dismissed H-1B Case: Health Services

identi3ing data deleted to 
preve~lt clezrly unwamnted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: WAC 04 219 53237 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: AUG 0 7 2006 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonirnrnigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 10 1 (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. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 04 219 53237 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director 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 home health agency that seeks to employ the beneficiary as a health services analyst. The 
petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to 9 
lOl(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 1 101 (a)(lS)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition because the proffered position is not a specialty occupation and the 
beneficiary is not qualified to perform a specialty occupation. The director also denied the request for an 
extension of nonimmigrant status because the record contains no evidence that the beneficiary is maintaining 
a valid nonimmigrant status. On appeal, counsel submits a brief. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 9 214.1(~)(5), there is no provision for an appeal from the denial of an application for 
extension of stay filed on Form 1-129 or 1-539. As this office does not have jurisdiction over the portion of the 
director's decision regarding the beneficiary's request for an extension of stay, this issue will not be reviewed. 
The AAO will first address the director's conclusion that the position is not a specialty occupation. 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 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. 9 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, the position must meet one of 
the following criteria: 
(I) 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. 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 proffered position. 
WAC 04 219 53237 
Page 3 
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 supporting documentation. The AAO reviewed the record in 
its entirety before issuing its decision. 
The petitioner is seeking the beneficiary's services as a health services analyst. Evidence of the beneficiary's 
duties includes: the 1-129 petition; the petitioner's August 2, 2004 letter in support of the petition; and the 
petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence. According to this evidence, the beneficiary would 
perform duties that entail: monitoring the petitioner's quality of health services; conducting research studies 
on current innovations and updates; attending conferences and seminars regarding residential care, assisted 
living, and rehabilitative and wellness services to improve the petitioner's overall efficiency and quality of 
benefits; managing patient records; evaluating the petitioner's information processing system and developing 
a new system to improve operating procedures, data storage and retrieval, and workflow; overseeing billing 
and collection procedures; leading budget deliberations and planning; preparing reports and recommendations 
for management; supervising and participating in personnel activities such as hiring and performance 
evaluation; and preparing workflow charts, diagrams, and procedural bulletins for personnel. The petitioner 
indicated that a qualified candidate for the job would possess a bachelor's degree. 
The director found that the proffered position, which entails duties related to nursing, clerical activities, 
bookkeeping, budgeting, administrative activities, data entry, research, and human resources management, 
was not a specialty occupation because the petitioner has not established that it requires a bachelor's degree in 
a specific specialty. The director found further that the petitioner failed to establish any of the criteria found at 
8 C.F.R. $ 2 14.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
On appeal, counsel states, in part, that the proposed duties, which entail reviewing and analyzing facility 
standards to determine the petitioner's quality of care, and conducting personnel training and orientation, are 
so complex as to require a related baccalaureate degree. Counsel states further that CIS has previously 
approved similar petitions. 
Upon review of the record, the petitioner has established none of the four criteria outlined in 
8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Therefore, the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
The record's descriptions of the proffered position and the duties comprising it are limited to generalized 
functions that counsel and the petitioner have ascribed to the position, such as "[C]onduct[ing] research 
studies on current innovations and updates"; [R]epresent[ing] the petitioner's company in conferences, 
trainings, and seminars, or any outside commitments pertaining to rehabilitative services coordination, health 
management, quality assurance, healthcare activity formulation, and financial issues"; and "[C]oordinat[ing] 
the development, implementation, and expansion of management information systems and programs 
emphasizing on their patients' medical records that include their cognitive, physical, and emotional upkeep to 
enable them to feel and act as important members of their families and society." The petitioner has not 
identified methodologies or applications of specialized knowledge that actual performance of the position's 
functions would involve, and has not provided details of concrete matters upon which the beneficiary would 
work. Nor has the petitioner explained or provided documentary evidence to establish how the beneficiary's 
actual substantive work would require at least a bachelor's degree level of knowledge in a specific specialty. 
WAC 04 219 53237 
Page 4 
The AAO turns first to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I) and (2): a baccalaureate or higher 
degree or its equivalent is the normal minimum requirement for entry into the particular position; a degree 
requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations; or a particular 
position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree. 
Factors often considered by CIS when determining these criteria include: whether the Department of Labor's 
Occupational Outlook Handbook (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 
fms 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 1 151, 1 165 (D. Minn. 1999)(quoting HirdBlaker COT. v. Sava, 712 F. 
Supp. 1095,1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
The AAO routinely consults the Handbook for its information about the duties and educational requirements of 
particular occupations. The AAO does not concur with counsel that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation that requires a bachelor's degree in a medical-related field. A review of the Administrative Services 
Managers and Human Resources Managers occupational categories in the Handbook, 2006-2007 edition, finds 
that the job duties are primarily a combination of an administrative services manager and a human resources 
manager. No evidence in the Handbook indicates that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specialty, or its 
equivalent, is normally required for an administrative services manager or human resources manager job, as 
described herein. Further, although information on the petition reflects that the petitioner has 16 employees and a 
gross annual income of $500,000, the record contains no evidence in support of these claims, such as quarterly 
wage reports and federal income tax returns. Simply going on record without supporting documentary evidence 
is not sufficient for the purpose of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N 
Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comrn. 
1972)). 
Counsel asserts that CIS has already determined that the proffered position is a specialty occupation since CIS 
has approved other, similar petitions in the past. This record of proceeding, however, does not contain the 
supporting evidence submitted to the service center in the prior cases. In the absence of all of the 
corroborating evidence contained in those records of proceeding, the information submitted by counsel is not 
sufficient to enable the AAO to determine whether the positions offered in the prior cases were similar to the 
position in the instant petition. 
Each nonimrnigrant petition is a separate proceeding with a separate record. See 8 C.F.R. $ 103.8(d). In 
malung a determination of statutory eligibility, CIS is limited to the information contained in the record of 
proceeding. See 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(16)(ii). Although the AAO may attempt to hypothesize as to whether the 
prior cases were similar to the proffered position or were approved in error, no such determination may be 
made without review of the original records in their entirety. If the prior petitions were approved based on 
evidence that was substantially similar to the evidence contained in this record of proceeding, however, the 
approval of the prior petitions would have been erroneous. CIS is not required to approve petitions where 
eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, 
e.g., Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comrn. 1988). Neither CIS nor any 
other agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery 825 
F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
WAC 04 219 53237 
Page 5 
Regarding parallel positions in the petitioner's industry, counsel submitted, in his response to the director's 
RFE, a list of similar organizations requiring a bachelor's degree for parallel positions. There is no evidence, 
however, to show that the employers on the list are similar to the petitioner, or that the positions, which 
include quality assurance coordinators, are parallel to the instant position, as the record does not contain a 
comprehensive description of duties for these positions. Thus, it cannot be determined whether the proffered 
position is similar to the positions described on counsel's list. 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 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980). Thus, 
the list of parallel positions is not probative. 
The record also does not include any evidence from firms, individuals, or professional associations regarding 
an industry standard, or documentation to support the complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position; and 
the duties that comprise the proffered position are described in generalized terms that do not establish the 
position as sufficiently unique or sufficiently complex to require a bachelor's degree level of knowledge in a 
specific specialty. 
The petitioner, therefore, has not established the criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I) or (2). 
The AAO now turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3) - the employer normally requires a 
degree or its equivalent for the position. As counsel does not address this issue on appeal, it will not be discussed 
further. The evidence of record does not establish this criterion. 
Finally, the AAO turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(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. 
To the extent that they are depicted in the record, the duties do not appear so specialized and complex as to 
require the highly specialized knowledge associated with a baccalaureate or higher degree, or its equivalent, 
in a specific specialty. Therefore, the evidence does not establish that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation under 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). The information in the record about the proposed duties 
does not establish that they exceed in scope, specialization, or complexity those usually performed by 
administrative services managers, an occupational category for which the Handbook indicates no requirement 
for or usual association with a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty. 
As related in the discussion above, the petitioner has failed to establish that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation. Accordingly, the AAO shall not disturb the director's denial of the petition. 
The director also found that the beneficiary is not qualified to perform the duties of the proffered position because 
her foreign bachelor's degree in physical therapy is unrelated to the proposed duties. As discussed above, no 
evidence in the Handbook indicates that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specialty, or its equivalent, is 
required for an administrative services manager or human resources manager position. In small organizations, 
experience may be the only requirement for the position of adrmnistrative services manager; a human resources 
manager does not require a degree in a specialty. In this case, the beneficiary holds a foreign bachelor's degree in 
physical therapy. The record contains an evaluation from a company that specializes in evaluating academic 
credentials concluding that the beneficiary possesses the equivalent of a Bachelor of Science in Physical 
WAC 04 219 53237 
Page 6 
Therapy degree awarded by regionally accredited colleges and universities in the United States. As such, the 
petitioner has demonstrated that the beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of the proffered position. 
The petition may not be approved, however, because the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
Accordingly, the AAO shall not disturb the director's denial of the petition. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.