dismissed H-1B Case: Healthcare Management

(b)(6)
DATE: 
INRE: 
lUK 0 3 1.0\!l 
Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION RECEIPT #: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service! 
Administrative Appeals Office 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. 
If you believe we incorrectly decided your case, you may file a motion requesting us to reconsider our 
decision and/or reopen the proceeding. The require ments for motions are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. 
Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this 
decision. The Form I-290B web page (www.uscis.gov/i-290b) contains the latest information on fee, filing 
location, and other requirements. Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO. 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Se!Vice Center (hereinafter "the director") denied the 
nonimmigrant visa petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on 
appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
On the Form I-129 visa petition, the petitioner describes itself as a 20-employee "residential care 
facility for the elderly" established in In order to employ the beneficiary in what it identifies 
as a position located within the "Medical and Health Services Managers" occupational category, 
with "Operations Mana ger11 as its job title, the petitioner seeks to classify her as a nonimmigrant 
worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to section 101(a)(15) (H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 11 0l(a)(1 5)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the evidence of record does not demonstrate that 
the proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. 
The record of proceeding contains the following: (1 ) the Form I-1 29 and supporting documentati on; 
(2) the director's request for additional evidence (RFE); (3) the petitioner's response to the RFE; 
(4) the director's letter denying the petition; and (5) the Form I-290B, a brief, and supporting 
documentation. 
We find that, upon review of the entire record of proceeding, the evidence of record does not 
overcome the director's ground for denying this petition. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed, 
and the petition will be denied. 
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
As indicated above, the petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary in a position that it describes as 
an "Operations Manag er" on a part-time basis. The Labor Condition Application (LCA) that the 
petitioner submitted in support of the petition was certified for use with a job prospect within the 
"Medical and Health Services Manager" occupational classification, SOC (O *NET/OES) Code 
11 -9111, at a Level I prevailing wage rate. 
In a letter dated March 28, 2014, the petitioner's administrator described the petitioning company as 
follows: 
[The petitioner] is an assisted living facility located in California. 
Assisted living facilities are an apartm ent-style habitat designed to focus on 
providing assistance with daily living activitie s. They provide a higher level of 
services for the elderly which can include preparing meals, housekeeping, 
medication assist ance, laundry, and also perform regular check-in's [sic] on the 
residents. Basically, they are designed to bridge the gap between independent 
living and nursing home facilities. 
The petitioner's administrator further stated that the beneficiary's specific duties would be as 
follows: 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
• Plan, organize and hands-on management of the day-to-day practice 
operations including superv1smg and monitoring/managing staff 
performance. Including: staff enrollment, initial and ongoing staff training 
and education, staff EMR use and functionality, staff medical record keeping, 
manag ing and rectifying patient complaints immediately and in a satisfactory 
manner. 
• Physician management and interaction. 
• Assist in new program development and manag e full implementation in the 
practice from promotion to staff education/training to patient flow, billing 
and documentation. 
• Ensure the recruitment, development, motivation, and retention of top notch 
administr ative and clinical staff. 
• Coordinate and monitor patient flow and take action to ensure timely, quality 
and compassionate care. Prepare a variety of written reports including 
budget, financial, inventory, staffing, payr oll, and other HR reports as 
identified. 
• Identify opportunities for increased sales growth and profitability and assist 
with developing new services and strategic alliances to better serve patients. 
• Ensure compliance with practice policies and procedures including patient 
confidentiality and [HIP AA]. 
• Manage technical support including information technology and 
administrative requirement. 
The petitioner's administrator stated the following regarding the requirements of the position: 
The position requires the application of technology and principles that can only 
be gained through attainment of at least a Bachelor's degree or its foreign 
equivalent in Business Administration, Nursing, or a related field. 
The director found the initial evidence insufficient to establish eligibility for the benefit sought, and 
issued an RFE on June 4, 2014. The petitioner was asked to submit probative evidence to establish 
that a specialty occupation position exists for the beneficiary. The director outlined the specific 
evidence to be submitted. 
In response to the director's RFE, the petitioner submitted the following, inter alia: a letter further 
detailing the position and its duties; the petitioner's organizational chart; excerpts from O*Net 
Online, the Occupational Outlook Handbook, and the State of California Employment Development 
Department website pertaining to Medical and Health Services Managers; a letter from Associate 
(b)(6)
NON -PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
Professor submitted for consideration as an expert opinion letter to establish 
that the proffered position is a specialty occupation and the writer's credentials; the petitioner's job 
postings for the proffered position; corporate and tax documentation perta ining to the petitioner; 
photos of the petitioner's facility; and the petitioner's brochure. 
In the August 26, 2014 letter from the petitioner's counsel submitted in response to the RFE, the 
beneficiary's duties were expanded. The following duties of the proffered position were provided: 
• Specific Job Description: Operations Manager 
• Conduct and administer fiscal operations, including accounting, 
planning budgets, authorizing expenditures, establishing rates for 
services, and coordinating financial reporting. 
• Direct, supervise and evaluate work activities of medical, nursing, 
technical, clerical, service, maintenance, and other personnel. 
• Maintain communication between governing boards, medical staff, 
and department heads by attending board meetings and coordination 
[of] interdepartmental functioning. 
• Review and analyze facility activities and data to aid planning and 
cash and risk management and to improve service utilizat ion. 
• Plan, implement and administer programs and services in a health 
care or medical facility, including personnel administration, training, 
and coordination of medical, nursing and physical plant staff. 
• Direct or conduct recruitment, hiring and training of personnel. 
• Establish work schedules and assignments for staff, according to 
workload, space and equipment availab ility. 
• Maintain awareness of advances in medicine, computerized 
diagnostic and treatment equipment, data processing technology, 
government regulations, health insurance changes, and financing 
options. 
• Monitor the use of diagnostic services, inpatient beds, facilities, and 
staff to ensure effective use of resources and asses the need for 
additional staff, equipment, and services. 
• Develop and maintain computerized record ma nagement systems to 
store and process data such as personnel activities and information, 
and to produce reports. 
-- -- -- --- -�---- ---
(b)(6)
NON -PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
We note here that counsel revised the job duties from the job description provided to USCIS with 
the initial petition. Notably, the "revised" job description duplicates virtually verbatim the tasks 
from the occupational category "Medical and Health Services Managers" as described in the 
Occupational Information Network (O*NET) Code Connector. That is, all of the duties provided by 
counsel have been recited from the description from O*NET Code Connector for the occupational 
category "Medical and Health Services Managers . " Specifically O*NET states, in pertinent part, 
the following regarding the occupational category "Medical and Health Services Man agers" Code--
11 -91 11 .00: 
• Conduct and administer fiscal operations, including accounting, planning budgets, 
authorizing expenditures, establishing rates for services, and coordinating financial 
reporting. 
• Direct, supervise and evaluate work activities of medical, nursing, technical, clerical, 
service, maintenance, and other personnel. 
• Ma intain communication between governing boards, medical staff, and department 
heads by attending board meetings and coordinating interdepartmental functioning. 
• Review and analyze facility activities and data to aid planning and cash and risk 
management and to improve service utilization. 
• Plan, implement and administer programs and services in a health care or medical 
facility, including personnel administration, training, and coordination of medical , 
nursing and physical plant staff. 
• Direct or conduct recruitment, hiring and training of personnel. 
• Establish work schedules and assignments for staff, according to workload, space and 
equipment availability. 
• Mainta in awareness of advances in medicine, computerized diagnostic and treatment 
equipment, data processing technology, government regulations, health insurance 
changes, and financing options. 
• Monitor the use of diagnostic services, inpatient beds, facilities, and staff to ensure 
effective use of resources and assess the need for additional staff, equipment, and 
services. 
• Develop and maintain computerized record management systems to store and process 
data such as personnel activities and information, and to produce reports. 
Employment & Training Administration, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Information Network 
(O*NET) Code Connector, Medical and Health Services Managers -- Code 11- 9111. 00 available at 
http://www .onetonline.org/link/summary/11 -9111. 00 (last visited May 27, 2015). 
The director reviewed the documentation and found it insufficient to establish eligibility for the 
benefit sought. The director denied the petition on October 25, 2014 . On appeal, counsel submits a 
brief and additional documentation in support of the petition. 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
As a preliminary matter and in light of counsel's references to the requirement that U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) apply the "preponderance of the evidence" standard, we affirm 
that, in the exercise of our appellate review in this matter , as in all matters that come within our 
purview, we follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in the controlling 
precedent decision, Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 36 9, 375-376 (AAO 2010). In pertinent part, 
that decision states the following: 
I d. 
Except where a different standard is specified by law, a petitioner or applicant in 
administrative immigration proceedings must prove by a preponderance of evidence 
that he or she is eligible for the benefit sought. 
* * * 
The "preponderance of the evidence" of "truth" is made based on the factual 
circumsta nces of each individual case. 
* * * 
Thus, in adjudicating the application pursuant to the preponderance of the evidence 
standard, the director must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative 
value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the 
evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true. 
Even if the director has some doubt as to the truth, if the petitioner submits relevant, 
probative, and credible evidence that leads the director to believe that the claim is 
"more likely than not" or "probably" true, the applicant or petitioner has satisfied the 
standard of proof. See INS v. Cardoza-Foncesca, 480 U.S. 421, 431 (1 987) 
(discussing "more likely than not" as a greater than 50% chance of an occurrence 
taking place). If the director can articulate a material doubt, it is appropriate for the 
director to either request additional evidence or, if that doubt leads the director to 
believe that the claim is probably not true, deny the application or petition. 
We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004). In doing so, we apply the preponderance of the evidence standard as outlined in Matter of 
Chawathe. Upon our review of the present matter pursuant to that standard, however, we find that 
the evidence in the record of proceeding does not support counsel's contentions that the evidence of 
record requires that the petition at issue be approved. Applying the preponderance of the evidence 
standard as stated in Matter of Chawathe, we find that upon our review of the entire record of 
proceeding, and with close attention and due regard to all of the evidence, separately and in the 
aggregate, submitted in support of this petition, the pet itioner has not established that its specialty 
occupation claim is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. As the evidentiary analysis of this 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
decision will reflect, the petitioner has not submitted relevant, probative, and credible evidence that 
leads us to believe that the petitioner's claims are "more likely than not" or "probably" true. 
III. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
We will now address the director's determination that the proffered position is not a specialty 
occupation. Based upon a complete review of the record of proceeding, we find that the evidence of 
record does not establish that the position as described constitutes a specialty occupation. 
A. Legal Framework 
To meet the petitioner's burden of proof with regard to the proffered position's classification as an 
H-lB specialty occupation, the petitioner must establish that the employment it is offering to the 
beneficiary meets the following statutory and regulatory requirements. 
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) atta inment 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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 21 4.2(h)(4)(ii) states, in pertinent part, the following: 
Specialty occupation means an occupation which [(1)] 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 [(2)] 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 occupat ion, a proposed position 
must also meet one of the following criteria: 
(1) 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; 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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. 
As a threshold issue, it is noted that 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( h)(4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together 
with section 214 (i)(1) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). In other words, this regulatory 
language must be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the statute 
as a whole. SeeK Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) (holding that construction 
of language which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is preferred); see also 
COlT Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1 989); 
Matter of W-F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). As such, 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 stat utory or regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 
F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this result, 8 C.F.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. 
As such and consonant with section 214(i)(1) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) consistently interprets 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 cine in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered 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"). Applying this standa rd, USCIS regularly approves H-1B petitions for qualified aliens 
who are to be employed as engineers, computer scientists, certified public accountants, college 
professors, and other such occupations. These professions, for which petitioners have regularly 
been able to establish a minimum entry requirement in the United States of a baccalaureate or 
higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent directly related to the duties and 
responsibilities of the pa rticular position fairly represent the types of specialty occupations that 
Congress contemplated when it created the H-lB visa category. 
To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCIS 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. users must examine the 
ultimate employment of the alien, and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. 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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
B. Preliminary Findings 
1. Regarding the Proffered Position's Duties and the Relative Complexity of the Position 
As previously mentioned, the description of the proffered position as provided by counsel in 
response to the RFE is recited from the occupationa l category "Medical and Health Services 
Managers" as described in the O*NET Code Connector. We note that simply copying a job 
description from O*NET (or other source) is generally not sufficient for establishing H-lB 
eligibility. That is, while this type of generalized description may be appropriate when defining the 
range of duties that may be performed within an occupational category, it generally cannot be relied 
upon by a petitioner when discussing the duties att ached to specific employment for H-lB approval. 
That is, the description for an occupational category does not adequately convey the substantive 
work that the beneficiary will perform within the petitioner's business operations and, thus, 
generally cannot be relied upon by a petitioner when discussing the duties atta ched to specific 
employment. More specifically, in establishing a position as a specialty occupation, a petitioner 
must describe the specific duties and responsibilities to be performed by a beneficiary in the context 
of the petitioner's business operations, demonstrate a legitimate need for an employee exists, and 
substantiate that it has H-lB caliber work for the beneficiary for the period of employment 
requested in the petit ion. 
In the instant case, it is not evident that the proposed duties as described in this record of 
proceeding, and the position that they comprise, merit recognition of the proffered position as a 
specialty occupation. To the extent that they are described, we find the proposed duties do not 
provide a sufficient factual basis for conveying the substantive matters mat would engage the · 
beneficiary in the actual performance of the proffered position for the entire period requested, so as 
to persuasively support the claim that the position's actual work would require the theoretical and 
practical application of any particular educational level of highly specialized knowledge in a 
specific specialty directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the proffered position, or its 
equivalent. The job description does not communicate (1) the actual work that the beneficiary 
would perform on a day-t o-day basis; (2) the complexity, uniqueness and/or specialization of the 
tasks; and/or (3) the correlation between that work and a need for a particular level education of 
highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. 
More specifically, the duty descriptions in the record lack sufficient detail and concrete explanation to 
establish the substantive nature of the work and associated applications of specialized knowledge that 
their actual performance would require within the context of the petitioner's particular business 
operations. Take for example the following duty descriptions provided by the petitioner with the initial 
H -lB submission: 
Assist in new program development and manage full implementation in the practice 
from promotion to staff education/training to patient flow, billing and 
documentation. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
Manage technical support including information technology and administra tive 
equipment 
The evidence of record contains neither substantive explanation nor documentation showing the range 
and volume of the program development that the beneficiary would assist in and manage in 
implementing. Nor does the record contain substantive explanation or documentation showing the 
volume and range of information technology and administrative equipment that the beneficiary would 
be expected to manage. Likewise, the petitioner does not provide substantive information with regard 
to the particular work, methodologies, and applications of knowledge that would be required for the 
above-referenced duties. 
Overall, we find that the description of the duties of the proffered position does not adequately 
convey the substantive work that the beneficiary will perform within the petitioner's business 
operations. The description of the beneficiary's duties lacks the specificity and detail necessary to 
support the petitioner's assertion that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Thus, we conclude that, as generally described as all of the elements of the constituent duties are, 
they do not - even in the aggregate - establish the nature of the position or the nature of the 
position's duties as more complex, specialized, and/or unique than those of Medical and Health 
Services Manager positions that do not require the services of a person with at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent. 
In addition, when attempting to understand the actual duties of the proffered position and the level 
of complexity they may require, we look to the LCA submitted with the petition. The LCA 
provides not only the classification the petitioner believes most closely corresponds to the duties of 
its proffered position but also provides the petitioner's attestation regarding the appropriate 
prevailing-wage level attac hed to the level of responsibilities and complexity of tasks inherent in the 
position. As noted above, by submitting an LCA certified for a Level I prevailing-wage rate, the 
petitioner asserted that the proffered position only merited that prevailing-wage rate, the lowest of 
the four possible prevailing-wag e rates. 
Wage levels attested to for submission of an LCA should be determined only after selecting the 
most relevant Occupational Information Network (O*NET) code classification. Then, a prevailing 
wage determination is made by selecting one of four wage levels for an occupation based on a 
comparison of the employer's job requirements to the occupational requirements, including tasks, 
knowledge, skills, and specific vocational preparation (education, training and experience) generally 
required for acceptable performance in that occupation. 
Prevailing wage determinations start with a Level I (entry) and progress to a wage that is 
commensurate with that of a Level II (qualified), Level III (experienced), or Level IV (fully 
competent) after considering the job requirements, experience, education, special skills/other 
requirements and supervisory duties. Fa ctors to be considered when determining the prevailing­
wage level for a position include the complexity of the job duties, the level of judgment, the amount 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
and level of supervision, and the level of understanding required to perform the job duties.1 U.S. 
Department of Labor (DOL) emphasizes that these guidelines should not be implemented in a 
mechanical fashion and that the wage level should be commensurate with the complexity of the 
tasks, independent judgment required, and amount of close supervision received. 
The wage levels are defined in DOL's "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance." A Level 
I wage rate, the attested wage level in this matter, is described as follows: 
Level I (entry) wage rates are assigned to job offers for beginning level employees 
who have only a basic understanding of the occupation. These employees perform 
routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment. The tasks provide 
experience and familiarization with the employer 's methods, practices, and program s. 
The employees may perform higher level work for training and developmental 
purposes. These employees work under close supervision and receive specific 
instructions on required tasks and results expected. Their work is closely monitored 
and reviewed for accuracy. Statements that the job offer is for a research fellow, a 
worker in training, or an internship are indicators that a Level I wage should be 
considered. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, 
Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://www .foreignlaborcert. 
doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC _Guidan ce_ Revised _11 _ 2009.pdf. 
Here, the petitioner's submission of an_LCA certified for only a Level I, entry-level prevailing-wage 
signifies the petitioner's endorsement of the appropriateness of a characterization of the proffered 
position as a comparatively low, entry-level position relative to others within the occupation. That 
is, in accordance with the relevant DOL explanatory information on prevailing-wage levels, this 
wage rate indicates the petitioner's assertion that the beneficiary is only required to have a basic 
understanding of the occupation and carries expectations that the beneficiary perform routine tasks 
that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; that she would be closely supervised; that her 
work would be cl osel y mon itored and reviewed for accur acy; and that she would receive specific 
instructions on required tasks and expected results. As noted above, according to DOL guidance, a 
statement that the job offer is for a research fellow, worker in training or an internship is indicative 
that a Level I wage should be considered. This designation undermines any assertions that the 
proffered position or its constituent duties are particularly specialized, complex, and/or unique 
1 A point system is used to assess the complexity of the job and assign the wage level. Step 1 requires a "1" 
to represent the job's requirements, Step 2 addresses experience and must contain a "0" (for at or below the 
level of experience and SVP range), a "1" (low end of experience and SVP), a "2'' (high end), or "3" (greater 
than range), Step 3 considers education required to perform the job duties, a "1" (more than the usual 
education by one category) or "2" (more than the usual education by more than one category). Step 4 
accounts for Special Skills requirements that indicate a higher level of complexity or decision-making with a 
"1"or a "2" entered as appropriate. Finally, Step 5 addresses Supervisory Duties, with a "1" entered unless 
supervision is generally required by the occupation, 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
relative to others within the same occupational category. 
The abstract level of information provided regarding the duties of the proffered position and the 
wage level designated by the petitioner on the LCA does not provide sufficient information 
regarding the petitioner's position to determine that the position proffered here is a specialty 
occupation position. The petitioner has not provided sufficient details regarding the nature and 
scope of the beneficiary's employment or substantive evidence regarding the actual work that the 
beneficiary would perform. The record lacks evidence sufficiently concrete and informative to 
demonstrate that the proffered position requires a specialty occupation's level of knowledge in a 
specific specialty. The tasks as described do not communicate (1) the substantive nature and scope 
of the beneficiary's employment; (2) the actual work that the beneficiary would perform; (3) the 
complexity, uniqueness and/or specialization of the tasks; and/or (4) the correlation between that 
work and a need for a particular educational level of highly specialized knowledge in a specific 
specialty (or its equivalent). Consequently, this precludes a determination that the petitioner's 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation under the pertinent statutory and regulatory 
provisions. 
2. Regarding Associate Professor 
Educational Requirements 
Evaluation of the Position's 
In support of the assertion that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, the 
petitioner submitted an August 21, 2014 letter from M.B.B.S. , M.P.H., 
Ph.D., an Associate Professor in the Department of Epidemiology at 
Mter detailing the duties of the proffered position, which were the same as was 
provided by counsel in response to the RFE (which, as noted above, are repeated virtually verbatim 
from O*Net), Professor made the following assertions: 
The duties of the Operations Manager are complex and specialized. In order to 
perform these job duties, an individual must have in-depth knowledge of medical 
information and HIPPAregulations. The acquisition of these critical knowledge and 
skills and their integration into usable wisdom requires the courses and integration of 
those courses that would be received in a Bachelor's Degree in Nursing. 
* * * 
Because [the position] involves the theoretical and practice application of a 
specialized body of knowledge, the minimum requirement for the position of 
Operations Mana ger as an Industry Standard requires at least a Bachelor's degree, or 
the equivalent, in Health, Nursing or any related field for this position. 
* * * 
In summary, I conclude that the position of Operations Manager for [the petitioner] 
would quality as a specialty occupation requiring a minimum of a Bachelor's Degree 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
in Nursing or closing related field as an industry standard. The job duties show that 
it is a highly specialized position ..... 
We reviewed the letter in its entirety. However, as discussed below, the letter from Professor 
is not persuasive in establishing that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation position. 
Upon review of the opinion letter from Professor we find that there is no indication 
that Professor possesses any substantive knowledge of the petitioner's proffered 
position and its business operations. Professor 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 of the petitioner's business enterprise. Moreover, Professor 
does not indicate that she visited the petitioner's business, observed the petitioner's 
employees, interviewed them about the nature of their work, or documented the knowledge that 
these workers apply on the job. Her level of fam iliarity with the actual job duties as they would be 
performed in the context of the petitioner's business has therefore not been substantiated. 
Furthermore, there is no indication that the petitioner and counsel advised Professor 
that the petitioner characterized the proffered position as low and entry-level, and for a beginning 
employee who has only a basic understanding of the occupation (as indicated by the Level I wage­
level on the LCA). As explained above, that prevailing-wa ge rate is appropriate for a position in 
which the beneficiary will only be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, 
exercise of judgment; will be closely supervised and his work closely monitored and reviewed for 
accuracy; and will receive specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. We find this 
to be a relevant aspect of the position, as it reflects an assessment that the proffered position is of 
relatively low complexity in relation to other jobs within the position's occupational group. In this 
respect too, we consider this a significant omission, and find that Professor optmon is 
not based upon a sufficient factual foundation. Without this information, the petitioner has not 
demonstrated that Professor possessed the requisite information necessary to 
adequately assess the nature of the petitioner's position and appropriately determine the educational 
requirements based upon the job duties and responsibilities. 
The conclusions reached by Professor are not supported by any persuasive degree of 
analytical and factu al content and are not supplemented by independent, objective evidence 
supporting her findings and ultimate opinion. Consequently, we find that Professor 
submission is not probative evidence toward satisfying any criterion of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 21 4.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), and we treat it accordingly. 
We, in our discretion, may use as advisory opinion statements submitted as expert testimony. 
However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, 
we are not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Matter of Caron 
International, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 198 8). As a reasonable exercise of its discretion we 
discount the advisory opinion letter as not probative of any criterion of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A). It should be noted that, for efficiency's sake, the above discussion and 
(b)(6)
NON- PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
analysis regarding Professor letter is hereby incorporated as part of this decision's 
later analyses of the criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 214 .2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
Based upon a complete review of the record of proceeding, we find that the petitioner has not 
established (1) the substantive nature and scope of the beneficiary's employment; (2) the actual 
work that the beneficiary would perform; (3) the complexity, uniqueness and/or specialization of 
the tasks; and/or (4) the correlation between that work and a need for a particular educational level 
of highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. Consequently, this precludes a 
determination that the petitioner's proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation under the 
pertinent statutory and regulatory provisions. 
Irrespective of the above findings, we will continue to discuss the evidence of record to identify 
other evidentiary deficiencies that preclude us from reasonably determining that the petition has 
satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 21 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). 
C. Application of the Criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2( h)(4)(iii)(A) 
We will first discuss the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which is satisfied by 
establishing that a baccalaureate or higher degree, or its equivalent, in a specific specialty is 
normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position that is the subject of the 
petition. 
We recognize DOL's Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on 
the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations it addresses. 2 As noted 
above, the LCA that the petitioner submitted in support of this petition was certified for a job offer 
falling within the rrMedical and Health Services Manag ersrr occupational category. 
The subchapter of the Handbook entitled "How to Become a Medical and Health Services Manager" 
states, in relevant part, the following about this occupational category: 
Most medical and health services managers have at least a bachelor's degree before 
entering the field; however, master's degrees also are common. Requirements vary 
by facility. 
Education 
Medical and health services managers typically need at least a bachelor's degree to 
enter the occupation. However, master's degrees in health services, long-term care 
administrati on, public health, public administration, or business administration also 
are common. 
2 The Handbook, which is available in printed form, may also be accessed online at 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh. This office's references to the Handbook are from the 2014-15 edition availa ble 
online. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISJO} 
Page 15 
Prospective medical and health services managers should have a bachelor's degree in 
health administration. These programs prepare students for higher level management 
jobs than programs that graduate students with other degrees. Courses needed for a 
degree in health administration often include hospital organization and management, 
accounting and budgeting, human resources. administration, strategic planning, law 
and ethics, health economics, and health information systems. Some programs allow 
students to specialize in a particular type of facility, such as a hospital, a nursing care 
home, a mental health facility, or a group medical practice. Graduate programs often 
last between 2 and 3 years and may include up to 1 year of supervised administrative 
experience. 
* * * 
Work Experience in a Related Occupation 
Some facilities may hire those with specialized experience in a healthcare occupation 
in addition to administrative experience. For example, nursing service administrators 
usually are supervisory registered nurses with administrative experience and 
graduate degrees in nursing or health administrati on. 
Licenses, Certifications, and Registrations 
All states require nursing care facility administrators to be licensed; requirements 
vary by state. In most states, these administrators must have a bachelor's degree, 
pass a licensing exam, and complete a state-a pproved training program. Some states 
also require administrators in assisted-living facilities to be licensed. A license is not 
required in other areas of medical and health services management. 
Although certification is not required, some managers choose to become certified. 
Certification is available in many areas of practice. For example, the 
offers certification in health 
information management or medical management, while the 
offers the Certified Nursing Home Administrator and 
Certified Assisted Living Administrator distinctions. 
Advancement 
Medical and health services managers advance by moving into more responsible and 
higher paying positions. In large hospitals, graduates of health administration 
programs usually begin as administrative assistants or assistant department heads. In 
small hospitals or nursing care facilities, they may begin as department heads or 
assistant administrators. Some experienced managers also may become consultants 
or professors of healthcare management . The level of the starting position varies with 
the experience of the applicant and the size of the organization. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 16 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., 
Medical and Health Services Managers, available at http://www .bls.gov/ooh/ management/medical­
and-health-services-m anagers.htm#tab-4 (last visited May 27, 2015). 
According to the Handbook, the requirements for medical and health services managers vary by 
facility. The Handbook also states that medi cal and health services managers typically need an 
advanced degree to enter the occupation, but it further clarifies that various fields are common 
(health services, long-term care administration, public health, public administration, or business 
administration). The Handbook specifies that prospective employees should have a bachelor's 
degree in health administra tion, and then explains that health administration programs prepare 
students for higher level management jobs than programs that graduate students with other degrees.3 
The Handbook elucidates that the courses needed for a degree in health administration often include 
hospital organization and management, accounting and budgeting, human resources administration, 
strategic planning, law and ethics, health economics, and health information systems. It continues 
by stating that some fac ilities may hire those with specialized experience in a healthcare occupation 
in addition to administrative experience, such as supervisory registered nurses with administrative 
experience and graduate degrees in nursing or health administration. The narrative of the Handbook 
concludes that the level of a starting position varies with the experience of the applicant and the size 
of the organization. 
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 services and 
business administration, as well as public administration and nursing). While the Handbook 
indicates that prospective employees "should" have a degree in health administrati on - it does not 
indicate that such a degree is required; but, rather, that these programs prepare students for higher 
level management jobs than programs that graduate students with other degrees. The Handbook's 
statement suggests that "other degree programs" would be sufficient for lower level management 
jobs in this occupation. 
In general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and bioch emistry, 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 21 4(i)(1)(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 the petitioner establishes how each field is directly 
related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position such that the required body of 
3 In the subsection entitled "A dvancemen t,'' the Handbook states that gradu ates of health administration 
programs usually begin as administrative assistants or assistant department heads in large hospitals, and that 
they may begin as department heads or assistant administrators in small hospitals or nursing care facilities. 
(b)(6)
NON -PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 17 
highly specialized knowledge is essentially an amalgamation of these different specialt ies.4 Section 
214 (i)(1 )(B) of the Act (emphasis added). 
The Handbook states that a degree in business administration would be sufficient for medical and 
health services manager jobs. The petitioner made the same assertion in its March 28, 20 14 letter. 
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. Cherto ff, 484 F.3d 14 7.5 
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, and the petitioner's confirmation that it 
would also accept that credential, strongly suggest that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is 
not normally the minimum entry requirement for this occupation. 
Thus, the Handbook does not support the claim that the occupational category "Medical and Health 
Services Manage rs" is one for which normally the minimum requirement for entry is a 
baccalaureate degree (or higher) in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Even if it did (which it 
does not), to satisfy the first criterion, the petitioner must provide evidence to support a finding that 
4 Whether read with the statutory "the" or the regulatory "a," both readings denote a singular "specialty." 
Section 214(i)(1)(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 permit, 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. 
5 Specifically, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit explained in Royal Siam that: 
!d. 
[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-1B specialty occupation visa. See, e.g., Tapis Int'l v. INS, 94 
F.Su pp.2 d 172, 175-76 (D.Mass. 2000); Shanti, 36 F. Supp.2d at 1164-66; cf Matter of 
Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I & N Dec. 558, 560 ([Comm' r] 1988) (providing frequently 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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 18 
the particular position proffered would normally have such a minimum, specialty degree 
requirement or its equivalent. 
Next, we are not persuaded by counsel's ref erence to O*NET OnLine in her response to the 
director1s RFE. O*NET OnLine is not particularly useful in determining whether a baccalaureate 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is a requirement for a given position, as O*NET 
OnLine1s pertinent Job Zone designations makes no mention of the specific field of study from 
which a degree must come. As was noted previously, we interpret the term "degree" in the criteria 
at 8 C.P.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 proffered position. Also, the Specialized Vocational 
Preparation (SVP) rating is meant to indicate only the total number of years of vocational 
preparation required for a particular position. 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. For all of these reasons, the references made by 
counsel to O *NET OnLine are of little evidentiary value to the issue presented on appeal. 
When, as here, the Handbook does not support the proposition that a proffered position satisfies the 
first criterion of 8 C.P.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it is incumbent upon the petitioner to provide 
persuasive evidence that the proffered position otherwise satisfies the criterion, notwithstanding the 
absence of the Handbook's support on the issue. In such case, it is the petitioner's responsibility to 
provide probative evidence (e.g., documentation from other authoritative sources) that supports a 
favorable finding with regard to this criterion. The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214 .2(h)(4)(iv) provides 
that "[a]n H-1B petition involving a specialty occupation shall be accompanied by [d]ocumentation 
... or any other required evidence sufficient to establish .. . that the services the beneficiary is to 
perform are in a specialty occupation. " Here, the petitioner has not done so. 
As the evidence in the record of proceeding does not establish that at least a baccalaureate degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the 
particular position that is the subject of this petition, the petitioner has not satisfied the criterion 
described at 8 C.P.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l ). 
Next, we find that the petitioner has not sa tisfied the first of the two alternative prongs of 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214 .2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). This prong alternatively calls for a petitioner to establish that a 
requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common for 
positions that are identifiable as being (1) in the petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered 
position, and also (3) located in organizations that are similar to the petitioner. 
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 
industris professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether 
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 at 116 5 
(D.Minn. 1999) (quoting Hird/Blaker Cor p. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095 , 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 19 
Here and as already discussed, the petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for 
which the Handbook reports an industry-wide requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. Also, the record contains no letters or affidavits from firms or persons in the 
industry attesting to such a requirement. Further, there is no evidence of a professional association 
having made a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, a minimum requirement for 
entry. 
Next, we find that the job-vacancy announcements submitted by the petitioner do not satisfy this 
alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), either. That is, neither the job-vacancy 
announcements themselves nor any other evidence within the record of proceeding establish that 
those advertisements pertain to positions that are parallel to the proffered position, as required for 
evidence to merit consideration under the first alternative prong is position. In this regard, we make 
several specific findings. 
First, while some of the advertisements bear the title "Operations Mana ger," it is the nature of the 
duties comprising the advertised positions that would determine whether those positions are in fact 
parallel to the proffered position. However, we see that the duty descriptions of the advertised 
positions and their constituent duties are not substantially similar to the proffered position's duties 
as stated in the petitioner's letters. We also see that the extensive experience that some of the job 
advertisements specify as hiring requirements suggests that they involve the application of greater 
occupational knowledge than the proffered position.6 So, the job-vacancy advertisements do not 
establish that the advertised positions are "parallel" to the proffered position. 
In addition, the submitted advertisements do not all specify a requirement for a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. By way of example, the 
advertisement for a "Manger of Operatio ns" only states "Bachelor's degree" without any 
specification of any particular academic major. 
As the submitted vacancy- announcements are not probative evidence toward satisfying this 
criterion, further analysis of their content is not necessary. 
Therefore, the petitioner has not satisfied the first of the two alternative prongs of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), as the evidence of record does not establish that a requirement of a 
bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common for positions that are 
6 By way of example, the advertisement for an "Operations Manager/Administrator" states 
"2 years of Operations level experience in a similar firm with extensive healthcare staffing experience in both 
per diem and travel. .. Knowledge of GSA contracting ... Experience in successfully writing proposals for 
RFPs for contracts nationwide." advertisement for an "Operations 
Manager" states "Medical license (PA, RN, L VN, EMTP) with experience in resuscitation ... BLS, ACLS, 
PALS Instructor Credentials ... Previous experience in sales ... Previous experience teaching medical 
courses." advertisement for an "Operations Manager " states "Experience in multi­
location business ... Knowledge and experience in organizational effectiveness and operations management ." 
The extensive experience that these job advertisements specify as hiring requirements suggests that they 
involve the application of greater occupational knowledge than the proffered position, which the petitioner 
described on the LCA as a Level I, entry-level positio n. 
(b)(6)
NON -PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 20 
identifiable as being (1 ) in the petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered position, and also 
(3) located in organizations that are similar to the petitioner. 
Next, we find that the evidence of record does not satisfy the second alternative prong of 
8 C.P.R. § 21 4.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which provides that "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." 
The statements of counsel and the petitioner with regard to the claimed complex and unique nature 
of the proffered position are acknowledged. However, as reflected in our earlier comments and 
findings regarding the record's description of the duties comprising the proffered position, the 
petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish why it is more likely than not that the 
proffered position can only be performed by a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. We here refer the petitioner back to our comments and findings with 
regard to the generalized and relatively abstract terms in which the proposed duties and the position 
that they are said to comprise were presented. They simply do not establish a level of complexity or 
specialization that would elevate the proffered position above positions in the Medical and Health 
Services Managers occupational group that the Handbook's information indicates can be performed 
by persons without a bachelor's or higher degree, or the equivalent, in a specific specialty. 
Aside from such evidentiary deficiencies, reliance upon the petitioner's assertions of relative job 
complexity or uniqueness is further undermined by the fact that the petitioner submitted an LCA 
certified for a job prospect with a wage-level that is only appropriate for a comparatively low, entry­
level position relative to others within its occupation. We incorporate here by reference and 
reiterate our earlier discussion regarding the LCA and its indication that the petitioner would be 
paying a wage-rate that is only appropriate for a low-level, entry position relative to others within 
the occup ation: this factor is inconsistent with the level of relati ve complexity or uniqueness 
required to satisfy this criterion. Based upon the wage rate selected by the petitioner, the 
beneficiary is only required to have a basic understanding of the occupation. Moreover, that wage 
rate indicates that the beneficiary will perform routine tasks requiring limited, if any, exercise of 
independent judgment; that the beneficiary's work will be closely supervised and monitored; that 
she will receive spec ific instructions on required tasks and ex pected results; and that her work will 
be reviewed for accuracy. 7 
As the evidence of record therefore does not establish how the beneficiary's responsibilities and 
day-to-day duties comprise a position so complex or unique that the position can be performed only 
by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent, the 
petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong at 8 C.P.R. § 21 4.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
7 See also Caremax v. Holder, ---F. Supp. 2d----, 2014 WL 1493621 (N.D. Cal. 2014), "[a]n entry level 
position with entry level pay is hardly so complex or unique that it requires an applicant with a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty." 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 21 
We turn next to the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 21 4.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3), which entails an employer 
demonstrating that it normally requires a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty or its 
equivalent for the position. 
Our review of the record of proceeding under this criterion necessarily includes whatever evidence 
the petitioner has submitted with regard to its past recruiting and hiring practices and employees 
who previously held the position in question. 
To satisfy this criterion, the record must contain documentary evidence demonstrating that the 
petitioner has a history of requiring the degree or degree equivalency, in a specific specialty, in its prior 
recruiting and hiring for the position. Additionally, the record must establish that the imposition of a 
degree requirement is not merely a matter of preference for high-caliber candidates but is necessitated 
by the performance requirements of the proffered position.8 
Were USCIS limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, then any 
individual with a bachelor's degree could be brought to the United States to perform any occupation 
as long as the employer artificially created a token degree requirement, whereby all individuals 
employed in a particular position possessed a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific 
specialty or its equivalent. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d at 387. In other words, if a 
petitioner's assertion of a particular degree requirement is not necessitated by the actual 
performance requirements of the proffered position, the position would not meet the statutory or 
regulatory definition of a specialty occupation. See section 21 4(i)(1) of the Act; 
8 C.P.R. § 214 .2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation "). 
The director's RFE specifically requested the petitioner to document its past recruiting and hiring 
history with regard to the proffered position. Thus, the director provided the petitioner with an 
additional opportunity to establish a history of recruiting and hiring for the proffered position only 
individuals with a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty , or the equivalent. In response 
to the RFE, counsel maintained that the petitioner has a practice of hiring persons with a bachelor's 
degree or higher in a specific specialty to per form the duties of the proffered position. In support, 
the petitioner submitted classified advertisements soliciting for the current position, and W-2 
statements and Quarter! y Wage Reports "for the employees." 
To begin, we note that the organizational chart provided by the petitioner states that the position of 
Operations Manager is vacant. The petitioner has not submitted any documentation to establish that 
it has any current employees that hold the proffered position. As for any past employees, the 
petitioner did not provide any documentation regarding the title, duties and day-to-day 
responsibilities of its past employees to support its claim that their position was the same as the 
proffered position. The petitioner did not provide any substantive information corroborative! y 
detailing their actual job duties, their pay level, and other relevant factors such as when their 
8 Any such assertion would be undermined in this particular case by the fact that the petitioner submitted an 
LCA that had been certified for a Level I wage-level, which is appropriate for use with a comparatively low, 
entry-level position relative to others within the same occupation. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 22 
employment in the position began; whether they had their degree by that time; and the educational 
requirements, if any, that the petitioner may have specified in recruiting efforts for the job in which 
the two referenced individuals are now employed. Likewise, the Forms W-2 and Quarterly Wage 
Reports hold little probative value as the petitioner has not established that they correspond to any 
individual that held the position actually proffered here. 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. at 16 5 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 
14 I&N Dec. 19 0). 
As for the petitioner's own classified advertisements for the proffered position, we note that the 
advertisements for the position of 110perations Manager'' require 11[t]hree (3) years [of] progressive 
experience in a leadership role in Operations Management working in a healthcare environment. 11 
Again, the proffered position's Level I wage designation is indicative of a low, entry-level position 
relative to others within the occupational category and hence one not likely distinguishable by 
relatively specialized and complex duties. As noted earlier, the DOL indicates that a Level I 
designation is appropriate for "beginning level employees who have only a basic understanding of 
the occupat ion." It is therefore not clear that these advertisements pertain to the position proffered 
here. 
As the evidence of record does not demonstrate that the petitioner normally requires at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for the proffered position, the petitioner 
has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 21 4.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
Next, we find that the evidence of record does not satisfy the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2 (h)(4)(iii)(A)(4), which requires the petitioner to establish that the nature of the 
proffered position's 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 the specific specialty or 
its equivalent. 
As reflected in this decision's earlier discussions and findings regarding record's duty descriptions -
which we hereby incorporate into this present analysis - the nature of the proposed duties as 
described in the record of proceeding do not show the level of specialization and complexity 
required to satisfy this criterion. As generically and generally as they were described, we find that 
the duties of the proposed position are not presented with sufficient detail and explanation to 
establish the substantive nature of the duties as they would be performed in the specific context of 
the petitioner's pa rticular business operations. Also as a result of the generalized and relatively 
abstract level at which the duties are described, the record of proceeding does not establish their 
nature as so specialized and complex that their performance would require knowledge usually 
associated with attainment of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent. 
By the same token and as evident in the duty descriptions themselves, the nature of the proposed 
duties are not developed with sufficient substantive detail to distinguish them from the nature of the 
duties of positions within the Medical and Health Services Managers occupational group whose 
performance does not require the application of knowledge usually associated with attainment of at 
least a bachelor's degree in a specific special ty. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 23 
Furthermore, we reiterate our earlier comments and findings with regard to the implication of the 
petitioner's designation of the proffered position in the LCA at a Level I wage. 
For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 21 4.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4), as the evidence of record has not established that the duties of the 
proffered position are 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. 
The evidence in the record of proceeding does not establish that the proposed duties meet the 
specialization and complexity threshold at 8 C.F.R. § 21 4.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
As the petitioner has not satisfied at least one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(h)( 4 )(iii)( A), it 
cannot be found that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. Accordingly, the appeal will 
be dismissed, and the petition will be denied. 
IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 
Based upon a complete review of the record of proceeding, we find that the evidence does not 
establish that the position as described more likely than not constitutes a specialty occupation. The 
petitioner has not established that it has satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(AJ and, therefore, it cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Accordingly the appeal will be dismissed and the petition will be denied. 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
9 As this issue precludes approval of the petition, we will not address any of the additional issues we have 
observed on appeal.