dismissed H-1B Case: Law

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 14299841 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-1B) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 21, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "legal assistant" under the H-1B 
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-1B program allows a U.S. 
employer to temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a position that requires both: (a) the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge; and (b) the attainment 
of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite 
for entry into the position. 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation.1 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate el igibi I ity by a preponderance of the evidence. 2 
We review the questions in this matter de novo.3 Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
1 The record includes a request for evidence (RFE) issued on November 22, 2019 and a decision dated March 19, 2020. 
The Petitioner filed a timely appeal on the March 19, 2020 decision. The Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, is 
dated April 20, 2020. Subsequent to the filing of the appeal, the Director improperly issued a second RFE, dated May 29, 
2020, and a second decision dated September 24, 2020. A policy memorandum issued November 4, 2015, provides 
guidance on the proper processing of appeals to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). For timely-filed appeals, the 
field office shall review the appeal to determine whether to take favorable action. 8 CFR 103.3(a)(2)(iii). If the field office 
does not take favorable action, it shall promptly forward the appeal to the AAO for appellate review without issuing a new 
decision. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services considers "favorable action" to mean the approval of the application 
or petition being appealed. While an initial field review (IFR) may result in the approval of a benefit request and make 
appellate review by the AAO unnecessary, the IFR process cannot undermine an affected party's procedural right to AAO 
review, when applicable. The AAO is the proper authority to adjudicate the Form I-290B appeal itself. USCIS Policy 
Memorandum PM-602-0124, Initial Field Review of Appeals to the Administrative Appeals Office 2, 3 (Nov. 4, 2015), 
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/defaulUfiles/document/aao-decisions/lnitial_Field_Review_of_Appeals_to_the_AAO.pdf. 
Accordingly, the Director erred in issuing the second RFE and decision. However, we consider this to be a harmless error, 
since the Director subsequently forwarded the appeal to the AAO. We will consider the Petitioner's submitted evidence 
in full. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
3 See Matter of Christa's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Act defines an H-1B nonimmigrant as a foreign national "who is 
coming temporarily to the United States to perform services ... in a specialty occupation described in 
section 214(i)(1) ... "(emphasis added). Section 214(i)(I) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(I), defines the 
term "specialty occupation" as an occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, 
and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition but adds a 
non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered 
position must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
(4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 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. See Royal 
Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in a 
specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
By regulation, the Director is charged with determining whether the petition involves a specialty 
occupation as defined in section 214(i)(1) of the Act. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(2). The Director 
may request additional evidence in the course of making this determination. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8). 
In addition, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the petition and must continue to 
be eligible through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). 
2 
II. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. Specifically, the record 
does not establish that the position requires an educational background, or its equivalent, 
commensurate with a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner is a sole proprietorship law firm which engages in the practice of criminal, civil, traffic, 
domestic, real estate, personal injury, and probate. The Petitioner states: "[m]ost of the work is in 
criminal and traffic defense" and that it has "represented many Eastern Europeans with criminal cases 
in the Georgia courts." The Petitioner designated the position on the labor condition application 
(LCA)4 as a standard occupational classification (SOC) code 23-2011 "Paralegals and Legal 
Assistants" occupation. We have reviewed the duties of the proffered position and they fall generally 
within the parameters of this occupational category, other than the interpretation and translation 
duties. 5 
A. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that if it provides probative evidence of its need for a bachelor's 
degree, and its past hiring practices are consistent with that need, as well as consistent with industry 
standards, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) must accept the Petitioner's 
justification for a bachelor's degree in a specialized field under the preponderance of evidence 
standard, especially if USCIS has no evidence to the contrary. The Petitioner also offers its analysis 
of the question of "whether the occupation, in order to qualify for H-1B classification, must require a 
bachelor's degree in a specific education degree." 
The statute and regulation at section 214(i)(I) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) clearly define 
a specialty occupation as one that requires "theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 
specialized knowledge" and "attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in the (or "a") specific 
specialty, or its equivalent." We further note here as a threshold issue that the criteria at 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, the regulatory requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must 
be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the statute as a whole. See 
K 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 COIT Independence Joint 
4 A petitioner is required to submit an LCA to the Department of Labor (DOL) to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1B 
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)(1) of 
the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(a). 
5 We note that the proffered position requires knowledge of one or more foreign languages. Interpretation and translation 
duties are atypical duties for the "Paralegals and Legal Assistants" occupation. See O*NET Summary Report for 
"Paralegals and Legal Assistants," SOC Code 23-2011 at https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/23-2011.00 (last 
visited Oct. 16, 2020). Thus, required knowledge of one or more foreign languages requires an increase in the wage level 
on the certified LCA. The Petitioner has properly accommodated for this special skill requirement with the wage level 
designated on the LCA submitted in support of this petition. 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_11_2009.pdf. 
3 
Venture v. Fed. Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); Matter of W-F-, 21 l&N Dec. 503 
(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 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, 201 F.3d at 387. 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. 
In this matter, the Petitioner's initial minimum requirement to perform the position is an international 
relations degree or a general business degree. 6 That the Petitioner would find acceptable a bachelor's 
degree in business, with no further specialization, 7 alone precludes a determination that the position 
involves a "body of highly specialized knowledge" or that it requires the attainment of a bachelor's 
degree in a "specific specialty." The First Circuit Court of Appeals explained in Royal Siam, 484 F.3d 
at 147, that: 
The courts and the agency consistently have stated that, although a general-purpose 
bachelor's degree, such as a business administration degree, may be a legitimate 
prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not 
justify the granting of a petition for an H-1B specialty occupation visa. See, e.g., Tapis 
lnt'I v. INS, 94 F.Supp.2d 172, 175-76 (D. Mass. 2000); Shanti, 36 F. Supp. 2d at 1164-
66; cf. Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I & &N Dec. 558, 560 ([Comm'r] 1988) 
(providing frequently cited analysis in connection with a conceptually similar 
provision). This is as it should be: elsewise, an employer could ensure the granting of 
a specialty occupation visa petition by the simple expedient of creating a generic (and 
essentially artificial) degree requirement. 8 
6 The record also includes a printout from a job website which appears to list the proposed position (a Legal Assistant/Polish 
Interpreter & Translator) which indicates that the minimum requirement for the position is a general bachelor's degree, 
with no specialty included. The Petitioner later claims that the job website did not permit specifying a particular field but 
only allowed the Petitioner to specify a bachelor's degree. 
7 The Petitioner's minimum requirement is in the disjunctive, thus the Petitioner's own standard for employment in this 
position is a bachelor's degree in business. The Petitioner does not identify an area of specialization when discussing the 
general business degree. 
8 Id. But see India House, Inc. v. McAleenan, 449 F. Supp. 3d 4 (D.R.I. 2020). In India House the court distinguished 
Royal Siam on factual grounds but did not dispute its central reasoning: that a position whose duties can be fulfilled by an 
individual with a general-purpose bachelor's degree in business is not a specialty occupation. Instead, it distinguished 
Royal Siam on factual grounds. Here, the Petitioner specifically recognizes an unspecialized bachelor's degree in business 
as one of the degrees it considers as providing an adequate preparation to perform the duties of the proffered position. 
The agency has longstanding concerns regarding general-purpose bachelor's degrees in business with no additional 
specialization. For example, in Matter of Ling, 13 I. & N. Dec. 35 (Reg'I Comm'r 1968), the agency stated that attainment 
of a bachelor's degree in business administration alone was insufficient to qualify a foreign national as a member of the 
professions pursuant to section 101(a)(32) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(32). Twenty years later, the agency looked to 
the nature of the position itself and clarified that a requirement for a degree with a generalized title, such as business 
administration, without further specification, was insufficient to qualify the position as one that is professional pursuant to 
section 101(a)(32) of the Act. Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 l&N Dec. at 560. See also Matter of Caron lnt'I, Inc., 19 l&N 
4 
We have considered the Petitioner's argument that the requirement for a bachelor's or higher degree 
in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) encompasses "not only skill, knowledge, work experience, 
or training ... but also various combinations of academic and experience-based training," citing Tapis 
lnt'I v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 94 F. Supp. 2d 172 (D. Mass. 2000). We agree with 
the district court judge in Tapis that in satisfying the specialty occupation requirements, both the Act 
and the regulations require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, and that this 
language indicates that the degree does not have to be a degree in a single specific specialty. 9 We also 
agree that, if the requirements to perform the duties and job responsibilities of a proffered position are 
a combination of a general bachelor's degree and experience such that the standards at both section 
214(i)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act have been satisfied, then the proffered position may qualify as a 
specialty occupation. We do not conclude, however, that any position can qualify as a specialty 
occupation based solely on the claimed requirements of a petitioner. Further, we do not conclude that 
Tapis stands for either (1) that a specialty occupation is determined by the qualifications of a 
beneficiary being petitioned to perform it; or (2) that a position may qualify as a specialty occupation 
even when there is no specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry into a particular position 
in a given occupational category. 
Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988) (vice president for manufacturing in a textile company was not a professional position because 
individual holding general degree in business, engineering or science could perform its duties). 
Congress created the current H-1B program as part of the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649, 104 Stat. 4978. 
In doing so, it pivoted away from the prior H-1 standard of whether a position was "professional." Instead, petitioners 
were now required to demonstrate that a proffered position qualified as a "specialty occupation." Section 
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Act. In the final rule setting forth the requirements for the revamped H-1B program, the agency, 
responding to commenters suggesting that the proposed regulatory "specific specialty" requirement "was too severe and 
would exclude certain occupations from classifications as specialty occupations," stated that "[t]he definition of specialty 
occupation contained in the statute contains this requirement." Temporary Alien Workers Seeking Classification Under 
the Immigration and Nationality Act, 56 Fed. Reg. 61111, 61112 (Dec. 2, 1991). 
The agency's concerns regarding a general-purpose, non-specific degree in business, or business administration, continued 
under the revamped H-1B program. See, e.g., Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151 (D. Minn. 1999); Royal Siam, 484 
F.3d at 147; 2233 Paradise Road, LLC v. Cissna, No. 17-cv-01018-APG-VCF , 2018 WL 3312967 (D. Nev., July 3, 
2018); XiaoTong Liu v. Baran, No. 18-00376-JVS, 2018 WL 7348851 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 21, 2018); Parzenn Partners v. 
Baran, No. 19-cv-11515-ADB, 2019 WL 6130678 (D. Mass., Nov. 19, 2019). 
If the Petitioner is arguing that a bachelor's degree in business, with no further specialization (or the equivalent), is a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, then consistent with agency history and federal case law, we must disagree. 
9 The Petitioner also asserts that other courts have routinely rejected the position that in order to qualify as a specialty 
occupation for H-1B visa purposes, the degree must be in only one specific academic major or have a specific title, citing 
a number of other cases. We agree with this principal that in general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., 
chemistry and biochemistry, a minimum of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized as 
satisfying the "degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)" requirement of section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act. In such 
a case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be the same. Since there must be a close 
correlation between the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" and the position, however, a minimum entry 
requirement of a degree in two disparate fields, such as philosophy and engineering, would not meet the statutory 
requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)," unless the Petitioner establishes how each 
field is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position. Section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis 
added). The Petitioner acknowledges our agreement with this principle, in that 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). 
5 
Here, the Petitioner does not claim that it requires experience in addition to a bachelor's degree.10 
Additionally, as noted above the Petitioner does not identify an area of specialization when discussing 
the general business degree. Rather the Petitioner advises that a general bachelor's degree "creates 
the knowledge and analytical skills to perform this job." Although the Petitioner references "Criminal 
Justice, International Relations/Business, etc." and claims that "[t]he law component [in these 
disciplines] gives the future employee the knowledge of principals of law, legal concepts, burden of 
proof, preponderance of evidence, reasonable doubt, court system, etc.," the Petitioner does not 
support this conclusion as it relates to international relations and business degrees, with probative 
evidence. That is, the Petitioner does not include evidence that either an international relations degree 
or a general business degree includes a requirement for legal coursework. Contrary to the Petitioner's 
assertion on appeal, the record does not reflect requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent that is essential to perform the duties of the position and thus it has not 
distinguished this position from Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147. 
As a result of the Petitioner's own stated requirements, the proffered position does not meet the 
statutory or regulatory definition of the term "specialty occupation." As noted, both definitions require 
the Petitioner to demonstrate that the proffered position requires: (1) the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge; and (2) the attainment of a bachelor's degree 
in the specific specialty. The record of proceeding satisfies neither. 
We also conclude that to the extent the duties are described in the record, the duties do not in 
themselves demonstrate that their performance would require the theoretical and practical application 
of at least a bachelor's-degree's level body of highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty, or 
the equivalent in a combination of education, training, and/or experience in the pertinent specialty -­
as a minimum for entry into the position in the United States. For example, the Petitioner states that 
the Beneficiary will communicate and interact with Polish speaking clients, relate the client's legal 
problems to the attorney and communicate the attorney's response and fees, will prepare legal 
affidavits and other documents relating to the case, and will schedule court hearings, attend trials with 
the attorney to facilitate communication and monitor official court translations of testimony. The 
Petitioner also notes that the Beneficiary will use independent judgment in case management and will 
interact with judges and court staff. The duties described are the standard duties of a legal 
assistant/paralegal and do not extend beyond a basic legal assistant/paralegal position.11 Thus, the 
Petitioner's assertion that USCIS must accept the Petitioner's justification for a bachelor's degree in 
a specialized field under the preponderance of evidence standard, especially if USCIS has no evidence 
to the contrary fails for two reasons. One, the Petitioner has not established that its description and its 
minimum requirements satisfy the statutory and regulatory definitions of specialty occupation, a 
threshold requirement at section 214(i)(I) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii); and two, as will be 
discussed, this occupation does not require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty in order to 
perform it. 
10 The Petitioner indicates in response to the Director's RFE that "on the job training provides the tools to know what to 
do with Georgia criminal and traffic charges." Thus, this knowledge is not required to enter into the particular position. 
11 See O*NET Summary Report for "Paralegals and Legal Assistants," SOC code 23-2011 at 
https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/23-2011.00 (last visited Oct. 16, 2020); Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't 
of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Paralegals and Legal Assistants, https://www.bls.gov/ooh/legal/paralegals­
and-legal-assistants.htm (last visited Oct. 16, 2020). 
6 
B. The Supplemental Criteria 
Although the Petitioner has not established that the position qualifies as a specialty occupation under 
the statutory and regulatory definitions, for thoroughness we will address the Petitioner's challenge to 
the Director's determination that the proffered position does not qualify as a specialty occupation 
under the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(1) and (3). The Petitioner also refers to evidence 
in the record as establishing a degree requirement is common to the industry for this type of position, 
a reference to some of the language of the first prong of criterion 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
We will focus our analysis on whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation under the 
challenged criteria. 12 
1. First Criterion 
The criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(1) 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 consider the information contained in the U.S. Department of 
Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) regarding the duties and educational 
requirements of the wide variety of occupations it addresses.13 
The Petitioner asserts that the Handbook's report on "Paralegals and Legal Assistants" "provides 
detailed information regarding educational requirements for the Legal Assistant category" and that a 
conclusion that the Petitioner failed to prove that a bachelor's degree or higher is normally the 
minimum requirement for entry into the legal assistant position is inaccurate. We reviewed the 
subchapter of the Handbook entitled "How to Become a Paralegal or Legal Assistant" which reports, in 
relevant part: "[m]ost 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."14 It further specifies that "[t]here 
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."15 It also states that "many employers prefer, or even 
require, applicants to have a bachelor's degree," and that "[e]mployers sometimes hire college graduates 
12 We observe that issues or claims that are not raised on appeal are deemed "waived." See, e.g., Matter of M-A-S-, 24 l&N 
Dec. 762, 767 n.2 (BIA 2009). The courts' view of issue waiver varies from circuit to circuit. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 
1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (finding that issues not raised in a brief are deemed waived); Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 
94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (finding that an issue referred to in an affected party's statement of the case but not 
discussed in the body of the brief is deemed waived); but see Hoxha v. Holder, 559 F.3d 157, 163 (3d Cir. 2009) (issue 
raised in notice of appeal form is not waived, despite failure to address in the brief). Again, as the Petitioner has not 
satisfied the statutory and regulatory definitions, the discussion of the supplemental criteria is unnecessary. However, we 
will address the Petitioner's arguments on appeal regarding the challenged criteria. Since the Petitioner did not challenge 
the second prong of the second criteria and fourth criteria, we consider them waived and will not address them. 
13 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. Nevertheless, to satisfy the first criterion, the burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to 
submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position would normally have a minimum, specialty 
degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
14 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Paralegals and Legal Assistants, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/legal/paralegals-and-legal-assistants.htm (last visited Oct. 16, 2019). 
15 Id. 
7 
with no legal experience or legal education and train them on the job."16 The Handbook does not support 
a claim that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is normally required for entry into this occupation. 
Rather, the Handbook indicates that there are various paths to enter into this occupation, none of which 
require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. To emphasize the Handbook's report 
on this occupation, an individual may enter the occupation with (1) an associate's degree in paralegal 
studies, (2) a bachelor's degree in another undefined field and a certificate in paralegal studies, and (3) a 
general bachelor's degree with no specific specialty and no legal experience or education who will be 
trained on the job. As discussed above, the Petitioner does not offer probative evidence that distinguishes 
its particular position from a legal assistant/paralegal position that requires only a general bachelor's 
degree.17 
The Petitioner also refers to the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) Summary Report for 
"Paralegals and Legal Assistants" and notes that O*NET indicates that 34 percent of individuals in 
this occupation have a bachelor's degree. However, this fact also highlights that a majority 
(66 percent) of the individuals in this occupation do not have a bachelor's degree. Thus, even a general 
bachelor's degree does not appear to be normally required for this occupation, let alone a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty. Moreover, the occupational category "Paralegals and Legal Assistants," 
has been assigned an O*NET Job Zone 3 rating 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. " 18 
We again reviewed the Petitioner's description of the proposed position that might distinguish the 
particular position from the Handbook and O*NET's overview of this occupation. However, the 
duties of the particular position track the information in these publications and do not establish that at 
least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent is normally the minimum requirement. 
As discussed, the record does not establish that the Petitioner requires a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. Further, the Petitioner does not identify any specific duties that are 
significantly different from other paralegal or legal assistant positions such that its particular position 
is distinguishable from positions that can be performed by persons without at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(i i i)(A)(l). 
2. First Prong of the Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: "The degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show 
that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with 
a degree[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong contemplates 
16 Id. 
17 To emphasize our prior discussion, the Petitioner has not established that its particular position requires experience to 
enter the position and has not established that the duties it describes require more than a general bachelor's degree 
education. 
18 See O*NET Online Help Center, at https://www.onetonline.org/help/online/zones#zone3, for a discussion of Job Zone 
3. 
8 
common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific 
position.19 
To satisfy the 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.20 
We generally consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common degree 
requirement: 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 establish that such firms "routinely employ and 
recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 1999) 
(quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (considering these 
"factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
As noted, the Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is common 
to the industry. Although the Petitioner did not submit evidence from an industry professional 
association,21 it did present letters from firms or individuals in the industry in support of a claim that 
there is a minimum requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty for entry into the position. 
We reviewed the following: 
Initial Letter in Support of the Petition 
I April 4, 2019 letter authored by ,__I ____ ____.I I I Superior Courts, ,__I _ ____. 
Judicial Circuit. .__ ___ _. 
Letters in Response to the Director's RFE 
I December 31, 2019 letter authored b~1-------I 
I December 31, 2019 letter authored b~ I Esquire. 
Affidavits Submitted on Appeal 
I Affidavit of~I _____ ...... I, Esquire 
I Affidavit ofl !Esquire 
19 As noted above, the Petitioner does not challenge the Director's determination regarding the second prong of the second 
criterion. 
20 As noted above, the Petitioner does not develop its claim that it has satisfied this criterion on appeal, but rather simply 
refers to evidence that there is a common industry standard when discussing both the first and third criteria. 
21 We note that the Georgia Association of Paralegals has set voluntary minimum standards for entry-level paralegals. 
Their voluntary minimum standards track the Handbook's report on the various paths to enter the occupation, such as a 
Paralegal Certificate from an American Bar Association {ABA) approved program, an A.A. in Paralegal Studies, a B.A. 
in Paralegal or Legal Studies, or a B.A. in any subject plus a Paralegal Certificate from an ABA approved program or an 
accredited institution. See Becoming a Paralegal in Georgia at https://www.paralegaledu.org/Georgia (last visited Oct. 16, 
2020). Thus, the industry's professional association does not identify a mandatory requirement for a bachelor's degree in 
a specific specialty to perform the duties of a paralegal. Additionally, the voluntary minimum standards for a paralegal do 
not require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, in order to perform the duties of a paralegal. 
9 
I Affidavit of~I ---~I Esquire 
These letters and affidavits are insufficient to establish that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty 
is common to the industry for parallel positions among similar organizations. I I initially 
stated that "[s]ince [the Beneficiary's] main function will be working with the law and foreign 
languages, her [referring to the Beneficiary] U.S. equivalent Bachelor's degree education meets the 
minimum educational requirements I would expect in a law clerk,"22 and that "[a] [b]achelor's degree 
is the minimum acceptable degree required for [the Beneficiary] to assist [the Petitioner] in my court." 
The letter does not establish that the minimum requirement to perform the duties of the proffered 
position is a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. Instead, the letter states that a bachelor's degree 
without any specialty is the minimum acceptable degree and opines on the Beneficiary's qualification. 
I O I in his second letter, adds that "the minimum education I would require for [the 
Petitioner's legal assistant] to assist [the Petitioner] in the Superior Court [with the described duties] 
under close supervision would be a Masters or Bachelors [sic] degree in a law related field such as 
Pre-Law, Criminal Justice, etc." I O I however, does not explain his addition of a field or 
fields of study to his previous acceptance of a general bachelor's degree to appear in his court. 
Moreover, a pre-law field is not defined and could encompass a number of different degrees, including 
degrees in fields of general applicability, such as a business degree or liberal arts degrees. Further, 
I I does not substantiate his conclusions with reliable sources such as the Georgia 
Association of Paralegals requirements for a position similar to the proffered position or clarify why 
his requirements would differ from that State organization. These letters do not include sufficient 
probative consistent evidence to establish that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is a common 
industry requirement for parallel positions among similar organizations. 
Similar1
7, the letter authored byl I is also insufficient to establish this criterion. D 
lstates that he "believe[s] it is the standard practice that the judges require at least a bachelor's 
degree because the state bar rules have a third year practice act for law students (of course they also 
hold a bachelor's degree) which is needed to appear in court."I I bases his belief on state 
bar rules for third year law students, not on rules for legal assistants or paralegals. Moreover, as 
discussed above, a requirement for a general bachelor's degree is insufficient to demonstrate a position 
is a specialty occupation. 
The three affidavits submitted on appeal are from attorneys licensed and who practice in Georgia. The 
attorneys list their employees who are employed as legal assistants in their firms, provide a broad 
221 uuusu • ,uouu .. ladds in his second letter that the Beneficiary's foreign degree in international relations is acceptable 
because he understands that this foreign degree is a combination of business courses and law courses which would have 
caused her to be familiar with the legal terms and concepts that would be needed to perform the duties of this position. We 
note that the Beneficiary's foreign degree has been evaluated to the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in international 
relations, and the record in this matter does not include a basis to conclude that a U.S. bachelor's degree in international 
relations requires a concentration in legal studies, generating a "body of highly specialized knowledge" in the specific 
required field. We observe further that a Beneficiary's educational background is insufficient to establish a position is a 
specialty occupation. The test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the skill set or education of a proposed 
beneficiary, but whether the position itself qualifies as a specialty occupation. Thus, whether or not the Beneficiary in this 
case has even completed a specialized course of study directly related to the proffered position is irrelevant to the issue of 
whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, i.e., whether the duties of the proffered position require 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the attainment of a bachelor's 
degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Section 214(i)(I) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
10 
outline of their duties, and note the employees' degrees. The degrees include employees with a 
bachelor's degree in legal assistant studies and a juris doctorate degree, a bachelor's degree in legal 
studies and two years of law school, a bachelor's degree in business administration with a 
concentration in legal studies and a master's degree in business administration, a foreign degree in 
finance, government and international relations, 23 a bachelor's degree in criminal justice, a bachelor's 
degree in communications studies, and a bachelor's degree in an unspecified field. Each attorney 
opines that the employees in the legal assistant position need and use the education they received. 
However, the variety and level of degrees noted are too diverse to conclude that there is a common 
industry standard for parallel positions among similar organizations. For example, the affidavits do 
not indicate the employees' degree level, if any, when the legal assistant entered into the position. Nor 
is there a common degree requirement amongst the legal assistant positions listed. Moreover, there is 
no evidence of the attorneys' recruitment and hiring processes and whether the positions could be 
performed with a paralegal certificate or an associate's degree in paralegal or legal assistant studies, 
or a general bachelor's degree. Although the attorneys opine that the employees need and use the 
education received, they do not discuss whether associate degrees in legal studies, a paralegal 
certificate, or a general bachelor's degree would also lead to a sufficiently similar knowledge-set to 
perform the position. 
We have considered the claims and testimony of the attorneys and judge, however, these individuals do 
not explain or appear aware of the conflicting information regarding the requirements for this occupation 
as set out in the Handbook, O*NET, and their own State's requirements for this occupation. Without 
additional clarifying information and detail, the evidence in the record is insufficient to establish that there 
is a common industry requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty for parallel positions 
among similar firms. 
3. 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 establish this 
criterion, the record must establish that a petitioner's stated degree requirement is not a matter of 
preference for high-caliber candidates but is necessitated instead by performance requirements of the 
position. See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. Were we limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's 
claimed self-imposed requirements, an organization could bring any individual with a bachelor's 
degree to the United States to perform any occupation as long as the petitioning entity created a token 
degree requirement. Id. Evidence provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not limited 
to, documentation regarding the Petitioner's past recruitment and hiring practices, as well as 
information regarding employees who previously held or currently hold the position. We emphasize 
that the critical element is not the title of the position or an employer's self-imposed standards, but 
whether the position itself 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. 
23 The record does not include evidence that the foreign degree has been evaluated to be the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's 
degree, including a degree in a specific field. 
11 
The record in this matter includes ambiguous evidence of the Petitioner's own requirements to perform 
the duties of the proffered position. As noted above, the Petitioner initially stated that it requires a 
bachelor's degree in international relations or business to perform the duties of the position.24 Its July 
22, 2019 Internet job posting for a legal assistant/Polish interpreter & translator specifies a minimum 
of a bachelor's degree and also indicates that the Petitioner is seeking an employee to speak and write 
about legal issues in Polish and English to work at a law office. 25 Also in response to the Director's 
RFE, the Petitioner notes that one of its current employees in the legal assistant position has a 
bachelor's degree in criminal justice, an additional field of acceptable study.26 The Petitioner, on 
appeal, implies that the position may also require an undefined amount of experience, when it cites to 
Tapis lnt'I as discussed above. We also note that the Petitioner's colleague,! I in his letter 
notes his understanding that the Petitioner "requires college degrees from the staff who communicate 
with clients and who appear with him in court." I !does not indicate that the college degrees 
must be in a specific specialty. 
We also have considered the documentation regarding the Petitioner's past recruitment and hiring 
practices regarding employees who previously held the position. In that regard, the Petitioner relies 
on a posting notice for an interpreter and translator/legal assistant, dated January 11, 2013, 27 to employ 
an individual in a similar position. The Petitioner's information for the position listed the required 
skills as "[a]bility to speak and write about complex legal issues in Bulgarian, Russian, Polish, [a]nd 
English languages. Masters Degree in Slavic languages and some law courses." Thus, the requirement 
focused on a degree requirement in Slavic languages and not on a law-related degree. Although the 
posting also listed "some law courses," the actual requirement for the number and type of courses is 
not defined. 28 Nor does this record include the Petitioner's current standards or methodology for 
24 To reiterate our discussion above, the Petitioner's acceptance of a bachelor's degree in business without specialization 
strongly suggests the position is not a specialty occupation. Although the Petitioner refers to the degrees it claims are its 
minimum requirements for the position, it does not provide probative evidence that either an international relations degree 
or a general business degree includes legal coursework. Moreover, even if one or two legal courses are included in such 
a degree program, which has not been established, the Petitioner does not explain how such few courses would create a 
"body of highly specialized knowledge" such that the statutory and regulatory definitions of specialty occupation are 
satisfied. 
25 We have considered the Petitioner's response to the Director's RFE, indicating that the job posting website did not 
permit specification of a particular discipline. However, it is unclear why the Petitioner did not describe the requirements 
of the position more thoroughly when it discussed the type of candidate it was seeking. 
26 However, as mentioned above, the record contains conflicting information about the requirements for the proffered 
position and the record also does not establish when the Petitioner added that a criminal justice degree was required for 
this position. Again, the Petitioner's assumption that a U.S. equivalent general business degree or a U.S. equivalent 
international relations degree, include law courses that are directly related to the duties of the position is not supported in 
the record. 
27 The posting notice is a "Notice of Filing of the LCA," a statement to the Petitioner's workers that it has a job opportunity 
available, that a foreign worker may be placed in the position and that interested parties may read the notice and provide 
comments to DOL. Its primary purpose is not intended to be a form of recruitment. 
28 The Petitioner states that it obtained an H-1B approval for this individual and that this information was not considered 
in the Director's decision. However, we are not required to approve petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, 
merely because of a prior approval that may have been erroneous. See Matter of Church Scientology lnt'I, 19 l&N Dec. 
593, 597 (Comm'r 1988); see also Sussex Eng'g, Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987). Furthermore, 
we are not be bound to follow a contradictory decision of a service center. La. Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-
2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). A prior approval does not compel the approval of a subsequent petition or 
relieve the Petitioner of its burden to provide sufficient documentation to establish current eligibility for the benefit 
12 
determining the sufficiency of such courses to perform the position proffered in 2013. Notably, 
although the record includes a transcript for this individual's three foreign semester postgraduate 
studies with a specialization in European Manager's Studies, the record does not include an evaluation 
of these courses, including any law-related courses, and it does not appear that a specific foreign degree 
was conferred upon this individual for these studies. 
The Petitioner also refers to the Beneficiary's foreign transcript to assist in establishing this criterion. 
However, the titles of the Beneficiary's courses, without more, do not explain their relevance to the 
job duties or specify the necessary knowledge and skills they impart to perform the position's tasks. 
Again, we point out that a beneficiary's academic degree or skill set does not establish a position is a 
specialty occupation, rather it is the performance requirements of the position itself that establishes 
whether a position qualifies as a specialty occupation. In that regard, while a petitioner may believe 
or otherwise assert that a proffered position requires a degree in a specific specialty, that opinion alone 
without corroborating evidence cannot establish the position is a specialty occupation. 
We further considered the Petitioner's argument "that every employee who has held this position at 
[the Petitioner] has had to have the required related degree or equivalents," and that this evidence has 
been unrebutted. We do not dispute that the Petitioner's employees who appear to have been employed 
in this position hold or have held either a U.S. bachelor's degree in criminal justice or the U.S. 
equivalent of a master's degree in foreign language and literature (Bulgarian) and Slavonic studies. 29 
However, these disparate degrees and the Petitioner's own broad requirements do not establish that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 
Moreover, even if the Petitioner always requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty to perform 
the duties of the proffered position, which it has not corroborated in this record, the Petitioner must 
still satisfy the statutory requirement that the position itself requires the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as the minimum for entry into the occupation. See 
section 214(i)(1) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation). The 
Petitioner has not described a position that requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, and has not otherwise provided probative evidence that the proffered position qualifies as 
a specialty occupation under the statutory and regulatory requirements. 
111. CONCLUSION 
The record of proceeding does not establish that the proffered position requires both: (1) the theoretical 
and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge; and (2) the attainment of a 
bachelor's degree in the specific specialty. The Petitioner, therefore, has satisfied neither the statutory 
definition of a "specialty occupation" at section 214(i)(1)(B) of the Act nor the regulatory definition 
of a specialty occupation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). The Petitioner also has not satisfied any of the 
supplemental specialty-occupation criteria enumerated at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(1)-(4). The 
Petitioner has not established that, more likely than not, the proffered position is a specialty 
sought. Temporary Alien Workers Seeking Classification Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 55 Fed. Reg. 2,606, 
2,612 (Jan. 26, 1990) (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. pt. 214). The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, 
and credible evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
29 Again, the record does not include evidence of the former employee's U.S. equivalent degree in a law-related field. 
13 
occupation. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
14