dismissed H-1B Case: Clinical Informatics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9687043 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-18) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 14, 2020 
The Petitioner, a medical practice, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "clinical 
informatics director" under the H-18 nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. 
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-18 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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate el igibi I ity by a preponderance of the evidence.1 
We review the questions in this matter de novo.2 Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Act defines an H-18 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)(l) ... "(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 "theoretical and practical application of a 
body of highly specialized knowledge, and 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 section 214(i)(I) of the Act but adds a 
non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) provides that the 
proffered position must meet one of four criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation position. 3 Lastly, 
1 Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
2 See Matter of Christa's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
3 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must be read with the statutory and regulatory definitions of a specialty occupation under 
section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 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"). 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(1) states that an H-1B classification may be granted to a foreign national 
who "will perform services in a specialty occupation ... "(emphasis added). 
Accordingly, to determine whether the Beneficiary will be employed in a specialty occupation, we 
look to the record to ascertain the services the Beneficiary will perform and whether such services 
require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained 
through at least a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Without 
sufficient evidence regarding the duties the Beneficiary will perform, we are unable to determine whether 
the Beneficiary will be employed in an occupation that meets the statutory and regulatory definitions of 
a specialty occupation and a position that also satisfies at least one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). The services the Beneficiary will perform in the position determine: (1) the normal 
minimum educational requirement for entry into the particular position, which is the focus of criterion 
1; (2) industry positions which are parallel to the proffered position and thus appropriate for review 
for a common degree requirement, under the first alternate prong of criterion 2; (3) the level of 
complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position, which is the focus of the second alternate prong 
of criterion 2; (4) the factual justification for a petitioner normally requiring a degree or its equivalent, 
when that is an issue under criterion 3; and (5) the degree of specialization and complexity of the 
specific duties, which is the focus of criterion 4.4 
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. 5 The Director may request additional evidence 
in the course of making this determination. 6 In addition, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the 
time of filing the petition and must continue to be eligible through adjudication.7 
II. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality, we conclude that the Petitioner has not adequately established 
the services the Beneficiary will perform, which precludes a determination of whether the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation under sections 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 214(i)(1) of the Act; 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(1), 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) and (iii)(A). 8 
Specifically, the record (1) does not contain sufficient evidence regarding the duties the Beneficiary 
will perform; and (2) has inconsistencies that undermine the Petitioner's claims regarding the proffered 
position. 
4 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
5 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(2). 
6 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8). 
7 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). 
8 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered position 
and its business operations. Although we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered 
each one. 
2 
A. Nature of the Position 
The Petitioner is a medical practice established in 2017 with five employees. 9 The Petitioner claims 
to "provide data-driven healthcare services" which include direct primary care, occupational health 
care, telemedicine, healthcare professionals and health informatics training, and services in healthcare 
migration data. 
The Petitioner identifies the proposed duties as follows:10 
I Assess the in-house electronic health record system performance and resolve 
technical issues with clinical care and patient health management technology as it 
relates to user accessibility, usability, workflow/processes, policies, and 
procedures. [25%] 
I Evaluate a decision support system for clinical care, medication, disease 
surveillance and disease reporting, identify gaps, prepare a brief/concept note for 
the potential solutions. [25%] 
I Meeting with leadership, staff, patients, and other professionals to promote medical 
informatics awareness. [6%] 
I Develop and test health informatics application prototypes. [32%] 
I Perform the Electronic Health Record System maintenance and deploy or upgrade 
informatics tools and systems and other ad-hoc tasks. [12%] 
The Petitioner designated the proffered position, "clinical informatics director," on the labor condition 
application (LCA) 11 as a Standard Occupation Classification (SOC) code 15-1121 "Computer Systems 
Analysts" occupation, at a Level I (entry level) wage. In its response to the RFE, the Petitioner clarifies 
the proffered position is classified as SOC code 15-1121.01 "Informatics Nurse Specialists," a 
subcategory under "Computer Systems Analysts." However, the job duties for the proffered position 
do not involve nursing and is not written with enough detail for us to determine if the Beneficiary 
would be handling nursing data.12 The duties for the occupation in O*NET appear to be written for 
9 The Petitioner submitted its tax return from 2017; it indicates that gross income is $66,305 and net income is $13,482. 
The record does not contain any other tax returns. 
10 The Petitioner provided an expanded duties list in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). While we will 
not quote the entire description for the sake of brevity, we have reviewed and considered it and note that it is not inclusive 
of duties presented elsewhere in the record. 
11 A petitioner is required to submit an LCA to the Department of Labor 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). 
12 On appeal, to establish that a minimum of at least a bachelor's degree is required for entry into the occupation, the 
Petitioner submits letters dated July 21, 2014 and September 20, 2016, addressed to the Standard Occupational 
Classification Policy Committee at the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), authored by several organizations and 
schools, requesting a SOC designation for health informatics practitioners. The letters do not identify a specific course of 
study or specialized knowledge necessary for the occupation and are not probative with respect to the educational 
requirements of the occupation. However, they provide some insight into the proposed occupation. For example, the 
September 20, 2016 letter to BLS submitted in support of the petition references that, "Nursing Informatics has been a 
recognized nursing specialty." 
3 
nurses.13 However, the Petitioner submits evidence that there is not an SOC code for clinical 
informatics professionals, and asserts its proffered position has duties that align with the occupation 
and also that of a "Computer Systems Analyst." The record does not persuasively support the 
Petitioner's assertions. 
As written, the duties are described such that we are unable to discern whether the position actually 
requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained 
through at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific discipline. For example, a quarter of the 
Beneficiary's time will be to "assess the in-house electronic health record system performance" by 
design[ing], develop[ing] and deploy[ing] informatics tools and systems, to enable clinical care 
surveillance and clinic population-based studies" in "Charm electronic health records (EHR)." The 
record does not provide context for this duty, only identifies one digital software used by Petitioner, 
and does not provide details on the volume of records this 5 employee practice handles. In describing 
some of the duties under the task "[e]valuate a decision support system ... " the Petitioner explains 
that the Beneficiary will conduct research on "secondary use of medications and its impact on the 
patient population," and Medicare's payment system, but the record does not contain evidence to 
substantiate such research. We are therefore unable to ascertain the complexity or specialized nature 
of these duties. 
Rather than explaining the aforementioned duties or placing them in context within the organizational 
structure of Petitioner's practice, the support letters in the record highlight additional duties not 
mentioned above. For example, within its letters submitted in support of the initial petition, the 
Petitioner describes the Beneficiary's duties to include "write research grants and professional 
documentation of work performed for both internal and external consumption including technical 
presentation, business reports, peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed publications." This duty does 
not align with that of an "informatics nurse specialist" or a "computer systems analyst" and the 
Petitioner does not provide sufficient information regarding its research projects such as current or 
past projects, relevance to its operations, resources dedicated to the research, potential duration, or the 
types of grants they are applying for so we may ascertain how this duty relates to the overall nature of 
the position. Similarly, the Petitioner states "[t]he position requires familiarity with project 
management and prototype development in general, development of appropriate data security 
provisions and protocols, ... data architecture and data mining skills," and "exploring new 
technologies such as Artificial Intelligence." However, the Petitioner does not provide context for 
these highly technical duties, such as how they align with the occupational category designated by the 
Petitioner in the LCA or their relevance in the overall structure of its business operations. Although 
"computer systems analysts" test, maintain and monitor computer programs, and develop system 
design procedures, 14 these more technical designing, creating, and researching new technology duties 
discussed in the record appear to be outside the scope of a "computer systems analyst" or "informatics 
nurse specialist. " 15 
13 See O*NET Online Summary Report for "15-1121.01 - Informatics Nurse Specialists," 
https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15-1121.01 (last visited Sept. 11, 2020). 
14 See O*NET Online Summary Report for "15-1121.00 - Computer Systems Analysts," 
https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15-1121.00 (last visited Sept. 11, 2020). 
15 While we need not determine which occupational category best applies to the proffered position, we note similarities 
between the proffered duties and those of "Computer and Information Research Scientists," SOC 15-1111.00, who are 
4 
While the proffered position is designated a "clinical informatics director," the Petitioner has not 
provided sufficient evidence of its business operations to demonstrate the Beneficiary's actual role 
within its organization. The proffered position's duties do not mention managerial or supervisory 
tasks and the record is unclear as to whether the Petitioner is truly employing someone in a "director's" 
role.16 The Petitioner does not include its organizational chart, describe its staffing, or otherwise 
provide evidence of its organizational hierarchy to clarify the record. The Petitioner states the 
Beneficiary has been in its employ as a "clinical informatics analyst/tableau developer" since 
December 1, 2018 but does not provide information regarding the duties and responsibilities of the 
other four employees. In a letter submitted on appeal, the Petitioner refers to its "Clinical Informatics 
Director" who "prevented further damage to [the Petitioner's] payment systems." The steps were not 
described in detail to ascertain whether they were specialized or complex in nature and based on this 
information, it is unclear if the Petitioner has multiple informatics personnel. One of duties of the 
proffered position is "meeting with leadership, staff, patients, and other professionals to promote 
medical informatics awareness." However, leadership and staff were not identified, nor were their 
roles, and the record does not clarify who are the "other professionals." Within the duties of the 
proffered position, the Petitioner states the Beneficiary would "perform related duties and 
responsibilities as required." In its daily duties description for the proffered position, the Petitioner 
states maintaining electronic records, deploying or upgrading informatics tools and systems and other 
ad hoc tasks would make up 12% of the Beneficiary's time. However, electronic systems maintenance 
and developing informatics tools are covered under other duties. The Petitioner does not address what 
these ad hoc duties entail, whether they are the extraneous duties mentioned in its letters, whether they 
would be H-lB caliber duties and if so whether they fall within a higher paying occupation. Without 
additional information, it cannot be ascertained how the performance of these ad hoc duties affects the 
occupational classification of the position.17 
tasked with directing network security measures, creating and applying new technology and publishing their findings in 
academic journals. See O*NET Online Summary Report for "15-1111.01 - Computer and Information Research 
Scientists," https://www.onetonline.org/link/details/15-1111.00 (last visited Sept. 11, 2020). 
16 According to the 2014 letter to BLS, a "Clinical Informatics Director" would best be categorized under the SOC code 
11-9111 for "Medical and Health Services Managers." Occupational Information Network (O*NET)'s description for 
"medical and health services managers" contains managerial, supervisory, planning, overseeing and implementing duties. 
See O*NET Online Summary Report for "11-9111- Medical and Health Services Managers," 
https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/11-9111.00 (last visited Sept. 11, 2020). The job duties for the proffered 
position do not mention supervisory or managerial tasks, however, the Petitioner's support letters describe the Beneficiary 
as implementing data migration and developing staff training guidelines. Moreover, due to the vague job description, it is 
unclear if tasks, such as, establishing clinical care surveillance, maintaining clinical care and patient health practices and 
health data, align with a director's level position, i.e. "Medical and Health Services Managers" or a less senior position, 
i.e. "Informatics Nurse Specialists." 
17 If the Petitioner's duties for the position fall under more than one occupational category, it should have chosen the 
relevant occupational code for the highest paying occupation, which is not "Computer Systems Analysts." See U.S. Dep't 
of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs 
(rev. Nov. 2009); http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHCGuidance_Revised_11_2009.pdf. We have noted two other 
occupational categories supported by the record, undermining that the LCA corresponds to the petition, including the 
occupational category certified therein. See Section 212(n)(1) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(a). At the time the 
Petitioner's LCA was certified, the Level I prevailing wage in the area of intended employment for "Computer and 
Information Research Scientists" was $34.41 per hour, and for "Medical and Health Services Managers" was $32.19 per 
hour, which is higher than the prevailing wage for "Computer Systems Analysts" of $29.83 per hour. See 
https://flcdatacenter.com/OESWizardStart.aspx. 
5 
The Petitioner also selected the Level I or entry level wage as consonant with the job requirements, 
necessary experience, education, and special skills/other requirements of the proffered position. 18 
However, the Petitioner's statements and submissions in the record undermine its assertions regarding 
the Level I wage. For example, Petitioner's support letters state, "[t]he position required is for an 
experienced Clinical lnformaticist" with a "comprehensive understanding of healthcare and health 
information technologies" (emphasis added). The "duties require [the Beneficiary] to be proficient in 
the field of [h]ealthcare [i]nformation [s]ystem implementation ... " (emphasis added). 
The Petitioner submits opinion letters in support of its petition. One letter is from I I a 
Professor and Director at the at thel I 
I I for The University L-----------~---_____. here the Beneficiary 
obtained his graduate degree in biomedical informatics. ,___ ___ ___, "endorse[s] that the 
[Petitioner's] Clinical Informatics Director's role requires complex and specialized skill sets, which 
are only gained through graduate-level education or several ears of ex erience in the field after a 
bachelor's degree." The second opinion letter is fro · · 
Professor at the I lat the University 
at I I Similarly,! I states, "[w]ith my several years o experience in researc an 
teaching in the biomedical informatics field, I view [the Beneficiary's] duties as Clinical Informatics 
Director [for the Petitioner] as highly complex and re uirin multidisciplinary skill sets with an 
advanced degree." A third letter was submitted by a radiologist and Medical 
Director for an imaging center physically located near the Petitioner . .__ __ _.states, "[c]andidacy 
for this position also requires a master's or other advanced degree in some combination of health and 
computer sciences." The Petitioner submitted a fourth letter brl I who is the Vice 
President of Sales for an electronic health records system. I states, "I attest that the 
[proffered] position ... [with the Petitioner] requires an advanced degree (Master's or Ph.D.) for the 
job duties of this position." I I adds, the position requires "a complex set of skills" and 
"many years of experience in the field." In other words, the Petitioner and the supporting record 
contend that this position involves duties that are more complex and specialized and require more 
education and experience than the duties typically performed by entry level "informatics nurse 
specialists" or "computer systems analysts." If so, this would indicate that the proffered position has 
special skills and advanced degree requirements, which would then render the Level I wage rate 
inappropriate.19 The Petitioner has not reconciled the Level I wage rate with its claims about this 
position's relative complexity, specialization, or uniqueness.20 
18 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. See Prevailing Wage Determination 
Policy Guidance, available at http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC_Guidance_ Revised_11_2009.pdf. 
19 The employer's requirements for experience, education, training, and special skills shall be compared to those generally 
required for an occupation as described in O*NET. If there are any requirements above those generally required for an 
occupation, then one or more points should be added to the appropriate wage column(s). U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & 
Training Adm in., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs, supra. 
20 To clarify, the Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its claim that the 
position is particularly specialized and complex, 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 its equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not reflect that 
6 
B. Minimum Requirements 
We also find that there are numerous inconsistencies in the record that call into question the accuracy 
of the Petitioner's statements regarding the proffered position. 21 The Petitioner does not consistently 
identify a degree or related degrees that would be minimally required to perform the duties of the 
proffered position. In its initial filing, the Petitioner's support letter states, "[t]he position required is 
for an experienced Clinical lnformaticist who has education and experience in healthcare and 
informatics." While general fields of study are identified, the Petitioner does not identify degrees 
required for the proffered position. In satisfying the specialty occupation requirements, both the Act 
and the regulations require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. In general, 
provided that 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 disparate fields 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). Here the Petitioner does not consistently identify 
fields of study, much less degrees in the fields that are directly related to the duties and responsibilities 
of the particular position. 
The Petitioner asserts the minimum requirement is a bachelor's degree but is inconsistent on what 
degree or specialty is required for the proffered position. The Petitioner states that O*NET requires a 
bachelor's degree for the "informatics nurse specialists" so the occupation is a specialty occupation.22 
Contrary to the assertions of the Petitioner, O*NET does not state a requirement for a bachelor's 
degree for this occupation. Rather, it assigns this occupation a Job Zone "Four" rating, which groups 
it among occupations for which "most ... require a four-year bachelor's degree, but some do not."23 
Further, even if a majority of the occupation requires at least a bachelor's degree, O*NET, which only 
provides general information regarding the occupation, does not indicate that four-year bachelor's 
degrees required by Job Zone Four occupations must be in a specific specialty directly related to the 
occupation. 24 Therefore, O*NET information is not probative of the proffered position being a 
specialty occupation. 
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){l) of the Act. 
21 "[l]t is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve the inconsistencies by independent objective evidence." Matter of Ho, 
19 l&N Dec. 582, 591 {BIA 1988). Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the 
Petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Id. at 591-92. 
22 The Petitioner's claim that a bachelor's degree is a sufficient minimum requirement for entry into the proffered position 
is inadequate to establish that the proposed position qualifies 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."). 
23 O*NET Online Summary Report for "15-1121.01 Informatics Nurse Specialists," 
https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15-1121.01 (last visited Sept. 11, 2020); O*NET Online Help - Job Zones, 
http://www.onetonline.org/help/online/zones (last visited Sept. 11, 2020). 
24 See Id. 
7 
The Petitioner asserts that the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook's 
(Handbook) statement "most computer systems analysts have a bachelor's degree in a 
computer-related field" means the occupation meets 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), citing to a 
rescinded policy memorandum25 and Next Generation Tech., Inc. v. Johnson, 328 F. Supp. 3d 252 
(S.D.N.Y. 2017).26 Of note, the court in Next Generation Tech., Inc. discussed the entry requirements 
for positions located within a different and separate occupational category "Computer Programmers" 
rather than the "Computer Systems Analysts" category designated by the Petitioner in the LCA 
relating to this case. 27 Also as recognized by another court, while the Handbook may establish the 
first regulatory criterion for certain professions, many occupations are not described in such a 
categorical manner. 28 Here, the Handbook does not describe the normal minimum educational 
requirement for the occupation in a categorical manner since some employers accept less than a 
bachelor's degree. For example, programming or technical expertise not gained through 
bachelor's-level study may be acceptable to enter into this occupation.29 Further, the Handbook states 
that business and I iberal arts degrees may be acceptable. 30 The Handbook does not identify a specific 
discipline required to perform the duties of the occupation, or support a conclusion that the occupation 
of "computer systems analysts" normally requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. The lnnova court concluded: "[a]ccordingly, [the Petitioner] could not 
simply rely on [the Handbook] profile, and instead ha[s] the burden to show that the particular position 
offered to [the Beneficiary] [is] among the Computer Programmer positions for which a bachelor's 
degree [is] normally required."31 The Petitioner has a similar burden here.32 
The Petitioner asserts that the opinion letters in the record support a minimum degree requirement of 
a bachelor's in computer and health science. I I does not identify a degree requirement but 
25 The Petitioner claims computer related positions require a bachelor's degree and cites the legacy Immigration and 
Naturalization Service (INS) memorandum from the Nebraska Service Center Director, Terry Way ("Terry Way memo"). 
However, the Terry Way memo has now been rescinded. See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0142, Rescission of 
the December 22, 2000 "Guidance memo on HlB computer related positions" (Mar. 31, 2017), 
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/nativedocuments/PM-6002-0142-H-
1BComputerRe1atedPositionsRecission.pdf. 
26 We first note that in contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case law of a United States circuit court, we are 
not bound to follow the published decision of a United States district court. See Matter of K-S-, 20 l&N Dec. 715, 719-20 
(BIA 1993). Nevertheless, even if we considered the logic underlying the matter, we conclude that the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
21 Id. 
28 See lnnova Sols., Inc. v. Baran, 399 F. Supp. 3d 1004, 1015 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (declining to follow Next Generation 
Tech., Inc.); see also Xiaotong Liu v. Baran, 2018 WL 7348851 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2018). 
29 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Computer Systems Analysts, 
https://www.bls.gov/OOH/computer-and-information-technology/computer-systems-analysts.htm#tab-4 (last visited 
Sept. 11, 2020). 
30 Id. 
31 lnnova Sols., Inc. 399 F. Supp. 3d at 1015. 
32 Although the Petitioner relies on the Handbook to support arguments on appeal, it also asserts that the Director 
"illogically" and "erroneously ... focus[ed] [her] adjudication around the [Handbook] as the Handbook "does not take 
into account many occupations, [including] the Informatics Nurse Specialist." It adds the Director's decision "centering 
on the Handbook is corrupt." While it would be erroneous to accord to the Handbook the weight or directive power of 
statute, regulation, or any legally binding document or directive, this was not how the Handbook was used in the Director's 
analysis. Of note, the Petitioner provided arguments relying on the Handbook in its response to the Director's RFE, which 
the Director addressed in her analysis of the first criterion. Also, as the Director's decision does not refer to the Handbook 
in the remainder of her analysis, it is not clear why the Petitioner believes the decision was "focused" or "centered" around 
the Handbook. 
8 
describes the courses that contribute to the "interdisciplinary field" of "Biomedical/Clinical 
informatics." He lists a number of graduate level courses offered by his institution that he believes 
would provide the skill set necessary to perform the duties of the proffered position.33 While a few 
related courses may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated how an established curriculum of such courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the duties of the proffered 
position. Similarly, I I states, "a sound knowledge of information technology and the 
healthcare profession is [a] must" but does not identify a degree requirement. I I rather than 
identifying a specific course of study, vaguely states that "some" combination of health and computer 
science knowledge would prepare an individual for the position. According tq I in order 
to perform the duties of the proffered position, "the qualified individual needs a complex set of skills, 
which can be achieved only through Bachelor's or higher-level studies in computer science and 
healthcare." I I does not identify degrees or a course of study that would be required to 
perform the job duties or would be the minimum entry requirement to the industry.34 
As evidence of a degree requirement, the Petitioner includes an article from the Online Journal of 
Nursing Informatics, which states, "Healthcare Informatics is defined as the 'integration of healthcare 
science, computer science, information science and cognitive science to assist in the management of 
healthcare information."' The article does not designate a degree requirement for the position but 
names various sciences that "assist" in the field. 
The Petitioner also submits 15 job advertisements and states "the requirement of at least a bachelor's 
degree in computer science and Biomedical Informatics or a related field or the equivalent is common 
to positions like the Petitioner's position with substantively similar job duties within the Medical 
industry in which Petitioner operates." On appeal, the Petitioner states, a "minimum of a bachelor's 
degree in a computer related field or a health-related field" is common to the industry. The job 
advertisements are from various sources and as a result, only some list the size of the company. The 
descriptions of the companies vary in length and detail and do not provide enough information to 
ascertain whether they are similar to the Petitioner. The descriptions of the job duties also vary and 
some are too vague to tell whether they are parallel to the proffered position. The years of experience 
required for entry into these positions vary as well, with some requiring none, others up to 5 years, 
and the experience requested are in various areas of study. For example, one company asks for three 
or more years of clinical informatics analyst experience, while another asks for five years in the 
healthcare or managed care industries, while another asks for a year in insurance, managed care, or 
data analysis. In sum, despite the Petitioner's statement that the job advertisements establish that the 
industry requirement is a degree in computer science and biomedical informatics, only two of the 15 
33 The record contains course descriptions for the courses taken by the Beneficiary. We observe thatl llists a 
number of courses that correlate with the Beneficiary's coursework as providing the skillsets and ability to perform the 
day-to-day duties of the position. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the course breakdown establishes the complexity 
and uniqueness of the proffered position. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the skill 
set, experience, or education of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
See Cf. Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., at 560 ("The facts of a beneficiary's background only come at issue after it is 
found that the position in which the petitioner intends to employ him falls within [a specialty occupation].") 
34 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"). 
9 
companies require a computer science degree, one requires a degree in clinical informatics and two 
requires computer science or health informatics. 
Moreover, the job advertisements list alternative degrees to include bachelor's degrees in health 
information technology, healthcare, information sciences, health information management, statistics, 
economics, engineering, medical technology, health care statistics, public health economics, 
epidemiology, mathematics, information technology, finance, mathematics, healthcare administration. 
Other acceptable degrees listed include MD, NP, RN, PharmD. One job advertisement accepts any 
bachelor's degree. On appeal the Petitioner argues that the breadth of the degree requirements is due 
to the occupational category, and that the "degrees must be related to the health industry or occupations 
where computer programming/software use is heavily used." Rather than explaining how these 
various degrees establish the degree requirement in a specific specialty, the Petitioner basically comes 
to the determination this occupation is multidisciplinary and accepts a number of degrees. Absent 
evidence of a direct relationship between the claimed degrees required and the duties and 
responsibilities of the position, it cannot be found that the proffered position requires anything more 
than a general bachelor's degree. 
Furthermore, the information submitted on appeal does not clarify the record as to the minimum degree 
requirement. 35 In the supporting appeal brief, the Petitioner again states different requirements for the 
proffered position, this time stating the degree requirement is "a minimum bachelor's degree with a 
sound knowledge of medicine and technology."36 
Also submitted on appeal is an opinion letter by,___ _________ __. a "chief marketing 
officer and executive vice president" of a "global digital transformation IT consulting company." D 
I !opines that "Clinical Informatics is[] a complex domain" and "the degree programs will 
include a blend of information technology and healthcare topics, as well as discussion about ethical 
and legal issues that pertain to this field." He states that Clinical Informatics professionals have either 
a bachelors or master's degree and very limited colleges and universities have developed specialized 
programs.37 To inform his opinion.I !states he reviewed the "job posting" for the 
proffered position and degree requirement for four similar jobs in the federal government.38 Even 
assuming! !possesses expertise on the educational requirements for the position, his 
letter does not identify degree requirements or substantiate his conclusions, such that we can conclude 
35 As an example, the 2016 letter to BLS submitted on appeal describes health informatics as "largely a multidisciplinary, 
interprofessional endeavor combining expertise in computational fields of computer sciences, information sciences or data 
analytics, as well as in clinical fields, such as physician, nursing, dentistry, or pharmacy. 
36 On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that medicine and health are identified as specialty occupations within 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii) and since the occupation of "informatics nurse specialist" is related to health and medicine, it is inherently 
a specialty occupation. This is not an accurate reading of the regulation, which requires the "theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in fields of human endeavor, including ... medicine and health .. 
and requires the attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as a minimum for 
entry into the occupation in the United States." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (emphasis added). 
37 This statement is contradicted by the record. The September 20, 2016 letter to BLS states, there are "over 50 graduate 
degree programs in Health Informatics." 
381 I does not provide information on the jobs he believes are "similar" to the proffered position, other than 
to mention he found them on https://www.usajobs.gov and provides their titles: records and information management 
specialist, health system specialist, program analyst (informatics) and supervisor medical records administrator. These 
jobs would not be in a similar industry as the Petitioner and we are unable to ascertain whether they are parallel to the 
proffered position just based on their titles. 
10 
that the Petitioner has met its burden of proof.39 Similar to the other opinion letters,~!-----~ 
does not reference, cite, or discuss studies, surveys, industry publications, authoritative publications, 
or other sources of empirical information, which he may have consulted to complete his evaluation on 
the educational requirements. For the reasons discussed, we conclude that the opinion letters are 
insufficient to establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. Matter of Caron lnt'I, 
19 l&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (The service is not required to accept or may give less weight 
to an advisory opinion when it is "not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable."). 
The Petitioner does not consistently identify areas of study, much less a degree or related degrees that 
would be minimally required to perform the duties of the proffered position. Absent this evidence, we 
cannot conclude that the particular position proffered in this matter requires 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. 
The Petitioner has not satisfied the definition of specialty occupation as set out in the Act. 
Furthermore, while the proffered position may qualify as a specialty occupation if the record 
sufficiently and consistently demonstrates the duties and requirements of the position in the context 
of the Petitioner's business, the inconsistencies in the record with respect to the minimum degree 
requirements for the proffered position, the Petitioner's wage level designation, the LCA, and the lack 
of information regarding the Beneficiary's role within the organization undermine the Petitioner's 
claims regarding the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the Beneficiary. This precludes 
a finding that the proffered position satisfies any criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Moreover, 
the Petitioner has not satisfied the statutory and regulatory definitions of specialty occupation as 
defined by section 214(i)(1) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(1), 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii), and (iii)(A). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3l I cites to one outside source, a pamphlet by the Center for Disease Control, which explains how it is 
using informatics in health surveillance. However, the pamphlet does not provide background on clinical informatics 
directors or insight into their educational requirements and is therefore not probative of the proffered position being a 
specialty occupation. 
11