dismissed H-1B Case: Law

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF W-R- LLP 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 20, 2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an immigration law fim1, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an "EB-5 
immigration specialist" under the H-1 B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The H-18 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 ofhighly 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 of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation in accordance with the 
applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. 
On 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. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) ofthe Act 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 J:ligher 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 protTered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
Matter of W-R- LLP 
(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). We have consistently interpreted the term ''degree'· 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 3 84, 3 87 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the H-IB petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as an "EB-5 immigration 
specialist." The Petitioner provided the following job duties for the position: 
• Review and organize applicants' questionnaires, academic and professional 
background, as well as petitioner information, and further investigating case facts, 
using individual judgement, as necessary, to determine whether all relevant 
information is considered and whether the events or processes comply with laws, 
regulations, and standards (approximately 20% of typical work week); 
• Assist attorney in reviewing financial documentation, loan documentation and 
business plans in connection with EB-5 Projects, to ensure financial compliance, 
as well as certain escrow agreements which may be subject to both U.S. laws and 
Chinese laws, and, in certain situations, investment immigration rules to ensure 
legality of transactions and valid interests of the investors (approximately 25% of 
typical work week); 
• Under the guidance of lead attorney, strategize. research, and prepare memoranda, 
briefs, support letters, and relevant case forms, including drafting the source of 
funds (SOF) report based on clients' financial documents; analyze aspects of the 
EB-5 petition concerning job-creation, targeted area of employment and 
capitalization in compliance with the EB-5 statutory requirements; conduct 
analysis of currently approved Regional Centers and their EB-5 projects, and 
assist attorneys in conducting research on current legislation and policies 
2 
Matter ofW-R- LLP 
impacting the EB-5 immigration program investors (approximately 25% of 
typical work week); 
• Conduct research regarding Chinese approval system and foreign exchange 
system, and assist attorneys to strategize in response to Chinese investors' 
investment related questions with particular focus on policies issues by State 
Council of People's Republic of China, State-owned Assets Supervision and 
Administration Commission of the State Council, National Development Reform 
Commission, State Administration of Foreign Exchange, Ministry of Commerce 
(the government agents of China that regulate outbound investment transactions) 
(approximately 15% oftypical work week); 
• Assist attorney in drafting response to Requests for Evidence (RFE); conduct 
research on Chinese financial regulations, including contracts and securities, tax 
law, estate planning, and household registration to ensure financial compliance; 
research complex issues on foreign documentations, cultures and practice as 
relevant to immigration matter, e.g. types of divorce, adoption procedures, 
notarization process, and security clearance procedures (approximately 15% of 
typical work week). 
According to the Petitioner, the position requires a bachelor's degree in laws, public or business 
administration, economics, finance, or a closely related field. 
III. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons set out below, we have determined that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 1 Specifically, the record does not establish 
that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a 
specialty occupation. 2 
A. Labor Condition Application 
We first turn to the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-1 B petition, in 
which the Petitioner designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Paralegals 
and Legal Assistants" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 23-2011 at a 
Level I wage. In the appeal brief, however, the Petitioner states that the duties and skills of the 
proffered position are more complex and go beyond what is expected of a standard paralegal 
position. The Petitioner reports that the Beneficiary must conduct research on EB-5 regulations and 
1 
Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each ofthe criteria individually. 
2 
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. 
3 
Matter of W-R- LLP 
case laws, analyze and prepare SOF reports, draft relevant case forms and support letters, and review 
and examine vital financial transactions of foreign investors to ensure legal and financial 
compliance. 
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: (1) 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.3 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 
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 profTered 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 assertion that the proffered position requires a significant level ofresponsibility and 
expertise do not appear to be ref1ected in the wage level chosen by it on the LCA.4 The statements 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. 
Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://tlcdatacenter.com/down load/ NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised 
_11_2009.pdf. 
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 
4 
Matter qf W-R- LLP 
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. Nevertheless, we will now analyze the evidence of record. 
B. First Criterion 
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 normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the 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. 5 
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. "6 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 experiep.ce 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. 
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 and other requirements and supervisory duties. 
5 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 we regularly review 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 suppot1 a finding that its particular position 
would normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
6 
For additional inform·ation 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/legallprint/paralegals-and-legal-assistants.htm (last visited April 20, 20 17). 
5 
.
Matter of W-R- LLP 
In addition, the Petitioner did not articulate that a specific bachelor's degree is required for entry into 
the proffered position. As previously stated, the Petitioner claimed that the position has a minimum 
requirement of at least a bachelor's degree in several disparate fields including "laws, public or 
business administration, economics, finance, or a closely related field." 7 In general, provided the 
specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and biochemistry, a minirimm 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)(l)(B) ofthe 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 these disparate fields, such 
as law and finance, 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 particl!lar position such that the required "body of highly 
specialized knowledge" is essentially an amalgamation of these different specialties. 8 Section 
214(i)(l )(B) of the Act (emphasis added). The Petitioner has not made this shm:ving. 
In support of the petition, the Petitioner provided several letters from attorneys. The first author, 
\\>Tote two letters: (1) the first letters states that it his opinion that it is industry 
standards to employ an individual with a bachelor's degree to till a position like the EB-5 
4 immigration specialist, (2) the second letter he asserts that the duties of the proffered position are 
more specialized and complex than those of a paralegal or legal assistant. 
The second author is who also submitted two separate letters. More specifically, 
states (1) his opinion that it is industry standards to employ an individual with a bachelor's 
degree to fill a position like the EB-5 immigration specialist; and (2) the duties of the proffered 
position are more specialized and complex than those of a paralegal or legal assistant. 
Both authors provide a brief~ general description of the Petitioner's business activities; however, 
they do not demonstrate or assert in-depth 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 instance, there is no evidence that the authors have any in-depth kno>vledge 
7 The Petitioner states that a degree in business administration is acceptable for the position. In accordance with 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), we interpret the degree requirement at to require a degree in a specific specialty that is directly 
related to the proposed position. 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, 484 F.3d at 
147. 
8 
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). This also includes even seemingly disparate specialties providing, again, the evidence of record 
establishes how each acceptable, specific field of study is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position. 
6 
Matter ofW-R- LLP 
of the Petitioner's business operations gained through such means as visitmg the Petitioner's 
premises, observing the Petitioner's employees, interviewing them about the nature of their work, or 
documenting the knowledge that they apply on the job. 
In addition, the authors do not discuss the duties of the proffered position in any substantive detail. 
Importantly, there is also no indication that the Petitioner advised the two authors that it 
characterized the proffered position as a low, entry-level paralegal or legal assistant position, for an 
entry-level employee who has only a basic understanding of the occupation (as indicated by the 
wage-level on the LCA). The wage-rate indicates that the Beneficiary will be expected to perform 
routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; that she will be closely supervised 
and her work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and that she will receive specific 
instructions on required tasks and expected results. Without this information, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the authors possessed the requisite information necessary to adequately assess the 
nature of the Petitioner's position and appropriately determine parallel positions based upon the job 
duties and responsibilities. 
For the reasons discussed, we find that the opinion letters lend little probative value to the matter 
here. Matter of Caron Jnt '!, 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)(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, ~m 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 tirst prong 
contemplates the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
1. 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 us 
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 
7 
Matter ofW-R- LLP 
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)(quotingHird/BlakerCorp. v. Sava. 712F. Supp. 1095, 1102(S.D.N.Y.1989)). 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its protTered 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. 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 
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 position qualifies as a specialty occupation, the 
Petitioner submitted descriptions of the profTered position and information regarding its business 
operations. 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 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 
8 
Matter of W-R- LLP 
proffered position requires a specific degree, that statement alone without corroborating evidence 
cannot establish the position as a specialty occupation. Were we 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 De{ensor 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 "each individual employed as an EB-5 Immigration Specialist 
has a bachelor's. degree or higher in a specific specialty field." The Petitioner submitted evidence 
(including diplomas, transcripts, and credential evaluations) in support of its claim; however, the 
record shows that the individuals have degrees in different specialties, such as public administration, 
accounting, international economics, mathematical finance, laws, communication management, 
business administration and economics. 
The Petitioner also asserts that it should not matter that each EB-5 immigration specialist received a 
different degree because "it is the 'specialized knowledge' involved in the course of study, not the 
title of the degree that meets the requirement." However, in addition to demonstrating that a job 
requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of specialized knowledge as required by 
section 214(i)( 1) of the Act, a petitioner must also establish that the position requires the attainment 
of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specialized field of study, or its equivalent. 
As previously mentioned, there must be a close correlation between the required "body of highly 
specialized knowledge" and the position, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in these 
disparate fields 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)( 1 )(8) of the 
Act (emphasis added). 
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 of8 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 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. 
9 
Matter ofW-R- LLP 
The job description submitted by the Petitioner 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. 9 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 
·1· I 0 prevm mg wage. 
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 ofthe 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ~fW-R- LLP, ID# 229861 (AAO Apr. 20, 2017) 
9 
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 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 Level IV wage-designation would not retlect 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. 
10 
A Level IV (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 the 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!NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _I I_ 2009.pdf. 
10