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: 35280064 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner, a healthcare provider, seeks temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-lB 
nonirnrnigrant 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 denied 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). 
First, under criterion one at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I), the Petitioner's appeal brief cites to the 
U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook under the incorrect profile by 
referring to Operations Research Analysts corresponding to the standard occupational classificational 
(SOC) code 15-2031. But the petitioning organization filed the DOL ETA Form 9035 & 9035E, Labor 
Condition Application for Nonirnrnigrant Workers under the Business Operations Specialists, All 
Other profile corresponding to the SOC code 13-1199. The appeal brief also mistakenly provides job 
responsibilities under the same incorrect SOC code. 
Under the second criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), the appeal briefrefers to evidence that 
is not part of the record. We will not address those arguments in this decision. 
Next, the Director explained that the Petitioner's claims and evidence of other employees who hold a 
business administration degree without further specialization under criterion three at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3) did not constitute a body of highly specialized knowledge. On appeal, the 
Petitioner continues to advance the same arguments without explaining how the Director came to the 
wrong conclusion. The Petitioner's acceptance of a business administration degree to perform the 
duties of the proffered position without further specification, almost certainly indicates that the 
Petitioner's particular position does not require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. Vision 
Builders, LLC v. USCIS, No. CV 19-3159 (TJK), 2020 WL 5891546, at *5 (D.D.C. Oct. 5, 2020) 
(citing 2233 Paradise Rd., LLC, 2018 WL 3312967, at *3; see also Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147 
(finding that "although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a business administration degree, 
may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will 
not justify the granting of a petition for an H-1 B specialty occupation visa"); Matter ofMichael Hertz 
Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (BIA 1988). 
And finally, under criterion four at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4), the Petitioner does not 
specifically identify an erroneous conclusion oflaw or fact relating to this requirement. The Petitioner 
implies that they disagree with the Director's decision and presents similar arguments they offered to 
the Director. The reason for filing an appeal is to provide an affected party with the means to remedy 
what they perceive as an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact within a decision in a 
previous proceeding. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). It is insufficient to merely assert that the Director 
made an improper determination. Where a question of law is presented, supporting authority should 
be included, and where the dispute is on the facts, there should be a discussion of the particular details 
contested. Matter of Valencia, 19 I&N Dec. 354,355 (BIA 1986). 
Because we find no error in the Director's analysis here, we consider the Petitioner's arguments under 
criterion four to be forfeited or waived. Matter ofPougatchev, 28 I&N Dec. 719, 729 (BIA 2023) ( finding 
arguments that do not meaningfully challenge an aspect of the underlying decision are deemed waived 
on appeal). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2