System: You are a helpful and precise assistant in checking the quality of the answer.
User: We would like to request your feedback on the performance of the response of the assistant to the user instruction displayed below. In the feedback, I want you to rate the quality of the response in these 3 categories according to each scoring rubric:

Comprehension: Does the response fulfill the requirements of the instruction by providing relevant information especially when the instruction is complex and includes multiple requirements? This includes responding in accordance with the explicit and implicit purpose of given instruction.
Score 1: The response is completely unrelated to the instruction, or the model entirely misunderstands the instruction.
Score 2: Most of the key points in the response are irrelevant to the instruction, and the response misses major requirements of the instruction.
Score 3: Some major points in the response contain irrelevant information or miss some requirements of the instruction.
Score 4: The response is relevant to the instruction but misses minor requirements of the instruction.
Score 5: The response is perfectly relevant to the instruction, and the model fulfills all of the requirements of the instruction.
Logical Efficiency: Is the response logically efficient? The logic behind the response should have no redundant step, remaining simple and efficient. For tasks involving coding, the proposed solution should also consider time complexity.
Score 1: The logic behind the response is significantly inefficient and redundant, necessitating a complete reorganization of logic for clarity and efficiency.
Score 2: The logic of the response lacks efficiency and conciseness, requiring a substantial reorganization for better optimization.
Score 3: The logic of the response is not efficient enough, necessitating major edits for improved optimization.
Score 4: The logic of the response is largely efficient, but it still has some redundant steps. It could be handled from minor edits for better optimization.
Score 5: The logic of the response is optimally efficient, requiring no further optimization.
Completeness: Does the response provide a sufficient explanation? Comprehensiveness and thoroughness of the response should be considered, which depends on the breadth of topics covered and the level of detail provided within each topic.
Score 1: The response doesn't include any specifics or examples to support the statements made.
Score 2: The response does not provide sufficient details or supportive examples, requiring a major effort to make the response more complete.
Score 3: It is a decent response, but the breadth and depth of the response are rather limited. The details and examples used to substantiate the response may be insufficient.
Score 4: The response provides detailed explanations, but there is room for enhancement. The response could be further improved by including more details and supportive examples.
Score 5: The response fully provides comprehensive explanations. It delves deep into the topic, providing as much detail as possible, and it offers several examples to back up its points.
[Instruction]
2 / 2Can a qualifying manager work remotely abroad for US employer for an year be eligible for Eb1-C while on h1-b

[Ground truth Answer]
Yes, a qualifying manager who works remotely abroad for a US employer on an H1-B visa may be eligible for the EB1-C (Multinational Manager or Executive) if they meet the requirements. To be eligible for EB1-C, the manager must have been employed in a managerial or executive capacity outside the US for at least one of the past three years. They must also be coming to the US to manage an existing business or open a new US office of the same employer.

However, there are other factors that USCIS takes into consideration when processing an EB1-C petition, such as the scope of responsibilities, decision-making authority, and staffing requirements. The manager should also ensure that they continue to abide by the terms of their H1-B visa while abroad. Please note that this information is not legal advice, and it's always recommended to consult with an immigration attorney for specific case scenarios.

[Assistant's Response]
Yes, a qualifying manager can work remotely abroad for a U.S. employer while on an H-1B visa and still be eligible for the EB-1C immigrant visa category, provided certain conditions are met. To qualify for the EB-1C category, the individual must have been employed in a managerial or executive role for at least one year within the three years preceding the application. Additionally, this employment must have been with the same employer or a related entity.

When considering remote work, it is crucial to ensure that the arrangement complies with the eligibility criteria for the EB-1C category. This includes demonstrating that the remote position maintains the managerial or executive responsibilities required for the visa classification. 

It is advisable to consult with an immigration attorney who can provide personalized guidance based on your specific circumstances, ensuring that all requirements are thoroughly understood and met. This professional advice is particularly important given the complexities of immigration law and the nuances of individual cases.

[The End of Assistant's Response]

Please give feedback on the assistant's responses. Also, provide the assistant with a score on a scale of 1 to 5 for each category, where a higher score indicates better overall performance. Make sure to give feedback or comments for each category first and then write the score for each category. Only write the feedback corresponding to the scoring rubric for each category. The scores of each category should be orthogonal, indicating that 'Efficiency of User Alignment' should not be considered for 'Readability of User Alignment' category, for example. 

Lastly, return a Python dictionary object that has skillset names as keys and the corresponding scores as values.

[System]



Assistant: