dismissed H-1B Case: Law

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 23, 2025 In Re: 36404651 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner, a law firm, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a bilingual client case 
manager under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. 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). The H-lB 
program allows a U.S. employer to file a petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) 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 California Service Center Director denied the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
(petition), concluding the record did not establish that the offered position qualified as a specialty 
occupation. In doing so, the Director decided the Petitioner's acceptable array of fields it would accept 
to qualify for the offered position were too disparate and not sufficiently related to the position's 
duties, the position did not meet the mandatory definition of a specialty occupation, nor did the record 
show the petitioning organization submitted evidence sufficient to meet the regulatory criteria 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l) - (4). The matter is now before us on appeal under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the 
questions in this matter de novo. Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. On appeal, the Petitioner offers similar eligibility 
statements they presented to the Director and offer additional evidence with the appeal. 
We adopt and affum the Director's ultimate determination. See Matter ofBurbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 
874 (BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice 
of adopting and affuming the decision below "is not only common practice, but universally 
accepted") . 
We further add that would question the substantive nature of the position as the Petitioner provided 
seven broad responsibilities of the position in which more than one-third were either directly copied 
or very closely paraphrased from the Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Information Network 
(O*NET) OnLine details report for the occupational category for Paralegals and Legal Assistants. That 
is the same standard occupational classification the Petitioner designated on the DOL ETA Form 9035 
& 9035E, Labor Condition Application for Nonimmigrant Workers (LCA). The remaining 
responsibilities were overly vague. Those broad responsibilities consisted of the following: 
• Investigate facts and law of cases and search pertinent sources, such as public records and 
internet sources, to determine causes of action and to prepare cases for filing; 
• Prepare affidavits or other legal documents, such as legal correspondence, and organize and 
maintain documents in paper or electronic filing system; Manage and direct a large volume of 
civil cases for tort plaintiff and claimant clients; 
• Meet with and/or correspond with defendants, court officials, or other individuals involved in 
legal processes to provide information and clarify issues while advocating for and showing 
empathy and compassion for clients; 
• Maintain effective communication with clients regarding legal matters in English and Spanish; 
• Collaborate with team with attorneys, paralegals, and legal assistants on a large volume of 
cases (mass tort); and 
• Apply technical skills such as computer literacy and software and database proficiency. 
The generalized nature of these responsibilities, and the related content in the response to the request 
for evidence, calls into question the substantive nature of the position. Providing generic job duties 
from O*NET or another internet source for an offered position is generally insufficient to establish 
eligibility. Cf Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), ajf'd, 905 F.2d 
41 (2d. Cir. 1990) ( stating specifics are an important indication of the nature of a beneficiary's duties, 
otherwise meeting the requirements would simply be a matter of providing a job title or reiterating the 
regulations.). The duties themselves provide the nature of the employment. Id. While this type of 
description may be appropriate when defining the range of duties that may be performed within an 
occupational category, it does not adequately convey the substantive work that a foreign national would 
perform within the Petitioner's business operations. 
DOL guidance states that for a wage level determination, it is important that the job description include 
"sufficient information to determine 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." 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 The generic 
nature of the presented duties adversely affects our ability to decide whether the LCA corresponds with 
and supports the petition. Further, we are unable to assess, categorize, and realize the Petitioner's offered 
job due to the position's overly generalized duties, which hinders our ability to conclude whether the 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation under any of the criteria enumerated at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J)-(4). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2