dismissed H-1B Case: Law

(b)(6)
DATE: FEB 0 6 2015 OFFICE: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration s�r'Vicc� 
J\cJrninistrativc Appeals Office (A;\0) 
20 Massachusetts i\vc., N.\V .. MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a) (l5)( H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U,S.C § l l0l(a)(15) (H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish 
agency policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or 
policy to your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider 
or a motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form 
1-2908) within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form 1-2908 instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. The matter is 
now on appeal before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petition will be denied. 
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGRO UND 
The petitiOner submitted a Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129) to the Vermont 
Service Center. In the Form I-129 visa petition, the petitioner describes itself as a legal practice 
established in In order to employ the beneficiary in what it designates as a paralegal position, 
the petitioner seeks to classify her as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to 
section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101 ( a)(1 5)(H)(i)(b ). 
The director found the initial evidence insufficient to establish eligibility for the benefit sought, and 
issued a Request for Evidence (RFE). Thereafter, the petitioner provided a response to the director's 
RFE. The director reviewed the information and determined that the evidence did not establish 
eligibility for the benefit sought. The director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner did not 
establish that (1) the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation; and (2) the beneficiary is 
qualified to perform services in a specialty occupation. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the 
director's grounds for denial of the petition were erroneous and contends that it satisfied all 
evidentiary requirements. 
The record of proceeding contains: (1) the petitioner's Form I-129 and supporting documentation; 
(2) the director's RFE; (3 ) the petitioner's response to the RFE; (4) the director's decision; and (5) 
the Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) and supporting documentation. We reviewed the 
record in its entirety before issuing our decision. 1 
For the reasons that will be discussed below, we agree with the director that the petitioner has not 
established eligibility for the benefit sought. Accordingly, the director's decision will not be 
disturbed. The appeal will be dismissed, and the petition will be denied. 
II. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
The issue is whether the petitioner has provided sufficient evidence to establish that it will employ 
the beneficiary in a specialty occupation position. 
A. The Law 
For an H-1B petition to be granted, the petitioner must provide sufficient evidence to establish that 
it will employ the beneficiary in a specialty occupation position. To meet its burden of proof in this 
regard, the petitioner must establish that the employment it is offering to the beneficiary meets the 
applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. 
1 We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DEC§JON 
Page 3 
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) states, in pertinent part, the following: 
Specialty occupation means an occupation which [(1)] requires theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in fields of human 
endeavor including, but not limited to, architecture, engineering, mathematics, 
physical sciences, social sciences, medicine and health, education, business 
specialties, accounting, law, theology, and the arts, and which [(2)] requires the 
attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, 
as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, a proposed position 
must also meet one of the following criteria: 
(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. 
As a threshold issue, it is noted that 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together 
with section 214(i)(1) of the Act and 8 C. F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(ii). In other words, this regulatory 
language must be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the statute 
as a whole. SeeK Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) (holding that construction 
of language which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is preferred); see also 
COlT Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); 
Matter of W-F-, 21 I&N Dec. 50 3 (BIA 1996). As such, the criteria stated in 8 C. F.R. 
§ 214.2(h )(4)(iii)(A) should logically be read as being necessary but not necessarily sufficient to 
meet the statutory and regulatory definition of specialty occupation. To otherwise interpret this 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DEC§JON 
Page 4 
section as stating the necessary and sufficient conditions for meeting the definition of specialty 
occupation would result in particular positions meeting a condition under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory or regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 
F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this result, 8 C.F.R . § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must therefore be 
read as providing supplemental criteria that must be met in accordance with, and not as alternatives 
to, the statutory and regulatory definitions of specialty occupation. 
As such and consonant with section 214(i)( 1) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C. F .R. 
§ 214. 2(h)(4)(ii), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) consistently interprets 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 proffered position. See 
Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 13 9, 147 (ls t Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement 
in a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
position"). Applying this standard, USCIS regularly approves H-1B petitions for qualified aliens 
who are to be employed as engineers, computer scientists, certified public accountants, college 
professors, and other such occupations. These professions, for which petitioners have regularly 
been able to establish a minimum entry requirement in the United States of a baccalaureate or 
higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent directly related to the duties and 
responsibilities of the particular position, fairly represent the types of specialty occupations that 
Congress contemplated when it created the H -1 B visa category. 
To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCIS does not simply 
rely on a position's title. The specific duties of the proffered position, combined with the nature of 
the petitioning entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. USCIS must examine the 
ultimate employment of the alien, and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. The critical element is not the title 
of the position nor an employer's self-imposed standards, but whether the position actually requires 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for entry 
into the occupation, as required by the Act. 
In ascertaining the intent of a petitioner, USCIS looks to the Form I-1 29 and the documents filed in 
support of the petition. It is only in this manner that the agency can determine the exact position 
offered, the location of employment, the proffered wage, et · cetera. Pursuant to 8 C.F. R. 
§ 214.2(h)(9)(i), the director has the responsibility to consider all of the evidence submitted by a 
petitioner and such other evidence that he or she may independently require to assist his or her 
ad judication. Further, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iv) provides that "[a]n H- lB petition 
involving a specialty occupation shall be accompanied by [ d]ocumentation .. . or any other required 
evidence sufficient to establish ... that the services the beneficiary is to perform are in a specialty 
occupation." 
B. The Proffered Position 
In a support letter dated May 29, 201 2, the petitioner describes the proffered position as follows: 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Beneficiary's job duties will be the following[:] Research and analyze statutes, 
judicial decisions, legal articles, treaties, legal codes, government regulations, federal 
register and other legal material [.] Gather facts and information pertinent to 
immigration applicatio ns[. ] Analyze data gathered from clients as per the directions 
of attorneys to file applications for B/H/LITN visas and others, as well as permanent 
residency (green cards) in both the employment and family based area. Use 
inductive and deductive reasoning to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the 
case and draft immigration motions, petitions, applications, supporting letters [,] 
rebuttals, analytical memoranda for use of the attorneys[.] Elicit information from 
clients and summarize the precise legal issues to be considered by attorneys in 
preparing and handling cases[. ] Prepare responses to complex legal queries and 
request for additional evidence from clients, USCIS and DOL. 
* * * 
Our requirement for minimum of bachelor's degree in Legal Studies or related is 
consistent with our normal hiring practices. 
C. Labor Condition Application 
In support of the petition, the petitioner submitted a Labor Condition Application (LCA) stating that 
the proffered position falls under the occupational category "Paralegals and Legal Assistants" - SOC 
(ONET/OES) code 23 -2011, at a Level II (qualified) wage. 
Prevailing wage determinations start with a Level I (entry) and progress to a wage that is 
commensurate with that of a Level II (qualified), Level III (experienced), or Level IV (fully 
competent) after considering the job requirements, experience, education, special skills/other 
requirements and supervisory duties. Factors to be considered when determining the prevailing 
wage level for a position include the 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. 
The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by the U.S. Department of Labor 
(DOL) provides a description of the wage levels. A Level II wage rate is described by DOL as 
follows: 
Level II (qualified) wage rates are assigned to job offers for qualified employees 
who have attained, either through education or experience, a good understanding of 
the occupation. They perform moderately complex tasks that require limited 
judgment. An indicator that the job request warrants a wage determination at Level II 
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. 
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 .fo reignlaborcert. 
doleta.gov/pdf/ NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _11_ 2009.pdf. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DEC§JON 
Page 6 
As noted above, DOL guidance states that a requirement for years of education and/or experience 
that are generally required as described in the O *NET Job Zones would be an indication that a wage 
determination at Level II would be proper classification for a position. 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 occupation 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 .o netonline. org/help/online/zones, for a 
discussion of Job Zone 3. 
As the petitioner designated the proffered position as a Level II position, this suggests that the 
petitioner's academic and/or professional experience requirements for the proffered position would 
be "training in vocational schools, related on-the-job experience, or an associate's degree" as stated 
for occupations designated as O *NET Job Zone 3. 
D. Analysis 
To make its determination whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, we 
now turn to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
We will first discuss the record of proceeding in relation 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. 
USCIS recognizes 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. 2 We reviewed the chapter of the Handbook entitled "Paralegals and 
Legal Assistant s, " and note that the subchapter of the Handbook entitled "How to Become a 
Paralegal or Legal Assistant" states, in part, the following about this occupation: 
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. In some 
cases, employers hire college graduates with a bachelor's degree with no legal 
experience or education and train them on the job. 
Education 
There are several paths to become a paralegal. Candidates can enroll in a community 
college paralegal program to earn an associate's degree. A small number of schools 
also offer bachelor's and master's degrees in paralegal studies. Those who already 
2 All references are to the 2014-201 5 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.bls.gov/OCO/. Excerpts of the Handbook regarding the duties and requirements of the 
referenced occupational category are hereby incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
have a bachelor's degree in another subject can earn a certificate in paralegal studies. 
Finally, some employers hire entry-level paralegals without any experience or 
education in paralegal studies and train them on the job, though these jobs typically 
require a bachelor's degree. 
Associate's and bachelor's degree programs in paralegal studies usually combine 
paralegal training, such as courses in legal research and the legal applications of 
computers, with other academic subjects. Most certificate programs provide 
intensive paralegal training for people who already hold college degrees. Some 
certificate programs only take a few months to complete. 
Many paralegal training programs offer an internship, in which students gain 
practical experience by working for several months in a private law firm, the office 
of a public defender or attorney general, a corporate legal department, a legal aid 
organization, or a government agency. Internship experience helps students improve 
their technical skills and can enhance their employment prospects. 
Employers sometimes hire college graduates with no legal experience or education 
and train them on the job. In these cases, the new employee may have experience in 
a technical field that is useful to law firms, such tax preparation, nursing, or criminal 
justice. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., 
Paralegals and Legal Assistants, available on the Internet at 
http ://www . bls.gov /ooh/legal/paralegals-and -legal-assistants .htm#tab-4 (last visited February 5, 
2015). 
The Handbook states that 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. The 
narrative of the Handbook indicates that there are several educational paths to become a paralegal, 
including obtaining an associate, baccalaureate or master's degree in paralegal studies, as well as 
earning a certificate in paralegal studies (for those who already have a bachelor's degree in another 
subject). For entry into the occupation, the Handbook indicates that some employers hire paralegals 
without any experience or education in paralegal studies and train them on the job. Thus, the 
Handbook does not support the claim that the occupational category here is one for which normally 
the minimum requirement for entry is a baccalaureate degree (or higher) in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. Even if it did (which it does not), the record lacks sufficient evidence to support a 
finding that the particular position proffered here would normally have such a minimum, specialty 
degree requirement or its equivalent. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner references the O *NET Summary Report for "Paralegals and 
Legal Assistants." The petitioner claims that "O *NET lists 44% of the employers require a 
Bachelor's degree for Paralegal positions." We reviewed the summary report; however, it does not 
support the petitioner's assertion. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
First, we disagree with the petitioner's suggestion that the percentages scored by the survey of 
respondents is a statistically accurate measure of "employers require[ing] a Bachelor's degree." We 
are aware of no such claim by the producers of the O*NET, and we note that the O*NET depicts the 
percentages as generated only by an unspecified number of voluntary respondents to questionnaires. 
In any event, a critical feature of the criterion here is it is satisfied only if the petitioner establishes 
that the "particular position" - not a percentage of positions within the position's occupational group 
- normally requires the criterion's educational level. 
Moreover, this O*NET "Percentage of Respondents" upon which the petitioner relies does not 
indicate that any particular "education level" must be in a specific specialty (or its equivalent). 
Further, the O*NET summary report does not distinguish the respondents' positions within the 
occupation, such as by career level (e.g., entry-level, midlevel, senior-level). The O*NET 
"Percentage of Respondents" is not probative evidence that the particular position here proffered is 
one for which a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty (or its equivalent) is normally the 
minimum requirement for entry. 
We note that the occupational category "Paralegals and Legal Assistants" is classified under Job 
Zone Three, SVP range of (6.0 to< 7.0). 3 Thus, O*NET indicates that less than a four-year degree 
3 Section II of the Dictionary of Occupational Title (DOT)'s Appendix C, Components of the Definition 
Trailer, which addresses the Specialized Vocational Preparation (SVP) rating system reads: 
II. SPECIFIC VOCATIONAL PREPARATION (SVP) 
Specific Vocational Preparation is defined as the amount of lapsed time required by a typical 
worker to learn the techniques, acquire the information, and develop the facility needed for 
average performance in a specific job-worker situation. 
This training may be acquired in a school, work, military, institutional, or vocational 
environment. It does not include the orientation time required of a fully qualified worker to 
become accustomed to the special conditions of any new job. Specific vocational training 
includes: vocational education, apprenticeship training, in-plant training, on-the-job training, 
and essential experience in other jobs. 
Specific vocational training includes training given in any of the following circumstances: 
a. Vocational education (high school; commercial or shop training; technical school; art 
school; and that part of college training which is organized around a specific vocational 
objective); 
b. Apprenticeship training (for apprenticeable jobs only); 
c. In-plant training (organized classroom study provided by an employer); 
d. On-the-job training (serving as learner or trainee on the job under the instruction of a 
qualified worker); 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
is sufficient for performance of the job duties. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted an advisory opinion from of the 
We reviewed the opmwn letter in its 
entirety. However, as discussed below, the report is not persuasive in establishing the proffered 
position as qualifying as a specialty occupation position. 4 
Mr. provides a summary of his qualifications, including his educational credentials and 
professional experience. Based upon a complete review of Mr. report, however, he has 
failed to provide sufficient information regarding the basis of his expertise on this particular issue. 
The documentation does not establish his expertise pertinent to assessing the minimum 
requirements for entry into the proffered position. Without further clarification, it is not apparent 
how his education, training, skills or experience would translate to expertise or specialized 
knowledge regarding the educational requirements for the proffered position. 
Mr. asserts that he is qualified to comment on the position of paralegal because of the 
positions he holds and has held at and because of his academic training, professional 
e. Essential experience in other jobs (serving in less responsible jobs which lead to the 
higher grade job or serving in other jobs which qualify). 
The following is an explanation of the various levels of specific vocational preparation: 
Level Time 
I 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
Short demonstration only 
Anything beyond short demonstration up to and including I month 
Over I month up to and including 3 months 
Over 3 months up to and including 6 months 
Over 6 months up to and including 1 year 
Over I year up to and including 2 years 
Over 2 years up to and including 4 years 
Over 4 years up to and including 1 0 years 
Over 1 0 years 
Note: The levels of this scale are mutually exclusive and do not overlap. 
An SVP rating of 6 to less than ("<") 7 falls into the scale for "over 1 year up to and includes 2 years" of 
preparation. 
4 Recognized authority means a person or organization with expertise in a particular field, special skills or 
knowledge in that field, and the expertise to render the type of opinion requested. 8 C.F.R. § 21 4.2(h)( 4)(ii). 
A recognized authority's opinion must state: ( 1) the writer's qualifications as an expert; (2) the writer's 
experience giving such opinions, citing specific instances where past opinions have been accepted as 
authoritative and by whom; (3) how the conclusions were reached; and (4) the basis for the conclusions 
supported by copies or citations of any research material used. !d. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DEC�ION 
Page 10 
experience and publications in. the field. 5 However, Mr. 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 published any work or 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. He claims to be qualified in the 
field of law, but he did not identify the specific elements of his knowledge and experience that he 
may have applied in reaching his conclusions here. 
In the report, Mr. asserts that "a position such as a [p ]aralegal would require a candidate with 
a Bachelor's degree in Legal Studies or a closely related field." It is noted that Mr. provided 
a brief description of the petitioner's business and a job description for the proffered position, which 
appears to be from the petitioner's support letter. Upon review of Mr. opinion report, there 
is no indication that he possesses any knowledge of the petitioner's proffered position beyond this 
information. For instance, there is no evidence that Mr. has visited the petitioner's business, 
observed the petitioner's employees, interviewed them about the nature of their work, or 
documented the knowledge that they apply on the job. He does 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. He does not discuss the 
duties of the proffered position in any substantive detail. Mr. opinion does not relate his 
conclusion to specific, concrete aspects of this petitioner's business operations to demonstrate a 
sound factual basis for the conclusion about the educational requirements for the particular position 
here at issue. 
Importantly, his statements are not supported by copies or citations of research material that may 
have been used. He has not provided sufficient facts that would support the contention that the 
proffered position requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty (or its equivalent). In 
summary, the conclusions reached by Mr. lack the requisite specificity and detail and are not 
supported by independent, objective evidence demonstrating the manner in which he reached such 
conclusions. 
We may, in our discretion, use as ad visory opinion statements submitted as expert testimony. 
However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, 
we are not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Matter of Caron 
International, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988). As a reasonable exercise of our discretion we 
discount the advisory opinion letter as not probative of any criterion of 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A). For efficiency's sake, we hereby incorporate the above discussion and 
analysis regarding the opinion letter into each of the bases in this decision for dismissing the appeal. 
5 A review of Mr. curriculum vitae indicates that he has served as an associate professor at 
since 1996, and that (I) his most recent publication was over a decade ago, (2) his most recent conferences 
and presentations were held in the late 1990's, (3) his most recent grants and awards received were in the 
1990's, and ( 4) he has not been a member of any boards or performed organizational activities since the 
1990's (with the exception of being a board member for the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page II 
In the instant case, the duties and requirements of the pos1t10n as described in the record of 
proceeding do not indicate that this particular position proffered by the petitioner is one for which a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry. Thus, the petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
Next, we will review the record regarding the first of the two alternative prongs of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). This prong alternatively calls for a petitioner to establish that a 
requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common for 
positions that are identifiable as being (1) in the petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered 
position, and also (3 ) located in organizations that are similar to the petitioner. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by 
USCIS 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 de greed 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 independent, authoritative source) reports a standard industry-wide 
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 
de greed individuals." 
With the RFE, the petitioner submitted several job announcements and claims that they confirm that 
in "[the] marketing industry, a bachelor's degree is a standard minimum requirement." The 
petitioner did not explain the relevance of this statement with regard to the "marketing industry." 
Rather, for the petitioner to establish that an organization is similar under this criterion of the 
regulations, it must demonstrate that the petitioner and the organization share the same general 
characteristics. Without such information, evidence submitted by a petitioner is generally outside 
the scope of consideration for this criterion, which encompasses only organizations that are similar 
to the petitioner. 
When determining whether the petltwner 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. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of So.ffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter ofTreasure Craft ofCalifornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r 
1972)). 
In the Form I-129, the petitioner stated that it is a legal practice of immigration and nationality law, 
and other laws with thirteen employees. The petitioner also reported its gross annual income as 
approximately $1. 3 million, but did not provide its annual income (stating "N/ A"). The petitioner 
designated its business operations under the North American Industry Classification System 
(NAICS) code 541110. 6 This NAICS code is designated for "Offices of Lawyers." The U.S. 
Department of Commerce, Census Bureau website describes this NAICS code by stating the 
following: 
This industry comprises offices of legal practitioners known as lawyers or attorneys 
(i.e., counselors-at-law) primarily engaged in the practice of law. Establishments in 
this industry may provide expertise in a range or in specific areas of law, such as 
criminal law, corporate law, family and estate law, patent law, real estate law, or tax 
law. 
See U.S. Dep't of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definition, 541110-0ffices of 
Lawyers, on the Internet at http:// www .census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch (last viewed February 
5, 2015). 
As will be discussed, the record does not demonstrate that a requirement of a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common for positions that are identifiable as 
being (1) in the petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered position, and (3 ) located m 
organizations that are similar to the petitioner. 7 
More specifically, the record contains advertisements from staffing companies such as 
as well as an unnamed company. The job postings provide little or no 
information regarding the actual employers. Consequently, there is insufficient information 
regarding these employers' business operations to conduct legitimate comparison to the petitioner's 
opera tions. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted advertisement from the following companies: 
6 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is used 
to classify business establishments according to type of economic activity and, each establishment is 
classified to an industry according to the primary business activity taking place there. See 
http://www.census.gov/eos/www /naics/ (last viewed February 5, 20 15). 
7 Moreover, the petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative the job postings 
are of the particular advertising employers' recruiting history for the type of job advertised. As the 
advertisements are only solicitations for hire, they are not evidence of the actual hiring practices of these 
employers. 
(b)(6)
Page 13 
NON-PRECEDENT DEC�ION 
• (a firm with 3,750 lawyers and 5,800 business 
service professionals in 69 offices worldwide); 
• (a global leader in the legal industry with over 2,000 
lawyers in 41 offices covering four continents); 
• (the largest immigration law 
firm in the world, with over 300 attorneys/solicitors and 2,100 immigration 
professionals and staff in 44 offices covering 18 countries); 
• (a prominent business and litigation firm with 
three offices); 
• (no further information was provided); 
• (an immigration law firm with four attorneys 
and five paralegals); 
• (a full-service immigration law firm 
known worldwide, a top-rated 17 attorney firm); 
• (described as an immigration law firm, but no further 
information was provided); and 
• (a prominent business and litigation firm with 
three offices). 
The petitioner did not state which aspects or traits (if any) it shares with the advertising 
organizations. Without further information, the advertisements appear to include organizations that 
are not similar to the petitioner and the petitioner has not provided any probative evidence to 
suggest otherwise. The petitioner did not supplement the record of proceeding to establish that all 
of the advertising organizations are similar to it. 
In addition, contrary to the purpose for which the advertisements were submitted, some job postings 
do not indicate that at least a bachelor's degree is required. For example: 
• states that a college degree is preferred. A "preference" does not 
indicate that a bachelor's degree is required for the advertised position. 
• states that a paralegal certificate or a bachelor's 
degree is acceptable for the position. Thus, the employer does not require at 
least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
• states that a college degree is required, but it does not provide 
any further specification as to the level of education necessary (associate's 
degree, baccalaureate). 
Further, some postings do not indicate that a bachelor's degree (or higher) in a directly related 
specific specialty (or its equivalent) is required. 8 For instance, the following postings state that a 
degree is necessary, but they do not state that a specific specialty is required: 
8 As discussed, the degree requirement set by the statutory and regulatory framework of the H-IB program is 
not just a bachelor's or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the specialty 
occupation claimed in the petition. Further, requiring a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree 
(b)(6)
Page 14 
• 
• 
• an unnamed company; 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(four-year degree); 
and 
(four-year degree) . 
Further, some of the advertisements do not appear to be for parallel positions. For example, the 
submission included a posting for a "Senior" position. The petitioner also provided postings for 
positions requiring a degree and a significant amount of experience. As previously discussed, the 
petitioner designated the proffered position on the LCA as a Level II position (thus a relatively low­
level position relative to others within the occupation). Thus, we must question whether all of the 
postings are for parallel positions. 
The job postings suggest, at best, that a bachelor's degree is sometimes required, but not at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty (or its equivalent). 9 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. That is, not every deficit 
of every job posting has been addressed. 
Thus, based upon a complete review of the record, the petitioner has not established that a 
requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to 
the petitioner's industry in positions that are (1) in the petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the 
proffered position, and also (3 ) located in organizations that are similar to the petitioner. For the 
in business administration, without more, will not justifY a finding that a particular position qualifies for 
classification as a specialty occupation. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Cherto.ff, 484 F.3d at 14 7. 
9 It must be noted that 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 fails to demonstrate what inferences, if any, can be drawn from three 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) . 
As such, even if the job announcements supported the finding that the position required a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, 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 postings that appear to have been consciously 
selected outweigh the findings of the Handbook published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics that such a 
position does not normally require at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for 
entry into the occupation in the United States. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DEC�ION 
Page 15 
reasons discussed above, the petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214. 2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)(2). 
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 described the proffered position and its business operations in its letter of support, in the 
response to the RFE, and in the brief submitted with the appeal. 10 Upon review, we find that the 
petitioner has not sufficiently developed relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the 
proffered position. For instance, the petitioner did not submit information relevant to a detailed 
course of study leading to a specialty degree and did not establish how such a curriculum is 
necessary to perform the duties it may believe are so complex and unique. 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 leading to a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the duties of the proffered 
position. The description of the duties does not specifically identify any tasks that are so complex 
or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. 
This is further evidenced by the LCA submitted by the petitioner in support of the instant petition. 
Again, the LCA indicates a wage level based upon the occupational classification "Paralegals and 
Legal Assistants" at a Level II wage. In accordance with the relevant DOL explanatory information 
on wage levels, a Level II position is indicative that, relative to other positions falling under the 
occupational category, the beneficiary is expected to have a good understanding of the occupation 
but that she will only perform moderately complex tasks that require limited judgment. Without 
further evidence, it is not credible that the petitioner's proffered position is complex or unique as 
such a position falling under this occupational category would likely be classified at a higher-level, 
such as a Level III (experienced) or Level IV (fully competent) position, requiring a significantly 
higher prevailing wage. For example, 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." 11 The evidence of record does not establish that this position is significantly different 
from other positions in the occupational category such that it refutes the Handbook's information 
that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is not required for the proffered position. 
10 
In addition the petitioner provided an opinion letter from Mr. However, as previously discussed in 
detail, the letter from Mr is not probative evidence to establishing the proffered position as satisfying 
the statutory and regulatory provisions for a specialty occupation. 
11 
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/NPWHC_Guidance_Revised_ll_ 
2009. pdf. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DEC�ION 
Page 16 
In the instant case, the petitioner has not established which of the duties, if any, of the proffered 
position would be so complex or unique as to be distinguishable from those of similar but non­
degreed or non-specialty degreed employment. The petitioner has not satisfied the second 
alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h) (4)(iii)(A)(2). 
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 
this end, we review the petitioner's past recruiting and hiring practices, as well as information 
regarding employees who previously held the position, and any other documentation submitted by a 
petitioner in support of this criterion of the regulations. 
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 artificially 
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. In other words, if a petitioner's stated degree requirement is only 
designed to artificially meet the standards for an H-1B visa and/or to underemploy an individual in 
a position for which he or she is overqualified and if the proffered position does not in fact require 
such a specialty degree or its equivalent, to perform its duties, the occupation would not meet the 
statutory or regulatory definition of a specialty occupation. See § 214(i)(1) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation"). 
To satisfy this criterion, the evidence of record must show that the specific performance 
requirements of the position generated the recruiting and hiring history. A petitioner's perfunctory 
declaration of a particular educational requirement will not mask the fact that the position is not a 
specialty occupation. USCIS must examine the actual employment requirements, and, on the basis 
of that examination, determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. See 
generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. In this pursuit, the critical element is not the title of 
the position, or the fact that an employer has routinely insisted on certain educational standards, but 
whether performance of the position actually requires the theoretical and practical application of a 
body of highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the 
specific specialty as the minimum for entry into the occupation as required by the Act. To interpret 
the regulations any other way would lead to absurd results: if USCIS were constrained to recognize 
a specialty occupation merely because the petitioner has an established practice of demanding 
certain educational requirements for the proffered position - and without consideration of how a 
beneficiary is to be specifically employed - then any alien with a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty could be brought into the United States to perform non-specialty occupations, so long as 
the employer required all such employees to have baccalaureate or higher degrees. See id. at 388. 
The petitioner stated in the Form 1-129 petition that it has thirteen employees and that it was 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 17 
established in (approximately 22 years prior to the H-l B submission). 12 In response to the 
RFE, the petitioner stated the following: 
It is [the petitioner's] normal practice to hire Paralegals with at least a Bachelor 's 
degree or equivalent, in the past we have hired Paralegals with at least a Bachelor's 
degree or equivalent and all our current employees holding the Paralegal positions 
possess a minimum of a Bachelor's degree or equivalent. 
In support of this statement, the petitioner submitted copies of four individuals' credentials. It must 
first be noted that the petitioner did not state the total number of people that it currently or in the 
past has employed in paralegal positions. Thus, it has not been established that the credentials of 
four individuals is representative of its hiring and recruiting history. Moreover, the documentation 
provided indicates that two of the individu als possess academic credentials in business 
administration. 13 Further, the petitioner submitted documentation regarding the foreign credentials 
for some of the individuals; however, the record lacks evidence establishing that the equivalency of 
the foreign credentials. 
Importantly, the petitioner claims that it is its normal practice to hire individuals with at least a 
bachelo r's degree; however, the requirement of a bachelor's degree in any field is inadequate to 
establish that a position qualifies as a specialty occupation. A petitioner must demonstrate that the 
proffered position requires a precise and specific course of study that relates directly to the position 
in question. Since there must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies and the 
position, the requirement of a degree, without further specification, does not establish the position 
as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Associates, 19 I&N Dec. 558 (Comm'r 
1988). 
Further, the petitioner did not provide the job duties and day-to-day responsibilities of the positions 
that it claims are the same as the proffered position. The petitioner did not submit any information 
12 
The petitioner's letterhead includes its website address. We reviewed the website and observe that the 
following information is provided in the section "Job Opportunities" : 
Law Offices of (last visited 
February 4, 20 15 ). As this evidence was presumably known to the petitioner (since it appears on its 
website), no prior notice of its incorporation into this record is required by 8 C.F.R. § 10 3.2(b)(l6)(i). The 
petitioner has provided no evidence to demonstrate that four years of experience as a paralegal is equivalent 
to a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 
13 We again note that 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. 
See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 14 7. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 18 
regarding the complexity of the job duties, supervisory duties (if any), independent judgment 
required or the amount of supervision received. Accordingly, aside from the claimed job title, it is 
unclear whether the duties and responsibilities of these individuals are the same or related to the 
proffered position. 
Moreover, the petitioner did not submit documentary evidence to establish that the individuals are 
employed by the petitioner (e.g., pay statements, Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statements). We note 
that going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 165 (citing 
Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190). 
Thus, the evidence does not support the assertion that the petitioner normally requires at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty directly related to the duties of the position (or its 
equivalent) for the position. The petitioner has not satisfied the third criterion of 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.P. 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. 
The petitioner claims that the nature of the specific duties of the position in the context of its 
business operations 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. We reviewed the petitioner's statements regarding the proffered position and its 
business operations. However, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently 
developed by the petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. 
We hereby 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 II position (out of four 
assignable wage-levels) relative to others within the occupational category, and hence one not likely 
distinguishable by relatively specialized and complex duties. Without further evidence, it is not 
credible that the petitioner's proffered position is one with specialized and complex duties as such a 
position would likely be classified at a higher-level, such as a Level III (experienced) or Level IV 
(fully competent) position, requiring a substantially higher prevailing wage. As previously 
discussed, 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. The petitioner has submitted inadequate probative evidence to satisfy the 
criterion of the regulations at 8 C.P. R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A) (4). 
For the reasons related in the preceding discussion, the petitioner has not established that it has 
satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) and, therefore, it cannot be found that 
the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The appeal will be dismissed and the 
petition denied. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 19 
III. THE BENEFICIA RY'S QUALIF ICATION 
The director also found that the beneficiary would not be qualified to perform the duties of the 
proffered position if the job had been determined to be a specialty occupation. However, a 
beneficiary's credentials to perform a particular job are relevant only when the job is found to be a 
specialty occupation. As discussed in this decision, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
proffered position requires a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Therefore, we need not and will not address the beneficiary's qualifications further except to note 
that the "statement of marks" from the provides marks for the beneficiary for 
Part I (1s t year) and Part II (2nd year), but not for Part III (third year). Nevertheless, as the petitioner 
has not demonstrated that the proffered position satisfies the requirements for a specialty 
occupation, we need not further address this issue. 
IV. CONCLUSION AND OR DE R 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 13 61; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 201 3). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.