dismissed H-1B Case: Healthcare Staffing

(b)(6)
DATE: JUN 0 5 2015 
INRE: 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 requirements 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. 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition, and 
the matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. The petition will be denied. 
In the Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129) the petitioner describes itself as a "provider 
of healthcare professionals" which established in employed 18 persons at the time the petition 
was filed. According to the Form I-129, the petitioner filed this H-1B petition to classify the 
beneficiary 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. 
§ 1101(a)( 15)(H)(i)(b ), in order to employ her in a position to which the petitioner assigned the job 
title "Quality Assurance Manager. " 
The Director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation in accordance with the applicable statutory and 
regulatory provisions. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the Director's denial does not comport 
with the evidence of record, and, that therefore, the appeal should be granted. 
The record of proceeding before us contains: (1) the Form I-129 and supporting documentation; (2) 
the Director's request for evidence (RFE); (3) the petitioner's response to the RFE; (4) the notice of 
decision; and (5) the Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) and supporting materials. We 
reviewed the record in its entirety before issuing our decision. 
For the reasons that will be discussed below, we agree with the Director that the petitioner has not 
established eligibility for the benefit sought. Accordingly, the Director's decision will not be 
disturbed. The appeal will be dismissed, and the petition will be denied. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
The issue on appeal is whether the petitioner provided sufficient evidence to establish that it will 
employ the beneficiary in a specialty occupation position. To meet its burden of proof in this regard, 
the petitioner must establish that the employment it is offering to the beneficiary meets the 
applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. 
Section 21 4(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 118 4(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. § 21 4.2(h)(4)(ii) states, in pertinent part, the following: 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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.P.R.§ 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, a proposed position must 
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; 
(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.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)( iii)(A) must logically be read together 
with section 214(i)(1) of the Act and 8 C.P.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 (1989); Matter ofW­
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 statutory or 
regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 P.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 )(l) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 21 4.2(h)(4)(ii), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) consistently interprets the 
term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2( h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered position. See 
Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertojj; 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 standard, USCIS regularly approves H-lB 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 
particular 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. USCIS 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. 
In the context of the particular appeal before us, it is important to note that, as recognized by the 
court in Defensor, supra, where the work is to be performed for entities other than the petitioner, 
evidence ofthe client companies' job requirements is critical. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d at 
387-388. The court held that the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) had 
reasonably interpreted the statute and regulations as requiring the petitioner to produce evidence that 
a proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation on the basis of the requirements imposed by 
the entities using the beneficiary's services. !d. at 384. Such evidence must be sufficiently detailed 
to demonstrate the type and educational level of highly specialized knowledge in a specific 
discipline that is necessary to perform that particular work. 
II. BACKGROUND 
As noted, the Form I -129 describes the petitioner as a "provider of healthcare professionals." As 
such, the petitioner does not itself operate as a healthcare facility, but rather provides healthcare 
workers to various healthcare facilities to help them meet their staffing needs. In the matter before 
us, the petitioner claims that it has filed the petition on the basis of full-time work that it has secured 
for the beneficiary "as Quality Assurance Manager for New 
York." By virtue of the information in the Labor Condition Application (LCA) that the petitioner 
submitted to support the petition, the petitioner attested that the performance requirement of the 
position would place it within the Medical and Health Services Managers occupational category, 
which is identifiable in the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL's) Bureau of Labor Statistics' Standard 
Occupational Classification (SOC) system by the SOC code 11-9111. The petitioner contends that it 
has submitted evidence sufficient to establish that the beneficiary would perform the services of a 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
Health Services Manager for 
specialty occupation. 
and would do so at the level of an H-lB 
III. ANALYSIS 
The factual scenarios in the present petition and Defensor v. Meissner, referenced above, are 
substantially alike. In Defensor, the court addressed the consolidated appeals from federal district 
court decisions dismissing claims by the employer in that case, Vintage Health Resources, Inc. 
("Vintage"). Vintage asserted that the evidence it had submitted for seven H-lB +-petitions for 
Registered Nurses with U.S.-equivalent Bachelor of Science Degrees in Nursing (BSNs) was 
sufficient to establish the seven proffered positions as specialty occupations.1 Vintage was a medical 
contract service agency engaged in providing foreign nurses to medical facilities, and in each of the 
seven petitions it based its H-1B specialty-occupation claim upon evidence that it - the supplier of 
Registered Nurses to its client medical facilities - only hired persons with BSNs. The court 
summarized the factual scenario as follows: 
Vintage produced evidence that it only hired nurses with B.S.N. degrees. The INS 
claimed, however, that the proper focus of inquiry is not what Vintage as an 
employment agency required, but instead what the contracting facility required, and 
Vintage failed to establish that the medical facilities where the nurses would actually 
work required bachelor degrees. At best, Vintage showed that such facilities 
preferred nurses with B.S.N. degrees, but did not require that nurses have B.S.N. 
degrees. 
201 F.3d at 386. 
In affirming the district court decisions, the Defensor court stated, in part: 
[I]f only Vintage's requirements could be considered, then any alien with a bachelor's 
degree could be brought into the United States to perform a non-specialty occupation, 
so long as that person's employment was arranged through an employment agency 
which required all clients to have bachelor's degrees. Thus, aliens could obtain six 
year visas for any occupation, no matter how unskilled, through the subterfuge of an 
employment agency. This result is completely opposite the plain purpose of the 
statute and regulations, which is to limit Hl- B visas to positions which require 
specialized experience and education to perform. 
The Defensor decision held that "it was not an abuse of discretion to interpret the statute and 
regulations so as to require Vintage to adduce evidence that the entities actually employing the 
nurses' services required the nurses to have degrees, which Vintage could not do." Defensor v. 
Meissner, 201 F.3d at 388. 
1 Licensure to practice as a Registered Nurse in the United States does not require a BSN. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
In the instant case, the petitioner attests that it has secured the aforementioned Quality Assurance 
Management position for the beneficiary at 
_ 
for the period November 
25, 2013 to November 24, 2016. In response to that portion of the Director's decision which found 
that the petitioner had not provided evidence of the arrangement with 
that the petition asserts as the basis for its specialty-occupation claim, the petitioner submits a 
four-page document entitled "Agreement for Health Care Personnel Provider between 
_ 
and [the Petitioner]," which was executed on September 22, 2011. (We will 
refer to this document as "the 'Petitioner Agreement.") The petitioner claims that the 
document "evidenc[ es] that the job offer was bona fide and genuine." As we shall now explain, we 
not only disagree with the petitioner's assessment of the evidentiary value of that Agreement, but we 
also find that the evidentiary record does not establish that the beneficiary would be employed as 
claimed in the petition. For the reasons that we shall now discuss, the record of proceeding lacks 
sufficient evidence to establish that had contracted with the petitioner 
to staff the Quality Care Management position as it was described in the petition; that 
had contracted for such staffing for the period specified in the petition; and, 
most importantly, that, if the beneficiary were to fill a Quality Care Management position as claimed 
by the petitioner, her performance of the substantive duties of that position within the partkular 
operational context at would require the theoretical and practical 
application of at least a bachelor's degree level of a body of highly specialized knowledge in a 
specific specialty, as is necessary to satisfy the definition of a "specialty occupation" as rendered by 
reading the supplementary provisions at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) together with section 
214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(ii). 
It is important to note that the record's only contractual document to which the petitioner and 
are parties is this 1Petitioner Agreement. Also, the record 
contains no other contract-related document pertinent to this petition; and there are no submissions 
from 
We find that the content of the !Petitioner Agreement does not establish any contractual 
commitment by 
_ 
to provide the petitioner an opportunity to staff that 
facility with a Quality Assurance Manager for any specific period, let alone for the November, 25, 
2013 to November 24, 2016 period specified in the petition. Subgraphs 1 and 2 of the document's 
"Facility Responsibilities" section commit to: 
1. Call upon [the Petitioner] to provide requested services by our health care 
personnel. 
2. Determine the hours, scope and duration of the activities of health care personnel 
on each assignment and provide professional supervision by a Supervisor. 
No sections in the document constitute "call [ing] upon" the petitioner 
for "requested services." Also, while subparagraph 7 of the "Facility Responsibilities" section 
specifies hourly rates to be paid for five types of healthcare personnel when assigned to 
- including Quality Assurance Managers, there is nothing in the document by 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
which specifies or commits to any specific assignment of any person 
to be provided by the petitioner, let alone assignment of the beneficiary to a Quality Assurance 
Manager position. Likewise, subparagraph 1 of the document's ''Provider Responsibilities" section 
commits the petitioner to no particular assignment. Rather, the petitioner only commits to provide 
healthcare personnel "as required for the needs of the facility"; and the document does not specify 
any such need as existing at the time of the document's signing. In addition, the petitioner has not 
supplemented the record with a copy of any follow-on contractual documents (e.g., work orders, 
purchase orders, or statements of work) whereby agrees to the 
assignment of the beneficiary as a Quality Assurance Manager. 
It appears, then, that the 'Petitioner Agreement is in the nature of a master or umbrella 
agreement whose purpose is to specify certain terms (such as payment rates, division of worker­
related tax and insurance burdens, and holiday periods) that would apply to any follow-on 
contractual agreement for a specific assignment that would come within the Agreement's coverage. 
As such, the document does not constitute a contract between the and 
the petitioner for any particular staffing assignment of the beneficiary, or any other personnel of the 
petitioner, for any specific duration. 
Further, aside from the just-addressed, conclusively negative aspects of the Petitioner 
Agreement that make its evidentiary value negligible, we also find that the relevance of that 
document is questionable because the petitioner has not established the Agreement's duration. In 
this regard, we note that the document does not specify any termination date, but it does state that it 
"may be terminated without cause by providing a thirty (30) days written notice by either party." 
Thus, the Petitioner Agreement does not itself prove its effective period, and it behooves the 
petitioner to provide objective documentary evidence sufficient to establish that period - which it 
has not done. 
Next, the record of proceeding lacks sufficient evidence for us to recognize the duties described by 
the petitioner as those which the beneficiary would actually perform if this petition were approved. 
There are no submissions from that specify any duties to be 
performed by the beneficiary; and that facility has not submitted any document that endorses or 
ratifies the petitioner's descriptions of the proffered position. Further, there is no documentation 
from that substantiates that it (1) requires for its Quality Care 
Manager positions at least a bachelor's degree in nursing or a closely related specialty, and (2) that 
any such requirement that it may have imposed is not just a matter of preference but rather is 
generated and necessitated by the actual, specific performance requirements of that particular 
Quality Care Manager position as it functions within the 
For all of the reasons above, our review of the totality of the evidence of record leads us to conclude 
that the petitioner has not established that, if this petition were approved on the basis of the evidence 
of record, the beneficiary would more likely than not serve in a specialty occupation. 
The petitioner has not established the substantive nature and associated educational requirements of 
any work to be performed by the beneficiary for . This aspect of the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
petition precludes a finding that the proffered position satisfies any criterion at 8 C.P.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 . 
. Accordingly, as the petitioner has not established that it has satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 21 4.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. Thus, the appeal will be dismissed, and the petition will be denied. 
Although the factors discussed above are sufficient grounds for dismissing the appeal for not having 
overcome the Director's basis for denying the petition, we shall also address why the appeal's 
reliance upon the "Medical and Health Services Managers" chapter of the Occupational Outlook 
Handbook {Handbook) for satisfying the first criterion of 8 C.P.R.§ 21 4.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) is misplaced. 
For the reasons that we shall now discuss, and contrary to the petitioner's view, the Handbook's 
information does not support a finding that the particular position asserted as the basis of the petition 
is one for which normally the minimum requirement for entry is at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
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 
administration, public health, public administration, or business administration also 
are common. 
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 
(b)(6)
Page 9 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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 
expenence. 
* * * 
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 administration. 
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-approved 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 Professional 
Association of Health Care Office Management offers certification in health 
information management or medical management, while the American College of 
Health Care Administrators 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. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., 
Medical and Health Services Managers, on the Internet at http://www.bls.gov/ooh/ 
management/medical-and-health-services-managers.htm#tab-4 (last visited May 28, 2015). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
When reviewing the Handbook, we must note that the petitioner designated the proffered position 
under this occupational category at a Level I (entry) on the LCA.2 This designation is indicative of a 
comparatively low, entry-level position relative to others within the occupation and signifies that the 
beneficiary is only expected to possess a basic understanding of the occupation and will perform 
routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment. In accordance with the relevant 
explanatory information from DOL on wage levels, the beneficiary would be closely supervised and 
her work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy. Furthermore, she would receive specific 
instructions on required tasks and expected results. The DOL guidance indicates that a Level I 
(entry) designation is appropriate for a research fellow, a worker in training, or an internship. Thus, 
based upon the petitioner's submission of an LCA certified for Level I position (relative to others 
with the occupation) it does not appear that the beneficiary would serve in a higher level 
management job. 
According to the Handbook, the requirements for medical and health services managers vary by 
facility. The Handbook also states that medical and health services managers typically need an 
advanced degree to enter the occupation, but it further clarifies that 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 administration, 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 
2 The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by DOL provides a description of the wage 
levels. A Level I wage rate is described by DOL 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 programs. 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), which is available on the Internet at 
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC_Guidance_Revised_11_2009.pdf. 
3 In the subsection entitled "Advancement," the Handbook states that graduates 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 11 
by stating that some facilities 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 
prospec6ve employees ''should" have a degree in health administration- 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 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 21 4(i)(l)(B) of the Act. In such a 
case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be the same. Since 
there must be a close correlation between the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" and 
the position, however, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in disparate fields, such as 
philosophy and engineering, would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the 
specific specialty (or its equivalent)," unless 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.4 Section 
214(i)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). 
The Handbook states that a degree in business administration is sufficient for medical and health 
services manager jobs. Although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business 
administration, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, 
without more, will not justify a finding that a particular position qualifies for classification as a 
specialty occupation. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 147.5 
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: 
[t]he courts and the agency consistently have stated that, although a general-purpose 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
That is, USCIS interprets the degree requirement at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2( h)(4)(iii)(A) to require a degree 
in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. Since there must be a close 
correlation between the required specialized studies and the position, the requirement of a degree 
with a generalized title, such as business administration, without further specification, does not 
establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Associates, 19 I&N 
Dec. 558. Therefore, the Handbook's recognition that a general, non-specialty degree in business 
administration is sufficient for entry into the occupation strongly suggests that a bachelor's degree in 
a specific specialty is not normally the minimum entry requirement for this occupation. 
The narrative of the Handbook further indicates that nursing care facility administrators and 
administrators in assisted-living facilities may be subject to state licensure requirements. The 
Handbook reports that a license is not required in other areas of medical and health services 
management; however, certification is available in many areas of practice and that some employees 
obtain professional certification. The Handbook notes that the Professional Association of Health 
Care Office Management (P AHCOM) provides certification in medical management and in health 
information management, and that the American College of Health Care Administrators (ACHCA) 
offers the Certified Assisted Living Administrator and Certified Nursing Home Administrator 
distinctions. 
We reviewed the P AHCOM website, regarding its requirements for professional certification. "6 
The P AHCOM website states that its Certified Medical Manager (CMM) and its Health Information 
Technology Certified Manager for Physician Practice (HITCM-PP) are nationally recognized as the 
standard of excellence in physician office management. It further indicates that the programs 
provide recognition to office managers having the knowledge, skills, and experience necessary to 
successfully manage today's medical practices. The requirements for certification include: 
!d. 
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.Supp.2d 
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. 
6 For additional information regarding PAHCOM and its credentialing programs, see the Professional 
Association of Health Care Office Management website at https://www.pahcom.com (last visited on May 28, 
2015). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
• A minimum of three years of experience in the health care field (must be in support of 
patient care, such as a medical practice or other clinical environment); and, 
• Twelve college credit hours in courses (1) pertinent to healthcare or business 
management for the CMM credential; or (2) pertinent to healthcare, business 
management, or information technology for the HITCM-PP credential. The 
educational credit requirement is reduced by one hour for each year experience above 
the three year minimum. 
The P AHCOM website states that its credentialing program recognizes the qualifications and 
expertise of medical managers of physician practices. It specifically notes that the credential is not 
an entry level certification; but, rather, the CMM designation is the most senior in the industry, 
requiring both experience and education. 
We observe that the PAHCOM website does not indicate that medical manager positions have any 
particular degree requirements for entry, nor does it indicate that these positions require a degree to 
be identified as qualified and possessing a level of expertise/competence. Instead, PAHCOM 
stresses the importance of professional experience, along with a few courses in healthcare, business 
management and/or information technology. 
We also reviewed the ACHCA website regarding the Certified Assisted Living Administrator and 
Certified Nursing Home Administrator distinctions.7 According to the website, the ACHCA 
professional certification program identifies and honors administrators and managers who are 
performing at an advanced level of skill and knowledge. The website states that its professional 
certification program promotes quality in the profession and improves the public image of 
administrators, as well as allows experienced and practicing administrators to validate their 
knowledge, skill and abilities. 
The ACHCA website indicates that there are a number paths available to candidates seeking to 
fulfill the education and experience requirements for the Certified Assisted Living Administrator 
distinction. These include possessing: (1) a high school diploma or General Education Diploma 
(G.E.D.) along with six years of full-time experience as an assisted living administrator/manager; (2) 
an associate's degree and four years of full-time experience as an assisted living 
administrator/manager; or (3 ) a baccalaureate degree and two years of full-time experience as an 
assisted living administrator/manager. Thus, the ACHCA website does not indicate that at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty (or its equivalent) is required to work as an assisted living 
administrator/manager - or for certification. 
The requirements for the Certified Nursing Home Administrator distinction include the following: 
(1) two year licensure as a nursing home administrator; (2) two years of experience as a nursing 
7 For additional information regarding ACHCA and its certification programs, see the American College of 
Health Care Administrators website at http://www.achca.org/ (last visited on May 28, 2015). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
home administrator; and (3) a baccalaureate degree if licensed after January 1, 1996. We note that a 
candidate is not required to have a degree in a specific specialty, but rather a degree in any field or a 
general-purpose degree is sufficient. 
Thus, neither the Handbook, PAHCOM, or ACHCA support the claim that a particular position's 
inclusion within the Medical and Health Services Managers occupational group is sufficient in itself 
to establish that positon as one for which a baccalaureate degree (or higher) in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry; and the petitioner provides no 
objective standard from any authoritative source by which the proffered position as described in the 
record of proceeding should be recognized as one for which the minimum requirement for entry 
would be at least a bachelor's degree, in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Accordingly, even if 
the petitioner had established that it had secured the Quality Assurance Manager position that it 
claims as the basis of its sp ecialty occupation claim, the petitioner would not have satisfied the 
criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l ). 
Beyond the decision of the Director, we find that there is an additional aspect of this record of 
proceeding that precludes its approval, even if the petitioner had established the proffered position as 
a specialty occupation. As reflected in our comments and findings above, and contrary to the 
petitioner's view that submission of the 'Petitioner Agreement establishes that its "job offer 
was bona fide and genuine," neither that document nor the totality of the evidence of record 
constitutes relevant, probative, and credible evidence sufficient to establish that, at the time of the 
petition's filing, the petitioner had secured for the beneficiary, for the employment period specified 
in the petition, the Quality Care Manager position that the petitioner asserts as the basis of its 
specialty occupation claim. We find that the petitioner has not established that, as of the time of the 
petition's filing, it had secured for the beneficiary definite, non-speculative work, for the period 
requested, as a Quality Care Manager at 
_ 
. In this regard, we refer the 
petitioner to our earlier comments and findings about the quantity and dearth of evidence. USCIS 
regulations affi rmatively require a petitioner to establish eligibility for the benefit it is seeking at the 
time the petition is filed. See 8 C.P.R. 103 .2(b)(l). The agency made clear long ago that speculative 
employment is not permitted in the H-lB program. For example, a 1998 proposed rule documented 
this position as follows : 
Historically, the Service has not granted H-lB cl assification on the basis of 
speculative, or undetermined, prospective employment. The H-lB classification is not 
intended as a vehicle for an alien to engage in a job search within the United States, 
or for employers to bring in temporary foreign workers to meet possible workforce 
needs arising from potential business expansions or the expectation of potential new 
customers or contracts. To determine whether an alien is properly classifiable as an 
H-lB nonimmigrant under the statute, the Service must first examine the duties of the 
position to be occupied to ascertain whether the duties of the position require the 
attainment of a specific bachelor's degree. See section 21 4(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the "Act"). The Service must then determine whether the alien has 
the appropriate degree for the occupation. In the case of speculative employment, the 
Service is unable to perform either part of this two-prong analysis and, therefore, is 
(b)(6)
Page 15 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
unable to adjudicate properly a request for H-1B classification. Moreover, there is no 
assurance that the alien will engage in a specialty occupation upon arrival in this 
country. 
63 Fed. Reg. 30 419, 30419 - 30420 (June 4, 1998). 
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. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r 1972)). Also, 
without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the 
petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. 
Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 53 4 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 
1983 ); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). 
The petition must be denied for this additional reason. 
IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 
An application or petition that does not comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by us even if the service center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial 
decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 
2001), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) 
(noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
Moreover, when we deny a petition on multiple alternative grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a 
challenge only if it shows that we abused our discretion with respect to all of the enumerated 
grounds. See Spencer Enterprises, In c. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1037, affd. 345 F.3d 
683; see also BDPCS, Inc. v. Fed. Communications Comm'n, 351 F.3d 1177, 1183 (D.C. Cir. 2003) 
("When an agency offers multiple grounds for a decision, we will affirm the agency so long as any 
one of the grounds is valid, unless it is demonstrated that the agency would not have acted on that 
basis if the alternative grounds were unavailable."). 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as an independent and alternative basis for the decision. 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. § 13 61; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 12 7, 128 (BIA 2013 ). Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.