dismissed H-1B Case: Healthcare Administration

20 Mass. Ave., NW, Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
identieing data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC COPY 
FILE: WAC 04 243 53 129 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
 JUL f 4 2006 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 10 l(a)(l 5)(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 04 243 53 129 
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 nursing home facility that seeks to employ the beneficiary as a management analyst. The 
petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant 
to section lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1 10 1 (a)(] 5)(H>(i)(b>. 
The director denied the petition on the basis that the petitioner had not established that that the proffered 
position is a specialty occupation. The director found that the evidence failed to establish that the petitioner 
engages in the type of business for which a management analyst would typically be required on a regular full 
or part-time basis, for any significant length of time. Also, finding that the actual duties to be performed by 
the beneficiary could not be ascertained, the director determined that she was unable to classify the position as 
a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director abused her discretion in determining that the petitioner does not 
have the need for a management analyst. Counsel asserts that the proffered position of a management analyst 
requires that the beneficiary research market trends in order to increase the petitioner's business and market 
share. Counsel explains that the petitioner is a service provider and expansion of the type and quantity of 
locations and clients services requires deliberate, reasoned research prior to committing valuable resources to 
unsuccessful markets. Counsel further elaborates that a management analyst will prove invaluable to the 
petitioner in assuring that pricing is comparable and that there is a demand for services and petitioner's 
services are competitive with that of other businesses. 
The record of proceeding before the AAO contains: (1) Form 1-129 and supporting documentation; (2) the 
director's request for evidence; (3) counsel's response to the director; and (4) Form I-290B, with counsel's 
brief and supporting documentation. The AAO reviewed the record in its entirety before reaching its 
decision. 
For the reasons discussed below, the AAO finds that the director's decision to deny the petition was correct. 
Therefore, the AAO shall not disturb the director's decision. The appeal will be dismissed and the petition 
will be denied. 
The issue before the AAO is whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. To meet its 
burden of proof in this regard, the petitioner must establish that the job it is offering to the beneficiary meets 
the following statutory and regulatory requirements. 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 8 1184(i)(l) defines the term 
"specialty occupation" as one 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. 
WAC 04 243 53 129 
Page 3 
The term "specialty occupation" is further defined at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(ii) as: 
An occupation which requires theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 
specialized knowledge in fields of human endeavor including, but not limited to, architecture, 
engineering, mathematics, physical sciences, social sciences, medicine and health, education, 
business specialties, accounting, law, theology, and the arts, and which 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. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. $ 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 above criteria to mean not just 
any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered 
position. 
To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, CIS does not simply rely on a 
position's title. The specific duties of the proffered position, combined with the nature of the petitioning 
entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. CIS must examine the ultimate employment of the 
alien, and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. Cf: Defensor v. Meissner, 201 
F. 3d 384 (5th Cir. 2000). The critical element is not the title of the position nor an employer's self-imposed 
standards, but whether the position actually requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of 
highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty 
as the minimum for entry into the occupation, as required by the Act. 
The petitioner states that it requires services of a management analyst with a master's degree in marketing or 
management or business1economics or alliedlrelated or equivalent area. Evidence of the beneficiary's duties 
includes: the Form 1-129; a letter of support from the petitioner; and counsel's 
December 10, 2004 response to the director's request for evidence. The petitioner stated that the various 
programs and assignments that will be evaluated are public health and healthcare issues as they affect nursing 
home operations, examples of which include smoke cessation, abuse management, patient participation in 
daily activities, and medical records management. Addit ional duties include: gathering and organizing 
information on problems and procedures; analyzing data gathered, developing information, and considering 
WAC 04 243 53 129 
Page 4 
available solutions or alternative methods of proceeding; analyzing statistics as well as other data, such as 
annual revenues, advertising, promotions, and expenditures so as to develop solutions to decrease overhead 
expenses; organizing and documenting findings of studies and preparing recommendations for 
implementation of new systems, procedures, and organizational changes: 
In his letter of response to the RFE, counsel provided the following percentage of time spent performing the 
required duties as: 
ProjectlProgram Management: defining scope and context of problem/issue to be addressed 
and developing methodology to carry out project /program; providing analyses of research 
and data collected; brainstorming and discussing with department heads for successful 
projectlprogram implementation; finalizing, providing and presenting recommendations to 
administrator; and developing evaluation tools to monitor projectlprogram implementation 
(40% of the time); 
Cost Budget and Financial Analyses: developing cost budget of projectlprogram being 
planned; and evaluating impact of project/program cost on total budget (35% of time); 
Policy Analysis and Implementation: analyzing/assessing impact of projectlprograrn on 
nursing home policies and procedures; determining effect of any changes on staff operations; 
and developing recommendations for policy and procedural changes. 
As reflected in the paragraph immediately above, the petitioner has identified multiple duties, but has 
described them in exclusively generalized and generic terms that neither relate specific work that the 
beneficiary would perform nor provide concrete details of the issues or problems upon which the beneficiary 
would work. Thus, it is not evident that the beneficiary would be required to theoretically and practically 
apply at least a bachelor's level of highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty, as required by the 
specialty occupation statute and regulations. For instance, the petitioner provides no information to illustrate 
the specialty knowledge required in any of its projects, such as "smoke cessation" and "abuse management." 
Likewise, the record does not include details about the specialization or intricacies of the "research" to be 
conducted, of any methodologies that the beneficiary would be required to apply, or of the subject matters 
upon which the beneficiary would work. 
As described by the petitioner, and as noted by the director, the duties of the proffered position are general 
and lack specificity. The petitioner does not explain in any details what the beneficiary's work would involve 
in "planning, implementation, and oversightlevaluation of assignments" and "gathering and organizing 
information on problems and procedures; analyzing data gathered, developing information, and considering 
available solutions or alternative methods of proceeding." The petitioner does not describe with any 
specificity the data to be analyzed. Although the petitioner noted that the various programs and assignments 
that will be evaluated are public health and healthcare issues and identified them as smoking cessation, abuse 
management, patient participation in daily activities and medical records management, the petitioner has not 
provided substantive information about what the evaluation would entail. The petitioner has not provided 
evidence of the number of patients, the types of activities or explained the duties of the proffered position in 
relation to its position of activities supervisor and activities staff. 
Thus, the limited information that the petitioner provided about the proffered position and the duties that 
comprise it is too superficial and abstract to establish the educational credentials that would be required for 
actual job performance under any of the criteria of 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
WAC 04 243 53 129 
Page 5 
Based on the evidence in the record, the AAO cannot conclude that a baccalaureate or higher degree or its 
equivalent in a specific specialty is the normal minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. 
While counsel contends that the position is a management analyst with marketing responsibilities, the record, 
limited as it is to generalized information about the proposed work, lacks evidence to substantiate that the 
beneficiary would perform work requiring at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, let alone a 
master's degree as asserted by the petitioner. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is 
not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N 
Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 
1972)). 
As a consequence of the generic and superficial information provided about the proffered position, he record 
is insufficient to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I): that a baccalaureate or higher 
degree or its equivalent is the normal minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. The fact 
that the generalized descriptions in the record may align with general duties that the Department of Labor's 
Occupational Outlook Handbook ascribes to management analyst or marketing jobs makes no difference, for 
specialty occupation status is determined by the evidence of actual on-the-job performance requirements. 
The petitioner provided no evidence to establish the first alternative prong of the second criterion - that a 
specific degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. In 
response to the director's request for evidence, counsel asserted that all for-profit companies need 
management analysts to ensure managed growth and continued success. Counsel has provided no evidence 
to support this assertion. 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). Further, as noted above, the AAO does not 
find the proffered position to be that of a management analyst. 
As limited as it is to non-specific information about the work comprising the proffered position, the record 
does not show that the proffered position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a specific degree, as required by the second alternative prong of the second criterion. 
Nor is there evidence in the record to establish the third criterion at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3): that the 
petitioner normally requires a specific degree or its equivalent for the position. 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires that the petitioner establish that the nature of the 
specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is usually 
associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. The petitioner's description of the duties 
of the proffered position is general in nature and lacks sufficient detail for a determination of the level of 
specialization and complexity of the actual duties of the proffered position. 
As related in the discussion above, the petitioner has failed to establish that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation. For this reason the petition may not be approved. 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. 9 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
WAC 04 243 53 129 
Page 6 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.