dismissed H-1B

dismissed H-1B Case: Furniture Design

๐Ÿ“… Date unknown ๐Ÿ‘ค Company ๐Ÿ“‚ Furniture Design

Decision Summary

The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish that the proffered position of 'furniture designer' qualifies as a specialty occupation. The AAO concurred with the director's finding that the duties described were more aligned with those of a woodworker, an occupation that does not normally require a bachelor's degree, rather than an industrial designer. The petitioner did not prove that a degree is a normal requirement for the position within the industry or for this specific employer.

Criteria Discussed

Normal Minimum Requirement Of A Baccalaureate Or Higher Degree Degree Requirement Is Common To The Industry Employer Normally Requires A Degree For The Position Nature Of Duties Is Specialized And Complex Requiring A Degree

Sign up free to download the original PDF

View Full Decision Text
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: WAC 04 057 52035 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: OCT 2 6 2005 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimrnigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 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 materials have been returned 
to the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 04 057 52035 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the nonirnmigrant visa petition. The matter is now on 
appeal before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). The appeal will be dismissed. The petition will be 
denied. 
The petitioner is a furniture manufacturer. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as a furniture designer and 
to classify him as a nonirnmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to section 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 on the ground that the record failed to establish that the proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 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 evidence (RFE); (3) the petitioner's response to the RFE; (4) the notice of 
decision; and (5) Form I-29OB and an appeal brief. The AAO reviewed the record in its entirety before 
issuing its decision. 
WAC 04 057 52035 
Page 3 
In Form 1-129 and an accompanying letter the petitioner described itself as a manufacturer and importer 
of furniture, established in 1997, with 24 employees and gross annual income of more than $2 million. 
The petitioner proposes to hire the beneficiary as a furniture designer. According to the petitioner, the 
position requires a bachelor's degree or its equivalent and the beneficiary is qualified based on his three 
years of college education at the University of San Jose-Recoletos in Cebu City, the Philippines, and 16 
years of experience in furniture design. In response to the RFE counsel indicated that the beneficiary 
would be working independently and considering factors such as appearance, design function 
relationship, serviceability, materials and methods engineering, application, budget, price production 
costs, methods of production, market characteristics and client specifications in designing furniture. 
Essential responsibilities of the position were described as follows: 
Design furniture for production in accord with design trends, characteristics of the market and 
. . . customized orders. 
Confer with production and sales personnel to obtain design suggestions and customer orders. 
Prepare blueprints indicating the manufacturing specifications such as dimension, kind of 
wood, upholstery fabrics to be used. 
Plan modifications for completed furniture to conform to changes in design trends and 
increase customer acceptance. 
A list of the petitioner's employees, submitted with the response to the RFE, identifies (in addition to the 
president) three office workers, one assembler, three sanders, eight finishers, twelve upholsterers, one 
driver, and one shipper. 
The director found that the furniture designer position did not qualify as a specialty occupation under the 
Act. The director determined that the duties of the proffered position reflected the duties of a 
woodworker, as described in the Department of Labor (D0L)'s Occupational Outlook Handbook 
(Handbook). As noted by the director, the Handbook indicates that a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty is not the normal industry-wide requirement for entry into the occupation or woodworker. The 
documentation of record did not establish that such a degree requirement is common to the furniture 
manufacturing industry in parallel positions among similar organizations, the director stated, or that the 
proffered position is so complex or unique that it requires an individual with a specialty degree. There 
was no evidence that the employer had previously required a baccalaureate or higher degree for the 
position, the director continued, or that the duties of the position are so specialized and complex that 
baccalaureate level knowledge or higher is required to perform them. 
In determining whether a position meets the statutory and regulatory criteria of a specialty occupation, 
CIS routinely consults the DOL Handbook as an authoritative source of information about the duties and 
educational requirements of particular occupations. Factors typically considered are whether the 
Handbook indicates a degree is required by the industry; 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 Shunti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F.Supp. 2d 115 1, 1165 (D.Minn. 1999) (quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Suva, 
764 F.Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). CIS also scrutinizes the specific duties and complexity of the 
position at issue, with the Handbook's occupational descriptions as a reference, as well as the petitioner's 
past hiring practices for the position. See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, id., at 1165-66. 
WAC 04 057 52035 
Page 4 
On appeal counsel asserts that the proffered position accords with the Handbook's description of an 
industrial designer. According to counsel, an industrial designer requires a bachelor's degree. Counsel 
also refers to a previously submitted internet job posting for a furniture designer as evidence that furniture 
designers also require a bachelor's degree. Counsel asserts that the duties of the proffered position, 
previously listed, involve mathematical and engineering methodologies that can only be performed by an 
individual with a baccalaureate degree or its equivalent. 
In deciding this appeal, the AAO must initially determine which occupational category in the Handbook 
best describes the proffered position. Counsel argues that the beneficiary will be performing the duties of 
an industrial designer, an occupation described as follows in the Handbook, 2004-05 edition, at 242,244: 
Commercial and industrial designers develop countless manufactured products, 
including airplanes; cars; children's toys; computer equipment; furniture; home 
appliances, and medical, office, and recreational equipment. They combine artistic talent 
with research on the use of a product, on customer needs, and on marketing, materials, 
and production methods to create the most functional and appealing design that will be 
competitive with others in the marketplace. Industrial designers typically concentrate in 
a subspecialty such as kitchen appliances, auto interiors, or plastic-molding machinery. 
. . . Most commercial and industrial designer s were employed [in 20021 in manufacturing 
or architectural, engineering, and related services . . . . 
The director found that the proffered position fit within the Handbook's description of woodworkers. 
That occupation is described, in pertinent part, as follows: 
All woodworkers are employed at some stage of the process through which logs are 
transformed into finished products . . . . They operate machines that cut, shape, assemble, 
and finish raw wood to make the doors, windows, cabinets, trusses, plywood, flooring, 
paneling, molding, and trim that are components of most homes. Others may fashion 
home accessories, such as beds, sofas, tables, dressers, and chairs . . . . 
. . . [Plrecision or custom woodworkers - who generally work in smaller firms - have 
continued to employ the same production techniques they have used for many years. 
Workers such as cabinetmakers and bench carpenters; model makers and patternmakers; 
and furniture finishers work on a customized basis, often building one-of-a-kind items. 
These highly skilled precision woodworkers usually perform a complete cycle of tasks - 
cutting, shaping, and preparing surfaces, and assembling prepared parts of complex wood 
components into a finished wood product. For this reason, these workers normally need 
substantial training and an ability to work from detailed instructions and specifications. 
In addition, they often are required to exercise independent judgment when undertaking 
an assignment. 
. . . . About 3 out of 4 woodworkers were employed [in 20021 in manufacturing 
industries. Among these woodworkers, 41 percent were found in establishments 
fabricating household and office furniture and fixtures . . . . 
WAC 04 057 52035 
Page 5 
Handbook, id., at 594-95. The AAO determines, consistent with the director's decision, that the duties of 
the proffered position closely parallel those of a precision or custom woodworker, as described in the 
Handbook. The company brochures in the record, which include photos of its furniture pieces, the 
petitioner's own photos of the inventory and other company literature, together with the petitioner's 
description of its employee staff and gross income level, indicate a scale of operations and a clientele 
consistent with the need for a precision or custom woodworker to design its furniture. Though counsel 
emphasizes the challenging design aspects of the proffered position, the record does not demonstrate that 
they exceed the design aspects of a precision or custom woodworker as described in the Handbook. 
With respect to the educational requirements of woodworkers in general, the Handbook states as follows: 
Most woodworkers are trained on the job, picking up skills informally from experienced 
workers . . . . Some woodworkers acquire skills through vocational education or by 
working as carpenters on construction jobs. Others may attend colleges or universities 
that offer training in areas including wood technology, furniture manufacturing, wood 
engineering, and production management. These programs prepare students for positions 
in production, supervision, engineering, and management. 
Handbook, id., at 595. It is clear from this information that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is 
not the normal industry-wide minimum requirement for entry into a woodworker position, even as a 
precision or custom woodworker. While a college education in a specialty field may be preferred for 
some more advanced positions in the industry, it is not the normal minimum requirement for entry into a 
precision or custom woodworker position such as the furniture designer position at issue in this petition. 
Accordingly, the proffered position does not meet the first alternative criterion of a specialty occupation 
at 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2 (h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
As for the second alternative criterion of a specialty occupation, at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2 (h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), 
counsel refers to the internet job posting for a furniture designer from an office interiors company. The 
job posting plainly states, however, that the requirements for the job are a minimum of two years 
experience, with "FIDER accredited Design Degree preferred." No baccalaureate degree is required. 
Thus, the internet job posting does not establish that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty is a common requirement of the petitioner's industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations, as required for proffered position to qualify as a specialty occupation under the first prong 
of 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2 (h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
Nor does the record demonstrate that the proffered position is so complex or unique that it can only be 
performed by an individual with a specialty degree. Though counsel asserts on appeal that the job 
involves mathematical and engineering methodologies that can only be performed by an individual with a 
baccalaureate degree or its equivalent, no documentary evidence or examples have been submitted to 
support that claim. Mere assertions by counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. See 
Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Rumirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 
506 (BIA 1980). Accordingly, the position does not qualify as a specialty occupation under the second 
prong of 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2 (h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
With respect to the third alternative criterion of a specialty occupation, the proffered position is newly 
created and the petitioner has no hiring history for it. Accordingly, the petitioner cannot demonstrate that 
WAC 04 057 52035 
Page 6 
it normally requires a.bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for the position, as 
required for it to qualify as a specialty occupation under 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
Lastly, the proffered position does not meet the fourth alternative criterion of a specialty occupation, at 
8 C.F.R. ยง 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4), because the record does not establish that the duties of the position are 
so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is usually associated with a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty. As previously discussed, the duties of the position 
are akin to those of a precision or custom woodworker, for which knowledge gained through on-the-job 
experience or vocational training is typically required, not a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
Thus, the proffered position does not meet any of the qualifying criteria of a specialty occupation 
enumerated at 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). The petitioner has not established that the beneficiary will 
be coming temporarily to the United States to perform services in a specialty occupation, as required 
under section IOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b). 
The petitioner bears the burden of proof in these proceedings. See section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the AAO will not disturb the director's decision 
denying the petition. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied. 
Using this case in a petition? Let MeritDraft draft the argument →

Avoid the mistakes that led to this denial

MeritDraft learns from dismissed cases so your petition avoids the same pitfalls. Get arguments built on winning precedents.

Avoid This in My Petition →

No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.