dismissed H-1B Case: Law

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 4442049 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR. 12, 2020 
The Petitioner , a full-service global law firm, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an 
"associate" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. 1 
The Vermont Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner failed to establish 
that the labor condition application 2 (LCA) corresponded to and supported the H-lB petition, as required. 3 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred and that the LCA does correspond to and support 
the petition, as well as that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 4 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 5 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specia lty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, 
and 
1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b ), 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b ). 
2 A petitioner submits the LCA to DOL to demonstrate that it will pay an H-lB worker the higher of either the prevailing 
wage for the occupational classification in the area of employment or the actual wage paid by the employer to other 
employees with similar duties, experience , and qualifications . Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 
20 C.F.R. § 655.73l(a). 
3 While DOL certifies the LCA, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) determines whether the LCA 's 
content corresponds with the H- lB petition. See 20 C.F.R. § 655. 705(b) ("DHS determines whether the petition is 
supported by an LCA which corresponds with the petition ... "). 
4 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-lB 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. 
5 A petitioner must establish that it meets each eligibility requirement of the benefit sought by a preponderance of the 
evidence . Matter ofChawathe, 25 I& N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010) . 
(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: 
(I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We construe 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. 6 
II. THE PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner, a foll-service global law firm, stated in its H-lB petition that it will deploy the 
Beneficiary to its I I office. On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of 
the H-1 B petition, the Petitioner designated the proffered position under the occupational category of 
"Lawyers" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 23-1011. 7 The Petitioner 
stated that the Beneficiary will be employed as an "associate" within the corporate practice group, a 
position which requires an advanced understanding and in-depth knowledge of legal principles such 
that a minimum of a bachelor's degree in legal studies is required for entry into the position. 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we conclude that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Specifically, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established the substantive nature of the work that 
6 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"). 
7 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level I wage. A wage determination starts with an entry-level wage 
(Level I) and progresses to a higher wage level (up to Level TV) after considering the experience, education, and skill 
requirements of the Petitioner's job opp01iunity. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage 
Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://flcdatacenter.com/ download/NPWH C _Guidance_ Revised_ 11 _ 2009 .pdf 
2 
the Beneficiary will perform due to insufficient evidence regarding the duties, material changes in the 
stated role the Beneficiary will occupy within the proffered position, and a lack of specificity in the 
articulated minimum education requirements. Because the Petitioner has not established the 
substantive nature of the work to be performed by the Beneficiary, we are precluded from determining 
that the proffered position satisfies any of the regulatory specialty occupation criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
A. The Duties of the Proffered Position 
After the initial filing of the petition, the Director requested additional evidence to establish that the 
Beneficiary met the minimum qualifications for entry into the position. Specifically, the Petitioner 
failed to provide evidence that the Beneficiary had obtained a law degree or had received a law license 
from any state bar. In its request for this information, the Director cited to the Occupational Outlook 
Handbook (Handbook), 8 which states that "[l]awyers must have a law degree and must also typically 
pass a state's written bar examination. "9 The record reflects that at the time of filing the H-1 B petition, 
the Beneficiary had completed significant coursework in law school leading up to a juris doctor degree. 
In addition to an undergraduate degree, her law school transcript shows completion of five semesters 
of coursework and enrollment in a sixth and final semester. In its RFE response, the Petitioner clarified 
that because the Beneficiary would not provide direct legal counsel to clients, a law license and juris 
doctor degree would not be required for entry into the position, as may have been presumed by the 
Director. The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary "will assist licensed attorneys in counseling 
clients" and will "communicate internally with licensed attorneys, who will provide counsel to clients 
based on the [B]eneficiary's legal research," and as such, the proffered position only requires a 
bachelor's degree in legal studies or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner attributed the confusion regarding the proffered pos1t10n to the list of available 
occupational classifications. According to the Petitioner, the proffered position is best categorized as 
falling within the occupation of"lawyers" because the Department of Labor removed the "law clerks" 
designation from the list of occupational classifications as an available designation on the LCA. It 
further explained that the proffered position is not closely aligned with the occupational categories of 
'judicial law clerks" or "paralegals" and provided an explanation as to why "lawyer" was the more 
appropriate designation for its position. 
The Petitioner distinguishes the proffered position as more sophisticated and advanced than a paralegal 
position because the "day-to-day responsibilities include complex legal research and analysis," as well 
as legal research and writing skills that can only be gained in a bachelor of legal studies degree 
program. The Petitioner argues that paralegal work, by contrast, involves "organizing and maintaining 
8 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. We do not 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. The burden of proof remains on 
the Petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position would nonnally have a minimum, 
specialty degree requirement or its equivalent, for entry. 
9 For additional information, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook site at 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/legal/lawyers.htm?view_full#tab-4 (last visited Mar. 11, 2020). 
3 
documents in paper or electronic filing systems, arranging evidence for review by associates or 
partners, filing legal documents with the court, and scheduling interviews, meetings or depositions 
with clients." The Director issued her decision based upon a conclusion that the duties of the position 
as articulated by the Petitioner more closely matched that of a position falling within the "paralegals 
and legal assistants" occupational category and therefore the LCA, which had been certified under the 
"lawyers" occupational category, did not correspond to and support the petition as required. 
To explain why the proffered position differs from positions falling within the paralegal category, the 
Petitioner paraphrased a few of the general duties that appear in the Handbook under the occupational 
category of "Paralegals and Legal Assistants" with SOC code 23-2011. However, the Petitioner has 
not folly represented the general duties of a paralegal or legal assistant position as they appear in the 
Handbook. For instance, the Handbook also mentions that paralegals "[c]onduct research on relevant 
laws, regulations, and legal articles," "[ d]raft correspondence and legal documents," and "write or 
summarize reports to help lawyers prepare for trials." Moreover, the DOL's O*NET summary report 
for "Paralegals and Legal Assistants," listed as SOC code 23-2011.00, 10 includes duties such as 
"[p ]repare legal documents, including briefs, pleadings, appeals, wills, contracts, and real estate 
closing statements," "[ m ]eet with clients and other professionals to discuss details of case," and 
"[g]ather and analyze research data, such as statutes, decisions, and legal articles, codes, and 
documents." 
In viewing the broader scope of general duties listed under the paralegal occupational category, some 
of the duties of paralegals appear to align with work described as part of the proffered position. For 
example, some of the duties the Petitioner lists as comprising the proffered position include 
"conducting in-depth legal research, synthesizing research findings by analyzing and applying 
identified legal standards ... communicating with the client team ... preparing filings ... drafting legal 
memoranda." These duties appear similar in nature to the generic duties listed in the Handbook and 
O*NET under the "paralegals and legal assistants" category. Similarly, the Petitioner states that "a 
paralegal would not be called upon to develop legal strategies, assess complex arguments, or prepare 
memoranda of law for consideration by senior associates or partners," but it fails to reconcile or 
differentiate the duties of the proffered position from the generic O*NET duties listed for paralegals 
such as "[i]nvestigate facts and law of cases and search pertinent sources ... to determine causes of 
action and to prepare cases" and "[p ]repare legal documents, including briefs." Without farther 
explanation or description of the duties of the proffered position, the generic Handbook and O*NET 
duties for paralegal positions do appear to be substantially similar. 
A crucial aspect of this matter is whether the duties of the proffered position are described in such a 
way that we may discern the actual, substantive nature of the position. We conclude that many of the 
duties as described are vague and general. For instance, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary must 
be able to "assess the impact of the proposed action within the context of the applicable framework" 
and "communicate internally with licensed attorneys" but does not explain how this work is 
specialized or what the Beneficiary will actually do as she carries out these tasks. Throughout the 
record of proceedings, the Petitioner provided very few specific examples of the type of work the 
Beneficiary will engage in, but rather offers a broad overview of law firm work generally. The 
1° For additional information, see the O*NET Summary Report at https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/23-2011.00 
(last visited Mar. 11, 2020). 
4 
informational law firm printouts provided do not evidence samples of the type of work the Beneficiary 
will engage in or how that work could be differentiated from a paralegal's duties. 
Though the Petitioner claims that the duties of the proffered position are more complex, sophisticated, 
and in-depth than that of a typical paralegal position, merely placing adjectives in front of a duty does 
not sufficiently explain or describe how the duties of the proffered position are different from the 
seemingly similar duties performed by paralegals or legal assistants. We reviewed the opinion letter 
offered by I I Professor of Law at I I School of Business. In addition to frequently 
using adjectives in place of specific information concerning the specialized nature of the duties (if 
any), I I and the Petitioner both seem to suggest that the critical importance of the 
Beneficiary's work and the demanding and rigorous nature of the position establish that it is a specialty 
occupation. However, the fact that a position may be demanding, rigorous, and important does not 
establish that it is specialized. 
At a minimum, the duties as described raise questions as to the actual, substantive nature of the work 
that the Beneficiary will perform in the proffered position. The Petitioner has stated that the position 
will not involve providing legal advice directly to clients, but has not sufficiently explained or 
established why the proffered position could not be performed by someone with a different level or 
type of education, such as an associate's degree in legal studies or a paralegal certificate. As the 
records stands, there is insufficient detailed evidence to conclude that the Beneficiary will primarily 
engage in work that requires at least a bachelor's degree in legal studies. If we cannot determine the 
actual substantive nature of the work the Beneficiary will perform, we are precluded from a conclusion 
that the proffered position satisfies any criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
B. Material Changes in the Proffered Position 
Further questions as to the substantive nature of the position arise when we examine the Petitioner's 
claims with regard to the Beneficiary's position at the time of hiring and the position which she will 
occupy after graduating from law school and gaining admission to the bar. The Petitioner states that 
it is "a common practice among large law firms across the United States" to "employ individuals in 
the offered position and then promote these professionals to the position of licensed attorney once the 
individual has obtained a Juris Doctor degree and is admitted to a state bar." In order to obtain top 
talent, the Petitioner states that it "must extend offers for entry-level Associate positions to individuals 
while they are in the process of completing their Juris Doctor degree program, with the understanding 
that the individual ultimately will graduate and then proceed to gain admission to a U.S. state bar" 
after which the associate will "transition into a more senior-level position as a licensed attorney." The 
Petitioner also states that Beneficiary is "envisioned as ultimately ascending to the role of a licensed 
attorney for the firm" but that to be in compliance with New York state attorney licensing, the 
Beneficiary will not have "lawyer" or "attorney" attached to her title, nor will she advise clients 
directly. 
This practice is reinforced by the opinion letter provided byl I which states that it is 
industry standard to hire entry-level associates that have nearly completed law school but with the 
understanding that they "will begin practicing law within a reasonable period after hiring" and that 
this practice is in keeping with the "hiring of a future attorney." I I explains that the 
"very conceptualization of the position" is "as a transitional role for an individual who is intended to 
5 
serve as a future attorney with the firm." He further states that entry-level associates are "prohibited 
from performing functions considered to be within the scope of the practice oflaw." 
Taken together, this information suggests that the Petitioner considers the proffered entry-level 
associate position as separate and distinct from that of a licensed attorney. It is the apparent intent of 
the Petitioner that the proffered position will change once the Beneficiary obtains a juris doctor degree 
and passes a bar examination. 11 Other than that the Beneficiary might be eligible to provide legal 
advice directly to clients, we have no information on how the Beneficiary's role will change once she 
ascends to her "more senior-level" position after "promotion." This material alteration raises yet more 
questions as to the actual, substantive nature of the position. 
C. Minimum Education Requirements 
While we may accept that it is industry practice for top tier firms to extend offers to law students prior 
to their attainment of a juris doctor degree, we cannot agree with the Petitioner's statements as to the 
common industry standard of a minimum of a bachelor's degree in legal studies for entry into an 
"associate" type position. To clarify, though firms extend offers and may even hire new talent in 
positions similar to the proffered position prior to completion of law school, the generally accepted 
industry standard for top tier law firms, as the Petitioner purports to be, is that if an incoming associate 
fails to graduate with a juris doctor or fails to pass a bar examination within a reasonable period, such 
offers for employment and any previous hiring are often, if not categorically, rescinded. 
The Petitioner states that "[b ]y the inherent standards of this unique role, which is designed to bridge 
the preparatory period between advanced, doctoral legal study and actual admission to the Bar, it is 
clear that the position by definition would require at least a Bachelor's-level (or higher) Degree, with 
advanced Legal coursework." Furthermore,! lalso confirms that the "position within 
the firm is reserved for an individual who is completing a Juris Doctor program and possesses a 
Bachelor of Legal Studies degree (or its equivalent) at the time of hire" and that "the position is 
intended to be held by an individual who is studying toward attainment of a Juris Doctor degree, and 
ultimately working toward admission to the Bar." 
Thus, the industry standard for the minimum qualifications of an incoming associate is not adequately 
described as a bachelor's degree in legal studies. Rather, it appears more likely that the unarticulated 
standard minimum qualification is a partial completion of a third-year level oflaw school coursework 
with the explicit expectation that all coursework will be completed, a juris doctor degree obtained, and 
admission to a state bar directly follows. The requirement articulated as such coincides more readily 
with the reality that most students do not begin their full-time positions as associates with these large 
11 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(1) requires that a petitioner establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit 
have been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through adjudication. Therefore, a visa petition may not be 
approved at a future date after the Petitioner or the Beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of 
Michelin Tire Corp., 17 T&N Dec. 248 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978). As such, eligibility for the benefit sought must be assessed 
and weighed based on the facts as they existed at the time the instant petition was filed. In order for a petitioner to comply 
with 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l) and USCTS to perform its regulatory duties under 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(6), a petitioner must 
file an amended or new petition, along with a new LCA certified by DOL, in order to capture any material changes in 
terms or conditions of employment or the beneficiary's eligibility. 
6 
law firms until after graduation from law school. The Petitioner's seemingly incongruent and 
disjointed articulation of its minimum educational requirement as a bachelor's degree in legal studies 
with an implied requirement for a juris doctor and bar admission raises questions as to the substantive 
nature of the position. Because the Petitioner has insufficiently established what qualifications are 
actually necessary for entry into the position, we are precluded from determining whether the position 
meets the statutory and regulatory definitions of a specialty occupation. 
In addition to this, the Petitioner filed this petition in April 2018 and requested that it be approved for 
a three-year period of time from October 2018 through July 2021. Based upon the statements about 
the position being designed to bridge a gap between the Beneficiary's studies and passing the bar, we 
question whether the Beneficiary will occupy this preparatory position for the full three-year period. 
If the Beneficiary transitions out of her preparatory role within the three-year period, we question 
whether this constitutes a material change in her employment so as to necessitate a new certified LCA 
and new H-lB petition. 12 
Lastly, we address the Petitioner's statements concerning the requirement for advanced legal 
coursework. Though the Petitioner states that the minimum education requirement is a bachelor's 
degree in legal studies, the requirement of"advanced [l]egal coursework" suggests a level of enhanced 
study beyond basic legal studies at the bachelor's level. This raises further questions as to the true 
education requirements for entry into the proffered position. As stated previously, if we cannot 
ascertain what the actual requirements for entry into the position are, we are precluded from 
determining whether the proffered position meets the statutory and regulatory definitions of a specialty 
occupation. 
We conclude that the Petitioner has not established the substantive nature of the work that the 
Beneficiary will perform due to insufficient evidence in the record concerning the duties of the 
position, how and whether the position will change if and when the Beneficiary becomes a licensed 
attorney, and the true education requirements for entry into the position. If we cannot ascertain the 
proffered position's substantive nature, then we cannot determine whether it is a specialty occupation. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied at least one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it 
has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is a petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner 
has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
12 We incorporate here by reference our discussion appearing in footnote 11. 
7