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: 34926627 
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 
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 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). 
Under the first criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), the Petitioner does not address the 
Director's statement that based on the organization's position requirements alone, the petition is not 
approvable as it fails to meet the definition of a specialty occupation at section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 
Instead, the organization refers to a state statute's depiction of what that authority requires for similar 
positions within the state. But that is unresponsive to the Director's determination. 
Regarding the second and third criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), (3), the appeal briefrefers 
to evidence the Petitioner did not provide before the Director, nor with the appeal and we will not 
entertain those arguments. And the Petitioner does not describe how the Director erred when 
evaluating their claims under the fourth criterion under at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). It is also 
unclear why the appeal brief contains a section describing why the Beneficiary is qualified to occupy 
the position when that was not a basis for the Director's denial decision. 
Ultimately, the Petitioner's appeal brief fails to adequately address multiple bases in the Director's 
decision, and they have not demonstrated the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2