dismissed H-1B Case: Healthcare Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M·M-S-, LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 18,2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a healthcare management company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"director of medical staff relations" under the H-1 B nonimmigrant classification. 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-1B program allows a U.S. employer 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 Director, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
evidence of record did not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation in 
accordance with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's basis for 
denial of the petition was erroneous and contends that it satisfied all evidentiary requirements. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 1 
I. LAW 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 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. 
1 This decision does not prejudice or otherwise prevent the Petitioner from filing a new petition on behalf of the Beneficiary 
or other individuals, especially if the facts and circumstances have since changed such that eligibility for the immigration 
benefit can be established. 
Matter of M-M-S-, LLC 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a 
non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered 
position must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
(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. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has consistently 
interpreted the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 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 proposed 
position .. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree 
requirement in a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a 
particular position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the initial letter of support, the Petitioner provided a description of the job duties and the 
requirements for its director of medical staff relations position, stating the Beneficiary will perform 
the following duties: 
In this position, [the Beneficiary] will manage physician relations to strengthen and 
align the relationship between [the Petitioner], the physicians and hospital customers, 
serving as the primary corporate contact for physicians. She will assess and track 
physician performance, review quality reports, enhance communication with hospital 
administrators regarding physician performance, align physician performance with 
hospital administrators' policies and goals, monitor needs and respond to physician 
concerns, participate in physician hiring and on-boarding, assist in physician 
credentialing as needed, design and implement a physician retention program and 
perform other duties as assigned. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's 
job title was recently changed from "director of medical staff relations" to "vice-president, medical 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of M-M-S-, LLc; 
staff relations," in order to better reflect her role in the company. The Petitioner stated that her 
primary responsibility is to "review hospital data, statistics and quality reports, and perform in depth 
analysis and develop solutions to meet and improve quality metrics, efficiency rates, physician 
performance, patient flow and other factors that impact the quality and productivity of patient care." 
The Petitioner also provided an updated list of job duties for the Beneficiary's position which 
included the following time allocations: 
Data Analysis- 65% 
• Emergency Department (ED) Stats Review 
• Applying data analysis to ED data, problems 
• Creating physician scorecards for ED performance 
• Assessment of throughput times for ED patient flow 
• Review 
and assessment of radiology department performance metrics 
Communicating and working with Medical Directors - 20% 
• Reviewing physician performance 
• Attending monthly meetings with an inter-disciplinary team to discuss ED 
performance and assess areas of improvement 
ED Scheduling- 1 0% 
• Working with the Medical Directors to ensure that all shifts are covered in the 
ED, 24/7 
• Communicating the monthly schedule and schedule changes to the respective 
physicians 
Provider Team Building- 5% 
• Working with the organization's sales and marketing team to garner more 
hospital clients 
• Overseeing physician recruitment activities - interviewing physicians, 
physician onboarding including introducing the physician to the hospital and 
Medical Director, coordinating with the credentialing team to ensure that 
required credentialing process is completed on time. 
According to the Petitioner, the position requires at least a bachelor's degree or equivalent 
professional degree in a clinical health science, including medicine, nursing, dental medicine/surgery 
or related clinical field, plus a master of health administration degree.
2 
2 The Petitioner submitted a letter from the dated February 25, 2015, which verified that the 
Beneficiary was in the final semester of a two-year graduate program in health administration. According to the letter, 
the Beneficiary would receive her master's degree in May 2015. 
3 
Matter of M-M-S-, LLC 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position satisfies any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) and, therefore, qualifies as a specialty occupation. Specifically, the record (I) 
provides inconsistent information regarding the position3; and (2) does not establish that the job 
duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty 
. 4 occupatiOn. 
A. First Criterion 
We tum first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position.5 To inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. Department of 
Labor's (DOL's) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties 
and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses.6 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-IB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Medical and Health Services 
Mana9ers" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 11-9111 at a Level I 
wage. 
3 The purpose of an RFE is to provide a petitioner with an opportunity to clarifY whether eligibility for the benefit sought 
has been established. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8). When responding to an RFE, the Petitioner cannot materially change a 
position's title, its level of authority within the organizational hierarchy, or the associated job responsibilities. Rather, 
the Petitioner must establish that the position offered to the Beneficiary when the petition was filed merits classification 
for the benefit sought. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17l&N Dec. 248,249 (Reg'! Comm'r 1978). If significant 
changes are made, the Petitioner must file a new petition rather than seek approval of a petition that is not supported by 
the facts in the record. Here, in response to the RFE, the Petitioner changed the Beneficiary's job title from director of 
medical staff relations to vice president, medical staff relations. 
4 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
5 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
6 All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, available at http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not, 
however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. That is, the occupational category 
designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered 
position, and USCIS regularly reviews the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of 
occupations that it addresses. To satisfy the first criterion, however, the burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to 
submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position would normally have a minimum, specialty 
degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
7 We will consider the Petitioner's classification of the proffered position at a Levell wage (the lowest of four assignable 
wage levels) in our analysis of the position. The "Prevailing Wage Detennination Policy Guidance" issued by the DOL 
provides a description of the wage levels. A Level I wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which the 
Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the occupation. This wage rate indicates: (I) that the 
Beneficiary will be expected to perfonn routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that he will be 
closely supervised and his work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that he will receive specific 
instructions on required tasks and expected results. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage 
4 
Matter ofM-M-S-, LLC 
The Handbook subchapter entitled "How to Become a Medical and Health Services Manager" states 
in pertinent part: "Most medical and health services managers have at least a bachelor's degree 
before entering the field. However, master's degrees are common and sometimes preferred by 
employers. Requirements vary by facility."8 It further specifies: "Prospective medical and health 
services managers typically have a degree in health administration, health management, nursing, 
public health administration, or business administration. Degrees that focus on both management 
and healthcare combine business-related courses with courses in medical terminology, hospital 
organization, and health information systems." 
According to the Handbook, the requirements for medical and health services managers vary by 
facility. The Handbook also states that medical and health services managers typically need an 
advanced degree to enter the occupation, but it further clarifies that degrees in various fields are 
common (health administration, health management, nursing, public health administration, or 
business administration). 
Therefore, although the Handbook states that medical and health. services managers typically need an 
advanced degree, it also specifies that the requirements for these positions vary by facility and that 
degrees in various fields are acceptable for jobs in this occupation (e.g., health management and 
business administration, as well as public administration and nursing). While the Handbook 
indicates that prospective employees "typically" have at least a bachelor's degree, it does not 
indicate that such a degree is required or that the degree must be in a specific field. 
In general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and biochemistry, a minimum 
of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized as satisfYing the "degree in 
the specific specialty (or its equivalent)" requirement of section 2l4(i)(l)(B) of the Act. In such a 
case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be the same. Since 
there must be a close correlation between the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" and 
the position, however, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in disparate fields, such as 
philosophy and engineering, would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the 
specific specialty (or its equivalent)," unless a petitioner establishes how each field is directly related 
to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position such that the required body of highly 
specialized knowledge is essentially an amalgamation of these different specialties.9 Section 
214(i)(l )(B) of the Act (emphasis added). 
Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _I I_ 2009.pdf. A prevailing wage determination starts 
with an entry level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering the experience, education, and skill 
requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. /d. A Levell wage should be considered for research fellows, workers 
in training, or internships. !d. 
8 For additional information regarding the occupational category "Medical and Health Services Managers," see U.S. 
Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., Medical and Health Services 
managers, available at http://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/medical-and-health-services-managers.htm (last visited July 
13, 20 16). 
9 Whether read with the statutory "the" or the regulatory "a," both readings denote a singular "specialty." Section 
5 
Matter of M-M-S-, LLC 
The Handbook further states that a degree in business administration is sufficient for medical and 
health services manager jobs. Although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in 
business administration, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a 
degree, without more, will not justify a finding that a particular position qualifies for classification as 
a specialty occupation. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertojf,' 484 F.3d at 147.10 
That is, USCIS interprets the degree requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to require a degree 
in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. Since there must be a close 
correlation between the required specialized studies and the position, the requirement of a degree 
with a generalized title, such as business administration, without further specification, does not 
establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Associates, 19 I&N 
Dec. 558. Therefore, the Handbook's recognition that a general, non-specialty degree in business 
administration is sufficient for entry into the occupation strongly suggests that a bachelor's degree in 
a specific specialty is not normally the minimum entry requirement for this occupation. 
The Petitioner also referenced the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) OnLine Summary 
Report for this occupation. The summary report provides general information regarding the 
occupation; however, it does not support the Petitioner's assertion regarding the educational 
requirements for the occupation. For example, while the SVP rating indicates the total number of 
years of vocational preparation required for a particular position, it is important to note that it does 
not describe how those years are to be divided among training, formal education, and experience -
and it does not specify the particular type of degree, if any, that a position would require.11 
Further, the summary report provides the educational requirements of "respondents," but does not 
account for 100% of the "respondents." The respondents' positions within the occupation are not 
214(i)(I)(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). Still, we do not so narrowly interpret these provisions to exclude 
positions from qualifying as specialty occupations if they penn it, as a minimum entry requirement, degrees in more than 
one closely related specialty. This also includes even seemingly disparate specialties provided the evidence of record 
establishes how each acceptable, specific field of study is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position. 
10 Specifically, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit explained in Royal Siam that: 
/d. 
II 
[t]he courts and the agency consistently have stated 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. See. e.g .• 
Tapis lnt 'I v. INS, 94 F.Supp.2d 172, 175-76 (D.Mass.2000); Sllanti, 36 F. Supp.2d at 1164-66; cf Matter of 
Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I & N Dec. 558, 560 ([Comm'r] 1988) (providing rrequently cited analysis in 
connection with a conceptually similar provision). This is as it should be: elsewise, an employer could ensure 
the granting of a specialty occupation visa petition by the simple expedient of creating a generic (and essentially 
artificial) degree requirement. 
For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at 
http://www.onetonline.org/help/online/svp. 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of M-M-S-, LLC 
distinguished by career level (e.g., entry-level, mid-level, senior-level). Additionally, the graph in 
the summary report does not indicate that the "education level" for the respondents must be in a 
specific specialty. 
The Petitioner also submitted an opinion letter prepared by of 
(1) describes the credentials that he asserts qualify him to opine upon the 
nature of the proffered position; (2) claims that the proffered position requires a graduate degree in 
healthcare or business as a minimum requirement, noting that the duties and responsibilities of the 
position are aligned with the competencies achieved in a graduate program; and (3) claims that these 
minimum qualifications represent a common standard for parallel positions among similar 
organizations. We carefully evaluated assertions in support of the instant petition but, 
for the following reasons, determined his opinions lent little probative value. 
Upon review of the opinion letter, there is no indication that possesses sufficient 
knowledge of the Petitioner's proffered position and its business operations. First, states 
that his opinion is "based on a review of [the Beneficiary's] resume" as well as her credentials, but 
makes no mention of any position descriptions or other documentary evidence specific to the 
position being offered by the Petitioner. Other than the Beneficiary's resume, does not 
identify what documentation, if any, he relied upon when assessing the nature of the proffered 
position.· There is no evidence that has visited the Petitioner's business, observed the 
Petitioner's employees, interviewed them about the nature of their work, or documented the 
knowledge that they apply on the job. He does not demonstrate or assert in-depth knowledge of the 
Petitioner's specific business operations or how the duties of the position would actually be 
performed in the context ofthe Petitioner's business enterprise. 
does not discuss in detail the duties or requirements of the proffered position; rather, he 
makes a broad assertion that these types of positions "typically exist in virtually all medical 
facilities" and "are common throughout the healthcare industry." does not reference, cite, 
or discuss any studies, surveys, industry publications, authoritative publications, or other sources of 
empirical information which he may have consulted to complete his evaluation. Although we note 
his reference to Blooms Taxonomy of Learning, he refers to this source to support his opinion that 
the Beneficiary's graduate-level education "significantly" adds to her qualifications, 
noting that there 
is a differentiating factor between the levels of learning imparted at the undergraduate and graduate 
levels. Again, it appears that evaluation focuses exclusively on the Beneficiary's 
resume, education, and . experience as a "Graduate Level Research Assistant and Administrative 
Intern" at the during her graduate program, rather than on the specific 
requirements and associated duties of the proffered position. 
concludes that the position of "Vice President of Medical Staff Relations" requires a 
graduate degree in healthcare or business. does not cite specific examples of how the 
proffered position, in the context of the Petitioner's operations,· requires such an educational 
prerequisite, nor does he support his blanket assertion that all positions with similar titles impose the 
same minimum qualifications. The record does not indicate whether was aware of the 
Petitioner's designation of the proffered position as a Level I (entry) position (the lowest out of four 
7 
(b)(6)
Matter of M-M-S-, LLC 
assignable wage-levels) in the LCA. In contrast, states that the proffered position is 
"clearly aligned with the competencies to be achieved in a graduate program" and requires "a skill 
set developed in graduate programs and not at the undergraduate level." It appears that 
would have found such information relevant for his opinion letter. Accordingly, the Petitioner has 
not demonstrated that possessed the requisite information to adequately assess the nature 
of the position and appropriately determine parallel positions based upon the job duties and level of 
responsibilities. 
For the reasons discussed, we find that opinion letter lends little probative value to the 
matter here. Matter of Caron Int'/, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm' r 1988) (The service is not 
required to accept or may give less weight to an advisory opinion when it is "not in accord with 
other information or is in any way questionable."). 
On appeal, the Petitioner cites to Warren Chiropractic & Rehab Clinic, P.C v. USCIS, No. SACV 
14-0964 AG (RNBx), 2015 WL 732428 (C.D. Cal. 2015) and Chung Song Ja Corp. v. US 
Citizenship and Immigration Services, No. C14-0177RSM, 2015 WL 1058110 (W.O. Wash. 2015), 
and claims that they are relevant here.12 In the district court case, Warren Chiroprac;tic, the 
employer designated the position as a "health services manager" position.13 We reviewed the 
decision; however, there is no indication that the duties and responsibilities, level of judgment, 
complexity of the job duties, supervisory duties, independent judgment required or the amount of 
supervision received are analogous to the proffered position here.14 Accordingly, aside from the 
claimed occupational category, there is a lack of evidence demonstrating that the positions are 
similar. 
Further, in Warren Chiropractic, the court stated that a specialty occupation is one that requires a 
bachelor's degree or higher in the specific specialty (or its equivalent). We must clarify that a 
specialty occupation requires (1) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and (2) 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. Section 214(i)(l)(B) of 
the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). Furthermore, the Petitioner must satisfy one of the four criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
12 In contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case law of a United States circuit court, we are not bound to 
follow the published decision of a United States district court in matters arising even within the same district. See Matter 
of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715 (BIA I 993 ). Although the reasoning underlying a district judge's decision will be given due 
consideration when it is properly before us, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. !d. at 719. 
13 It is important to note and distinguish within the court's decision that "health services manager" refers to the 
employer's particular position, whereas "Medical and Health Services Managers" refers to a general occupational 
category. 
14 We note that the Director's decision was not appealed to our office. Based on the district court's findings and 
description of the record, if that matter had first been appealed through the available administrative process, we may very 
well have remanded the matter to the service center for a new decision in our de novo review of the matter. 
8 
Matter of M-M-S-, LLC 
The criteria stated in 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) should logically be read as being necessary but 
not necessarily sufficient to meet the statutory and regulatory definition of specialty occupation. To 
otherwise interpret this section as stating the necessary and sufficient conditions for meeting the 
definition of specialty occupation would result in particular positions meeting a condition under 8 
C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory or regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 
201 P.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this result, 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must therefore 
be read as providing supplemental criteria that must be met in accordance with, and not as 
alternatives to, the statutory and regulatory definitions of specialty occupation. 
In Warren Chiropractic, the court concluded that the petitioner met the first criterion. It is important 
to note, however, that the court misquoted the Handbook, with regard to prospective medical and 
health services managers. That is, the Handbook does not state that prospective medical and health 
services have a bachelor's degree in health administration, but rather that they "should" have such a 
degree. The Handbook then continues by stating that these programs prepare students for higher 
level management jobs than programs that graduate students with other degrees. The statement 
suggests that "other degrees" would be appropriate for lower level management jobs. 
The court also stated that "while true that medical and health services may have master's degrees in 
a wider variety of fields, the description is clear that their bachelor's degrees are typically in health 
administration." The court continued, saying that "[t]his satisfies the statutory requirement that a 
specialty occupation is one normally requiring a bachelor's degree in the specific specialty. 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1184(i)." We note, however, that the term "normally" is not in the statute as attributed by the 
court, but rather is an aspect of the first criterion of the supplemental regulatory requirement. 8 
C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). The court concluded that "[b]ecause the Medical and Health 
Services Manager position requires a degree in a specific specialty, the USCIS erred in finding that it 
is not a specialty occupation." According to the court, the "Medical and Health Services Manager 
role normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific field." · 
The decision, thus, states that the occupational category "Medical and Health Services Managers" 
requires a degree, but the court does not conclude that the employer's particular "health services 
manager" position requires such a degree. The court therefore appears to mischaracterize the first 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). That is, the first criterion requires the petitioner to establish 
that a baccalaureate or higher degree (in a specific specialty) or its equivalent is normally the 
minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. 
Furthermore, if the court meant to suggest that any position classified under the occupational 
category "Medical and Health Services Manager" would qualify as a specialty occupation -we must 
disagree. 15 The. occupational category designated by a petitioner is considered as an aspect in 
15 In Warren Chiropractic, the court quoted a brief excerpt from the Handbook We observe that the court did not 
address the section of the Handbook regarding professional certificates, and more specifically the information on the 
PAHCOM website indicating that there are no specific degree requirements to obtain professional certification- and 
therefore to work as a medical manager of a group physician practice. 
9 
Matter of M-M-S-, LLC 
establishing the general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered position, and users regularly 
reviews the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations 
that it addresses. However, to satisfy the first criterion, the burden of proof remains on the petitioner 
to submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position would normally have a 
minimum, specialty degree requirement or its equivalent for entry. That is, to determine whether a 
particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, users does not simply rely on a position's title or 
. designated occupational category. The specific duties of the proffered position, combined with the 
nature of the petitioning entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. USCIS must 
examine the ultimate employment of the beneficiary, and determine whether the position qualifies as 
a specialty occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384 (5th Cir. 2000). 
Nevertheless, it is important to note that the court in Warren Chiropractic determined that the 
evidence in the record demonstrated that the particular position proffered required a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent as a minimum for entry. Further, the court noted that 
"[t]he patently specialized nature of the position sets it apart from those that merely require a generic 
degree." The position in Warren can, therefore, be distinguished from the instant position. Here, the. 
duties and requirements of the position as described in the record of proceeding do not indicate that 
this particular position proffered by the Petitioner is one for which a baccalaureate or higher degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry. Thus, the 
Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(l). 
The Petitioner has not provided documentation from a probative source to substantiate its assertion 
regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. Thus, the Petitioner has 
not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
B. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: '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[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
contemplates the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
I. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by 
USCIS include: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the 
industry's professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter of M-M-S-, LLC 
letters or affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms "routinely employ 
and recruit only degreed individuals. " See Shanti , Inc. v. Reno , 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 
1999)(quoting Hird!Blaker C01p. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook; or other authoritative source, reports a requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, we incorporate by reference the previous discussion on 
the matter. Also, the Petitioner did not submit any letters or affidavits from similar firms or 
individuals in the Petitioner's industry attesting' that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only 
degreed individuals." 
The Petitioner submitted an excerpt from the 
which offers guidance on planning for careers in healthcare management. According to the 
a bachelor's degree is "enough for some entry-level positions in healthcare administration, a few 
senior-level positions in smaller operations, and for some middle management jobs in larger 
organizations ." It also states, however, that "an undergraduate degree in health services 
management is not required to become a health services manager," and notes that degrees in 
business, nursing, or liberal arts may also be acceptable. While the also states that a master's 
degree is required "for almost every position in the healthcare management field," it indicates that a 
wide variety of degrees, including business administration, are acceptable vehicles for entry into this 
field. Without more, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position, which it 
designates as a Level I, entry-level position relative to others within the occupation, requires a 
degree in a specific specialty as a minimum requirement for entry. 
The Petitioner also submitted copies of job advertisements. However , upon review of the 
documents , we find that the Petitioner 's reliance on the job advertisements is misplaced. First, we 
note that some of the job postings do not appear to involve organizations similar to the Petitioner. 
For example, the Petitioner is a nine-person healthcare management company whereas the 
advertising organizations include: 
• - a hospital and healthcare system and third largest private employer in 
Kentucky; and 
. • -
a healthcare company with over employees that operates 
hospitals , over outpatient centers, and six health plans. 
When determining whether the Petitioner and the organization share the same general 
characteristics, such factors may include information regarding the nature or type of organization , 
and, when pertinent, the particular scope of operations , as well as the level of revenue and staffing 
(to list just a few elements that may be considered) .- It is not sufficient for the Petitioner to claim that 
an organization is similar and in the same industry without providing a legitimate basis for such an 
assertion. 
Moreover~ many of the advertisements do not appear to be for parallel positions. For example, some 
of the positions appear to be for more senior positions than the proffered position. The Petitioner has 
11 
Matter of M-M-S-, LLC 
not sufficiently established that the primary duties and responsibilities of the advertised positions are 
parallel to the proffered position. 
In addition, none of the postings indicate that at least a bachelor's degree in a directly related 
specific specialty (or its equivalent) is required16 The job postings suggest, at best, that although a 
bachelor's degree is sometimes required for director of medical staff relations positions, a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty (or its equivalent) is not.17 
As the documentation does not establish that the Petitioner has met this prong of the regulations, 
further analysis regarding the specific information contained in each of the job postings is not 
necessary. That is, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. Thus, the Petitioner 
has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can. be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
We reviewed the Petitioner's statements regarding the proffered position; however, in the appeal 
brief, the Petitioner does not assert that it satisfies this prong of the second criterion. Further, the 
Petitioner has not sufficiently developed relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the 
proffered position. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
16 As discussed, the degree requirement set by the statutory and regulatory framework of the H-1 B program is not just a 
bachelor's or higher degree, but a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the duties of the 
position. See section 214(i)(l)(b) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). Further, although a general-purpose 
bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business administration, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, 
requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a finding that a pri.rticular position qualifies for classification as a 
specialty occupation. Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d at 147. 
17 It must be noted that even if all of the job postings indicated that a requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations (which they do not), the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn rrom the advertisements with regard to 
determining the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. See 
generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 (1995). Moreover, given that there is no indication that 
the advertisements were randomly selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately determined even 
if the sampling unit were sufficiently large. See id. at 195-196 (explaining that "[r]andom selection is the key to [the] 
process [of probability sampling]" and that "random selection offers access to the body of probability theory, which 
provides the basis for estimates of population parameters and estimates of error"). 
12 
(b)(6)
Mauer of M-M-S- , LLC 
The third criterion of 8 C.F .R: § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)( A) entails an employer demonstrating that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 
In response to the RFE and again on appeal, the Petitioner acknowledge s that it has not previously 
employed an individual in the proffered position and confirms that there is no hiring history. The 
Petitioner has not satisfied the third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to 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 in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. 
We reviewed the Petitioner's job duties and the information regarding its business operations. 
However, the Petitioner does not assert and the evidence does not support a finding that it has 
satisfied this criterion. The duties of the position are not described in such a way that establishes 
that the duties require more than a general bachelor's degree. Although the Petitioner may desire a 
candidate with particular credentials, it has not submitted sufficient probative evidence explaining in 
detail how or why the proposed duties are so complex or specialized that they require a bachelor ' s 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, to perform them. Further, we incorporate our earlier 
discussion and analysis regarding the duties of the proffered position, and the designation of the 
proffered position in the LCA as a Level I position (the lowest of four assignable wage-levels) 
relative to others within the same occupational category. 18 
Finally, we again note opinion letter, where he claims that the Beneficiary's 
graduate-level education and experience significantly qualify her for the position. However, the test 
to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education or experience of a proposed 
beneficiary , but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner has not demonstrated in the record that its proffered 
position is one with duties 
sufficiently s pecialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)( 4). 
18 The Petitioner 's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its claim that the position is 
particularl y complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. Nevertheless , a 
Level I wage-designation does not prechide a proffered position from classification as a spec ialty occupation , just as a 
Level IV wage-designation does not definitively establish such a classificat ion. In certain occupa tions (e.g., doctors or 
lawyers), a Level I, entry-level position would still require a minimum of a bachelor' s degree in a specific specia lty, or 
its equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a LevellY wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation qualifies 
as a specialty occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific spec ialty, or its equivalent. That is, a position 's wage level designation may be a relevan t factor but is not 
itself conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)( I) of the Act. 
13 
Matter of M-M-S-, LLC 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The burden is on the 
Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 l&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden ha~ not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of M-M-S-, LLC, !D# 17913 (AAO July 18, 2016) 
14