dismissed H-1B Case: Healthcare Management

MATTER OF B-P-P- PC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 25,2017 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a medical clinic, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "management 
analyst" under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(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 of the Vermont Service Center revoked the approval of the petition, and reaffirmed the 
revocation on a subsequent motion to reopen and reconsider. The Petitioner then submitted an 
appeal. We dismissed the appeal on the basis that (1) the Director properly revoked the petition 
because the Petitioner was not employing the Beneficiary according to the terms and conditions of 
the approved petition; and (2) the job offered does not qualify as a specialty occupation under the 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
The matter is before us on a motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. In its combined motion, the 
Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that (1) it had not given the Beneficiary new 
duties; and (2) the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. We will deny the motions. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence of new facts, and a motion to reconsider is 
based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The requirements of a motion to reopen are 
located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2), and the requirements of a motion to reconsider are located at 
8 C.P.R. § 1 03.5(a)(3). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates 
eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
Matter of B-P-P- PC 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Motion to Reopen 
In our decision dismissing the appeal, we concluded that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. On motion, the Petitioner submits its job 
notice dated September 2012, letters from companies which posted that job notice, and vacancy 
announcements by other companies, as evidence of the position's qualification under the specialty 
occupation criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We will discuss the submitted documents 
below. 
The Petitioner submitted its September 2012 job notice for a part-time "health care management 
analyst" position as evidence of the Petitioner's normal employment practices under the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). While this job posting is new in that it was not previously 
submitted, it does not present new facts that would overcome our reasons for finding that the 
Petitioner did not satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). The same type of evidence, i.e., the 
Petitioner's earlier job posting dated March 2011, was previously submitted and considered 
insufficient on appeal. In particular, we stated in our prior decision that, although the Petitioner's 
job posting indicates a requirement of a bachelor's degree in a health field, that posting does not list 
job duties for the advertised position; thus we are unable to determine if the advertised position is 
similar or same as the proffered position. The Petitioner's newly submitted job posting again does 
not contain any job duties; thus, we are still unable to determine if the advertised position is similar 
to the proffered position. 
Also under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3), the Petitioner submits letters from three 
companies verifying that the Petitioner's September 2012 job notice was posted at their premises. 
However, the Petitioner has not explained the significance of these letters. Like the underlying job 
posting, these letters do not contain any details about the actual job duties to be performed. Thus, 
these letters do not establish whether the Petitioner's advertised position is similar or same as the 
proffered position. 
Additionally, the Petitioner submits three vacancy announcements for "management analyst" 
positions posted by an engineering company, a scientific, engineering and operational support 
company, and a federal government agency. The Petitioner submits these documents as evidence 
under the second alternative prong of the specialty occupation criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). Yet the Petitioner has not explained how these documents demonstrate that 
the Petitioner's job requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations. The Petitioner expressly acknowledges on motion that these vacancy announcements 
are "for different industry." 
A review of these vacancy announcements not only confirms that these companies are not in the 
same industry as the Petitioner, but also indicates that they are for dissimilar positions among 
dissimilar organizations. For example, the position for the federal agency requires the candidate to 
2 
.
Matter of B-P-P- PC 
perform job duties related to computer security programs and activities. These are not duties that the 
Petitioner has described for the Beneficiary. And contrary to the purpose for which the vacancy 
announcements were apparently submitted, none of the advertisements specify a minimum 
educational requirement of at least a bachelor's degree in a spectfic specialty, or the equivalent. 
Although the announcements indicate a requirement of at least a bachelor's degree plus "relevant" or 
"specialized" experience, the announcements do not further describe the type of bachelor's degree, 
or the type and amount of experience, required. 
The Petitioner has not submitted other documents that constitute as new evidence or otherwise 
demonstrate new facts that overcome our reasons for dismissing the appeal. Accordingly, the 
motion to reopen will be denied. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
In our decision dismissing the appeal, we concluded that Petitioner was not employing the 
Beneficiary according to the terms and conditions of the approved petition. More specifically, we 
recalled the results of an administrative site visit indicating that the Beneficiary was performing 
duties including billing and checking insurance. We noted some documentation's reference to the 
Beneficiary as a "medical manager-leader" and "training specialist," but not a management analyst. 
We also pointed out that the Petitioner's job description involving documentation duties for 
certification, and the submitted in response to the 
Director's notice of intent materially changed from the initial job description. 
On motion, the Petitioner does not directly address the Beneficiary's billing and insurance related 
duties. The Petitioner also does not address the Beneficiary's alternative job titles. The Petitioner 
thus has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary will only be performing specialty-occupation caliber 
duties that are consistent with the terms and conditions of the approved petition. 
Also on motion, the Petitioner claims that it did not give the Beneficiary new duties but instead 
expanded upon previously stated duties. The Petitioner explains that the duties of preparing 
documentation for certification, and the 
are not new because they are part of her initially stated "responsibility for improving efficiency of 
patient treatment." We are not persuaded. 
First, the Petitioner does not further explain how the Beneficiary's documentation duties for 
certification, and the are consistent with her initial 
job duty of "suggest ways to improve efficiency of patient treatment through Electronic medical 
records." The Petitioner initially described that duty as follows: 
Suggest ways to improve efficiency of patient treatment through Electronic 
medical records like giving preventative measures cares for the patient with 
Obesity, Diabetes Mellitus, Hypertension, etc., maintaining the system to make it 
3 
.
Matter of B-P-P- PC 
easy for the doctor and other employee to operate, inventory organization, 
billing management and effectively resolve their complaints and concerns. (20%) 
Although elsewhere in the record the Petitioner separately mentioned that the Beneficiary will be in 
charge of the ' application for program ... [for] getting the organization certificate 
for home health care1 ," the Petitioner did not mention this in the context of suggesting ways to 
improve efficiency of patient treatment through Electronic medical records. 
Indeed, the Petitioner's subsequent job descriptions confirm that these are all separate and distinct 
duties accounting for different percentages of the Beneficiary's time. In the job description 
submitted in response to the notice of intent to revoke, the Petitioner labeled the Beneficiary's 
responsibilities involving certification, and the 
as "duties for extra hours" that are "in addition" to the originally-listed duties. In the job 
description submitted with the motion on the Director's decision, the Petitioner even assigned 
different percentages of time to the duties of "suggest ways to improve efficiency of patient 
treatment" (20% of time), ·related duties (another 20% of time), certification 
duties (5% of time), and duties (another 5% of time). Thus, it 
appears that the Petitioner materially changed aspects of the proffered position over time, and was 
not employing the Beneficiary in the same capacity as initially described. 
Our prior decision also offered reasons why we believe the proffered position does not qualify as a 
specialty occupation. For instance, under the first specialty occupation criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), we discussed why the Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) does not 
support a finding that at least a bachelor's degree in a spec(fic specialty (or the equivalent) is 
normally required for entry into this or other positions under the "Management Analyst" occupation. 
We highlighted the Handbook's language indicating that degrees in various disparate fields (such as 
political science, accounting, psychology, and English) are adequate for entry into this occupational 
category, and the lack of evidence that these fields directly relate to the duties and responsibilities of 
this position. On motion, the Petitioner cites to our prior discussion of the Handbook, but does not 
specifically explain how our analysis was erroneous. 
Instead, the Petitioner repeats statements it previously made about the proffered position's 
educational requirement of "a Bachelor's degree in Medicine with knowledge of Management or 
equivalent." The Petitioner further repeats its belief that people without a bachelor's degree "will 
not be able to perform the duties as mentioned above, since only a person, who has the pertinent 
Baccalaureate Degree, will have the specific knowledge of Reasoning, Language and Mathematical 
Development as required for the position of Management Analyst." Nevertheless, the Petitioner has 
not explained how duties such as inventory organization, billing management, and checking 
insurance require such a bachelor's degree. 
1 
The Petitioner claims to be a medical clinic with "2+" employees, not a home health care provider. 
4 
Matter of B-P-P- PC 
The Petitioner additionally claims to have shown eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) 
and (4). But the Petitioner's statements on motion do not address the deficiencies we previously 
identified under those criteria, either. For instance we stated that, while a few related courses may 
be beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how an 
established curriculum of courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, is required to perform the duties of the proffered position. We also stated in our 
prior decision that information about the Beneficiary's qualifications for the position is not relevant 
to establishing the proffered position's qualification as a specialty occupation. The Petitioner has 
not sufficiently demonstrated how our analysis under these or other regulatory criteria was erroneous 
as a matter oflaw or policy. , 
The Petitioner has not established that our prior decision was incorrect at the time of that decision. 
Therefore, the motion to reconsider will be denied. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the requirements for a motion to reopen or a motion,to reconsider. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter of B-P-P- PC, ID# 432760 (AAO July 25, 2017) 
5