dismissed H-1B Case: Translation Services

US. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass Ave.. N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
h? i, 
FILE: WAC 04 13 8 52052 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: ,.;, ? ,) ,)prr 
PETITION: Petition for a~onimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(l S)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
WAC 04 138 52052 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The director of the service center denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the matter is now 
before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. The petition will be 
denied. 
The petitioner is a translation service that seeks to employ the beneficiary as a technical writer and translator 
and to classify her as a nonirnrnigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to section lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1 lOl(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition because the petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to establish that the 
proposed position is a specialty occupation. On appeal, counsel submits a brief. 
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. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, the position must meet one of the 
following criteria: 
(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. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) interprets the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any bachelor's or higher degree, but one in a specific field of study that 
is directly related to the proposed position. 
The record of proceeding before the AAO contains: (1) Form 1-129 and supporting documentation; (2) the 
director's request for additional evidence; (3) the petitioner's response to the director's request; (4) the 
director's denial letter; and (5) Form I-290B and accompanying brief. The AAO reviewed the record in its 
entirety before issuing its decision. 
WAC 04 13 8 52052 
Page 3 
The petitioner is seeking the beneficiary's services as a technical writer and translator.' In the cover letter 
attached to the initial petition, counsel states that the beneficiary would be "in charge of reviewing journals, 
books and publications in order to prepare informative reports regarding the latest development of the global 
market, new methods of universal trackand enhanced systems of related services." The petitioner's employer 
support letter states that the beneficiary would be "in charge of correspondence, promotional literature, and 
public relation." In response to the director's request for more information, counsel states that the beneficiary 
"will translate written documents and spoken words from one language to another" with emphasis on legal 
documents used during litigation or international trade. The petitioner required that the beneficiary be well- 
versed in legal vocabulary and possess a bachelor's degree in law with 2-4 years experience in the field or a 
related area. 
The director asked the petitioner to submit a more detailed job description with a list of job duties and 
percentage of time to be spent on each duty; past and present announcements for the proposed position to 
show that the petitioner requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specialty for the position; evidence that 
businesses of similar size and scope require the proposed position; a history of past employment practices for 
the proposed position to show that the petitioner normally requires at least a bachelor's in a specialty for the 
proposed position; evidence that the duties of the position could not be performed by someone with less than 
a bachelor's degree in a specialty; the petitioner's Form DE-6, Quarterly Wage Reports for its employees; the 
petitioner's organizational chart to show the petitioner's hierarchy and staffing levels with a list of employees 
by name and title; business licenses; federal income taxes; a more detailed description of the petitioner's 
business organization; photographs of the petitioner's business premises; a lease agreement; a floor plan; and 
a list of all the petitioner's employees with names, job titles, and immigration status. 
In response, counsel submitted a letter listing the director's requested documents, with explanations regarding 
any of the documents not submitted; a position announcement for a technical writer and translator requiring a 
"bachelor's degree in area of specialty"; a generic corporate organizational chart; a receipt for an application 
for a business license; a letter from a certified public accountant stating that the petitioner hired him to file 
corporate income tax returns for 2002 and 2003; photographs of three desks; and a lease. 
The director concluded that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to determine what the duties of 
the proposed position were and to establish that a person could not perform those duties with less than a 
bachelor's degree. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the evidence the director requested and the petitioner failed to provide was 
irrelevant to the proceedings, that the beneficiary is a member of the professions, and that the proposed 
position requires a member of the professions due to the complexity of the duties. 
Upon review of the record, the petitioner has established none of the four criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. 
9 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Therefore, the proposed position is not a specialty occupation. 
To determine whether a position qualifies as a specialty occupation, CIS looks beyond the title of the position 
and determines, from a review of the duties of the position and any supporting evidence, whether the position 
actually requires the theoretical and practical application of highly specialized howledge and the attainment 
of a bachelor's degree in a specific field of study as the minimum for entry into the occupation. 
Counsel and petitioner are inconsistent and vague, throughout these proceedings, regarding the duties of the 
proposed position. 
WAC 04 138 52052 
Page 4 
The AAO routinely consults the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) for its 
information about the duties and educational requirements of particular occupations. Based on a thorough 
review of the duties of the proposed position alongside the Handbook's description of technical writers and 
translators, the AAO concludes that the proposed position is a dual position - technical writer and translator. 
The AAO first turns to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I) - a bachelor's or higher degree or its 
equivalent, in a specific field of study, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular 
position. To determine whether or not this criterion has been established, the AAO turns to the Handbook's 
discussion of the educational requirements for technical writers and translators. The Handbook indicates that 
jobs in these fields do not require a specific bachelor's degree for entry into these fields. Employers consider 
those with liberal arts degrees and relevant work experience suitable for jobs in this area. Employers prefer, 
but do not require, technical writers and translators to possess bachelor's degrees in specific fields of study. 
As no specific course of study is required for these occupations, the petitioner fails to establish that a 
bachelor's or higher degree, in a specific field of study, is the normal minimum requirement for entry into the 
proposed technical writerltranslator position under 8 C.F.R. 5 2 14.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
The AAO turns next to the first alternative prong of the second criterion at 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) - 
that a specific degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations. To determine if a position is a specialty occupation under this criterion, CIS generally 
considers whether or not letters or affidavits fi-om companies, individuals, or a professional association in the 
industry attest that such companies "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. Suva, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 
1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). The petitioner has not submitted evidence that a bachelor's degree in a specialized 
field is common to the industry in parallel technical writerltranslator positions among similar-sized translation 
services. Therefore, the proposed position does not qualify as a specialty occupation under the first 
alternative prong at 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The AAO now turns to the third criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) - the employer normally requires at 
least a bachelor's degree or its equivalent, in a specific field of study, for the position. To determine whether a 
petitioner has established this criterion, the AAO generally reviews the petitioner's past employment 
practices, including the histories of those employees who previously held the position, as well as their names, 
dates of employment, and copies of their diplomas. In the instant case, the petitioner has submitted no 
evidence to establish its normal hiring practices for the proposed position. In the absence of an employment 
history for the proposed position, the petitioner failed to establish that the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
Finally, the AAO turns to the criteria related to the complexity, uniqueness, or specialized nature of the 
proposed position - the second alternative prong of the second criterion and the fourth criterion of 8 C.F.R. 
5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Counsel asserts that "the mere fact this [pletioner is dealing with translation services 
and is engaged in rendering and translating highly sensitive documents and data from or to another language, 
make the higher degree in a legal field a prerequisite for the underlying position." Counsel further asserts that 
the proposed position is "extremely complex" and "unique" because it requires a background in law and 
technical terminology. The duties of the proposed position are routine to any translator position specializing 
in the translation of legal documents. The Handbook indicates that while translators "may not completely 
specialize in a particular field or industry, many do focus on one area of expertise." For example, judiciary 
translators must be "thoroughly familiar with the language and functions of the U.S. judicial system, as well 
as other countries' legal systems." While those who translate in a legal setting must be familiar with the legal 
WAC 04 138 52052 
Page 5 
system, nothing in the Handbook indicates that one needs a bachelor's degree in law in order to translate legal 
documents from one language to another. Counsel has not submitted any documentary evidence to establish 
that translation of legal documents brings a particular complexity or uniqueness to the position requiring a 
bachelor's degree in law. Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will 
not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. 
Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BL4 1983); 
Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). The petitioner has not established that the 
proposed position is a specialty occupation based upon the complexity or uniqueness of its duties. 
As always, the burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. fj 136 1. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.