sustained H-1B Case: Law

ihtifjhg data deW b 
prevent .I?:-? i~nww 
invasiar. ~t personal 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass Ave.. N.W.. Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC COPY 
FILE: SRC 04 229 53221 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: JUL 1 2 2006 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1 1 Ol(a)( 1 5)(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. 
Administrative ~ppus Office 
SRC 04 229 53221 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The director of the service center denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the matter is now 
before the Administrative Appeals Ofice (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be sustained. The petition will be 
approved. 
The petitioner is a consulting and investment company that seeks to employ the beneficiary as a foreign law 
advisor. The petitioner, therefore, endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant 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 10 1 (a)( 15)(H)(i)(b). 
' 
The director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner did not comply with the labor condition 
application's (LCA) requirement to take good faith steps to recruit for the offered position before filing the 
LCA. The director thereby concluded that the petitioner did not comply with section 2 12(n)(l)(G) of the Act. 
On appeal, counsel states that the petitioner complied with the LCA's attestation requirements. 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 11 84(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. 8 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(B), the petitioner shall submit the following with an H-1B petition 
involving a specialty occupation: 
1. 
 A certification from the Secretary of Labor that the petitioner has filed a labor 
condition application with the Secretary, 
2. 
 A statement that it will comply with the terms of the labor condition application for 
the duration of the alien's authorized period of stay, 
3. 
 Evidence that the alien qualifies to perform services in the specialty occupation. 
The director inappropriately denied the petition because the petitioner failed to comply with the provision of 
section 212(n)(l)(G) of the Act requiring H-1B dependent employers to take good faith steps to recruit U.S. 
workers. The petitioner is not an H-1B dependent employer under the American Competitiveness and 
Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 (ACWIA), as it only employs one worker. Further the provision citied 
by the director sunset on October 1, 2003, prior to the date the petition was filed.' Thus, the law was not in 
' 
 Section 422 of the H-1 B Visa Reform Act of 2004 permanently reinstated the requirement that employers 
determine whether they are "H-1 B dependent" before filing a labor condition application (LCA) as well as the 
attestation requirement for recruitment and hiring and displacement and secondary displacement for such 
employers (effective March 8, 2005). 
SRC 04 229 53221 
Page 3 
effect at the time the petition was filed or at the time the director made his decision. The director's decision is 
withdrawn. 
The AAO will now determine whether the offered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The petitioner is seeking the beneficiary's services as a foreign law advisor. Evidence of the beneficiary's 
duties includes: the Form 1-129; the attachments accompanying the Form 1-129; the petitioner's support letter; 
and the petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence. According to this evidence, the 
beneficiary would perform duties that entail providing advice to the petitioner and its clients on foreign 
antitrust and commercial law. The beneficiary will analyze anticipated transactions of the petitioner and its 
clients to determine foreign law compliance issues and trade regulations; provide recommendations and 
advice; and implement actions that have been agreed upon by managing foreign legal matters in foreign 
courts or with foreign regulatory agencies. The beneficiary will advise on foreign laws. 
Based on the submitted job description and the evidence of record, the offered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4), which requires the petitioner to establish 
that the nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform the 
duties is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty. 
The position offered here would require a baccalaureate degree in a discipline relating to international law. 
Now, the AAO will consider the beneficiary's qualifications for the proposed position. 
The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary who holds the educational equivalent of a m 
and a Ph.D. in competition law. The August 24, 2004 educational evaluation from the 
states that the beneficiary holds the equivalent of the U.S. degree of 
dited university in the United States." The September 15, 2004 evaluation from 
. conveys that the beneficiary holds a "Doctorate in Laws in Dutch Law, which 
in almost every jurisdiction in the world is the highest educational credential possible." 
 Based on the 
submitted educational evaluation, the beneficiary qualifies for the proposed position based on his educational 
degrees. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is sustained. The petition is approved.