dismissed H-1B Case: Healthcare

(b)(6)
DA T
�AR 2 0 2015 
OFFICE: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusells Ave., N.W .. MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2.090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section I 0 I (a)( 15)( H)( i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § l\01(a)(I5)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish 
agency policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law 
or policy to your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to 
reconsider or a motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or 
Motion (Form 1-2908) within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B 
instructions at http://\'Vl\'w.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and 
other requirements. See also 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCOSSION: The California service center director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will 
be dismissed. 
The petitioner submitted a Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Forn1 l-1 29) to the California 
Service Center on April 1, 2014. On the Form I-129 visa petition, the petitioner describes itself 
as a provider of healthcare services with 40 employees. established in ln order to employ 
the beneficiary in what it designates as a healthcare compliance manager, the petitioner seeks to 
classify her as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to section 
101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigrat ion and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
On July 28, 2014, the director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish that 
the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation in accordance with the applicable 
statutory and regulatory provisions. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the direc tor's basis for 
denial of the petition was erroneous and contends that it satisfied all evidentiary requirements. 
The record of proceeding before us contains: (1) the Fom1 I-129 and supporting documentation; 
(2) the director's request for evidence (RFE); (3) the petitioner's response to the RFE; ( 4) the 
director's notice of decision; and, (5) the Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form l-290B) and 
supporting documentation. We reviewed the record in its entirety before issuing our decision. 1 
For the reasons that will be discussed bclovv, we agree with the director's decision that the 
petitioner has not established eligibility for the benefit sought. Accordingly, the director's 
decision will not be disturbed. The a ppe al will be dismissed, and the petition will be denied. 
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
The petiti oner indicated on the Form I-129 that it seeks the beneficiary's services in a position 
titled "Healthcare Compliance Manager" to work on a full-time basis at $26.61 per hour or 
$55,349 per year.2 
The petitioner submitted a Labor Condition Application (LCA) in support of the instant H-1 B 
petition. The LCA designation for the proffered position corresponds to the occupational 
classification of "Managers, All Other" -SOC (ONETIOES) Code 11-9199, at a Level I (entry 
level) wage. 
In a letter of support dated March 31, 2014, the petitioner slated that the beneficiary will be 
1 We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See So/lane v. DO.!, 381 F.3d 143, !45 (3d Cir. 2004). 
2 In "Unilateral Employment Agreement" submitted in support ofthe Form 1··129, the petitioner stated 
that the beneficiary will be paid $29.98 per hour, which is higher than the wage indicated on the Form 1-
129 and the LCA. The petitioner did not provide further information to explain the discrepancy. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
responsible for the following duties: 
1. Develop, initiate, manage, maintain and revise policies and procedures for the 
general operation of the Compliance Program and its related activities in 
accordance with Federal, State and local laws and regulations 
2. Develop and periodically review and update the Standards of Conduct to ensure 
continuing currency and relevance in providing guidance to management and 
employees and prevent illegal, unethical, or improper conduct 
3. Collaborate with other departments to direct compliance issues to appropriate 
existing channels for investigation and resolution 
4. Work with the Human Resources Department and others, as appropriate, to 
develop an effective compliance training program, including appropriate 
introductory training for new employees as well as ongoing training for all 
employees and managers 
5. Identify potential areas of compliance vulnerability and risk, develop and 
implement corrective action plans for resolution of problematic issues, and 
provide general guidance on how to avoid or deal with similar situations in the 
future 
6. Respond to alleged violations of rules, regulations, policies, procedures and the 
Standards of Conduct by evaluating or recommending the initiation of 
investigative procedures, and develop and oversee a system for the uniform 
handling of such violations, and ensure proper reporting of violations or potential 
violations to duly authorized enforcement agencies as appropriate and/or required 
Under the direct supervision of the President, the Healthcare Compliance 
Manager coordinates the facility's corporate compliance program. This includes 
ensuring the facility is adhering to federal and state regu lations for the quality of 
care, residents' rights, employee screening, vendor relationships, billing, cost 
. reporting, record keeping and documentation. The Healthcare Compliance 
Manager is directly involved in the establishment of appropriate facility 
procedures and policies. This includes monitoring the enforcement of standards 
for each resident, employee, vendor and others and for monitoring the ethical and 
legal conduct expected in the care of residents and the operations of the facility. 
In order for employees to learn, understand and maintain compliance with 
applicable laws and regu lations, the Healthcare Compliance Manager must work 
with the other departments to develop an effective compliance training program, 
including appropriate introductory training for new employees, as well as ongoing 
training for all employees and managers . The Candidate is responsible for 
ensuring ongoing compliance by all the company's officers, employees, 
contractors, and anyone doing business on behalf of the organization. 
The petitioner added the following regarding the requirements to perform the duties of the 
position: 
(b)(6)
Page4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Only a highly educated and trained professional, one with a Baccalaureate degree, 
has the teclmical skills and scholastic competency to do the highly specialized and 
complex duties assigned to a Healthcare Compliance Manager. The nature of this 
professional occupation with its specific duties is so complex and specialized 
enough that a baccalaureate degree is the minimum requirement for the job. 
Thus, [the petition er] , specifically requires a Bachelor's degree in Law, Business 
Administration, or related filed as minimum prerequisites for the offered position, 
it clearly marks it as a specialty occupation, one requiring a person who has at 
least a Bachelor's degree. 
The petitioner submitted an evaluation of academic credentials from 
for the beneficiary. The beneficiary's credentials were found to be the equivalent of 
a Master of Business Administration from an accredited institution of higher education in the 
United States. The petitioner submitted copies of the beneficiary's degrees, school transcripts 
and employment certificates. 
The director found the initial evidence insufficient to establish eligibility for the benefit sought, 
and issued an RFE on April 28, 2014. The director, in part, requested that the petitioner provide 
evidence to establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, including 
evidence that a bachelor's degree in a specific field of study is required to perform the duties of 
the position. The director outlined some of the specific types of evidence that could be 
submitted. 
In response, the petitioner explained that the proffered position is most closely aligned with the 
occupational category of Medical and Health Services Managers as stated in the Department of 
Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook). The petitioner also submitted job 
postings to "illustrate that a Bachelor's degree is required for the Healthcare Compliance 
Manager position." The petitioner also explained that the proffered position is a new position for 
the petitioner but industry standard requires a bachelor's degree to hold this position. 
On July 28, 2014, the director denied the petition concluding that the proposed position does not 
qualify as a specialty occupation. 
II. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
We will now address the director's determination that the proffered position is not a specialty 
occupation. Applying the preponderance of the evidence standard and based upon a complete 
review of the record of proceeding, we agree with the director and find that the evidence of 
record does not establish that the position as described constitutes a specialty occupation. 
A. Law 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
To meet the petitioner's burden of proof with regard to the proffered position's classification as 
an H-IB 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) 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) 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 occupation, 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; 
(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)(l) 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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
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 
preferre d); see also COlT Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 
U.S. 561 (1989 ); Matter of TY-F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). As such, the criteria stated in 8 
C.F.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.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A) but not the statutory 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.F .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 one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered position. 
See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertojf, 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, US CIS regularly approves H -1 B 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 -1 B 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 
ofthe 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. }vfeissner, 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. Analysis 
We will first discuss the criterion at 8 C.F.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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
We recognize the Handbook as an authoritative source on the duties and educational 
requirements of the wide variety of occupations it addresses. 3 As noted above, the petitioner 
submitted an LCA in support of this position certified for a job offer falling within the 
"Managers, All Other" occupational category. However, the occupational category "Managers, 
All Other " is one for which the Handbook does not provide detailed data. 4 Further, as 
mentioned, the petitioner stated in response to the RFE that "Medical and Health Services 
Manager" is the "closest approximation of an apt occupation for the proffered position of 
Healthcare Compliance Manager." Therefore, we will focus our discussion on the occupational 
category "Medical and Health Services Managers. " 
We have reviewed the chapter of the Handbook entitled "Medical and Health Services 
Manager s," including the sections regarding the typical duties and requirements for this 
occupational category. However, the Handbook does not indicate that 
Medical and Health Services Managers " comprise an occupational group for which at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement 
for entry into the occupation. 
The subchapter of the Handbook entitled "How to Become a Medical and Health Services 
Manager" states the following: 
Most medical and health serv1ces managers have at least a bachelor's degree 
before entering the field; however, master's degrees also are common. 
Requirements vary by facility. 
Education 
The Handbook, which is avai lable in pri nted form, may als o be accessed onlin e at 
http://www. bls.gov/ooh. The references to the Handbook are from the 20 14-15 edition availa ble online. 
4 The Handbook states: 
Data for Occupations Not Covered in Detail 
Alt hough emp loyment for hundreds of occupations are covered in detail in the 
Occupational Outlook Handbook, this page presents summary data on additional 
occupations for which empl oyment projections are prepared but detailed occupational 
information is not developed. For each occupation, the Occupational Information 
Network (O*N ET) code, the occupational defin ition, 20 I 2 employment, the May 20 12 
median annual wage, the projected employment change and growth rate from 2012 to 
2022, and education and trai ning categories are presented. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Stati stics, Occzpational Outlook Handbook, 20 14-15 ed., "Data for 
Occupations Not Covered in Detai l," http://www.b ls.gov/ooh/ About/Data-for-Occupations-Not-Covered­
in-Detai l.h tm (last visi ted March II, 20 15). 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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 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. 
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/ oohlmanagement/medi cal-and-health-services-managers .htm#tab-4 (last 
visited March 11, 2015). 
Although the Handbook states that medical and health services managers typically need at least a 
bachelor's degree to enter the occupation, the Handbook does not indicate that such a degree 
must be in a specific specialty. The Handbook reports that a degree in health services, long-term 
care administration, public health, public administration, or business administration are common 
for entry into the occupation. 
Notably, the Handbook and the petitioner both state that a general-purpose bachelor's degree, 
i.e., a bachelor's degree in business administration, is acceptable to perform the duties of the 
occupation. Without more, this assertion alone indicates that the proffered position is not in fact 
a specialty occupation. A petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered position requires a 
precise and specific course of study that relates directly and closely to the position in question. 
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 Afatter of 
Michael Hertz As sociates, 19 I&N Dec. 558 (Comm'r 1988). 
In addition, the petitioner submitted an LCA certified for a job prospect with a wage-level I. 
This designation is indicative of a comparatively low, entry-level position relative to others 
within the occupation. 5 That is, in accordance with the relevant DOL explanatory information on 
5 The wage levels are defined in DOL's "Prevaili ng Wage Determination Policy Guidance." A Level I 
wage rate is describes as follows: 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
wage levels, this Level I wage rate is only appropriate for a position in which the beneficiary is 
required to have a basic understanding of the occupation and would be expected to perform 
routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment. This wage rate also indicates that 
the beneficiary would be closely supervised; that her work would be closely monitored and 
reviewed for accuracy; and that she would receive specific instructions on required tasks and 
expected results. 
When, as here, the Handbook does not support the propositiOn that the proffered position 
satisfies this first criterion of 8 C.F.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.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iv) provides that "[a]n H-lB 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." 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner refers to the Occupational Information Network (O* NET) 
Summary Report to state that "most of these occupations require graduate school," "[f]or 
example, they may require a master's degree, and some require a Ph.D., M.D., or J.D." The 
petitioner also asserted that according to the labor market information printout from the Illinois 
Department Employment Security, the occupational categories "General and Operations 
Managers," "Administrative Services Managers," and "Human Resources Managers" are among 
the jobs requiring a Bachelor's Degree. However, the petitioner did not clarify how the duties 
and responsibilities of the above-mentioned occupational categories are similar to the proffered 
position as a health compliance manager. Moreover, both the O* NET Summary Report and the 
printout from Illinois Department of Employment Security do not establish that the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation normally requiring at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. As was noted previously, we interpret the term "degree " in 
Level I (entry) wage rates are assigned to job offers for beginning le vel employees who 
have only a basic understanding of the occupation. These employees perform routine 
tasks that require li mited, if any, exercise of judgment. The tasks provide experience and 
famil iarization with the empl oyer'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 instructi ons 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 _Guidance_ Revised _II_ 2009.pd f. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
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 proffered position. Although a 
general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business administration, may be a 
legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not 
justify a finding that a particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. 
See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertojf, 484 F.3d 139 , 147 (1st Cir. 2007). 
Upon review of the totality of the evidence in the entire record of proceeding, the petitioner has 
not established that the proffered position falls under an occupational category for which the 
Handbook, or other authoritative source, indicates that a requirement for at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally required for entry into the occupation. 
Furthermore, the duties and requirements of the proffered position as described in the record of 
proceeding do not indicate that the particular position that is the subject of this petition is one for 
which a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the 
minimum requirement for entry. Thus, the petitioner failed to satisfy the first criterion of 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4 )(iii)(A). 
Next, the petitioner has not satisfied the first of the two alternative prongs of 8 C.F.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 sharing all three characteristics of being (1) within 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 
industry's 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 
1151, 1165 (D.Minn. 1999) (quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 
(S.D.N.Y. 19 89)). 
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 lea�t a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty or its equivalent. Nor are there any submissions from a professional association in 
the petitioner's industry stating that individuals employed in positions parallel to the proffered 
position are routinely required to have a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or 
its equivalent for entry into those positions. Nor has the petitioner submitted any letters or affidavits 
from firms or individuals in the industry attesting that such firms "routinely employ and recruit 
only degreed individuals. 
Next, we find that the job-vacancy announcements submitted by counsel also do not satisfy this 
alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i ii)(A)(2). That is, neither the job-vacancy 
announcements themselves, nor any other evidence within the record of proceeding, establish 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISJO,V 
Page ll 
that those advertisements pertain to positions that meet all of the criterion's elements of being in 
the petitioner's industry, in organizations similar to the petitioner, and also parallel to the 
proffered position, as required for evidence to merit consideration under this first alternative 
prong. In this regard, we make several specific findings. 
In the Form I-129 and supporting documentation, the petitioner stated that it is a provider of 
healthcare services established in with 40 employees and an annual gross income of $2.5 
million. The petitioner designated its business operations under the North American Industry 
Classification System (NAICS) code 62 1610 - "Home Health Care Services" 6 The U.S. 
Department of Commerce, Census Bureau website describes this NAICS code as follows: 
This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing skilled 
nursing services in the home, along with a range of the following: personal care 
services; homemaker and companion services; physical therapy; medical social 
services; medications; medical equipment and supplies; counseling; 24-hour home 
care; occupation and vocational therapy; dietary and nutritional services; speech 
therapy; audiology; and high-tech care, such as intravenous therapy. 
See U.S. Dep't of Commerce, U.S Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definition, 621610 -Home 
Health Care Services on the Internet at http:// "WW\\i .census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch (last 
visited March 11, 2015). 
For the petitioner to establish that an organization is similar, it must demonstrate that the 
petitioner and the organization share the same general characteristics. Without such evidence, 
documentation submitted by a petitioner is generally outside the scope of consideration for this 
criterion, which encompasses only organizations that are similar to the petitioner. \\Then 
determining whether the petitioner and the advertising organization share the same general 
characteristics, such factors may include information regarding the nature or type of 
organization, and, when pertinent, the particular scope of operations, as well as the level of 
revenue and staffing (to list just a few elements that may be considered). It is not sufficient for 
the petitioner to claim that an organization is similar and in the same industry without providing 
a legitimate basis for such an assertion. 
Upon review of the documents, we find that the advertisements do not establish that a 
requirement for a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the 
petitioner's industry in similar organizations for parallel positions to the proffered position. 7 
6 NAICS is used to classify business establishments according to type of economic activ ity, and each 
establis hment is classified to an in du stry according to the pri mary busi ness activi ty taking pla ce there. 
See U.S. Dep't of Commerce, U. S. Census Bureau, NAICS, on the Internet at 
http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/ (last vi sited March II, 20 15). 
7 Moreover, the petitioner did not provide any indepen dent evidence of how representative the job 
postings are of the particular advertising employers' recruiting history for the type of job advertised. As 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
For example, the advertisements do not contain sufficient information regarding the employers to 
establish that they are similar to the petitioner. Specifically, the advertisements from 
the employers. 
Specifically, 
'l 
, and do not provide any information about 
Further, some employers do not appear to be similar to the petitioner. 
is described as a "provider of dietary supplements" and 
" appears to be a children's hospital. 
Without further information, the advertisements appear to be for organizations that are not 
similar to the petitioner and the petitioner has not provided any probative evidence to suggest 
otherwise. Consequently, the record is devoid of sufficient information regarding the advertising 
organizations to conduct a legitimate comparison of the organizations to the petitioner. That is, 
the petitioner did not provide sufficient information to establish that the advertising companies and 
the petitioner share the same general characteristics, as well as information regarding which aspects 
or traits (if any) it shares with the advertising organizations. 
Further, the petitioner has not established that the advertisements are for parallel positions. On 
appeal, the petitioner asserts that "various positions closely approximate the duties and 
requirements of the proffered position." However, the petitioner did not discuss which duties 
from the advertising employers are similar to the proffered position. Going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in 
these proceedings. Matter of So.ffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of Cal(fornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r 1972) ). 
Moreover, although the petitioner has designated the proffered position as a Level I position, 
indicating that it is an entry-level position, the petitioner provided several job announcements for 
positions requiring extensive experience. For example, the posting for 
Inc. requires "[f]our (4) years of prior experience in Quality and/or Risk Management with three (3) 
years at a supervisory level," requires "minimum 7+ years' experience," 
requires "five to ten years of in-depth experience," and also 
requires "4-6 years of compliance experience." The advertised positions appear to be for a more 
senior position than the proffered position. 
In addition, contrary to the purpose for which the advertisements were submitted, the job 
postings do not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a directly related specific specialty is 
required. For example, the advertisement from states that education 
requirement is a bachelor's degree, but does not state a specific specialty. Similarly, 
prefers a bachelor's degree, but does not indicate that it requires 
a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. As discussed, the degree requirement set by the 
statutory and regulatory framework of the H-1 B program is not just a bachelor's or higher 
the advertisements are only soli citations for hire, they are not evidence of the actual hir ing practices of 
these empl oyers. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
degree, but such a degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the specialty occupation 
claimed in the petition. 
As the documentation does not establish that the petitioner has met this prong of the regulations, 
further analysis regarding the specific information contained in each of the job postings is not 
necessary. That is, as the evidence does not establish that similar organizations in the same 
industry routinely require at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for 
parallel positions, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. 
Thus, 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 
sharing all three characteristics of being (1) within the petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the 
proffered position, and also (3) located in organizations that are similar to the petitioner. 
Next, the evidence of record does not satisfy the second alternative prong of 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(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." 
Upon review <;>f the proffered duties, the record of proceeding presents the duties comprising the 
proffered position in terms of relatively abstract and generalized functions. More specifically, they 
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. For example, the beneficiary will 
"develop, initiate, manager, maintain and revise policies and procedures for the general operations 
of the Compliance Program"; "develop and periodically review and update the Standards of 
Conduct"; and "identify potential areas of compliance vulnerability." The evidence of record 
contains neither substantive explanation nor documentation showing the substantive nature of the 
work and associated applications of specialized knowledge that would be involved in the referenced 
tasks. These duties do not provide any information as to the complexity of the job duties, the 
amount of supervision required, and the level of judgment and understanding required to perform 
the duties. Furthermore, the phrases could cover a range of issues, and without additional 
information, do not provide any insights into the beneficiary's day-to-day work. 
While this type of general 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 attached to specific employment for H-lB approval as it 
fails to adequately convey the substantive work that the beneficiary will perform within the 
petitioner's business activities. 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 petition. Therefore, it is not evident that the proposed 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
duties as described, and the position that they comprise, merit recognition of the proffered 
position as a specialty occupation. 
Further, the petitioner failed to demonstrate how the duties of the proffered position as described 
in the record require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge such that a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
required to perform them. For instance, the petitioner did not submit information relevant to a 
detailed course of study leading to a specialty degree and did not establish how such a 
curriculum is necessary to perform the duties it may believe are so complex and unique. While a 
few related courses may be beneficial, or even required, in performing certain duties of the 
position, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate how an established curriculum of such courses 
leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to 
perform the duties of the proffered position. The description of the duties does not specificalJy 
identify any tasks that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could 
perform them. The record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the proffered 
position as more complex or unique from other positions that can be performed by persons 
without at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
We also find that the LCA submitted by the petitioner in support of the instant petltwn is 
materially inconsistent with a claim that the petitioner has established the relative complexity or 
uniqueness required to satisfy this second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)(2). 
Again, we incorporate by reference and reiterate our earlier discussion regarding the fact that the 
petitioner submitted as the supporting LCA one that had been certified for a Level I (entry level) 
wage. This designation is appropriate for positions for which the petitioner expects the 
beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the occupation. That is, in accordance with the 
relevant DOL explanatory information on wage levels, this wage rate indicates that the 
beneficiary is only required to have a basic understanding of the occupation; that she will be 
expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; that she will 
be closely supervised and his work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and that she 
will receive specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. 
By way of comparison, a position classified at a Level IV (fully competent) pos1tton is 
designated by the DOL for employees who "use advanced skills and diversified knowledge to 
solve unusual and complex problems." Thus, the wage level designated by the petitioner in the 
LCA for the proffered position is not consistent with claims that the position would entail any 
particularly complex or unique duties or that the position itself would be so complex or unique as 
to require the services of a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 
Consequently, as the petitioner fails to demonstrate how the proffered position is so complex or 
unique relative to other director of operations positions that can be performed by a person 
without at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for entry into the 
occupation in the United States, the petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)( A)(2). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
We turn next to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4) (iii)(A)(J), which entails an employer 
demonstrating that it normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its 
equivalent for the position. 
)o 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 a petitioner's 
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 Def€msor 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 § 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2 (h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation"). The petitioner did not provide 
evidence of its hiring history. 
As the record of proceeding 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, it does not 
satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2 (h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
Next, 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. 
For context, we again refer the petitioner to the Handbook and the per tinent sections that we have 
quoted from it. The Handbook's information does not indicate that the performance 
requirements of the duties of health and medical services manager occupational group are 
usually associated with attainment of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 
As reflected in this decision 's earlier comments and findings with regard to the proposed duties 
as presented in the record - which we here incorporate into the present analysis - the evidence of 
record does not establish the nature of the proposed duties as so specialized and complex that 
their performance would require knowledge usually associated with a particular level of 
education in a specific specialty. While the petition relates many and varied duties and functions 
8 Any such assertion would be undermined in this parti cular case by the fact that the petitioner's 
submission of an LCA certified for a Level I prevai li ng-wage signif ies assessment of the proffered 
position as a comparatively low, entry-level position relative to others wit hin the same occupation. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 16 
that the beneficiary would have to perform, it does not show that even the aggregate of such 
duties is usually associated with a particular level of educational attainment in any specific 
specialty. Thus, the evidence in the record of proceeding fails to establish that the proposed 
duties meet the specialization and complexity threshold at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2 (h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the position requires "myriad of specialized skills" to ensure 
"patient safety" which is "one of the most vital and challenging jobs in healthcare today." 
However, we find find that both on its own terms and also in comparison with the three higher 
wage-levels that can be design ated in an LCA, by the submission of an LCA certified for a wage­
level I, the petitioner effectively attests that the proposed duties are of relatively low complexity 
as compared to others within the same occupational category. This fact is materially inconsistent 
with the level of complexity required by this criterion. By virtue of this submission the 
petitioner effectively attested that the proffered position is a low-level, entry position relative to 
others within the occupation, and that, as clear by comparison with DOL 's instructive comments 
about the next higher level (Level II), the proffered position did not even involve "moderately 
complex tasks that require limited judgment" (the level of complexity noted for the next higher 
wage-level, Level II). 
For all of these reasons, the evidence in the record of proceeding fails to establish that the 
proposed duties meet the specialization and complexity threshold at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214. 2(h)(4) (iii)(A)(4) . 
III. ADDITIONAL ISSUES 
As the grounds discussed above are dispositive of the petitioner's eligibility for the benefit 
sought in this matter they conclusively require that the appeal be dismissed. However, here we 
will note additional deficiencies in the petition and supporting documentation in order to apprise 
the petitioner of further insufficiencies in the record that would also require dismissal of the 
appeal. 
A. The LCA 
As mentioned, the petitioner indicated on its LCA that the proffered position corresponds to 
"Managers, All Other " - SOC (ONET/OES Code) 11-9199. However, in response to the RFE a, 
the petitioner indicated that the duties of the proffered position correlate to the occupational 
category of "Health and Medical Services Managers" - SOC (ONET/OES Code) 11-9111. 
With respect to the LCA, the U.S. Depa rtment of Labor (DOL) provides guidance for selecting 
the most relevant O* NET classification code. DOL's "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy 
Guidance " states the following: 
In determining the nature of the job offer, the first order is to review the 
requirements of the employer's job offer and determine the appropriate 
occupational classification. The O*N ET description that corresponds to the 
(b)(6)
Page 17 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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. 
See 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_ ll_2009.pdf. 
A search of the Foreign Labor Certification Data Center Online Wage Library reveals that the 
prevailing wage for "Medical and Health Services Managers " SOC (O* NET/OES) Code 11-
9111 for at a Level I is $68,744 per year.9 The petitioner's offered 
wage to the beneficiary of $55,349 per year is below the prevailing wage for the occupational 
category "Medical and Health Services Managers" in the area of intended em ployment by 
$13,39 5 per year. 
Under the H-1B program, a petitioner must offer a beneficiary wages that are at least the actual 
wage level paid by the petitioner to all other individuals with similar experience and 
qualifications for the specific employment in question, or the prevailing wage level for the 
occupational classification in the area of employment, whichever is greater, based on the best 
information available as of the time of filing the application. See section 212(n)(1)(A) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(n)(1)(A). 
While DOL is the agency that certifies LCA applications before they are submitted to USCIS, 
DOL regulations note that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (i.e., its immigration 
benefits branch, USCIS) is the department responsible for determining whether an LCA filed for 
a particular Form I-129 actually supports that petition. See 20 C.F.R. § 655.7 05(b), which states, 
in pertinent part (emphasis added) : 
For H-1B visas .. . DHS accepts the employer's petition (DHS Form I-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 . . . and whether the 
qualifications of the nonimmigrant meet the statutory requirements of H -1 B visa 
classification. 
9 For more information, see the All Jndustries Database for 7/20 13 - 6/20 14 for Medi cal and Health 
Services Managers at the Foreign Labor Certific ation Data Center, Onlin e Wage Li brary on the Internet at 
http://www.flcda tacenter.com/OesQuickResults .aspx?code= 11-91 11 � ;year= 14&source= I 
(last visi ted March 11, 20 15). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 18 
The regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b) requires that USCIS ensure that the Form I-129 petition 
is supported by an LCA that corresponds it. To permit otherwise would result in a petitioner 
paying a wage lower than that required by section 212(n)(l)(A) of the Act, by allowing that 
petitioner to simply submit an LCA for a different occupational category at a lower prevailing 
wage than the one that it claims it is offering to the beneficiary. Here, the LCA does not 
properly reflect the correct occupational category and thus does not correspond to the H -1 B 
petition. Further, the petitioner has not demonstrated that it would pay an adequate salary for the 
beneficiary's work, as required under the Act, if the petition were granted. Thus, for this reason 
as well, the petition must be denied. 
B. Beneficiary's Qualification 
We do not need to examine the issue of the beneficiary's qualifications, because the petitioner 
has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proffered position is a specia lty 
occupation. In other words, the beneficiary's credentials to perform a particular job are relevant 
only when the job is found to be a specialty occupation. Therefore, we will not address the 
beneficiary's qualifications further. 
IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 
An application or petition that fails to 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, 34 5 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DO .!, 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 our enumerated 
grounds. See Spencer Enterpr ises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043 , ajj'd. 34 5 F.3d 
683. 
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. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.