dismissed H-1B Case: Unknown

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 23, 2025 In Re: 35536564 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification 
for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to file a petition with U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 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 California Service Center Director denied the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
(petition), concluding the record did not establish that the offered position qualified as a specialty 
occupation. The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to 
demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act; Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo. 
Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will 
dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
A. Properly Designating the Elements on the Labor Condition Application 
Before filing a petition for H-lB classification, the regulation requires petlt10ners to obtain 
certification from the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) that the organization has filed an ETA Form 
9035 & 9035E, Labor Condition Application for Nonimmigrant Workers (LCA) in the occupational 
specialty in which its foreign national personnel will be employed. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(l) . 
Furthermore, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(B)(2) provides that a petitioner must state 
that it will comply with the terms of the LCA. While DOL certifies the LCA, USCIS "determines 
whether the petition is supported by an LCA which corresponds with the petition, whether the 
occupation named in the labor condition application is a specialty occupation ... , and whether the 
qualifications of the nonimmigrant meet the statutory requirements for H-lB visa classification." 
20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b). See also Matter ofSimeio Solutions, 26 I&N Dec. 542,546 n.6 (AAO 2015). 
USCIS may consider DOL regulations when adjudicating H-lB pet1t10ns. See Int'l Internship 
Programs v. Napolitano, 853 F. Supp. 2d 86, 98 (D.D.C. 2012), ajf'd sub nom. Int'l Internship 
Program v. Napolitano, 718 F.3d 986 (D.C. Cir. 2013); ITServe All., Inc. v. United States Dep't of 
Homeland Sec., 71 F.4th 1028, 1037-38 (D.C. Cir. 2023); United States v. Narang, No. 19-4850, 2021 
WL 3484683, at *1 (4th Cir. Aug. 9, 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1360 (2022) (finding that USCIS 
adjudicators evaluate whether the employment proposed in an H-1 B petition will conform to the wage 
and location specifications in the LCA); Parzenn Partners, LLC v. Baran, No. 19-CV-11515-ADB, 
2020 WL 5803143, at *8-9 (D. Mass. Sept. 29, 2020) (finding that USCIS operates within its authority 
when it either considers or evaluates DOL's wage level regulation when determining if an LCA 
corresponds with and supports an H-lB petition). 
In a similar vein, USCTS possesses the authority to evaluate whether the offered position's duties are 
in accordance with the occupational classification on the LCA, and if not, to determine under which 
occupational titles the responsibilities correspond. See GCCG Inc v. Holder, 999 F. Supp. 2d 1161, 
1167-68 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (in which the court agreed with USCTS that a large portion of the 
beneficiary's duties were most similar to those found within the Bookkeeping, Accounting, and 
Auditing Clerks occupation, rather than within the Accountants Standard Occupational 
Classificational (SOC) code.) Effectively, this reiterates the USCTS' ability to determine whether the 
LCA corresponds with and supports the petition. 
"In construing a statute or regulation, we begin by inspecting its language for plain meaning." Sullivan 
v. McDonald, 815 F.3d 786, 790 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Meeks v. West, 216 F.3d 1363, 1366 
(Fed.Cir.2000)). "[W]e attempt to give full effect to all words contained within that statute or 
regulation, thereby rendering superfluous as little of the statutory or regulatory language as possible." 
Sullivan, 815 F.3d at 790 (quoting Glover v. West, 185 F.3d 1328, 1332 (Fed.Cir.1999)). The most 
basic canon of statutory-as well as regulatory-construction consists of interpreting a law or rule by 
examining the literal and plain language. See Carbon Fuel Co. v. USX Corp., 100 F.3d 1124, 1133 
( 4th Cir. 1996). The inquiry ends with the plain language as well, unless the language is ambiguous. 
United States v. Pressley, 359 F.3d 347, 349 (4th Cir. 2004). 
Here, the plain language of the regulation is dispositive: USCIS is authorized to determine the 
corollary nature of the offered position's elements as represented in an LCA when compared with 
those same elements as represented on the Form T-129, as well as the Petitioner's actual position 
requirements. And to clarify, USCIS does not purport to exercise any authority over the LCA. Instead, 
we are ensuring that the claims made on the LCA sufficiently align to those made within the H-lB 
petition. 
Furthermore, the Act prescribes DOL's limited role in reviewing LCAs stating that "[u]nless the 
[DOL] Secretary finds that the application is incomplete or obviously inaccurate, the Secretary shall 
provide the certification .... " Section 212(n)(l)(G)(ii) of the Act. USCIS precedent also states: 
DOL reviews LCAs "for completeness and obvious inaccuracies" and will certify the 
LCA absent a determination that the application is incomplete or obviously inaccurate. 
Section 212(n)(l)(G)(ii) of the Act. In contrast, USCIS must determine whether the 
attestations and content of an LCA correspond to and support the H-1 B visa petition. 
2 
Simeio Solutions, 26 I&N Dec. at 546 n.6. It is unclear how USCIS is to carry out its responsibilities 
to determine whether the LCA corresponds with and supports the H-lB petition without performing 
such a review. To illustrate, by simply submitting the LCA to DOL without also obtaining a prevailing 
wage determination, a petitioner has only received DOL's certification that the form is complete and 
does not contain obvious inaccuracies. Id. 1 In fact, DOL "is not generally permitted to investigate 
the veracity of the employer's attestations on the LCA prior to certification." Aleutian Cap. Partners, 
LLC, 975 F.3d at 225-26 (quoting Cyberworld Enter. Techs., Inc. v. Napolitano, 602 F.3d 189, 193 
(3d Cir. 2010)). 
Further, when DOL certifies an LCA, it does not perform any meritorious review of an employer's 
claims to ensure the information is true. DOL's Office of Inspector General, 06-21-001-03-321, 
Overview of Vulnerabilities and Challenges in Foreign Labor Certification Programs 11 (2020) 
( describing the DOL Employment and Training Administration's role as "simply rubber-stamping 
during the application certification process"). In other words, employers do not receive an evaluative 
determination from DOL on whether the LCA's content and the specifics were appropriate and 
accurate. 
In order to determine whether the "attestations and content" (e.g., the SOC code and the wage level) 
as represented on the LCA corresponds with the information pertaining to the offered position as 
represented on the Form I-129, we follow DOL's guidance, which provides a five-step process for 
determining the appropriate SOC code and wage level. See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training 
Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. 
Nov. 2009) (DOL guidance), available at http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC_ 
Guidance_Revised_l 1_2009.pdf. 
An employer "reaffirms its acceptance of all of the attestation obligations by submitting the LCA to 
[USCIS] in support of the Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker, Form I-129, for an H-lB 
nonimmigrant." 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(c)(l). When comparing the SOC code or the wage level 
indicated on the LCA to the claims associated with the petition, USCIS does not purport to supplant 
DOL's responsibility with respect to wage determinations. There may be some overlap in 
considerations, but USCIS' responsibility at its stage of adjudication is to ensure that the content of 
the DOL-certified LCA "corresponds with" the content of the H-lB petition. 
Additionally, it is important for USCIS to ensure the employer has selected the SOC code on the LCA 
that most closely matches the offered position for reasons that affect H-lB statutory and regulatory 
requirements. First, the wrong SOC code could direct USCTS to evaluate an inapplicable occupation, 
and an incorrect SOC code would mean we would not be able to properly evaluate whether a petitioner 
has satisfied the statute's definition of a specialty occupation. 
Second, we also could not provide a proper analysis under two H-1 B regulatory requirements. Those 
requirements fall under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l) and (2). 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J) requires a petitioner to demonstrate that a baccalaureate or higher degree-or 
1 Employers my obtain a prevailing wage determination by taking the additional step of submitting Form ETA-9141 
(Application for Prevailing Wage Determination) to DOL's National Prevailing Wage Center. 
3 
its equivalent-is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. Because 
education requirements may differ markedly from one occupational classification to the next, the 
incorrect SOC code ( e.g., occupational classification) could skew the analysis. Also, 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) requires that the degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel 
positions among similar organizations. Because the degree requirement that is considered common to 
the industry for one occupation may also be distinct in comparison to others, USCIS must ensure the 
SOC code specified on the LCA is the one that most closely matches the position in the petition. 
It is also important to ensure the correct wage level is specified on the LCA because even if an 
employer designates the correct SOC code and satisfies the H-1 B related requirements, if the wage 
level an employer designates is lower than the position's requirements warrant, USCIS still cannot 
approve the H-lB petition. Stated differently, were USCIS to allow an employer to designate a wage 
level that is lower than the position's requirements warrant, it would open the door to compensating 
that individual at a rate that is lower than the necessary prevailing wage. 
In summary, when filing an LCA and an H-1 B petition, a petitioner subjects itself to two authorities: 
(1) to DOL through the certification process, or through a prevailing wage determination, and (2) to 
USCIS by way of our authority to ensure that the LCA corresponds to and supports the petition. 
B. Specialty Occupation 
Section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) of the Act defines an H-IB nonimmigrant as a foreign national "who is 
coming temporarily to the United States to perform services ... in a specialty occupation described in 
section 214(i)(l) .... " (emphasis added). Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines 
the term "specialty occupation" as an occupation that requires "theoretical and practical application of 
a body of highly specialized knowledge, and 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 section 214(i)(l) of the Act, but adds a 
non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. 
In addition, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) provides that the offered position must meet one of four 
criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation position. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must be read with 
the statutory and regulatory definitions of a specialty occupation under section 214(i)(l) of the Act 
and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). We construe the term "degree" to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal 
Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in a 
specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
position"). Lastly, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(l) states that an H-lB classification may be granted 
to a foreign national who "will pe1form services in a specialty occupation ... " (emphasis added). 
Accordingly, to determine whether the Beneficiary will be employed in a specialty occupation, we 
look to the record to ascertain the services the Beneficiary will perform and whether such services 
require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained 
through at least a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
4 
By regulation, the Director is charged with determining whether the petition involves a specialty 
occupation as defined in section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(2). The Director 
may request additional evidence in the course of making this determination. 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(8). 
In addition, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the petition and must continue to 
be eligible through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
II. ANALYSIS 
We begin addressing two overarching issues that preclude this petition's approval. First, the LCA 
does not correspond to and support the petition. Second, there are inconsistencies in the Petitioner's 
position requirements for its registered nurses, and that prevents us from adequately evaluating what 
they actually mandate to qualify for those positions. In addition to those issues, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated the offered position satisfies the statutory and regulatory standards for a specialty 
occupation. 
A. The Petitioner Did Not File the LCA Containing the Correct Wage Rate Designation 
The 
Petitioner initially provided the position's description and prerequisite requirements and provided 
additional details relating to the position in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). For 
the sake of brevity, we will not quote the duties; however, we have closely reviewed and considered 
them. 
Upon review of the record, we have determined that the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility 
under the H-1B program. We conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the LCA 
corresponds to and supports the petition, which is an antecedent issue when compared to the offered 
position qualifying as a specialty occupation. 
Considering the offered position's responsibilities, it appears its Level I wage rate designation was 
incorrect. 2 The Petitioner specified a position located within the "Registered Nurses" occupational 
category, corresponding to the SOC code 29-1141.00. Step four as described in the DOL guidance 
evaluates whether an offered position's responsibilities would necessitate adding any points to the 
DOL's Appendix C: Worksheet for Use in Determining OES Wage Level, resulting in a higher wage 
level rating. Step four focuses on "Special Skills and Other Requirements." The DOL guidance states 
that "if it is determined that the requirements are indicators of skills that are beyond those of an entry 
level worker, consider whether a point should be entered on the worksheet in the Wage Level 
Column." 
Although the Petitioner described how a Level I prevailing wage rate was appropriate, it also stated 
specialized knowledge and expertise elements that appear to go beyond those listed in the DOL's 
Occupational Information Network (O*NET) for the Registered Nurses occupations. We offer 
examples. First, the Petitioner required knowledge associated with the duty to "analyze the assessment 
data to determine the actual and potential diagnoses and issues." This is not listed in the O*NET 
Tasks, Work Activities, Knowledge, and Job Zone Examples for the selected occupation and it 
2 The possibility also exists that the Petitioner specified the incorrect nursing-related SOC code on the LCA. As the wage 
level issue is the most apparent error, that is the LCA factor we will primarily discuss here. 
5 
warrants in increase in the wage rate by one level. The closest the O*NET Tasks come to determining 
the actual diagnoses and issues with a patient is two supplemental (i.e., not core) tasks to "order, 
interpret, and evaluate diagnostic tests to identify and assess patient's condition" or "modify patient 
treatment plans as indicated by patients' responses and condition." 
The Petitioner also indicated the position requires candidates to "develop and modify a plan of care 
that prescribes strategies and alternatives to attain expected outcomes" and "implement the identified 
plan of care." Registered nurses are not tasked with such advanced duties within the O*NET. Instead, 
they consult and coordinate with other healthcare team members to assess, plan, implement, or 
evaluate patient care plans. The Petitioner's duties involve a level of clinical decision-making and 
independent judgment that exceeds the scope of responsibilities typically encompassed within the 
Registered Nurses occupational category. The Petitioner's advanced responsibilities are indicators of 
skills that go beyond those required of an entry level registered nurse, meaning the wage level the 
company should have specified on the LCA was at least as a Level II. As a result, we conclude the 
Level I designation was incorrect meaning the LCA does not correspond to and support the petition. 
The Petitioner also provided a Job Description document for its Registered Nurse positions in its RFE 
response. That document not only contains much of the advanced duties we discussed above, but it 
also reflects as a prerequisite a nurse residency program for new graduates. The O*NET contains no 
such residency requirement for newly graduated nursing candidates for any of its nursing-related 
occupations. This additional requirement also appears it would necessitate an increase in the wage 
level on the LCA. When considered with the above information this would result in a requirement 
that the Petitioner should have designated the position at a Level III wage rate on the LCA. 
When applying for an immigration benefit, filing parties take on additional burdens as prescribed in 
several authorities (statutes, regulations, policy, etc.) that might not be present for the general public 
in similar situations. For example, the requirement to file an LCA accounting for the various DOL 
regulatory requirements. In practice this means that even if a petitioner has a standard set of expected 
duties for a registered nurse position, if its duties seemingly go beyond those of an entry level 
registered nurse as portrayed in DOL resources, that would mandate an increase in the wage level 
designation on the LCA. It is an employer's responsibility to properly file an LCA reflecting 
adherence to all DOL regulations. The Petitioner here has not met that additional burden. Although 
it is apparent from our above analysis, we conclude the LCA here does not correspond to and support 
the petition. 
B. The Petitioner's Inconsistencies 
Returning to the residency requirement in the position's job description document, we observe the 
Petitioner did not mention this residency prerequisite as a requirement for the position in the petition 
and they did not offer an explanation for its absence. This raises questions regarding the consistency 
of their actual position requirements. The Petitioner must resolve this inconsistent information in the 
record. Such a rectification must be demonstrated through the submission of relevant, independent, 
and objective evidence that illustrates which facts are the truth. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 
(BIA 1988). While it is not inconceivable that the Petitioner cannot offer an explanation for this 
discordant information, we note they did not present one for the record. 
6 
We also identified two other inconsistencies that raise further questions. First, the Petitioner claimed on 
the petition that its current number of employees in the United States was "over 3,000." But in other 
material submitted with the petition, the Petitioner presented claims that it employs "more than 50,000 
employees" in their cover letter filed with the petition, and within an affidavit from their vice president 
submitted in the RFE response, the affiant claimed "the number and perdentage [sic] of nurses at [ the 
petitioning organization] with and without BSN degree is as follows," and the affiant indicated the total 
number ofregistered nurses it currently employed at that time was l0,792. While the claim on the petition 
that the Petitioner employs over 3,000 personnel could technically mean they have more than 50,000 
employees or at least 10,792 registered nurses, the numbers are so significantly diverse that it tends to 
undermine the reliability of their claims, and we are unable to determine which claims are most accurate. 
The Petitioner did not explain how their divergent statistics could accurately represent the true facts. 
Second, the Petitioner provided one of its own job advertisements for a registered nurse requiring two 
years of experience, but they did not specify any experiential requirements for the position in the 
petition. These apparent inconsistencies raise additional doubt about the veracity of their claims as it 
relates to the offered position. The collection ofthese material and discordant factors serves as a sufficient 
basis to preclude this petition's approval. Id. 
C. The Offered Position Does Not Qualify as a Specialty Occupation Under the Claimed Requirements 
1. Procedural Considerations and Limitations 
On appeal, the Petitioner only argues they have satisfied the third criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3) that entails an employer demonstrating that it normally requires a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. In fact, before the Director-to include 
the initial petition filing and their response to the Director's RFE-the Petitioner only claimed eligibility 
under the third criterion. 
We observe that the Director's denial not only included a determination that the Petitioner did not show 
the position satisfied the remaining three regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), (2), and 
( 4), but also that it had fallen short of demonstrating it met the definition of a specialty occupation at both 
section 214(i)(l) ofthe Act and at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(ii). The failure to demonstrate a position satisfies 
the specialty occupation definition is fatal to the petition's outcome. Such an adverse outcome is 
mandated here because the regulation requires a petitioner to demonstrate that a petition "involves a 
specialty occupation as defined in section 214(i)(l) of the Act." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(2). 
Because the Petitioner does not argue how the Director incorrectly decided on any of these identified 
requirements means they have waived or forfeited those issues on appeal. Matter Khan, 28 I&N Dec. 
850, 852 n.4 (BIA 2024) (finding a topic is waived that was an issue before the lower adjudicative body 
but the filing party does not raise it on appeal). "'We consider abandoned any claims not adequately 
presented in [a] brief:' and [their] failure to make 'legal or factual arguments' constitutes 
abandonment." Debique v. Garland, 58 F.4th 676, 684 (2d Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 2715 
(2024) ( quoting Schwapp v. Town ofAvon, 118 F.3d l 06, 112 (2d Cir. 1997). 
Further, meeting the specialty occupation definition is an overarching and mandatory duty to qualify for 
H-1 B approval. Therefore, the Petitioner's waiver of its eligibility claims surrounding the definition of a 
7 
specialty occupation issue is dispositive of the appeal and is a basis to dismiss the appeal outright. When 
one issue is dispositive of an appeal, it is unnecessary that we address the filing party's remaining 
appellate arguments. Matter ofLarios-Gutierrez De Pablo & Pablo-Larios, 28 I&N Dec. 868, 877 n.8 
(BIA 2024); Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328, 332 (2022) ( citing INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 
(1976) (finding agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are 
unnecessary to the ultimate decision)); Smith v. Campbell, 782 F.3d 93, 102 (2d Cir. 2015). 
2. The Petitioner Has Not Met Their Burden Under the Third Criterion 
But for the sake of argument, we also conclude the Petitioner has not demonstrated it satisfied the third 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). Under this regulation, the record must establish a 
petitioner's stated degree requirement is not a matter of preference for high-caliber candidates but is 
necessitated instead by the position's performance requirements. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 
384, 387-88 (5th Cir. 2000). 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 created a token degree requirement. Id. Evidence 
provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not limited to, documentation regarding the 
Petitioner's past recruitment and hiring practices, as well as information regarding employees who 
previously held the position. 
Further, a petitioner must demonstrate that its imposed requirements are genuine. Sagarwala v. Cissna, 
387 F. Supp. 3d 56, 69 (D.D.C. 2019); Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 T&N Dec. 558, 560 
(Comm'r 1988) (finding: (1) the requirement of a degree for the sake of general education, or to obtain 
what an employer perceives to be a higher caliber employee, does not establish eligibility; and (2) an 
analysis of eligibility includes not only the actual requirements a petitioner specifies, but also those the 
specific industry in question requires to determine, in part, the validity of a petitioner's requirements). 
We already detailed inconsistencies in the Petitioner's claimed number of employees, an apparent and 
unexplained error that does not aid them in demonstrating eligibility under this requirement. But we 
further note that its claims of over 3,000 employees or approximately 10,792 registered nurses are only 
assertions, and they did not offer evidence to support either statement. Such claims within the petitioning 
organization's correspondence essentially equate to assertions rather than evidence to support such 
claims. The Petitioner did not offer a means by which we could verify the contents of their letters. 
Such unsupported assertions have little evidentiary value and are insufficient to establish a filing party 
has satisfied their burden of proof; such assertions do not even make a prima facie eligibility showing. 
Matter ofSofjici, 22 T&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998); see also Matter ofMariscal-Hernandez, 28 T&N 
Dec. 666, 673 (BIA 2022) (concluding unsupported assertions were inadequate to establish a Fourth 
Amendment violation); Matter ofAzrag, 28 I&N Dec. 784, 787 (BIA 2024) (finding counsel's statements 
"cannot substitute for evidence of deficient performance by an attorney, findings of fact regarding an 
attorney's conduct, or conclusions of law regarding the violation of a defendant's constitutional rights"). 
Beyond that evidentiary shortcoming, the Petitioner provided several of its own job advertisements for 
various nursing positions, but only one advertisement bore the same job title as the position in this petition. 
While the relevant advertisement contains a similar job title, the Petitioner omitted the duties associated 
with the position when it printed the document. As a result, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the duties 
8 
in the advertisement are sufficiently similar to the position it offers in this petition. Although the 
advertisement shares a similar job title as the one in the petition, a job title alone does not establish the 
corollary nature of a position's duties. Cf Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 
(E.D.N.Y. 1989), ajf'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990) (stating specifics are an important indication of the 
nature of a position's duties, otherwise meeting the requirements would simply be a matter of providing 
a job title.) "The actual duties themselves reveal the true nature of the employment." Id. 
We do not take the position's title the Petitioner provided at face value as a substitute for a position's 
actual job duties. Altimetrik Corp. v. USCIS, No. 2:18-CV-11754, 2019 WL 3943053, at *2 (E.D. Mich. 
Aug. 21, 2019). Instead, we consider "the job duties of the offered position along with the petitioning 
employer's business operations to make a determination ifthe position actually requires skills of someone 
with a bachelor's degree" in a specific specialty (or equivalent). Fast Gear Distrib., Inc. v. Rodriguez, 
116 F. Supp. 3d 839, 846 (E.D. Mich. 2015). In summary, the absence of the duties in the supporting 
evidence is detrimental to the Petitioner's eligibility claims under this criterion. And as we previously 
noted, the advertised job requires two years of experience and the position offered in the petition bears no 
such requirement raising questions of whether the advertised job is more senior than the one in the 
petition. 
And as we note above, the Petitioner must demonstrate its degree requirement is more than simply its 
preference and instead that the rigors of the position mandate a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent. See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. At most, the limited documents here indicate the 
Petitioner's preference for its registered nursing employees to have a bachelor's level of education. It 
does not demonstrate the Petitioner's requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, related to the performance of the position's job duties. 
The Petitioner did not provide further information or evidence regarding its recruiting history for the 
position. Without more, the submission of a single inadequate internal posting and the Petitioner's 
unsupported statements are not persuasive in establishing that the petitioning organization normally 
requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. Therefore, 
it has not satisfied the third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). 
D. USCrS Policy Regarding the Registered Nurses Occupation 
We further note USCIS policy has long described that 
"[r]egistered nurses generally do not qualify for 
H-lB classification." USCrS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0104, Adjudication ofH-JB Petitions for 
Nursing Occupations 2 (Feb. 18, 2015), http://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy-memoranda. 
That same memorandum explains that advanced practice registered nurse positions constitute "a level 
of nursing practice that utilizes extended and expanded skills, experience and knowledge in 
assessment, planning, implementation, diagnosis and evaluation of the care required. Positions that 
require nurses who are certified [advanced practice registered nurses] will generally be specialty 
occupations due to the advanced level of education and training required for certification." Id. at 4-5. 
But the policy states that "having a degree is not, by itself, sufficient for the position to qualify for 
H-1 B classification" and instead it will depend on whether a qualifying degree is required for the 
position and relevant state legislature and Boards of Nursing determining which positions in their 
jurisdiction will be certified as advanced practice registered nursing positions. Id. at 5. The policy 
9 
offers a non-exhaustive list of advanced practice registered nurse occupations that may satisfy the 
specialty occupation requirements to include: certified nurse-midwife; certified clinical nurse 
specialist; certified nurse practitioner; and certified registered nurse anesthetist. Notably, each of those 
occupations are included in the Handbook or corresponding O*NET entries as typically requiring a 
master's degree in an advanced practice nursing field. BLS, DOL, Handbook, Nurse Anesthetists, 
Nurse Midwives, and Nurse Practitioners (Aug. 29, 2024), https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/nurse­
anesthetists-nurse-midwives-and-nurse-practitioners.htm#tab-4. 
This returns us to the questions relating to the LCA in this case and whether it corresponds with and 
supports the petition. Considering the content within the above agency policy, we note the Petitioner 
designated an SOC code on the LCA that was not aligned with one of the advanced practice registered 
nursing occupations, nor did it designate an SOC code that typically required a master's degree in an 
advanced practice nursing field. Instead, it selected an SOC code in which the occupation contains 
less complicated responsibilities and does not even mandate a qualifying bachelor's degree to enter 
the occupation. 
We conclude that in addition to not meeting the sole regulatory criterion claimed throughout these 
proceedings-8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3)-based on the USCIS Policy Memorandum, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated the position in this petition qualifies as a specialty occupation under the 
statutory or regulatory definitions. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is a petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.