dismissed H-1B Case: Medical Equipment

MATTER OF PCM-, LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 1, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a medical equipment wholesaler, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
'"health researcher" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification. See Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). The H-lB program 
allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a position that requires 
both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and (b) 
the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a 
minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
evidence of record does not establish the proffered position as a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and asserts that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation under the applicable statute and regulations. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U .S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term '"specialty occupation'' as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
Matter of PCM-, LLC 
(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. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has consistently 
interpreted the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any 
baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed 
position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertofj; 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree 
requirement in a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a 
particular position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
On the H-lB petitiOn, the Petitioner described itself as a "[m]edical equipment merchant 
wholesalers" business and identified the proffered position as a ''health researcher." The Petitioner 
attested on the required labor condition application (LCA) that the occupational classification for the 
position is "Economists," Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 19-3011. 
In a letter of support, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will perform the following duties 
(verbatim): 
In order to expand current operations we are currently in immediate need for a Health 
Researcher to oversee activities directly related to making products and providing 
services in order to exceed our customer's expectation. The Health researcher will 
provide technical leadership of research or technical assistance projects including 
developing research designs and strategic audience-focused project plans, including 
providing strategic thinking, leading and supporting stakeholder work, and 
identifying creative solutions to address client needs. [The Beneficiary] will manage 
projects and staff including leading projects, interacting with clients, and supervising 
and supporting project team members. Also, she will work participating in 
professional meetings, advisory panels, and publishing research results in 
coordination with medical doctors in peer-reviewed publications. 
2 
Matter of PCM-, LLC 
As a Health Researcher, she will engage in business development activities including 
identifying opportunities and strategic partnerships, cultivating relationships with 
existing and potential clients, writing proposals, developing budgets, and expanding 
[the company's] potential sales market. 
[The Beneficiary will also] Research and analyze economic issues, Conduct surveys 
and collect data. Analyze data using mathematical models and statistical 
techniques[.] Prepare reports, tables, and charts that present research results, Interpret 
and forecast market trends, Advise businesses, governments, and individuals on 
economic topics, Design policies or make recommendations for solving economic 
problems, Write articles for publication in academic journals and other media 
sources. The Health Researcher, apply economic analysis to issues within a variety 
of fields, such as education, health, development, and the environment. Some Health 
Researcher study the cost of products, healthcare, or energy. 
In the same letter, the Petitioner stated that the proffered position requires "at least a Bachelor's 
Degree." In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner stated that the 
proffered position requires a degree in "a specific field of study, which is business." The Petitioner 
also provided the following list of duties with the percentage of time spent on each duty (totaling 
100% ofthe Beneficiary's time): 
• Oversee activities directly related to making products ( 1 0% ); 
• Provide services in order to exceed [company's] customer's expectation (2%); 
• Provide technical leadership of research or technical assistance projects including 
developing research designs and strategic audience-focused project plans (5%); 
• Provide strategic thinking, leading and supporting stakeholder work (5%); 
• Identifying creative solutions to address client needs (8%); 
• Manage projects and staff including leading projects, interacting with clients, and 
supervising and supporting project team members (3%); 
• She will work participating in professional meetings, advisory panels, and publish result 
(10%); 
• Engage in business development activities including identifying opportunities and 
strategic partnerships (2% ); 
• Cultivate relationships with existing and potential new clients (5%); 
• Write proposals, developing budgets, and expanding [company's] potential sales market 
(10%); 
• Develop methodological strategies and address research design issues related to the 
analysis of large health care database such as administrative claims, survey data and other 
health care data (12%); 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter (?f PCM-. LLC 
• Participate in the elaboration and estimation of proposed research studies, including 
development of detailed study designs and protocols and estimation of time and efTort 
involved in each task ( 1 0% ); 
• Identify and develop solutions to key strategic business problems using high level 
modeling and statistical analyses techniques (8%) ; and 
• Identify appropriate data sources and define analytical research plans to manage data 
extraction and 
manipulate large healthcare databases (1 0%). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the duties of its health researcher "are quite similar, almost 
identical" to those of '·Market Research Analysts and Marketing Specialists," corresponding to SOC 
code 13-1161. 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualities as a specialty occupation. 1 
As an initial matter, the Petitioner has not consistently stated the minimum entry requirement for the 
proffered position. In its support letter and RFE response, the Petitioner stated that the proffered 
position requires at least a bachelor's degree in business. In its business plan, the Petitioner 
indicated that its health researcher position requires an '·MBA [master of business administration], 
Analytical, Engineer Background , health care lndustry experience.'' On appeal, the Petitioner states 
that it requires "extensive knowledge in the functional areas of business plus at least relevant 
experience and/or knowledge in the healthcare field to understand the field." It is therefore not 
apparent whether the Petitioner requires only a bachelor's degree in business, a master's degree in 
business administration plus engineering and healthcare experience , a degree in business 
administration plus knowledge or experience of the healthcare industry , or other requirements? 
If the Petitioner's minimum entry requirement for the proffered position is a degree in business or 
business administration as alternativel y claimed. then this indicates that the protTered position does 
not require at least a bachelor's degree in a .\pec[fic .\pecialty, or its equivalent. A degree in the 
broad and otherwise unspecified tield of business or business administration does not represent a 
degree in a "specific specialty," 
section 214(i)(l) of the Act, but rather , constitutes a general-purpose 
degree. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Cherlldf, 484 F.3d at 147 (recogni zing a business admini stration 
degree as a '·general-purpose " bachelor 's degree); cf Matter (~fLing, 13 I&N Dec. 35 (Reg'! 
Comm'r 1968) (finding business administration to be a broad field "which contains various 
1 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
2 As will be discussed infi·a, the Petitioner submitted a letter from attesting that the proffered 
position minimally requires ··a Bachelor's Degree in Healthcare Management. Business Administration. or a related area, 
or the equivalent.'' 
4 
Matter of PCM-, LLC 
occupations and/or professions, all of which are related to the world of business but each requiring a 
different academic preparation and experience peculiar to its needs"). Therefore, the Petitioner's 
claim that a bachelor's degree in business or business administration is a sufficient minimum 
requirement for entry into the proffered position indicates that the proposed position does not qualify 
as 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. There must be a close correlation 
between the required specialized studies and the position; thus, the mere requirement of a general 
degree, without further specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. C.f. 
Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988) ("The mere requirement of 
a college degree for the sake of general education, or to obtain what an employer perceives to be a 
higher caliber employee, also does not establish eligibility."). While a general-purpose bachelor's 
degree 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. Royal Siam Corp. v. Cherto,[f, 484 F.3d at 147. 
Again, the Petitioner in this matter claims that the duties of the proffered position can be performed 
by an individual with only a general-purpose bachelor's degree, i.e., a bachelor's degree in business 
or business administration. Without more, this assertion alone indicates that the proffered position is 
not in fact a specialty occupation. The Director's decision must therefore be affirmed and the appeal 
dismissed on this basis alone? 
Moreover, we cannot find that the profTered position qualifies as a specialty occupation because the 
Petitioner has not adequately established the substantive nature of the proffered position and its 
associated job duties. 
Here, the Petitioner has submitted generic and inconsistent descriptions of the Beneficiary's 
proposed duties that are not sufficiently explained within the context of the Petitioner's particular 
business operations. For example, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary will spend 10 percent 
3 A general degree requirement does not necessarily preclude a proffered position from qualifying as a specialty 
occupation. For example, an entry requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in business administration with a 
concentration in a specific field, or a bachelor's or higher degree in business administration combined with relevant 
education, training, and/or experience may, in certain instances, qualify the proffered position as a specialty occupation. 
In either case, it must be demonstrated that the entry requirement is equivalent to a bachelor's or higher degree in a 
specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d at 147. 
Here, however, the Petitioner has not specified how much (if any) relevant knowledge and/or experience is necessary for 
the proffered position. Thus, even if the Petitioner's minimum entry requirement for the proffered position includes an 
unspecified amount of knowledge and/or experience in engineering and/or healthcare, in addition to a general-purpose 
business administration degree, this combined requirement is still insufficient to establish a degree requirement 
equivalent to a degree in a specific specialty. "'[G]oing on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings." Matter qf Sojjici, 22 l&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter q(Treasure Cra.fi q(Cal., 141&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
5 
Matter of PCM-, LLC 
of her time "identifying creative solutions to address client needs" and "provid[ing] services in order 
to exceed [company's] customer's expectation." The Petitioner does not detail the actual tasks the 
Beneficiary will perform as it relates to its clients or customers, and the nature of the "solutions" and 
"services" she will provide. The Petitioner does not provide sufficient information to ascertain what 
tasks the Beneficiary will actually be performing in relation to these generic statements. Although 
the Petitioner provided numerous pages of its cost structure and price list as well as its business plan, 
the record does not include sufficient probative information directly relating the vaguely described 
duties to the Petitioner's actual business. 
A large part of the proffered position appears to involve performing healthcare research studies and 
research projects. For instance, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will spend 12 percent of her 
time on developing methodological strategies and researching design issues related to the analysis of 
large health care databases, 1 0 percent of time on duties related to research studies and development 
of detailed study designs and protocols, and another 1 0 percent of her time identifying the data 
sources and defining the analytical research plans to extract the data and manipulate healthcare 
databases. However, the Petitioner does not sufficiently explain the nature of this research, 
particularly within the context of the Petitioner's business operations. The Petitioner does not 
explain in detail what sort of study designs or protocols the Beneficiary will develop, what types of 
"large health care databases" or other data sources are involved, and who will perform the actual 
research, for example. The Petitioner also does not supply sufficient information regarding the 
topics and issues that will be researched, the purpose or parameters of the research and/or projects, 
and how any of these proposed tasks, including the undefined proposed research studies, relates to 
the nature of the Petitioner's operations. 
Here, it is important to consider the nature and scope of the Petitioner's operations as a wholesaler 
and distributor of orthopedic equipment and other related products. The Petitioner has not 
sufficiently explained how, as a wholesaler and distributor of medical products, it will utilize the 
Beneficiary in a "health researcher" position. For example, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary 
will spend 10 percent of her time overseeing activities related to making products. However, as the 
Petitioner does not identify itself as a manufacturer, it is unclear what aspect of this duty relates to 
the Petitioner's business.4 
While the Petitioner asserts that it has a "parent company [that] manufactures the products in 
Venezuela," the Petitioner has not submitted additional information and corroborating evidence of 
its claimed parent company. Further, contrary to the Petitioner's assertions, the Petitioner's 2014 
federal tax return indicates that the Petitioner is not a subsidiary or owned in substantial part by 
another foreign or domestic corporation. "[G]oing on record without supporting documentary 
4 The Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary will utilize the ··Delphi method of doing research," which is '"done by 
using repeated rounds of questioning and written responses.'' The Petitioner further explained that the Beneficiary will 
survey hospital staff and surgeons with respect to medical products. However, merely identifying one method of 
performing research is insufficient to explain how the Beneficiary's claimed research duties are consistent with the 
nature of the Petitioner's business operations as a wholesaler and distributor. 
Matter of PCM-. LLC 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. ·• Matter 
ofSo.ffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter ofTreasure Crafi ofCal., 14 I&N 
Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
In addition, the Petitioner's descriptions of the proffered duties are not consistent with its scope of 
operations. The Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary will provide "technical leadership of 
research or technical assistance projects," and will "manage projects and staff including leading 
projects ... and supervising and supporting project team members." However, the Petitioner has not 
explained which of its four employees (two employees and two owners) will perform the actual 
research duties that the Beneficiary will purportedly supervise, or whom the Beneficiary will 
purportedly supervise and manage.5 Notably, the Petitioner's organizational chart does not identify 
any positions that report to its health researcher, nor does it identify any teams or specific projects 
that will be supported by the Beneficiary. Again, "going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient." !d. 
The Petitioner's job descriptions are inconsistent in other aspects as well. The Petitioner initially 
asserted that the Beneficiary will perform the job duty of "participating in professional meetings, 
advisory panels, and publishing research results in coordination with medical doctors in 
peer-reviewed publications (emphasis added)." The Petitioner also highlighted the claimed 
specialization and complexity of the proposed job duties based in part on the duty of "[writing] 
articles for publication in academic journals and other media sources." In response to the Director's 
RFE, however, the Petitioner removed the references to "in coordinating with medical doctors in 
peer-reviewed publications" and "[writing] articles for publication in academic journals'' from the 
list of job duties said to comprise 100 percent of the Beneficiary's time. The Petitioner has not 
adequately explained this shift in its descriptions of the proffered job duties. We thus are precluded 
from understanding exactly what job duties the Beneficiary will perform and the overall nature of 
the proffered position.6 
The Petitioner states on appeal that the proffered job duties "are quite similar, almost identical" to 
those of "Market Research Analysts and Marketing Specialists,'' corresponding to a different 
occupational classification (SOC code 13-1161 ). The Petitioner also provides on appeal an excerpt 
from the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) Online Summary Report for "Marketing 
Research Analysts and Marketing Specialists." However, the Petitioner's assertion that the proffered 
5 The Petitioner's four employees are a director of strategy/general manager, a financial director, a warehouse supervisor, 
and an administrative assistant. The Petitioner did not indicate that these employees performed any direct research 
duties. It is reasonable to assume that the size of an employer's business has or could have an impact on the claimed 
duties of a particular position. See EG Enters., Inc. v. Dep 't of Homeland Sec., 467 F. Supp. 2d 728 (E. D. Mich. 
2006). The size of a petitioner may be considered as a component of the nature of the petitioner's business, as the size 
impacts upon the actual duties of a particular position. 
6 Although the Petitioner's RFE response stated that the Beneficiary's "participation in professional meeting and 
advisory panels allows her to work in coordination with the medical professionals in publishing research results,'' this 
statement implies that the Beneficiary will not actually be writing the articles for publication. The Petitioner's RFE 
response does not sufficiently explain the nature of the proffered duties. 
(b)(6)
Matter of PCM-. LLC 
position should be considered a market research analyst or marketing specialist further precludes an 
understanding of the proffered position. More specifically, the Petitioner attested on the LCA that 
the proffered position falls under the occupational category "Economists." In support of the petition, 
the Petitioner submitted excerpts from the Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) and 
O*NET reports relevant to the "Economists" occupation. In fact, as the Director noted , much of the 
Petitioner 's initial job descriptions was copied verbatim from the Handbook chapter on 
"Economists." The Petitioner has not explained why it now asserts that the profTered duties are 
"almost identical " to those of "Market Research Analysts and Marketing Specialists," and how the 
"Economists" occupational classification selected is nonetheless appropriate. 7 
In response to an RFE or on appeal, the Petitioner cannot otTer a new position to the Beneficiary, or 
materi ally change a position's title, its level of authority within the organizational hierarchy, the 
asso ciated job responsibilities, or the requirements of the position. The Petitioner must establish that 
the position offered to the Beneficiary when the petition was tiled merits classification for the 
benefit sought. See Maller of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 , 249 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978). A 
petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an efiort to make a deficient petition 
conform to USC IS requirements. See Matter (?f' lzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Com m 'r 
1998). The Petitioner has not explained the inconsist encies in the record, and supported its 
exp lanation with competent objective evidence. 
Accordingly , based upon review of the totality of the record, we find that the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently established the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the Beneficiary. We 
are therefore precluded from finding that the proffered position satisfies any criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), because it is the substantive n
ature of that work that determines (1) the nonnal 
minimum educational requirement for entry into 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 ofthe specific duties, which 
is the focus of criterion 4. As the Petitioner has not esta blished that the proffered position satisfies 
any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), the Petitioner has not established that the 
proffered position qualifie s as a specialty occupation. 
Finally, we will briefly explain why the opinion letters by and are 
insufficient to estab lish eligibility und er any criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 2 14.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A). 
7 If the proffered duties are identical to those of "Market Research Analysts and Marketing Specialists,·· then the 
submitted LCA would not support the petition. While the Department of Labor (DOL) is the agency that ce1tifies LCA 
applications before they are submitted to USC IS, DOL regulations note that the Department of Homeland Security (i.e., 
its immigration benefits branch, USC IS) is the department responsible for determining whether the content of an LCA 
filed for a particular Form 1-129 actually supp01ts that petition. See 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b ). The LCA issue would 
further preclude approval of the petition. 
(b)(6)
Maller 4 PCM-. LLC 
First, these letters are not based upon sutlicient, detailed information about the particular position here 
within the specific context of the Petitioner's business operations. For instance, neither writer relates 
any personal knowledge or observations of the Petitioner 's operations or the work that the 
Beneficiary will perform. Further, the writers do not relate their conclusions to specific , concrete 
aspects of this Petitioner's business operations as a wholesaler and distributor of medical products, 
as opposed to a manufacturer , to demonstrate a sound factual basis for the conclusions about the 
duties of the proffered position and its educational requirements. 
Second, the writers provide statements as to the necessary educational background of the position, but 
their requirements are not consistent with each other or with the Petitioner's stated requirements. 
states that the position requires a degree in "the specific field of study [of] Business.'· 
However, states that the minimum entry requirement for the proffered position is "a 
Bachelor's Degree in Healthcare Management, Business Administration , or a related area, or the 
equivalent. " Importantly , the Petitioner did not claim that it requires a bachelor ' s degree in 
healthcare management, or its equivalent. 
Third, the Petitioner also has not submitted sufficient evidence establishing that is 
qualified to render an advisory opinion on the proffered position. letter simply states 
that he is a ·'medical practitioner in the United States" with over 20 years of experience. His letter 
does not further identify any particular field(s) of specialization or any other qualifications he may 
have to render an advisory opinion about health researcher positions and the general field of study in 
business. 
We may, in our discretion , use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of 
Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791 , 795 (Comm'r 1988). However , where an opinion is not in 
accord with other information or is in any way questionable , we are not required to accept or may 
give less weight to that evidence. !d. For the reasons discussed above. we find that the letters from 
and do not constitute probative evidence of the proffered position as a 
specialty occupation. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established , more likely than not, the proffered posttwn qualities as a 
specialty occupation. 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; Ma//er of Otiende, 26 
I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter oj'PCM- . LLC, ID# 17251 (AAO June 1, 20 16) 
()