dismissed H-1B Case: Healthcare

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 9, 2024 In Re: 34889255 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner, a healthcare provider, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-lB 
nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See 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-lB program allows a U.S. 
employer to file a petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 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 Nebraska Service Center Director initially approved then revoked the approval of the Form 1-129, 
Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (petition), concluding that the record did not establish that the 
offered position qualified as a specialty occupation. The matter is now before us on appeal. The 
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the 
questions in this matter de novo. Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
After reviewing the entire record, we adopt and affirm the Director's decision with the added 
comments below. See Matter ofBurbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 
113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting the practice of adopting and affirming the decision below 
has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that has squarely confronted the issue"); 
Pascual-Miguel v. Garland, 89 F.4th 657, 659 (8th Cir. 2023) (joining every other U.S. Circuit Court 
of Appeals in holding that appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as 
they give "individualized consideration" to the case). 
We reiterate what the Director briefly discussed: the Petitioner's own position requirements of an 
associate's degree and five years of experience or professional certifications and ten years of 
experience in lieu of a bachelor's degree in human resources or related fields preclude them from 
demonstrating the position can satisfy the definition of a specialty occupation. This statutory 
definition states: "the term 'specialty occupation' means an occupation that requires ... [a] 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." (Emphasis added). See section 214(i)( 1) of the Act. But the Petitioner failed 
to address this in the appeal, and this shortcoming could serve as a dispositive basis to dismiss this 
appellate filing. 
The Petitioner also declined to address a second basis in the revocation, that under criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l) the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook's inclusion 
of a degree in business-without some specialization-is generally inadequate to demonstrate a 
specialized bachelor's degree is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular 
position. We agree with the Director on this point and this serves as a second independent and 
dispositive basis to dismiss the appeal. 
Finally, the Petitioner did not refute or explain why they provided the Director with inconsistent 
position prerequisites. The Director specifically stated: 
[I]t is the responsibility of the petitioner to resolve inconsistencies in the record. You 
previously stated the duties of your position could be performed with an associate's 
degree with experience or certifications and experience in lieu of degrees. You now 
claim your position requires a bachelor's degree. No explanation was provided for the 
change in requirements. No explanation was provided as to why USCIS should ignore 
the your previous claims that the duties of the position can be performed with less than 
a bachelor's degree. 
The Petitioner did not explain their divergent statements, nor did they support those claims with the 
submission of relevant, independent, and objective evidence revealing what position requirements 
were their actual prerequisites. This precludes the Petitioner from meeting their burden of proof. See 
Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Lastly, while the Petitioner submits additional claims and evidence under criteria two and three 
(8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), (3)) on appeal, both the regulation and the Director's notice of intent 
to revoke the petition's approval put them on notice for that type of material. Because the Petitioner 
was already given notice and was afforded a reasonable opportunity to provide this, we will not 
consider it for the first time on appeal. Matter of Furtado, 28 I&N Dec. 794, 801-02 (BIA 2024) 
( declining to consider new evidence on appeal when the filing party was put on notice of the required 
evidence and given a reasonable opportunity to provide it for the record before the denial); see also 
Matter ofSoriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988); Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533,537 
(BIA 1988). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2