dismissed H-1B Case: Law

MATTER OF L-0-0-L-&A-, PLLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 22, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a law office with six employees, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"law clerk" under the H-1 B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 110l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). The H-IB program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a 
qualified foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application 
of a body of highly specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in 
the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation in 
accordance with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in 
finding that the record did not satisfy the criteria at 8 C.F .R. 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
Matter of L-0-0-L-&A-, PLLC 
(I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
(4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that 
knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has consistently 
interpreted the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any 
baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed 
position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree 
requirement in a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a 
particular position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. Proffered Position 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a "law clerk." In response to the Director's 
first request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted the following description of the proffered 
position: 
Job Duties %of No. of 
time hours 
• Perform legal research of USC IS statues, regulations, cases, 20% 8 hrs 
memos, and other materials 
• Assist attorneys in preparing and reviewing legal and SO% 20 hrs 
business documents, forms that are related to EB-5 investment and 
foreign direct investment. More particularly: 
(1) Review, analyze, and evaluate financial data and 
information of individuals and businesses to document source of 
funds of EB-5 investments. The candidate is required to be 
knowledgeable about businesses documents and able to review and 
decide whether they will meet users requirements. 
(2) Draft and edit business plans for clients' commercial 
enterprises if they choose to establish their own companies and 
apply for EB-5 immigrant visa through direct investment and direct 
job creation. The candidate must have knowledge of corporate 
2 
Matter of L-0-0-L-&A-, PLLC 
structure, business principles, business formation, and be able to 
ensure the compliance with related laws and government 
regulations. 
(3) Work directly with attorneys and assist m drafting 
immigration petitions, filling out immigration forms, and compiling 
immigration petition packages as well as responding to RFEs. The 
candidate must have knowledge of law, be able to draft legal 
documents and perform legal research as needed. 
(4) Review Private Offering Memorandums and provide 
summary for due diligence. Prepare affidavits or other documents, 
such as legal correspondence. The candidate must be able to read 
and interpret complex legal documents (Securities documents 
prepared in accordance with SEC rules and regulations), and be 
able to write legal communications through email and paper based 
correspondence. 
• Collaborate with CP As and other professionals in analyzing I 0% 
the investor's business and financial documents such as income 
statements and balance sheets, etc. The candidate needs to be able 
to read and understand business and financial documents. 
• Act as a liaison between attorneys and foreign clients to 20% 
explain USClS's EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program, and assist in 
the collection of necessary business documents pertaining to 
finance and investment. Also, follow up with client regarding 
information they need to know and actions they need to take while 
their applications are pending. The candidate needs to have a 
professional image and be able to converse intelligently with 
foreign investors who are business owners, executives, and other 
professionals. 
4 hrs 
8 hrs 
According to the Petitioner, the position requires at least a bachelor degree in law, legal studies or 
other related fields. However, the Petitioner also claims that degrees in business, English, 
accounting, and communications are also acceptable. 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 1 
Specifically, the record (I) contains inconsistent information regarding the proffered position; and 
(2) does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, 
commensurate with a specialty occupation. 
1 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
3 
Matter of L-0-0-L-&A-, PLLC 
A. Labor Condition Application 
We tum first to the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-IB petition, in 
which the Petitioner designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Paralegals 
and Legal Assistants" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 23-20 II at a 
Level I wage. 
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) guidance states that wage levels should be determined only 
after selecting the most relevant occupational code classification. Then, a prevailing wage 
determination is made by selecting one of four wage levels for an occupation based on a comparison 
of the employer's job requirements to the occupational requirements, including tasks, knowledge, 
skills, and specific vocational preparation (education, training and experience) generally required for 
acceptable performance in that occupation. Factors to be considered when determining the wage 
level for a position include the complexity of the job duties, as well as the levels of judgment, 
supervision, and understanding required to perform the job duties. 
DOL guidance states that a Level I (entry) wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which 
the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the occupation. This wage 
rate indicates: (I) that the Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, 
if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that he will be closely supervised and his work closely monitored 
and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that he will receive specific instructions on required tasks and 
expected results2 A Level I wage should be considered for research fellows, workers in training, or 
intemships.3 
According to DOL guidance, an indication that the job request warrants a wage determination at a 
Level I would be a requirement for years of education and/or experience that are generally required 
as described in the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) Job Zones. The occupational 
category "Paralegals and Legal Assistants," has been assigned an O*NET Job Zone 3, which groups 
it among occupations for which medium preparation is needed. More specifically, most occupations 
in this zone "require training in vocational schools, related on-the-job experience, or an associate's 
degree." See O*NET OnLine Help Center, at http://www.onetonline.org/help/online/zones, for a 
discussion of Job Zone 3. Therefore, the Petitioner's designation of the proffered position at a Level 
I on the LCA suggests that the Petitioner's academic and/or professional experience requirements for 
the proffered position would be less than "training in a vocational school, related on-the-job 
experience, or an associate's degree." 
The Petitioner's asserts that the proffered pos1t10n can be distinguished from other paralegal 
positions as it entails complex, unique and/or specialized job duties. According to the Petitioner, the 
2 For additional infonnation, see U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy 
Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://flcdatacenter.com/download/ 
NPWHC Guidance Revised II 2009.pdf. 
3 /d. - - - -
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of L-0-0-L-&A-, P LLC 
job description differentiates its law clerk position from other entry-level paralegals. The Petitioner 
further claims that the duties relate to complex business matters. However, these aspects of the 
position do not appear to be reflected in the wage level chosen by the Petitioner on the LCA.4 The 
statements regarding the claimed level of complexity, independent judgment and understanding 
required for the proffered position, as well as the requirements, appear to be materially inconsistent 
with the certification of the LCA for a Level I position. This conflict challenges the overall 
credibility of the petition in establishing the nature of the proffered position and in what capacity the 
Beneficiary will be employed. Therefore, we are precluded from finding that the proffered position 
is a specialty occupation. 
B. Requirements 
The Petitioner asserts that degrees in law, legal studies, business, English5, accounting, and 
communications are acceptable for its law clerk position. We note that, in general, provided the 
specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and biochemistry, a minimum of a bachelor's or higher 
degree in more than one specialty is recognized as satisfying the "degree in the specific specialty (or 
its equivalent)" requirement of section 214(i)( 1 )(B) of the Act. In such a case, the required "body of 
highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be the same. Since there must be a close 
correlation between the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" and the position, however, 
a minimum entry requirement of a degree in disparate fields, such as philosophy and engineering, 
would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent)," unless the Petitioner establishes how each field is directly related to the duties and 
responsibilities of the particular position such that the required body of highly specialized 
knowledge is essentially an amalgamation of these different specialties. Section 214(i)(l )(B) of the 
Act (emphasis added). 
In other words, while the statutory "the" and the regulatory "a" both denote a singular "specialty," 
we do not so narrowly interpret these provisions to exclude positions from qualifying as specialty 
occupations if they permit, as a minimum entry requirement, degrees in more than one closely 
related specialty. See section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). As just stated, this 
also includes even seemingly disparate specialties provided the evidence of record establishes how 
each acceptable, specific field of study is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position. 
4 A petitioner must distinguish its proffered position from others within the occupation through the proper wage level 
designation to indicate factors such as complexity of the job duties, the level of judgment, the amount and level of 
supervision, and the level of understanding required to perform the job duties. Through the wage level, the Petitioner 
reflects the job requirements, experience, education, special skills/other requirements and supervisory duties. 
5 It appears that the Petitioner will accept a degree in English (as a second language). The Petitioner states that 
and serve in paralegal positions for its business operations, and references their academic qualifications, 
which include English degrees from foreign universities in China. The Petitioner submitted a transcript for 
which indicates coursework including Listening, Pronunciation, Conversation, Grammar, Selection Reading from 
English Newspaper, Business English, and Overview of English Country. 
5 
Matter of L-0-0-L-&A-, PLLC 
Here, and as indicated above, the Petitioner, who bears the burden of proof in this proceeding, did 
not establish it requires a degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Absent evidence to the 
contrary, the fields of law, legal studies, business, English, accounting, and communications are not 
closely related specialties, and the Petitioner has not established how these fields are directly related 
to the duties and responsibilities of the proffered position. 
B. First Criterion 
Nevertheless, for the purpose of providing a full analysis, we will now address the evidence of 
record.6 Therefore, we now turn to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which requires 
that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is nonnally the 
minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. 7 To inform this inquiry, we recognize 
the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an 
authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations 
that it addresses. 8 
We reviewed the subchapter of the Handbook entitled "How to Become a Paralegal or Legal 
Assistant." The Handbook reports, in relevant part: "Most paralegals and legal assistants have an 
associate's degree in paralegal studies, or a bachelor's degree in another field and a certificate in 
paralegal studies. "9 It further specifies, "There are several paths a person can take to become a 
paralegal. Candidates can emoll in a community college paralegal program to earn an associate's 
degree." It also states that "many employers prefer, or even require, applicants to have a bachelor's 
degree." According to the Handbook, "Employers sometimes hire college graduates with no legal 
experience or legal education and train them on the job." 
The Handbook does not support the Petitioner's assertion that a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty is required for entry into this occupation. Rather, the Handbook indicates that there are 
various paths to enter into this occupation, such as obtaining an associate's degree in paralegal 
studies or a college degree in an umelated field. The Handbook reports that employers sometimes 
6 The Petitioner submitted documentation in support of the H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. , 
7 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
8 All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, available at http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not, 
however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. That is, the occupational category 
designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered 
position, and USC IS regularly reviews the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of 
occupations that it addresses. To satisfY the first criterion, however, the burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to 
submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position would normally have a minimum, specialty 
degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
9 For additional information regarding the occupational category "Paralegals and Legal Assistants," see U.S. Dep't of 
Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-2017 ed., Paralegals and Legal Assistants, 
available at http://www.bls.gov/ooh/legal/print/paralegals-and-legal-assistants.htm (last visited July 21, 20 16). 
6 
Matter of L-0-0-L-&A-, PLLC 
hire individuals who have earned a degree but have no legal experience/education. This passage of 
the Handbook does not indicate that there are any specific degree requirements for these jobs. 
The Petitioner has not provided documentation from a probative source to substantiate its assertion 
regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. Thus, the Petitioner has 
not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
C. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: 'The degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may 
show that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first half casts 
its gaze upon the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
I. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by 
USCJS include: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the 
industry's professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether 
letters or affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms "routinely employ 
and recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 
1999) (quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook, or other authoritative source, reports a requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, we incorporate by reference the previous discussion on 
the matter. Also, there are no submissions from the industry's professional association indicating 
that it has made a degree a minimum entry requirement. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not.submit 
any letters or affidavits from similar firms or individuals in the Petitioner's industry attesting that 
such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner st~bmitted copies of job announcements placed by other 
employers. 10 However, upon review of the documents, we find that the Petitioner's reliance on the 
job announcements is misplaced. First, we note that some of the job postings do not appear to 
involve organizations similar to the Petitioner. For example, the Petitioner is a six-person law firm, 
10 Notably, many of the advertisements submitted by the Petitioner are missing the second page. No explanation was 
provided by the Petitioner as to the reason it did not include the entire announcements. 
7 
(b)(6)
Matter of L-0-0-L-&A-, PLLC 
., 
whereas one of the advertising organizations appears to be a staffing agency 
where no information regarding the hiring employer is provided. In addition, some of the 
advertisements (e.g., & provide little or no information regarding the 
hiring employers. The Petitioner did not supplement the record of proceeding to establish that the 
advertising organizations are similar to it. 
When determining whether the Petitioner and the organization share the same general 
characteristics, such factors may include information regarding the nature or type of organization, 
and, when pertinent, the particular scope of operations, as well as the level of revenue and staffing 
(to list just a few elements that may be considered). It is not sufficient for the Petitioner to claim that 
an organization is similar and in the same industry without providing a legitimate basis for such an 
assertion. 
Moreover, many of the advertisements do not appear to be for parallel positions. For example, some 
of the positions appear to be for more senior positions than the proffered position.11 Moreover, not 
all of the postings (e.g., include the duties and responsibilities for the advertised positions. 
Thus, it is not possible to determine important aspects of the jobs, such as the day-to-day 
responsibilities, complexity of the job duties, supervisory duties (if any), independent judgment 
required or the amount of supervision received. Therefore, the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
established that the primary duties and responsibilities of the advertised positions are parallel to the 
proffered position. 
In addition, some of the postings do not indicate that at least a bachelor's degree in a directly related 
specific specialty (or its equivalent) is required. 12 For instance, the posting for 
states that a college diploma/degree is needed, but does not specify the degree level (e.g., associate's, 
vocational degree, baccalaureate). The other postings suggest, at best, that a bachelor's degree is 
sometimes required for paralegal positions, but a bachelor's degree in a spec(fic specialty (or its 
equivalent) is not.13 
1 1 For example, the advertisement for is for attorney-track immigration law clerks/interns and experienced 
immigration lawyers and requires a juris doctorate or a masters of law, and a state bar license or awaiting a bar exam 
result. 
12 As discussed, the degree requirement set by the statutory and regulatory framework of the H-1 B program is not just a 
bachelor's or higher degree, but a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the duties of the 
position. See section 214(i)(l)(b) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). Further, although a general-purpose 
bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business administration, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, 
requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a finding that a particular position qualifies for classification as a 
specialty occupation. Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d at 147. 
13 Even if all of the job postings indicated that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to 
the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations (which they do not), the Petitioner does not demonstrate 
what inferences, if any, can be drawn from these advertisements with regard to determining the common educational 
requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social 
Research 186-228 (1995). 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter of L-0-0-L-&A-, PLLC 
As the documentation does not establish that the Petitioner has met this prong of the regulations , 
further analysis regarding the specific information contained in each of the job postings is not 
necessary. 14 That is, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted profiles of two individuals employed as law clerks with 
and Notably, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient information 
regarding the and to conduct a meaningfully substantive 
comparison of its business operations to the Petitioner. 
1
' The record lacks sufficient supplemental 
information to establish that the organizations are similar to the Petitioner. 
Furthermore, although the profiles indicate that these individuals are employed as law clerks, the 
Petitioner did not provide any specific job duties and day-to-da y responsibil ities for the position. 
There is no information regarding the complexity of the job duties, s upervisory duties (if any), 
independent judgment required or the amount of supervision received . Accordingly, there is 
insufficient information regarding the duties and responsibilities of the position to determine whether 
it is the same or parallel to the proffered position. 16 
Without more, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that a bachelor ' s 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions 
among similar organizations. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it. can be 
As such, even if the job announc ements suppo rted the finding that the position required a bache lor's or higher degree in 
a specific spec ialty, or its equivalent (for organizations in the same industry that are similar to the Petitioner), it cannot 
be found that such a limited number of postin gs that appear to have been conscious ly selected outwe igh the findings of 
the Handbook published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics that such a position doe s not no rmally requ ire at least a 
baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
14 The Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how repres entative the job postings are of the particular 
advertising employers' recruiting history for the type of job advertised. As the adverti sements are only solicitations for 
hire, they are not evidence of the actual hiring practices of these employers. 
15 As previou sly noted , the Petitioner is a six-person law firm. According to website , it has offices 
in six countries , including the United States , Czech Republic , India, Peru, Ch ina, and Ecuador. In addition, the 
website indicates that it has I 900 attorneys and 38 offices in the United Sta tes, Latin America, 
Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. Thus , these organizations do not appear to be similar to the Petitioner. 
16 The Petitioner did not pro vide s ufficient documentar y evidence to corroborate that these organizations current ly or in 
the past emplo yed individu als in positions that are parallel in terms of dut ies and requirements, nor did the Petitione r 
substantiate the claimed academic requirement s. From the printout s, we are unable to determine whether the employers 
requir e certain academic credentials or, alternativel y, whether the individual s just happen to possess such degree s. The 
Petitioner did not 
submit probative evidence of these organizations ' recruitm ent and/or hiring prac tices. 
9 
Matter of L-0-0-L-&A-, PLLC 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
In support of its assertion that the proffered posthon qualifies as a specialty occupation, the 
Petitioner submitted descriptions of the proffered position and information regarding its business 
operations. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the duties of the proffered position are so complex 
and unique that a bachelor's degree in law is required. However, the Petitioner designated the 
proffered position as an entry-level position within the occupational category by selecting a Level I 
wage. This designation, when read in combination with the Petitioner's job descriptions and the 
Handbook's account of the requirements for this occupation, further suggests that the particular 
position is not so complex or unique that the duties can only be performed an individual with 
bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position, and references his 
qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education 
or experience of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative 
complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position, and it did not identify any tasks 
that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 2I4.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 
To merit approval of the petition under this criterion, the record must establish that a petitioner's 
imposition of a degree requirement is not merely a matter of preference for high-caliber candidates 
but is necessitated by performance requirements of the position. While a petitioner may assert that a 
, proffered position requires a specific degree, that statement alone without corroborating evidence 
cannot establish the position as a specialty occupation. Were USCIS limited solely to reviewing a 
petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, then any individual with a bachelor's degree could 
be brought to the United States to perform any occupation as long as the Petitioner created a token 
degree requirement, whereby all individuals employed in a particular position possessed a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty, or its equivalent. See Defensor v. Meissner, 
201 F.3d at 388. Evidence provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not limited to, 
documentation regarding the Petitioner's past recruiting and hiring practices, as well as information 
regarding employees who previously held the position. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner claims that it's part-time paralegal's "job duties are most 
similar to the proffered position of Law Clerk." The Petitioner submitted copies of her academic 
credentials and the Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement for 2014. Notably, this individual has a 
10 
Matter of L-0-0-L-&A-, PLLC 
master's degree in accounting and her undergraduate transcript does not indicate a major.17 Her 
foreign academic credentials indicate that she obtained a degree in English. The documentation does 
not establish that the Petitioner normally requires a degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, 
directly related to the duties of the position. 
The Petitioner stated in the Form I-129 that it has six employees and was established in 2008 
(approximately seven years prior to the filing of the H-1 B petition). The Petitioner did not provide 
the total number of people it has employed to serve in the proffered position. Consequently, it 
cannot be determined how representative the Petitioner's claim regarding one individual is of the 
Petitioner's normal recruiting and hiring practices. Without further information, the submission of 
the educational credentials of one individual is not persuasive in establishing that the Petitioner 
normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the 
position. Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J). 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. 
While the Petitioner provided a more detailed job description in response to the RFE, the description 
does not establish that the duties are more specialized and complex than positions that are not 
usually associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. We also 
incorporate our earlier discussion and analysis regarding the duties of the proffered position, and the 
designation of the proffered position in the LCA as a Level I position (of the lowest of four 
assignable wage-levels) relative to others within the occupational category. 18 Without further 
evidence, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that its proffered position is one with specialized and 
complex duties as such a position within this occupational category would likely be classified at a 
higher-level, requiring a substantially higher prevailing wage.19 
17 It must be noted for the record that the transcript is not on university/school letterhead. 
18 The Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its claim that the position is 
particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. Nevertheless, a 
Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty occupation, just as a 
Level IV wage-designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain occupations (e.g., doctors or 
lawyers), a Levell, entry-level position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation qualifies 
as a specialty occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. That is, a position's wage level designation may be a relevant factor but is not 
itself conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)( I) of the Act. 
19 A LevellY (fully competent) position is designated by DOL for employees who "use advanced skills and diversified 
knowledge to solve unusual and complex problems" and requires a significantly higher wage. For additional information 
regarding wage levels as defined by DOL, see U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage 
Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
I I 
Matter of L-0-0-L-&A-, PLLC 
Furthermore, while the Petitioner may believe that the proffered position meets this criterion of the 
regulations, it has not sufficiently demonstrated how the position as described requires the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the attainment of 
a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. In response to the RFE, the 
Petitioner provided a list of a few courses studied by the Beneficiary that it claims is relevant to the 
proffered position. However, while a few related courses may be beneficial in performing certain 
duties of the position, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how an established curriculum of such 
courses is required. The evidence in the record does not refute the Handbook's information to the 
effect that a two-year associate's degree or certificate is sufficient for entry into the occupation. 
Without more, the record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the level of judgment 
and understanding necessary to perform the duties as specialized and complex. 
Although the Petitioner asserts that the nature of the specific duties is specialized and complex, the 
record lacks sufficient evidence to support this claim. Thus, the Petitioner has submitted inadequate 
probative evidence to satisfy the criterion of the regulations at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)( 4). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter o[Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden 
has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of L-0-0-L-&A-, PLLC ID# 17259 (AAO July 22, 2016) 
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdffNPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _I I_ 2009 .pdf. 
12