dismissed H-1B Case: Healthcare Software

MATTER OF E- LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 23, 2017 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a healthcare software and services company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as an "EMR business analyst" under the H -1 B nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. 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-lB 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, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner had not established that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the Director erred in the decision. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
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. 
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 proflered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
Matter of E- LLC 
(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 its support letter, the Petitioner described itself as a "leading Healthcare software and Services 
Company that otTers a fully integrated and comprehensive [electronic medical records] EMR and 
practice management systems." The Petitioner stated that it continues to develop, implement, and 
enhance its business systems, and seeks to employ the Beneficiary in a full-time EMR business 
analyst position at an annual salary of $53,000 to further support its business systems. The 
Petitioner described the proffered position as follows (note: errors in the original text have not been 
changed): 
[The Beneficiary's] services are needed as an EMR Business Analyst. In this position 
he will focus on coordination and completion of the requirements specifications by 
working with collaborative teams, and meeting/workshop facilitation. He will 
analyze engineering, business, and all other data processing problems for [the 
Petitioner's] Electronic Medical Records (EMR) systems, Patient Health Record 
(PHR), Practice Management systems (PMS), Medical Billing systems, Laboratory 
Information Systems (LIS) and Document Management Systems. [The Beneficiary] 
will be responsible for the following duties; 
• Proactively communicate and collaborate with external and internal 
customers to analyze information needs and functional requirements and 
deliver the following artifacts as needed: SRS (Software Requirements 
2 
Matter of E- LLC 
Specifications), BRD (Business Requirements Document), Use Cases, User 
Stories. 
• Elicit requirements using interviews, document analysis, requirements 
workshops, surveys, site visits, business process descriptions, use cases, 
scenarios, business analysis, task, and workflow analysis. 
• Critically evaluate information gathered from multiple sources, reconcile 
conflicts, decompose high-level information into detailS, abstract up from 
low-level information to a general understanding, and distinguish user 
requests from the underlying true needs. 
• Serve as the conduit between the internal and external customer community 
and the software development team. 
• Perform complex analysis, interpretation, and synthesis ofhealthcare data and 
product functionality 
• Serve as the expert resource for assisting end users in identifying business 
requirements and planning system development needs. 
• Under direction, will describe existing processes then develop phased 
recommendations for how to modify and Improve operations and 
management 
• Will analyze and translate complex business requirements into detailed 
functional specifications and recommendations; 
• Will ensure that the technical specification and developed system 
functionality are consistent with the original business requirements; 
• Will participate in the development and delivery of written reports of 
analyses and recommendations including data analysis, quality assurance, and 
content validation 
• Research clinical-related questions and collaborate work with IT and Product 
Management to create clinically-sound data models. 
In the same letter, the Petitioner stated that the proffered position reqUires a mmnnum of a 
bachelor's degree in business administration, information systems, management, economics, 
marketing, or a closely related field, or the equivalent. 
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 (1) 
provides inconsistent information regarding the position; and (2) does not establish that the job 
duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty 
occupation. 
3 
Matter of E- LLC 
A. Position Description 
The record does not sufficiently establish the substantive nature of the proffered position. To 
support the petition, the Petitioner submitted a certified labor condition application (LCA) on which 
it designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Operations Research Analysts," 
corresponding to the standard occupational classification (SOC) code 15-2031, at a Level I wage 
rate. 1 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner explained that its EMR 
business analyst position "is not strictly a[ n] operation research analyst position," and "combines job 
duties of a Business Analyst, Operation Research Analyst and a computer-related position." The 
Petitioner proceeded to explain the similarities of the proffered position to operations research 
analysts, business analysts, and computer systems analysts positions. 
Based on some of the Petitioner's descriptions of the proffered job duties, we agree, on one hand, 
that the proffered position represents a combination of positions under the "Operation Research 
Analysts" and "Computer Systems Analysts" occupational classifications. 2 We reach this 
conclusion after carefully reviewing the submitted information from the U.S. Department of Labor's 
(DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) and the Occupational Information Network 
(O*NET), both of which we consider authoritative sources on duties of the wide variety of 
occupations that they address. Both sources essentially reflect that computer systems analysts 
perform job duties that are at the intersection of business and information technology. 3 This 
occupational classification accurately reflects some of the proffered duties, including "[analyzing] 
engineering, business, and all other data processing problems for [the Petitioner's various software 
systems]," and "[communicating] and [collaborating] with external and internal customers to analyze 
information needs and functional requirements and deliver the following artifacts as needed: SRS 
(Software Requirements Specifications), BRD (Business Requirements Document), Use Cases, User 
Stories." 
On the other hand, the Petitioner submitted a single LCA certified for a Level I "Operations 
Research Analysts" position (SOC code 15-2031) to support the instant petition. The certified LCA 
1 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to USCIS to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B worker the 
higher of either the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the ''area of employment" or the actual wage 
paid by the employer to other employees with similar experience and qualifications who are performing the same 
services. See Matter ofSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 20 15). 
2 There is no O*NET code and classification for a position entitled "Business Analyst." 
3 The Handbook states, for example, that computer systems analysts "bring business and information technology (IT) 
together by understanding the needs and limitations of both." O*NET similarly states that they "[a]nalyze science, 
engineering, business, and other data processing problems to implement and improve computer systems." For additional 
information regarding the occupational category "Computer Systems Analysts," see U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of 
Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-2017 ed., "Computer Systems Analysts," available at 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/print/computer-systems-analysts.htm (last visited Jan. 18, 
20 17), and O*NET Summary Report for "Computer Systems Analysts," available at 
http://www.onetonline.org/linklsummaryll5-1121.00 (last visited Jan. 18, 20 17). 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of E- LLC 
does not correspond with the Petitioner's other descriptions of the proffered posttlon as a mtx 
between "Operation Research Analysts" and "Computer Systems Analysts" positions. 
Specifically, for the purposes of the LCA, the DOL provides guidance for selecting the most relevant 
category when the duties of a proffered position involve a combination of more than one 
occupational category. In particular, DOL's "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" 
states the following: 
In determining the nature ofthejob offer, the first order is to review the requirements 
of the employer ' s job offer and determine the appropriate occupational classification. 
The O*NET description that corresponds to the employer's job offer shall be used to 
identify the appropriate occupational classification . . . . If the employer's job 
opportunity has worker requirements described in a combination of O*NET 
occupations, the [determiner] should default directly to the relevant O*NET-SOC 
occupational code for the highest paying occupation. For example , if the employer's 
job offer is for an engineer-pilot , the [determiner] shall use the education, skill and 
experience levels for the higher paying occupation when making the wage level 
determination. 
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_Guidance_Revised _11_2009.pdf. 
Moreover, under the H -1 B program , a petitioner must otTer a beneficiary wages that are at least the 
actual wage level paid by a petitioner to all other 
individuals with similar experience and 
qualifications for the specific employment in question, or the prevailing wage level for the most 
relevant occupational classification in the area of employment, whichever is greater, based on the 
best information available as of the time of tiling the application. See section 212(n)(l )(A) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(n)(l)(A). 
At the time the Petitioner's LCA was certified, the Level I prevailing wage for "Operation Research 
Analysts" in the area and time period of intended employment was $52,874 per year.4 But the 
Level I prevailing wage for a "Computer Systems Analysts" position in the same area and time 
period of intended employment was $60,736 per year. 5 The most relevant occupational code for the 
highest paying occupation, therefore, is the "Computer Systems Analysts" occupation. 
4 For more information regarding the wages for "Operation Research Analysts" (SOC code 15-2031) in the 
Massachusetts Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) for the period 7/2015 6/2016, see 
http://www.tlcdatacenter.com /OesQuickResults.aspx?code = 15-2031 &area= &year= 16&source= I (last visited Jan. 
18, 20 17). We note that the Beneficiary 's offered salary is $53,000 per year. 
5 
For more information regarding the wages for "Computer Systems Analysts " (SOC code 15-1 121) in the 
Massachusetts MSA for the period 7/2015-6 /2016 , see http://www.tlcdatacenter.com /OesQuickResults.aspx?code = l5-
l 121 &area= &year= 16&source= I (last visited Jan. 18, 20 17). 
5 
Matter of E- LLC 
Thus, if the Petitioner believed its position to be a combination of "Operation Research Analysts" 
and "Computer Systems Analysts," in order to meet its wage obligations, the Petitioner should have 
selected the relevant occupational code and corresponding wage for the highest paying occupation, 
i.e., "Computer Systems Analysts," on the LCA. But the Petitioner did not do so, and did not submit 
a credible explanation for why it did not. The Petitioner stated: "there is no specific SOC code tor a 
EMR Business Analyst and when there is no specific code for the position offered, [the] employer 
may use the SOC code which is closely related to the position offered." However, the Petitioner's 
standpoint that it may choose any SOC code that closely relates to the offered position is not 
con'sistent with DOL's instructions for the LCA.6 Because the LCA is at odds with the Petitioner's 
descriptions of the proffered position, we cannot find that the record sufficiently establishes the 
substantive nature of the proffered position and its associated job duties. 
"[I]t is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve the inconsistencies by independent objective 
evidence." l'vfatter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). Any attempt to explain or reconcile 
such inconsistencies will not suffice unless. the petitioner submits competent objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. !d. at 591-92. "Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof 
may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence 
offered in support of the visa petition." ld. at 591. 
Furthermore, the descriptions of the Beneficiary's duties lack the specificity and detail necessary tor 
us to accurately assess the substantive nature of the proffhed position. The Petitioner did not 
provide any information with regard to the order of importance or frequency of occurrence with 
which the Beneficiary will perform the listed duties. The Petitioner did not specify which tasks were 
major functions of the proffered position, and it did not establish the frequency with which each of 
the duties will be performed (e.g., regularly, periodically or at irregular intervals). As a result, the 
primary and essential functions of the proffered position are not established in the record. 
We observe the documentation in the record regarding the Petitioner's various software systems. 
However, these documents do not specifically reference the Beneficiary or his role as an EMR 
business analyst with respect to these systems. These generalized descriptions and evidence of the 
6 While DOL is the agency that certifies LCA applications before they are submitted to USC IS, DOL regulations provide 
that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (i.e., its immigration benefits branch, USCIS) is the department 
responsible for determining whether the content of an LCA filed for a particular H-1 B petition actually supports that 
petition. 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b), states, in pertinent part (emphasis added): 
For H-1 B visas ... DHS accepts the employer's petition (DHS Form 1-129) with the DOL certified 
LCA attached. In doing so. the DHS determines whether the petition is supported by an LCA which 
corresponds with the petition, whether the occupation named in the [LCA] is a specialty occupation or 
whether the individual is a fashion model of distinguished merit and ability. and whether the 
qualifications of the nonimmigrant meet the statutory requirements of H-1 B visa classification. 
The regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b) therefore requires that USCIS ensure that an LCA actually supports the H-1 B 
petition filed on behalf of a beneficiary. 
6 
Matter of E- LLC 
Petitioner's business services do not sufficiently communicate the actual, specific job duties the 
Beneficiary will perform with respect to these systems. 
Considering all of the evidence, we cannot conclude that the petition and LCA accurately reflect the 
substantive nature of the work to be performed by the Beneficiary. We are therefore precluded from 
finding that the proffered position satisfies any criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)( A), because it 
is the substantive nature of that work that determines ( 1) the normal minimum educational 
requirement for the particular position, which is the focus of criterion 1; (2) industry positions which 
are parallel to the proffered position and thus appropriate for review for a common degree 
requirement, under the first alternate prong of criterion 2; (3) the level of complexity or uniqueness 
of the proffered position, which is the focus of the second alternate prong of criterion 2; ( 4) the 
factual justification for a petitioner normally requiring a degree or its equivalent, when that is an 
issue under criterion 3; and (5) the degree of specialization and complexity of the specific duties, 
which is the focus of criterion 4. 
B. Position Requirements 
' 
We are further precluded from finding that the proffered position constitutes a specialty occupation 
on another basis. More specifically, the Petitioner stated that the proffered position requires a 
minimum of a bachelor's degree in business administration, information systems, management, 
economics, marketing, or a closely related field, or the equivalent. The Petitioner's own educational 
requirements span a wide range of academic fields that do not appear to meet the statutory 
requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in the .~pec[fic 5pecialty. Section 214(i)(1 )(B) of the 
Act. 
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 214(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 seemingly disparate fields, such 
as business administration and marketing, 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 highly specialized knowledge" is essentially an amalgamation of these different specialties. 
Section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act (emphasis added). 7 The Petitioner has not sufficiently done so. 
7 
In other words, while the statutory "the" and the regulatory "a" both denote a singular "specialty," 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. See section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act; 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). This also includes even seemingly disparate specialties provided that the Petitioner 
establishes how each acceptable, specific field of study is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position. 
Matter of E- LLC 
Here, the Petitioner indicated that, to perform the proffered duties falling under the "Operations 
Research Analysts" occupation, an individual needs to have "extensive coursework in mathematics." 
The Petitioner therefore suggested that any degree program which requires extensive mathematics 
coursework, such as engineering, computer science, and mathematics, v.rould be sufficient to perform 
the proffered duties. 
But this does not explain the Petitioner's acceptance of degrees in business administration, 
management, and marketing. The Petitioner does not sufficiently articulate and document how a 
marketing degree, for example, would provide an individual with the "extensive" mathematics 
knowledge required to perform the proffered position. A petitioner's unsupported statements are of 
very limited weight and normally will be insufficient to carry its burden of proof~ particularly when 
supporting documentary evidence would reasonably be available. See Maller of Sqffici, 22 I&N 
Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter qfTrea:wre Craft ofCal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'] 
Comm'r 1972)); see also Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 201 0). To the contrary, 
the Petitioner's acceptance of these various degrees suggests that the proffered position does not 
require a degree in a specific specialty. 
Moreover, and as discussed by the Director, the Petitioner's acceptance of a general-purpose 
business administration degree, without more, also indicates that the proffered position does not 
qualify as a specialty occupation. See Royal Siam Corp., 484 F .3d at 14 7 (recognizing a business 
administration degree as a "general-purpose" degree that, alone, does not satisfy an educational 
requirement of a degree in a specific specialty). Cf Matter of Ling, 13 l&N Dec. 35 (Reg'! Comm'r 
1968) (finding that "business administration" is a broad field which contains various occupations, 
each requiring different academic preparation). 8 Despite the Petitioner's assertion that a business 
administration degree provides an individual "with the required knowledge (Quantitative analysis 
and advanced statistical and database soft\vare to analyze and model [data])," the Petitioner has not 
provided objective evidence to support its assertions. Again, a petitioner's unsupported statements 
are insufficient to carry its burden of proof. See Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (Comm 'r 
1998). 
For all of the above reasons, the record does not sufficiently demonstrate that the proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
8 
A general degree requirement does not necessarily preclude a proffered position from qualifying as a specialty 
occupation. For example, an entry requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in business administration with a 
concentration in a specific field, or a bachelor's or higher degree in business administration combined with relevant 
education, training, or experience may, in certain instances, qualifY the proffered position as a specialty occupation. In 
either case, it must be demonstrated that the entry requirement is equivalent to a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific 
specialty that is directly related to the proffered position. See Royal Siam Corp .. 484 F.3d at 147. 
8 
Matter of E- LLC 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one ofthe 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. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of E- LLC, ID# 99740 (AAO Jan. 23, 2017) 
9