years research experience. The applicant was able to secure a very strong letter from the National Science Foundation director which detailed the innovative and pioneering work of the applicant. It was noted that his skills were critical for an initiative developed by the Foundation. We also offered evidence of his strong Ph.D. work as well as his publication record.
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.
State Department has indicated that as of 11 April 2012 there are no more immigrant visas (green cards) available for China and India-born EB2 applicants. The numbers will be reset on 1 October 2012, the start of the new fiscal year. In the meantime, USCIS will continue to accept I-485 filings until the end of June based upon the Visa Bulletin that will be published in May. No action will be taken on these applications until October, but its is expected that EAD/AP's will be issued.
There was an interesting question in today's community conference call we host every other Thursday. The link to the question is here: http://forums.immigration.com/showth...onference-Call
PERM filing issue
Many web sites are erroneously reporting that India EB-2 is current for February 2011. Please note, that is FALSE. India EB-2 is backed up to May 2006.
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)
USCIS recently began transferring some Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, cases filed by lawful permanent residents for their eligible family members from the Vermont Service Center to the California Service Center.
If your case was transferred, USCIS will send you a notice listing the transfer date and where your case will be processed. Your original receipt number will not change and this will not delay the processing of your cases except for the additional time needed to transfer the file.
We obtained both and Outstanding Researcher and National Interest Waiver for this applicant. Based on his strong academic record and exceptional work experience we were able to obtain letters of recommendation from leading experts around the world. The applicant was currently working for one of the most prestigious research/teaching institutes in the world. His innovative research was noted internationally and he had multiple scholarly articles in well-respected journals. He also held membership in leading professional societies.&nbs
We won a case for National Interest Waiver for a Physician working in a medically underserved area. We provided a five year contract, copy of his J-1 Waiver approval, numerous experience letters, a letter from the Department of State and documentation to reflect statistics of health professional shortage in the area.
We won both an EB1 Alien of Extraordinary Ability case and a National Interest Waiver for this applicant. He was noted as being an exceptionally qualified, brilliant and outstanding researcher amongst an international peer group. We provided copies of his substantial publication record as well as evidence of his numerous "invited" presentations. This applicant had patented material which was identified as innovative and pioneering in the field and admired by top researchers.
We won this case as the applicant was noted to be a critical component to the success of various projects and had a very large impact on the research program. Referees described this applicant's talents to be rare and difficult to replace by U.S. workers. Her original and pioneering research made her uniquely qualified to further this intrinsically important research which greatly effected the nation as a whole.
We won a National Interest Waiver case for a Molecular Biologist holding a Ph.D. having over ten years of research experience. We argued that her qualifications were unique as compared to others in the field and that she was noted as one of the few in her field that has achieved the highest level of success. She had remarkable contributions to the field, most notably her significant discoveries in cardiovascular research. This applicant had an extensive publication list as well as a book chapter.
We won a National Interest Waiver case for an applicant holding an M.D., Ph.D. and MSE in Biomedical Engineering, and a B.Tech. in Electrical Engineering. This applicant had an extraordinary background. His degrees were received from the most prestigious institutes in the world, notably Harvard, MIT and Johns Hopkins University . His pioneering work has lead others in the field to a better understanding of what causes sudden cardiac death through fatal arrhythmias. His work was quoted as "revolutionizing health care."