dismissed H-1B Case: Law

(b)(6)
MATTER OF L-0-0-D-J-W-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 23,2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a law office, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a law clerk under the H-1B 
nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(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 ~ minimum prerequisite for 
entry into the position. 
The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the Petitioner 
had not established the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the Director erred in denying the petition. 
I. COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND RES JUDICATA 
Preliminarily, we will address the Petitioner's collateral estoppel and res judicata claims made on 
appeal. The Petitioner asserts that it timely filed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider the 
Director's initial August 12, 2015, decision in this matter and that on February 25, 2016, its attorney 
was informed that an "approval notice" had been issued. In fact, the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal 
or Motion bears the notation "Approved" on "Jan 19, 20 16"; however, the 
term "Approved" in this context refers to the Director's decision to reopen and reconsider her 
August 12, 2015, decision denying the instant Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker. 
Although the Director's terminology may have been misleading when referring to the Form I-290B 
as having been "Approved," it is clear from the Director's motion decision dated April 4, 2016, that 
a decision to reopen and reconsider was made, and upon reopening and reconsideration, the 
underlying petition was ultimately denied. 
The Petitioner states that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) website indicated 
on or about April 4, 2016, that the petition was denied. According to the Petitioner, it did not receive 
the denial decision, and on April 22, 2016, it submitted a status request for that notice of denial. On or 
about May 19, 2016, the Petitioner says it received the notice of denial. That decision, as noted above, 
Matter of L-0-0-D-J-W-
states that the motion to reopen and reconsider was "approved" and the new evidence considered. The 
Director provided a second full decision on the merits and ultimately again denied the petition. The 
Petitioner avers that the second denial was essentially the same as the first denial even though the 
Director acknowledged additional evidence had been submitted in support of the combined motion. 
The Petitioner asserts that the doctrine of collateral estoppel and res judicata apply as a final judgment 
("approval" of the Form I-290B) was rendered by the Director as demonstrated by the verbal 
notification to the Petitioner's counsel on February 25, 2016, and USCIS public records which indicated 
that the Form I-290B was "approved." While the term "approved" was used to refer to USCIS' 
decision to reopen and reconsider the matter, no decision to approve the underlying petition was ever 
made or issued. 
We also find that even though the decision on motion was issued on April 4, 2016, the Petitioner's 
instant appeal was accepted more than sixty days later because of the confusing information provided to 
the Petitioner. We reiterate that a decision to approve the petition was never issued; therefore, collateral 
estoppel and res judicata do not apply. In any event, the Petitioner in this case has been afforded a third 
opportunity with this appeal process to present its arguments and evidence in support of its contention 
that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
Accordingly, we will continue with our de novo review of this matter. 
II. LAW 
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) 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; 
2 
Matter of L-0-0-D-J-W-
(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). USCIS has consistently interpreted 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 proposed position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Cherto,[f, 
484 F .3d 13 9, 14 7 (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). 
III. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the H-1B petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as its "law clerk." The 
Petitioner initially listed the following duties to be performed by the individual in the proffered position 
as follows: ' 
• Work closely with attorneys regarding large, document intensive complex litigation 
matters in busy medical malpractice defense and employment litigation practice. 
• Perform legal research, conduct legal analysis and prepare legal documents. 
• Responsible for heavy document production and review, particularly of a medical 
nature. 
• Handle discoveries, including Request for Production, Interrogatories and Request 
for Admissions. 
• Draft pleadings and analyze legal documents for accuracy. 
• Correspond with clients, carriers, Department of Children and Family Services and 
public and government facilities. 
The Petitioner indicated that a "Bachelor's degree, legal education and knowledge of medical 
terminology [is] required" to perform the duties of its law clerk position. In response to the Director's 
request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided the following statement of duties for the proffered 
position (paraphrased for brevity): 
1) Legal Research 
• Legal research into complex matters of tort, professional negligence, 
employment, contract, business, and procedural law using databases such as 
Westlaw and LexisNexis. 
• Identify legal issues with regard to pleadings, procedural defects, and 
dispositive motions, involving intensive research on a wide array of case law 
3 
Matter of L-0-0-D-J-W-
and its application, interpretation of recent rulings, as well as summaries and 
legal analysis. 
2) Litigation Preparation and Assistance 
• Document review: review and prepare evidence for trial, identify relevant 
evidence or evidentiary issues and present them to the attorney. 
• Trial assistance: During trial, assist attorneys with research into relevant case 
law or legislation. Carry out extensive review of cases prior to trial and assist 
attorney with arguments as the case is ongoing. 
• Engage regularly with retained experts in their varying expertise in the United 
States and the United Kingdom to develop legal strategies and arguments to 
be raised at trial. 
• Analyze evidence, identify legal issues, and assist in making arguments based 
on knowledge of the facts of the case and the applicable law. 
3) Interpretation of Foreign Laws 
• , Carry out research and analyze foreign statutes and case law, and examine the 
applicability of such law including jurisdictional issues, for cases arising 
outside the United States, such as in the United Kingdom, Scotland, and 
Ireland. 
• Research with respect to National Health Services in the United Kingdom. 
4) Drafting and Interpretation of Contracts and Settlement Agreements: 
• Analyze in detail contracts in business, healthcare, and employment cases. 
Involvement in drafting settlement language to be included in settlement 
agreements and releases used to resolve cases. 
5) Prepare Pleadings and Motions 
• Draft pleadings and dispositive motions based on applicable case law and 
procedural requirements. 
6) Preparation of Cases 
• Carry out initial review and preparation of a case when received by the firm. 
Identify flaws in the plaintiffs complaint, identify defenses, identify strengths 
and weaknesses of the case, and compile a summary of relevant facts and 
issues. 
• Review, summarize, and analyze medical records, employment and personnel 
files, and investigative materials. 
7) Meeting with Clients 
• Interact with clients on a regular basis, obtain case information, and update 
clients on the status of their case. 
• Identify key issues, discuss in' detail rulings, motions, and pleadings. 
4 
Matter of L-0-0-D-J-W-
To perform these duties, the Petitioner stated that "it is essential that the candidate have a law degree 
for the role," that the candidate is "trained in legal issue spotting, analyzing authority of case law 
(binding, persuasive or of no authority), applying the law, and legal writing skills," and that "based 
on the broad range of issues handled by the firm, the complexity of the cases, and high profile of the 
clients it is essential that such [client] interaction is carried out ,by someone with a law degree." 
IV. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its 
equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation.' 
A. Labor Condition Application 
We first turn to the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-lB petition, in 
which the Petitioner designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Paralegals 
and Legal Assistants" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 23-2011 at a 
Level I wage. In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner stated that the duties of the law clerk 
, are "essentially those of an attorney" and "on par with those of attorneys." The Petitioner further 
stated that the Beneficiary would not perform "standard paralegal" duties. 
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) guidance states that wage levels should be determined only 
after selecting the most relevant occupational code classification. Then, a prevailing wage 
determination is made by selecting one of four wage levels for an occupation based on a comparison 
of the employer's job requirements to the occupational requirements, including tasks, knowledge, 
skills, and specific vocational preparation (education, training and experience) generally required for 
acceptable performance in that occupation. Factors to be considered when determining the wage 
level for a position include the complexity of the job duties, as well as the levels of judgment, 
supervision, and understanding required to perform the job duties. 
DOL guidance states that a Level I (entry) wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which 
the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the occupation. This wage 
rate indicates: (1) that the Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, 
if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that she will be closely supervised and her work closely monitored 
and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that she will receive specific instructions on required tasks and 
1 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the· H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
5 
Matter of L-0-0-D-J-W-
expected results. 
2 
A Level I wage should be considered for research fellows, workers in 'training, or 
internships. 
According to DOL guidance, an indication that the job request warrants a wage determination at a 
Level I would be a requirement for years of education and/or experience that are generally required 
as described in the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) Job Zones. The occupational 
category "Paralegals and Legal Assistants," has been assigned an O*NET Job Zone 3, which groups 
it among occupations for which medium preparation is needed. More specifically, most occupations 
in this zone "require training in vocational schools, related on-the-job experience, or an associate's 
degree." See O*NET OnLine Help Center, at http://www.onetonline.org/help/online/zones, for a 
discussion of Job Zone 3. 
Therefore, the Petitioner's designation of the proffered position at a Level I on the LCA suggests 
that the Petitioner's academic and/or professional experience requirements for the proffered position 
would be less than "training in a vocational school, related on-the-job experience, or an associate's 
'-
degree." 
The Petitioner's assertion that the proffered position requires a significant level of responsibility and 
expertise does not appear to be reflected in the wage level chosen by it on the LCA. 3 The statements 
regarding the claimed level of complexity, independent judgment and understanding required for the 
proffered position, as well as the requirements, appear to be materially inconsistent with the 
certification ofthe LCA for a Level I position. 4 This conflict challenges the overall credibility of the 
petition in establishing the nature of the proffered position and in what capacity the Beneficiary will 
be employed. Therefore, we are precluded from finding that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation. Nevertheless, we will perform a complete specialty occupation analysis under each of 
the four, alternative criteria at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A). 5 
B. First Criterion 
We turn first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which requires that a baccalaureate or 
higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry 
into the particular position. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the DOL's Occupational Outlook 
2 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/ NPWHC _Guidance _Revised 
_II_ 2009.pdf. 
3 A petitioner must distinguish its proffered position rrom others within the occupation through the proper wage level 
designation to indicate factors such ras 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. Through the wage level, the Petitioner 
reflects the job requirements, experience, education, special skills/other requirements and supervisory duties. 
4 It must be noted .that a language requirement other than English in a job offer generally is considered a special skill for 
all occupations (with the exception of Foreign Language Teachers and Instructors, Interpreters, and Caption Writers). In 
the instant case, the Petitioner has not established that its foreign language requirement is reflected in the wage level for 
the proffered position. 
5 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
6 
Matter of L-0-0-D-J-W-
Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the 
wide variety of occupations that it addresses.6 
On the LCA submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner designated the proffered position 
under the occupational category "Paralegals and Legal Assistants" corresponding to the Standard 
Occupational Classification (SOC) code 23-2011.7 The subchapter of the Handbook entitled "How to 
Become a Paralegal or Legal Assistant" states, in relevant part, the following: 
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. 
Education 
There are several paths a person can take to become a paralegal. Candidates can enroll 
in a community college paralegal program to earn an associate's degree. However, 
many employers prefer, or even require, applicants to have a bachelor's degree. 
Because only a small number of schools offer bachelor's and master's degrees in 
paralegal studies, applicants typically have a bachelor's degree in another subject and 
earn a certificate in paralegal studies. 
Associate's and bachelor's degree programs in paralegal studies usually offer paralegal 
training courses in legal research, legal writing, and the legal applications of computers, 
along with courses in other academic subjects, such as corporate law and international 
law. Most certificate programs provide intensive paralegal training for people who 
already hold college degrees. 
6 All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not, however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant 
information. That is, the occupational category designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the 
general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered position, and USCIS regularly reviews the Handbook on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. To satisfy the first criterion, however, the 
burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position 
would normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
7 As discussed above, the Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level I wage (the lowest of four assignable 
wage levels). We will consider this selection in our analysis of the position. The "Prevailing Wage Determination 
Policy Guidance" issued by the DOL provides a description of the wage levels. A LeveL I wage rate is generally 
appropriate for positions for which the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the 
occupation. This wage rate indicates: (I) that the Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require 
limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that she will be closely supervised and her work closely monitored and 
reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that she will receive specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. U.S. 
Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration 
Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://tlcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _II_ 2009.pdf 
A prevailing wage determination starts with an entry level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering 
the experience, education, and skill requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. !d. 
Matter of L-0-0-D-J-W-
Employers sometimes hire college graduates with no legal (1Xperience or legal 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, occriminal 
justice. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., 
"Paralegals and Legal Assistants," http://www.bls.gov/ooh/legal/paralegals-and-legal­
assistants.htm#tab-4 (last visited Nov. 2, 2016). 
The Petitioner in this matter "reluctantly concurs that, in the absence of a more specifically relevant 
classification, the position of Law Clerk, proffered to the Beneficiary is most similar to the U.S. Bureau 
of Labor Statistics' Standard Occupation Classification of Paralegals and Legal Assistants." As set out 
above, the Handbook reports a variety of paths available to qualify to perform the duties of this 
occupation, including an associate's degree in paralegal studies, or a bachelor's degree in another field 
and a certificate in paralegal studies. Thus, the Handbook does not include sufficient information to 
conclude that simply by virtue of its occupational classification the paralegal and legal assistant 
occupation qualifies as a specialty occupation. On the contrary, the minimum entry requirements to 
perform the duties of this occupation, according to the Handbook, vary from an associate's degree in 
paralegal studies, to an unspecified college degree with no legal experience or legal education, to a 
bachelor's degree in a field other than paralegal studies and a certificate, with undefined parameters, in 
paralegal studies. The Handbook does not support the proposition that a paralegal or legal assistant, by 
virtue of its occupational classification is a specialty occupation. 
When the Handbook does not provide support that a proffered position is one that meets the statutory 
and regulatory provisions of a specialty occupation, it is incumbent upon the Petitioner to provide 
persuasive evidence that the proffered position more likely than not satisfies this or one of the other 
three criteria, notwithstanding the absence of the Handbook's support on the issue. In such case, it is the 
Petitioner's responsibility to provide probative evidence (e.g., documentation from other objective, 
authoritative sources) that supports a finding that the particular position in question qualifies as a 
specialty occupation.8 Whenever more than one authoritative source exists, an adjudicator will consider 
and weigh all of the evidence presented to determine whether the particular position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. Here, the Petitioner has not provided evidence from other authoritative sources in 
8 The Petitioner asserts that the Handbook provides only general guidance regarding the occupations it addresses and 
references the Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance for Nonagricultural Immigration Programs revised 
November 2009 as an alternate authority on the academic requirements for a law clerk. We note, however, that this 
document was issued prior to the division of the law clerk occupation, SOC 23-2092, into two separate occupations -
judicial law clerks, SOC 23-1012, and paralegals and legal assistants, SOC code 23-20 II. According to the Handbook's 
discussion of a judicial law clerk occupation, such an occupation requires a doctoral or professional degree. See 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/about/data-for-occupations-not-covered-in-detail.htm#Legal occupations (last visited Nov. 2, 
2016). Here, however, the Petitioner has designated the proffered position as a paralegal or legal assistant on the LCA, 
and concurs that the proffered position most closely corresponds to a paralegal or legal assistant position. Thus, neither 
the academic requirements for a judicial law clerk nor the outdated 2009 policy guidance is relevant to the matter at 
hand. 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter of L-0-0-D-J-W-
support of a finding that the occupation of a paralegal or legal assistant requires a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, as the normal minimum requirement for entry into the occupation.9 
The Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
C. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: "The degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or, in the alternative, 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 focuses upon the 
common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific 
position. 
1. First Prong 
( 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by 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 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)). 
Here and as already discussed, the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position is one for 
which the Handbook (or other independent, authoritative sources) reports an industry-wide requirement 
of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, we incorporate by 
reference the previous discussion on the matter. 
We have reviewed the printout from the on 
"Paralegal Education - Entering the Profession" submitted by the Petitioner. In this printout, the 
recognized that a two-year degree with an emphasis in paralegal studies is acceptable to employers in 
some markets as a minimum criterion to enter the paralegal profession. The also referenced 
9 The Petitioner's specific position, including the duties and the nature of the Petitioner's business will be considered 
when discussing subsequent criterion. In the first criterion we focus on the occupation itself and determine first if the 
Petitioner has provided duties that fall within the general parameters of that occupation and whether authoritative 
sources, based on surveys and other objective research, have determined that the occupation itself requires a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as the normal minimum requirement for entry into the occupation. Here, 
the record does not establish that the occupation of a paralegal or legal assistant, as a category, qualifies for specialty 
occupation treatment. 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of L-0-0-D-J-W-
current trends, based on various unspecified surveys, which indicate that formal paralegal education is 
becoming a requirement to secure paralegal employment and that a four-year degree is the hiring 
standard in many markets. The thus, recommended that "future practitioners should have a 
four-year degree to enter the profession, and individuals receiving a formal paralegal education should 
have 24 semester hours or the equivalent of legal specialty courses to enhance their ability to practice as 
paralegals." The however, does not 
indicate that the four-year degree must be in a specific 
specialty and indicates that those individuals receiving a formal paralegal education, 24 semester hours 
(the equivalent of two 12-hour credit semesters or one year of study) is sufficient "to enhance their 
ability to practice as paralegals." Accordingly, the paralegal professional association does not identify a 
specific bachelor's degree in a particular discipline, or its equivalent, as the minimum entry requirement 
for the occupation. Rather, the confirms the Handbook's report that there are different paths to 
enter into the paralegal or legal assistant occupation, and that while it recommends one year of paralegal 
study to enhance eligibility, it does not state that this is an established common standard necessary to 
practice the occupation. 
We have also reviewed the four letters from other attorneys indicating their employment requirements 
for their paralegal positions.10 noted his practice focused on business litigation 
and complex bankruptcy litigation and that in the past ten years to the best of his recollection he had 
hired five paralegals and all of them had a bachelor's degree in political science, English, pre-law, or a 
related subject. indicated his firm handles complex business litigation, intellectual 
property litigation, and other civil litigation, and that it employs two paralegals both of whom have 
bachelor's degrees. noted that his firm requires the paralegals to possess bachelor's degrees 
because they are required to exercise independent judgment, albeit under the oversight of an attorney. 
The third letter authored by the managing shareholder of the did not identify the 
nature of his firm but stated that his firm hired paralegals and legal specialists with a minimum of a 
bachelor's degree or equivalent in law or a related subject. He provided a list of five individuals he 
claimed were employed as paralegals who had bachelor's degrees in political science, criminal justice, 
and media management and indicated four of the five were studying in juris doctorate programs. The 
Petitioner's own counsel also "affirms the Petitioner's hiring of a law clerk with at least a bachelor's 
degree." Thus, each of the letter-writers states that a general bachelor's degree is required for the 
paralegals employed in their organization. They do not confirm or agree, however, that the bachelor's 
degree must be in a specific specialty. Moreover, the letters here do not include sufficient information 
to establish that the firms are similar to the Petitioner, that the employees hired perform duties that are 
parallel to the duties of the proffered position, and that the degrees required are degrees in a specific 
specialty related to the duties of the position. 
In support of its assertion that the degree requirement is common to the Petitioner's industry in parallel 
positions among similar organizations, the Petitioner also submitted copies of a number of 
advertisements for paralegals. Three of the submitted advertisements require a bachelor's degree and an 
10 Three of the four lett~rs submitted are dated August 4 or 5, 2014 , and indicate they are submitted on behalf of 
The Petitioner does not identify its relationship to if any. It is not possible to 
conclude that these attorneys or their firms are similar to the Petition er. 
10 
Matter of L-0-0-D-J-W-
ABA paralegal certificate and three to five years of paralegal experience; two of the advertisements 
require a bachelor's degree and prefer a paralegal certificate and paralegal experience; while the 
majority of the advertisements require either a bachelor's degree or a paralegal certificate and differing 
levels of paralegal experience. First, we reiterate that these advertisements again confirm the 
Handbook's report that there are a variety of ways to become qualified to perform the duties in a 
paralegal occupation and that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equiv~lent, is not 
required. We also find several of the advertised positions are for paralegal positions that are for more 
senior positions than the position offered here. That is, the Petitioner in this matter designated the 
proffered position as a wage Level I on the LCA, a wage level that does not require experience. Upon 
review ofthe advertisements, it is not possible to conclude that the advertised positions are parallel in 
level of responsibility, or in duties, to the proffered position. 
Thus, the evidence of record does not establish that a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common in parallel positions with organizations that are in the 
Petitioner's industry and otherwise similar to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has not, therefore, satisfied 
the criterion of the first ~ltemative p;ong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
The Petitioner submits information on its clientele and avers that the complexity of the litigation field of 
law, specifically the medical malpractice cases it handles, must be considered when reviewing the 
proffered position. The Petitioner asserts that the duties of the proffered position are more complex in 
the context of its business environment and its type of cases. The Petitioner, thus, takes issue with the 
Director's finding that the evidence does not distinguish between the duties to be performed for the 
Petitioner and those normally performed by paralegals and legal assistants. 
We have reviewed the descriptions of duties provided by the Petitioner as well as the nature of its 
business. We have also considered that the Petitioner has designated the proffered position as a 
paralegal requiring only a Level I wage as shown on the certified LCA. A Level I wage requires only a 
basic understanding of the occupation. 11 Thus, a designation for a Level I wage within the paralegal 
and legal assistant occupation is for a position that is not likely distinguishable by relatively 
11 From a Level I wage designation it must be concluded that either: (1) the proffered position is a low-level, entry 
position relative to other paralegal and legal assistant positions and, thus, based on the findings of the Handbook, 
published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the proffered position is not a specialty occupation; or (2) the LCA does not 
correspond to the petition. In this matter, even if it were determined that the proffered position requires at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, such that it would quality as a specialty occupation, the 
petition could still not be approved because the Petitioner has not submitted an LCA that corresponds to a higher-wage 
level position. 
II 
Matter of L-0-0-D-J-W-
specialized, unique, or complex duties. That is, while the Petitioner asserts that the duties of its 
paralegal are unique and complex and similar to the duties of an attorney, it also designates the wage 
level for the proffered position as an entry-level paralegal. Given the Handbook's report, as well as the 
other evidence submitted, that paralegal and legal assistant positions do not normally require at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, it is not credible that a paralegal or a legal 
assistant position involving limited, if any, exercise of independent judgment, close supervision and 
monitoring, receipt of specific instructions on required tasks and expected results, and close review (as 
designated by the Level I wage level) would contain such a requirement. 
Moreover, the Petitioner does not provide probative information relevant to a detailed course of study 
leading to a specialty degree and the Petitioner has not established how such a curriculum is necessary 
to perform the duties it claims are so complex. The Petitioner does not otTer any analysis of what 
specific courses in an established bachelor's degree program are required to prepare the successful 
candidate to perform the duties of the proffered position. Rather, the Petitioner appears to rely on this 
specific Beneficiary's qualifications to support its claim that the proffered position is complex. 
However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education or experience of a 
proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner here did not sufficiently develop relative complexity or 
uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position, and it did not identify any tasks that are so 
complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. Accordingly, the 
Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
D. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it nonnally 
requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. Here, the 
Petitioner submitted a letter identifYing three employees who hold, or have held, its position of law 
clerk. The Petitioner indicated that these three individuals possess bachelor's degrees in political 
science, history, and business administration/law.12 The Petitioner does not indicate why or how these 
bachelor's degrees relate, if at all, to the duties it ascribes to the proffered position. Additionally, the 
record does not include evidence of the actual duties any of these individuals performed as the 
Petitioner's law clerk. Accordingly, we are unable to ascertain whether their duties are parallel to the 
duties of the proffered position. 
Further, the Petitioner initially claimed that the individual in the proffered pos1t10n reqmres a 
"Bachelor's degree, legal education and knowledge of medical terminology." Subsequently, the 
Petitioner claimed that to perform the duties of the proffered position "it is essential that the candidate 
have a law degree," that the candidate is "trained in legal issue spotting, analyzing authority of case law 
(binding, persuasive or of no authority), applying the law, and legal writing skills," and that "based on 
the broad range of issues handled by the firm, the complexity of the cases, and high profile of the clients 
12 The Petitioner noted that the individual with the history major performed more clerical duties in the law clerk position but 
that once she graduates from law school she will be charged with similar duties of the proffered position. 
12 
Matter of L-0-0-D-J-W-
it is essential that such [client] interaction is carried out by someone with a law degree." The Petitioner 
however does not further develop the type of legal education required and whether this involves 
obtaining a paralegal certificate, attending a few undergraduate courses relating to the legal system, or a 
law degree equivalent to a juris doctorate degree. Moreover, the Petitioner does not relate these broadly 
stated requirements to its requirements, if any, for its prior law clerk positions.13 
We also point out that while a petitioner may assert that a proffered position requires a degree in a 
specific specialty, 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 employer 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 387. In other words, if a 
petitioner's degree requirement is only symbolic and 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 section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation"). Here, the Petitioner has not established the 
referenced criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3) based on its normal hiring practices. 
E. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature of 
the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is usually 
associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. Here, the Petitioner asserts that the proffered position requires that the incumbent 
independently discover and solve problems relating to policy and law, conduct legal analysis and 
interpret law and regulation, research case law, construct arguments, and assess facts gleaned from 
clients and that these duties require skills, knowledge, legal comprehension and analytics gained 
through a law degree. 
We again refer to our earlier comments and findings with regard to the implication of the Petitioner's 
designation of the proffered position in the LCA as a Level I (the lowest of four assignable levels) 
wage, and hence one not likely distinguishable by relatively specialized and complex duties.14 As 
13 The Petitioner here seems to accept a ~ariety of degrees as acceptable to perfonn the duties of its law clerk. However, 
there must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies and the position; thus, the mere requirement of 
a degree, without further specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of Michael 
Hertz Assocs., 19 l&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988) ("The mere requirement of a college degree for the sake of general 
education, or to obtain what an employer perceives to be a higher caliber employee, also does not establish eligibility."). 
14 The Petitioner's designation-of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undennines its claim that the position is 
particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. Nevertheless, a 
Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty occupation, just as a 
Level IV wage-designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain occupations (e.g., doctors or 
lawyers), a Level I, entry-level position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
13 
(b)(6)
Matter of L-0-0-D-J-W-
discussed above, we find that the Petitioner's indication that the incumbent will work independently is 
inconsistent with its assignment of a Level I wage to the position. 15 We have also reviewed the 
Petitioner's description of duties for the proffered position, including the Petitioner's expanded version 
offered in response to the Director's RFE. While we understand that the Petitioner expects the 
Beneficiary to have a legal background to perform these duties, the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
explained how these duties require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 
specialized knowledge, and the 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 Petitioner has not 
distinguished the duties of the proffered position as more specialized and complex than the duties of a 
paralegal or legal assistant position that does not require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 
Upon re~iew of the totality of the record, the record does not include consistent probative evidence that 
the duties require more than a paralegal certificate or a general bachelor 's degree. The Petitioner has 
not demonstrated for the record that its Level I wage paralegal is a position with duties sufficiently 
specialized and complex to satisfy 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4) . 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied 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. 
V. BENEFICIARY'S QUALIFICATIONS 
Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner ' s appeal, we need not address 
another ground of ineligibility we observe in the record of proceedings. Nevertheless, we will 
briefly note and summarize it here with the hope and intention that, if the Petitioner seeks again to 
employ the Beneficiary or another individual as an H-lB employee in the proffered position, it will 
submit sufficient independent objective evidence to address and overcome this additional ground in 
any future filing. 
As discussed in this decision, the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence regarding the 
proffered position to determine whether it will require a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. Absent this determination that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty or its equivalent is required to perform the duties of the proffered position, it also 
its equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation qualifies 
as a specialty occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. That is, a position's wage-level designation may be a relevant factor but is not 
itself conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)( I) of the Act. 
15 We note here that an entry-level paralegal position required only a $40,602 annual wage in the area at the 
time the LCA was certified. However, a Level Ill (experienced) paralegal required a significantly higher annual wage of 
$64,834, and a Level TV (fully competent) paralegal required an .annual wage of $76,939. See FLC Online Wage 
Library at http://www.flcdatacenter.com /OesQuickResults .aspx?code =23-20 11 &area= &year= 15&source= I (last 
visited Nov. 2, 2016). For informative purposes, we note that a Level I wage for a lawyer in the area 
required an annual salary of $84,822. See FLC Online Wage Library at 
http://www. flcdatacenter.com /OesQuickResults.aspx?code =23-l 0 II &area= &year= 15&source= I (last visited 
Nov. 2, 2016). 
14 
Matter of L-0-0-D-J-W-
cannot be determined whether the Beneficiary possesses that degree or its equivalent. Therefore, we 
need not and will not address the Beneficiary's qualifications further, except to note that, in any 
event, the Petitioner did not submit an evaluation of the Beneficiary's foreign degree or sufficient 
evidence to establish that her degree is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 
As such, since evidence was not presented that the Beneficiary has at least a U.S. bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, the petition could not be approved even if eligibility for the 
benefit sought had been otherwise established. 16 
VI. CONCLUSION 
The burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden 
has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofL-0-0-D-J-W-, ID# 56499 (AAO Nov. 23, 2016) 
j 
16 The record includes a copy of the Beneficiary's resume, her foreign degree and transcript, and a transcript for one year 
of study in the United States in a non-degree seeking undergraduate program. 
15 
(