dismissed H-1B Case: Law

MATTER OF W-W-&A-, P.C. 
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 practice, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "paralegal" under 
the H-IB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act) section IOI(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § IIOI(a)(IS)(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 pe!Itton. 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 submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the Director erred in denying the petition. 
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 W- W-&A -, P. C. 
(1) 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 (USCJS) 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 
In the H-1 B petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a "paralegal." In 
response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided the following job 
duties for the position (verbatim): 
• Assist attorney in conducting research on Chinese laws, regulations, and 
government guidelines using a variety of electronic legal databases and public 
information databases. Review contracts. Conduct business and/or technical 
research through review of articles and databases. Assist attorneys in gathering 
and analyzing research data. (15% of total work time) 
• Correspond and communicate with clients; act as liaison between clients and 
attorneys. Assist attorneys with interviewing clients and investigating facts in 
complex commercial, corporate, intellectual property, civil, criminal, 
matrimonial, and immigration cases, among others. Review, summarize, and 
outline evidence and case documents. Explain legal proceedings and legal 
concept to clients. Draft affidavits for clients. (15% of total work time) 
• Support attorneys in drafting, revising, and filing court documents and legal 
papers, including summonses, pleadings , discovery materials, subpoenas, 
motions, appeals, and other technical documents. (15% of total work time) 
2 
Malter of W- W-&A -, P. C. 
• Assist attorneys with researching, analyzing, and summanzmg relevant legal 
precedent; prepare a digest of points of law involved; analyze appellate records to 
isolate facts pertinent to distinct legal issues. Utilize a variety of legal research 
tools as well as public information databases and other resources to research case 
or program-specific legal matters, and assist with assigned areas of criminal or 
civil proceedings (e.g., electronic discovery). (15% of total work time) 
• Draft correspondence with courts, opposing counsel, and clients; draft other 
documents. ( 5% of total work time) 
• Under attorneys' guidance and supervision, inform clients of their legal rights and 
obligations and suggest particular courses of action. (! 0% of total work time) 
• Draft factual and legal memoranda for specific cases. (! 0% of total work time) 
• Interpret and translate legal documents and case information both orally or m 
writing, from Chinese to English and vice-versa. (5% of total work time) 
• Organize office affairs, including maintaining court schedule, managing hearing 
dates and motion activities; maintain attorney contacts and calendars. (5% of 
total work time) 
• All other secretarial duties as required. (5% of total work time) 
According to the Petitioner, the position requires a bachelor's degree.1 In addition, the Petitioner 
requires the incumbent be familiar with Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese. 
Ill. ANALYSIS 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in its decision concluding that that the 
Petitioner had not established eligibility for the H-1 B petition to be approved. 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.2 Specifically, the record 
(I) contains inconsistent information regarding the proffered position; and (2) does not establish that 
1 The Petitioner has provided inconsistent information regarding the ;equirements for the proffered position. For 
instance, the Petitioner stated in response to the RFE that the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in law but, 
in the same letter, the Petitioner later stated that the position requires a bachelor's degree in Chinese law. On appeal, the 
Petitioner states that the position requires a bachelor's degree in legal studies. No explanation for the variance was 
provided by the Petitioner. 
2 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
3 
Matter ofW-W-&A-, P.C. 
the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty 
. 3 
occupat10n. 
A. Labor Condition Application 
We now turn 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. In the appeal briet: however, the Petitioner states that the duties and skills of the 
proffered position are significantly greater and go beyond what is expected of even the most skilled 
paralegals. The Petitioner reports that a candidate must be familiar with Mandarin Chinese and 
Cantonese to qualify for the proffered position. According to the Petitioner, the proffered position 
"bears more similarity to Foreign Law Consultant" and references the American Bar Association 
Model Rule for the Licensing and Practice of Foreign Legal Consultants and the Fordham 
International Law Journal. 
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 she will be closely supervised and her work closely monitored 
and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that she will receive specific instructions on required tasks and 
expected results.< A Level I wage should be considered for research fellows, workers in training, or 
internships. 
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 
3 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support 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. 
4 U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. 
Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://1lcdatacenter.com/download/ NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised 
_11_2009.pdf. 
4 
Matter ofW-W-&A-, P.C. 
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 protTered position 
would be less than "training in a vocational school, related on-the-job experience, or an associate's 
degree." 
The Petitioner's assertion that the proffered position requires a significant level of responsibility and 
expertise, as well as a foreign language requirement, do not appear to be reflected in the wage level 
chosen by it on the LCA.5 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 position6 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. Nevertheless, we will now analyze the evidence 
of record. 
B. First Criterion 
We first tum to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. To inform this inquiry, we recognize DOL's Occupational 
Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and educational 
requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 7 
5 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. 
6 It must be noted that a language requirement other than English in a job offer generally is considered a special skill for 
all occupations (with the exception of Foreign Language Teachers and Instructors, Interpreters, and Caption Writers). In 
the instant case, the Petitioner has not established that its foreign language requirement has been reflected in the wage­
level for the proffered position. 
7 All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
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 USCIS 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. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter ofW-W-&A-, P.C. 
The Petitioner designated the position under the occupation "Paralegals and Legal Assistants" on the 
LCA, therefore, 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." 8 It further specifies, "There are several paths a person can take to 
become a paralegal. Candidates can enroll 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 unrelated field. The Handbook reports that employers sometimes 
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. 
In support of the appeal, the Petitioner submits a letter from In his letter, 
(1) describes the credentials that he asserts qualify him to opine upon the nature of the 
proffered position; (2) lists the duties proposed for the Beneficiary; and (3) states that these duties 
require at least a bachelor's degree in law. We carefully evaluated assertions in support 
of the instant petition but, for the following reasons, determined his letter does not have significant 
weight in this matter. 
First, expertise, regarding current industry degree requirements for paralegal positions 
is not established in the record. His supporting documentation indicates that most of his experience 
over the past 30 years has been in an academic setting as a faculty member within a university's 
school of law. His prior experience was a research analyst (February 1973 - December 1973), 
followed by managerial positions ( 1973 - 1982). 
Moreover, has not provided sufficient information to establish his expertise on the 
practices of organizations seeking to hire paralegals. Without further clarification, it is unclear how 
his education, training, skills or experience would translate to expertise regarding the current 
recruiting and hiring practices of "offices oflawyers" (as designated by the Petitioner in the petition) 
or similar organizations for paralegals (or parallel positions). 
In addition, there is no indication that possesses sufficient knowledge of the Petitioner's 
proffered position and its business operations. listed the duties of the proffered position 
as described by the Petitioner in its response to the RFE. He does not demonstrate or assert in-depth 
8 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 
(b)(6)
Matter ofW-W-&A -, P.C. 
knowledge of the Petitioner 's specific business operations or how the duties of the position would 
actually be performed in the context of the Petitioner 's business enterprise. For example, there is no 
evidence that he has visited the Petitioner's business, observed the Petitioner' s employees, 
interviewed them about the nature of their work, or documented the knowledg e that they apply on 
the job. 
Furthermore, opinion letter does not cite specific instances in which his past opinions 
have been accepted or recognized as authoritative on this particular issue. There is no indication that 
he has conducted any research or studies pertinent to the educational requirements for such positions 
(or parallel positions) in the Petitioner 's industry for similar organizations , and no indication of 
recognition by professional organizations that he is an authority on those specific requirements. 
states that he has published articles in the field; however, according to his curriculum vitae 
his most recent publication was in 2004 (over 10 years ago) - and his curriculum vitae does not 
reflect that he has published any works on the academic/experience requirements for paralegals (or 
related issues). 
Even assuming possessed expertise on the degree requirement s for paralegals, his 
opinion letter does not substantiate his conclusions , such that we can conclude that the Petitioner has 
met its burden of proof. First, does not reference, cite, or discuss any studies, surveys, 
industry publications~ authoritative publications, or other sources of empirical information which he 
may have consulted to complete his evaluation. Second, the record does not indicate whether 
was aware that, as indicated by the Level I wage on the LCA, the Petitioner considered the 
proffered position to be an entry-level paralegal position for a beginning employee who has only a 
basic understanding of the occupation. In other words, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that 
possessed the requisite information to adequately assess the nature of the position and 
appropriately determine parallel positions based upon the job duties and level of responsibilities. 
For the reasons discussed, we find that opinion letter lends little probative value to the 
matter here. Matter of Caron lnt 'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm 'r 1988) (The service is not 
required to accept or may give less weight to an advisory opinion when it is "not in 'accord with 
other information or is in any way questionable."). 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient 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)(J). 
C. Second Criterion 
The second criterion present s 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 prong 
7 
(b)(6)
Matter of W-W-&A -. P. C. 
contemplate s the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
1. F irst 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 s uch a common degree requirement, factors often considered by 
USCIS include: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a d egree; 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 emplo y 
and recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti , Inc. v. Reno , 36 F. Supp. 2d 11 51, 11 65 (D. Minn. 
I999)( quoting Hird/BlakerCorp. v. Sava, 712F. 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 industr y's profess ional 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 degr
eed individuals."9 Thus, the Petitioner has not 
satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 2 14.2(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 show s that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can b e 
performed only by an individual with at l east a bachelor ' s degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
In support of its assertion that the profiered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, the 
Petitioner submitted descript ions of the proffered position and information regarding its business 
operations . On appeal, the Petitioner states that the proffered position includes complex job 
responsibilities. 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 uniqu_e that the 
duties can only be performed an individual with bachelor' s degree or higher in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent. 
9 For the reasons already discussed, the letter from is not probat ive in this matter. 
8 
Matter of W-W-&A -, P. C 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position, and references her 
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). 
D. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it "has always required a Bachelor degree in a related field" for 
the proffered position. The Petitioner submitted documentary evidence (including diplomas, 
transcripts, resumes, and employment forms); however, the record does not include evidence 
establishing that the persons to whom the evidence relates held substantially the same position with 
the same or similar substantive responsibilities, duties, and performance requirements as the position 
proffered in this petition. Further, we also note that only two job postings were submitted into the 
record, although the Petitioner has been in business since 1988. 
In addition, the content of the job postings weigh against the proposition that the Petitioner normally 
requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, for the proffered 
position. We base this finding upon the postings' statement of educational requirements, which 
reads, "Must have a BA or BS, or Bachelor's degree in law." Specifying a "BA or BS" as 
acceptable, without limiting majors or academic concentrations, suggests that the Petitioner does not 
normally require that the qualifying degree be in law or any other specific specialty. 
9 
Matter of W- W-&A -, P. C. 
Without more, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that it normally 
requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the proffered 
position. Therefore, it has not satisfied the third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). 
E. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the riature 
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. 10 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.11 
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. 
10 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 witMn 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 Level I, 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 LevellY 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)(l) of the Act. 
11 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 
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf!N PWHC _Guidance_ Revised_ I I_ 2009.pdf. 
10 
Matter ofW-W-&A-, P.C. 
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 ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden 
has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofW-W-&A-, P.C., !D# 17250 (AAO July 22, 2016) 
II