You would think that the service centers would all be linked and would have relevant information on a company/individual.
From reading various websites, initiatives, it seems that the service centers aren't connected. However, there is a big initiative underway to link all of them. I believe it is due to be completed by end of 2006.
When a lawyer or a CPA is working on a case, it is important that in your response you find the hidden meaning in the RFE but at the same time do not open a door that you think will hurt you.
Just to give you an example of opening a door; many people in nebraska have gotten an rfe on ability to pay in the last month. Many of those people have contacted me. Also, a lot of those companies don't have 2004 tax returns done yet which is what the rfe is asking for. it also asks for profit/loss and bank statements.
Now, I can come up with profit/loss numbers that will show ability to pay. However, i've seen enough denials where uscis didn't accept the un audited financial statements. If this were to happen, then i've opened the door of what the 2004 tax returns should look like when they are filed. if the tax returns don't look like it in the appeal then i've opened a door that i can't sufficiently close.
Now back on the topic. Some times it is detrimental when using arguments to use a double negative. What i mean by this is that if you say to uscis well you've approved all these ones so why don't you approve this one.
In this particular case, the california service center doesn't know or have access to cases filed/approved/beneficiaries of other 140's, labors filed in the past or other service centers. However, this is what the attorney did. That is, you have approved all these cases and then listed names and service centers going back a few years.
USCIS will be able to see that the substitute labors used for these people, that the original beneficiaries filed a 140 on another labor in their name at a different service center. That is the door has opened that multiple labors were approved in different jurisdictions for the same person. Also, when this door got opened then it closed the door of using the original labor beneficiary salary for ability to pay. The concept of doing this is that there was another temporary employee who was getting paid the labor wage but they left. If the current 140 beneficiary had been employed on priority date then the amounts paid to the original person could have been used to pay this person.
Also, by showing all the beneficiaries, amounts paid to them and the different service centers; uscis now has the information of what the true discrepancy is between proffered wage and amounts paid to the original people. Before the number could have been over $2 million per year but now if they add EVERYONE across all service centers, the number could now be $4 million per year.
It is very dangerous to use double negatives and give information that uscis didn't have.
