dismissed H-1B Case: Healthcare Administration

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: WAC 03 140 51612 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 1 4 2~5 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimrnigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. Wiernann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 03 140 51612 
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 staffing company that seeks to employ the beneficiary as a medical record administrator. 
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. 
5 1 101(a)(15)(~)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition because the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. The director also 
found that the petitioner had not complied with the terms of its previously approved petitions. On appeal, the 
petitioner submits a brief. 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 3 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. 5 214.2(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. 
3 214.2(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. 
The record of proceeding before the AAO contains: (1) Form 1-129 and supporting documentation; (2) the 
director's notice of intent to deny the petition; (3) the petitioner's response to the director's notice; (4) the 
WAC 03 140 51612 
Page 3 
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 medical record administrator. Evidence of the 
beneficiary's duties includes: the 1-129 petition; the petitioner's March 28, 2003 letter in support of the 
petition; and the petitioner's response td the director's notice of intent to deny the petition. According to this 
evidence, the beneficiary would perform duties that entail: developing, implementing and maintaining 
policies and procedures related to health services; planning, directing, coordinating and supervising the 
delivery of health services to the elderly at nursing facilities and centers; preparing a health service 
management report; assisting the controller in preparing the company's annual budget; evaluating and 
providing orientation to new employees of the center; and supervising the facility's medical writer and 
research associate. The petitioner indicated that a qualified candidate for the job would possess a bachelor's 
degree in any medical, dental or healthcare-related field. 
The director found that the proffered position was not a specialty occupation. The director also stated that the 
petitioner did not establish that it would actually be employing the beneficiary. The director found further that 
the petitioner failed to establish any of the criteria found at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
On appeal, the petitioner states that it would be the actual employer of the beneficiary. The petitioner also 
states that its record of filing numerous petitions relates to its business of staffing other organizations, and that 
it has a high turnover rate. The petitioner asserts that previous petitions, which were identical to the current 
petition, were approved. 
Upon review of the record, the petitioner has established none of the four criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. 
5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Therefore, the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
The AAO turns first to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l) 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. 
The AAO routinely consults the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) for its 
information about the duties and educational requirements of particular occupations. CIS looks beyond the title 
of the position and determines, from a review of the duties of the position and any supporting evidence, 
whether the position actually requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and the attainment of a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty as the minimum for entry into 
the occupation as required by the Act. While the petitioner calls the proffered position a medical record 
administrator, the duties of the position are actually those of a health services manager. The Handbook states that 
the general requirement for a health services manager is a master's degree, and a bachelor's degree is adequate for 
some entry-level positions in smaller organizations; it also states, "Physician's offices and some other facilities 
may substitute on-the-job experience for formal education." The petitioner provided no information about its 
client's business or worksite, so there is no evidence in the record to establish that it is a type of business that 
WAC 03 140 51612 
Page 4 
would require a bachelor's degree or higher in a specialty rather than experience to fill the proffered position. 
Thus, the petitioner has failed to establish the first criterion. 
The petitioner did not submit any evidence regarding parallel positions in the petitioner's industry, nor does 
the record include any evidence from professional associations regarding an industry standard, or 
documentation to support the complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position. The petitioner has, thus, not 
established the criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l) or (2). 
The AAO now turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3) - the employer normally requires a 
degree or its equivalent for the position. The petitioner submitted a list of its employees that it stated have worked 
in the proffered position and who have degrees. The issue is not what the petitioner requires, but what the client 
requires. There is no evidence in the record regarding the petitioner's client's past hiring practices. In Defensor 
v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384 (5th Cir. 2000), the court held that the Immigration and Naturalization Service, now 
CIS, reasonably interpreted the statute and the regulations when it required the petitioner to show that the entities 
ultimately employing the foreign nurses require a bachelor's degree for all employees in that position. The court 
found that the degree requirement should not originate with the employment agency that brought the nurses to the 
United States for employment with the agency's clients. 
The record does not contain a comprehensive description of the beneficiary's proposed duties from an 
authorized representative of the client. Without such a description, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
work that the beneficiary will perform for the client will qualify as a specialty occupation, or what the client's 
requirements are for an individual filling the proffered position. 
Finally, the AAO turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(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. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
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. 
Regarding the petitioner's assertion that identical petitions were previously approved, the record of proceeding 
does not contain copies of the visa petitions that the petitioner claims were previously approved. If the 
previous nonirnrnigrant petitions were approved based on the same unsupported and contradictory assertions 
that are contained in the current record, the approval would constitute clear and gross error on the part of CIS. 
CIS is not required to approve applications or 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 (Comm. 1988). It would be absurd to suggest that CIS or any agency 
WAC 03 140 51612 
Page 5 
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). 
Furthermore, the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between the court of 
appeals and the district court. Even if a service center director had approved the nonirnmigrant petitions on 
behalf of the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a service 
center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), affd 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 
2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 5 1 (2001). 
The director also found that the petitioner had not actually employed many of the individuals for whom it had 
previously received approval, and when it did employ them, they were frequently paid at a significantly lower 
rate than had been asserted on the Form 1-129 at the time of filing. The petitioner did not directly address this 
issue on appeal, and did not overcome the director's findings. 
An H-1B alien is coming temporarily to the United States to perform services in a specialty occupation. 
Section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b). 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(l)(ii)(B). In this 
case, the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary would be coming to the United States to perform 
services in a specialty occupation. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER. The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.