dismissed H-1B Case: Freight Forwarding

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 04 0 1 1 5 1365 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: AUG 0 1 2006 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOl(a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 04 01 1 51365 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the matter is now before 
the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. The petition will be denied. 
The petitioner is an import and export freight forwarding business that seeks to employ the beneficiary as a 
freight traffic consultant. The petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant worker in a 
specialty occupation pursuant to 3 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. 5 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition because the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. On appeal, 
counsel submits a brief and additional evidence. 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 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. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, the position must meet one of 
the following criteria: 
(I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum requirement 
for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its particular position is 
so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
(4) The nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that knowledge required to 
perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher 
degree. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) interprets the term "degree" in the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(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. 
The record of proceeding before the AAO contains: (1) Form 1-129 and supporting documentation; (2) the 
director's request for additional evidence; (3) the petitioner's response to the director's request; (4) the 
director's denial letter; and (5) Form I-290B and supporting documentation. The AAO reviewed the record in 
its entirety before issuing its decision. 
The petitioner is seeking the beneficiary's services as a freight traffic consultant. Evidence of the 
beneficiary's duties includes: the 1-129 petition; the petitioner's September 17, 2003 letter in support of the 
WAC 04 011 51365 
Page 3 
petition; and the petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence. According to this evidence, the 
beneficiary would perform the following duties: 
1. Analyze, plan import and export cargo traffic; plan economic shipping routing for corporate 
clients. Negotiate long term corporate import and export cargo shipping contracts, prepare 
detailed shipping agreements and compile cargo shipping contracts. Coordinate overseas 
shipping and customs agencies; 
2. Analyze and advise clients on brealung bulk and container loading, mode of transportation. 
Analyze multiple domestic ports and foreign ports cargo consolidation, devise import and 
export loose cargo consolidation for economic usage of ocean standard containers. Calculate 
footage, tonnage in relation with shipping fee charges; 
3. Study, research U.S. and foreign regulations on trading restrictions, both direct and indirect 
trade, prepare import and export documentation including import and export permits, U.S. 
Export Control Reporting, and prepare customs clearance and payment of tariffs; and 
4. Analyze clients' import and export cargo traffic for purpose of advising clients on purchasing 
maritime shipping insurance; prepare maritime and shipping insurance documentation for 
underwriting. Files claims of maritime shipping damages. 
The petitioner indicated that a qualified candidate for the job would possess a bachelor's degree in business 
economics or business administration. 
The director found that the proffered position, which is that of a cargo and fieight agent, was not a specialty 
occupation. Citing to the Department of Labor's POL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook), 
2004-2005 edition, the director noted that the minimum requirement for entry into the position was not a 
baccalaureate degree or its equivalent in a specific specialty. The director found further that the petitioner 
failed to establish any of the criteria found at 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2@)(4)(iii)(A). 
On appeal, counsel states, in part, that the proffered position is a fi-eight-traffic consultant position, and is not 
a cargo and fi-eight agent position. According to counsel, the DOL's O*Net indicates that a fieight-traffic 
consultant is equivalent to a transportation manager or transportation consultant, which requires a minimum 
of a bachelor's degree plus several years of work experience. Counsel states further that the Dictionaly of 
Occupational Titles (DO0 assigns the position an SVP rating of 8, which according to counsel, requires a 
degree to enter into the position. Finally, counsel states, in part, that the position should be considered a 
specialty occupation because the petitioner has satisfied two criteria of 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2@)(4)(iii)(A), namely 
that a baccalaureate or higher degree is normally the minimum requirement for entry into a freight-traffic 
consultant position, and that the proposed duties are so specialized and complex as to require a baccalaureate 
or higher degree. 
Upon review of the record, the petitioner has established none of the four criteria outlined in 
8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Therefore, the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
The AAO turns first to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2@)(4)(iii)(A)(l) and (2): a baccalaureate or higher 
degree or its equivalent is the normal minimum requirement for entry into the particular position; a degree 
WAC 04 01 1 51365 
Page 4 
requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations; or a particular 
position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree. 
Factors often considered by CIS when determining these criteria 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 1 15 1, 1165 (D. 
Minn. 1999)(quoting HirdIBlaker Corp. v. Suva, 7 12 F. Supp. 1095, 1 102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
The AAO routinely consults the Handbook for its information about the duties and educational requirements of 
particular occupations. The AAO does not concur with counsel that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation. The AAO also does not concur with counsel that the proffered position is that of a management 
consultant, who analyzes and proposes ways to improve an organization's structure, efficiency, or profits, and is 
found in a wide range of industries, including management, scientific, and technical consulting firms, computer 
design and related services firms, and federal, state, and local governments. See the Handbook, 2006-2007 ed. at 
94. Counsel's assertion that the proffered position is equivalent to a transportation manager is noted. At page 662 
of its Handbook, 2006-2007 ed., under the "Transportation, storage, and distribution managers" occupation 
category, the DOL describes the most significant source of postsecondary education or training for these 
occupations as "[w]ork experience in a related occupation." No evidence in the Handbook indicates that a 
baccalaureate or higher degree, or its equivalent, is normally required for a transportation manager job. Further, 
although information on the petition reflects that the petitioner has 10 employees and a gross annual income of 
$4,668,769, the record contains no supporting evidence in support of these claims, such as quarterly wage reports 
and federal income tax returns. Simply going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for the purpose of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 
158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 
1972)). 
Counsel's reference to and assertions about the relevance of information from O*Net and the DOT are not 
persuasive. Neither the DOT'S SVP rating nor a Job Zone category indicates that a particular occupation 
requires the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree, or its equivalent, in a specific specialty as a 
minimum for entry into the occupation. An SVP rating and Job Zone category are meant to indicate only the 
total number of years of vocational preparation required for a particular position. Neither classification 
describes how those years are to be divided among training, formal education, and experience, nor specifies 
the particular type of degree, if any, that a position would require. 
The record does not include any evidence regarding parallel positions in the petitioner's industry. The record 
also does not include any evidence from firms, individuals, or professional associations regarding an industry 
standard, or documentation to support the complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position. Further, the 
record of proceeding contains no information about the proffered position that distinguishes it as unique from 
or more complex than the general occupational category of transportation manager, for which the Handbook 
does not report a normal requirement for at least a bachelor's degree, or the equivalent, in a specific specialty. 
The petitioner, therefore, has not established the criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I) or (2). 
WAC 04 01 1 51365 
Page 5 
The AAO now turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3) - the employer normally requires a 
degree or its equivalent for the position. As counsel does not address this issue on appeal, it will not be discussed 
further. The evidence of record does not establish this criterion. 
Finally, the AAO turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(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. 
To the extent that they are depicted in the record, the duties do not appear so specialized and complex as to 
require the highly specialized knowledge associated with a baccalaureate or higher degree, or its equivalent, 
in a specific specialty. As described, the proposed duties appear no more specialized and complex than those 
general duties which the Handbook attributes to the general occupational category of transportation managers, 
for which the Handbook does not indicate a normal requirement for usual association with at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty. Therefore, the evidence does not establish that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation under 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
As related in the discussion above, the petitioner has failed to establish that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation. Accordingly, the AAO shall not disturb the director's denial of the petition. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.