dismissed H-1B Case: Industrial Engineering

U.S. Department of Itomeland Security 
20 Mass Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
identifying data deleted to 
 u.S. Citizenship 
pnv-clearly unwamllted 
 and Immigration 
'mMm of pasonal privscy 
PUBLIC cwr 
FILE: WAC 04 256 50682 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN 2 6 2006 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOl(a)(lS)(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: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
TNSTRUCTIONS: 
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 04 256 50682 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The director of the service center denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the matter is now 
before the Administrative Appeals Ofice (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. The petition will be 
denied. 
The petitioner engages in the design, manufacture, import, and wholesale of jewelry, aromatherapy products, 
and fashion accessories. 
 It seeks to employ the beneficiary as an industrial engineer. 
 The petitioner, 
therefore, endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to 
section 10 1 (a)(] 5)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101 (a)(] S)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition because the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. On appeal, 
former counsel submits a brief. 
1 
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. 8 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualie as a specialty occupation, the position must meet one of the 
following criteria: 
(1) 
 A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum requirement 
for entry into the particular position; 
(2) 
 The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its particular position is 
so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree; 
(3) 
 The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
(4) 
 The nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that knowledge required 
to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or 
higher degree. 
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. 
1 
 Former counselin no longer active with the state bar of California. All representations will be 
considered. However, former counsel will not receive notice of these proceedings. 
WAC 04 256 50682 
Page 3 
The record of proceeding before the AAO contains: (I) the 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) the Form I-290B and the brief. The AAO reviewed the record in its entirety 
before issuing its decision. 
The petitioner is seeking the beneficiary's services as an industrial engineer. Evidence of the beneficiary's 
duties includes: the Form 1-129; the attachments accompanying the Form 1-129; the petitioner's support letter; 
and the petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence. According to this evidence, the 
beneficiary would perform duties that entail: 
Strategic Analysis and Process Development 
Process development, machine validation, creating maintenance procedures, optimizing equipment 
efficiency and reliability, troubleshooting production problems, process layout, work flow, improving 
process control, cost and cycle time reduction, and production flow improvement; develop and 
implement engineering improvement projects including performing engineering studies, conducting 
analysis and design improvements, implementing equipment improvement programs to minimize 
downtime and increase efficiency, utilizing lean manufacturing methods and other lean tools to drive 
process improvement; review, identify, and solve manufacturing operating performance problems and 
implement cost savings projects to streamline operation procedures for maximum efficiency; analyze 
work methods, manufacturing processes and non-productive materials to recommend changes that 
will reduce operational costs; conduct capacity analyses to provide recommendations for corrective 
actions to improve line balancing to eliminate production bottlenecks, reduce scrap, waste, and 
machine downtime and ultimately increase productivity. 
Planning and Procurement of Equipment Layout and Analysis of Workflow 
Modify existing equipment or develop new equipment to improve product quality, performance, and 
reliability, purchasing, installation, and debugging to ensure continued plant production capabilities; 
oversee procurement andlor design for additional tools or fixtures to enhance efficiency in 
production; determine the need of additional production tooling, material handling equipment for 
specific use and assist in the selection process; develop and maintain workflow and equipment 
layouts to optimize ergonomics and material flow, and define specification for purchasing of 
assembly and warehouse equipment; develop, coordinate, and monitor short and long-term volume 
forecasts, manpower forecasts, facility, and equipment requirements and operating plans for the 
facility, balancing resources to attain service and productivity goals. 
The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary who holds the educational equivalent of a baccalaureate degree 
in industrial engineering from an accredited college or university in the United States. 
The director stated that the proposed position resembles an industrial engineering technician as that 
occupation is described in the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Hundbook (the Handbook), and 
that the Handbook discloses that this occupation does not require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 
WAC 04 256 50682 
Page 4 
On appeal, former counsel states that the proposed position is similar to an industrial engineer as that 
occupation is depicted in the Handbook. Former counsel asserts that the proposed duties require the 
knowledge associated with a bachelor's degree as they involve production planning, systems engineering, 
policy formulation, management information systems, cost evaluation method, supply chain management, and 
time and motion study. Former counsel refers to Internet job postings and letters from other companies to 
establish the offered position as a specialty occupation. Former counsel states that the petitioner operates 
under three businesses, and that it has expansion plans and programs. 
Upon review of the record, the petitioner has established none of the four criteria outlined in 
8 C.F.R. fj 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Therefore, the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
The AAO first considers the criteria at 8 C.F.R. $5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I) and (2): a baccalaureate or higher 
degree or its equivalent is the normal minimum requirement for entry into the particular position; a degree 
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 2006-2007 edition of the Handbook 
reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the industry's professional association has made a degree a 
minimum entry requirement; and whether letters or affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that 
such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 
1 165 (D.Minn. 1999)(quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Suva, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1 102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
In determining whether a position qualifies as a specialty occupation, CIS looks beyond the title of the 
position and determines, from a review of the duties of the position and any supporting evidence, whether the 
position actually requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, 
and the attainment of a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty as the minimum for entry into the 
occupation as required by the Act. The AAO routinely consults the Handbook for its information about the 
duties and educational requirements of particular occupations. 
Former counsel's assertion that the proposed position is analogous to an industrial engineer is not persuasive. 
The record of proceeding describes the proposed duties in very general terms that do not relate the duties to 
specifically described tasks that would demonstrate that the proposed duties require baccalaureate-level 
knowledge in industrial engineering or a related discipline. For example, the record of evidence does not 
describe in any detail the machinery and equipment, tools and fixtures, processes and procedures, work flow, 
or existing problems that the beneficiary will be involved with. The petitioner submitted no evidence 
elaborating on the proposed duties. A petitioner must do more than submit a generalized job description and 
assert that the position requires a degree in a specific specialty. It must submit evidence supporting its 
contentions. The AAO finds that the evidence of record provides no factual basis to conclude that the offered 
position is one that normally would require a bachelor's degree or its equivalent in business. The record 
contains flyers and advertisements relating to the petitioner's products such as rings, slippers, and herb packs. 
The petitioner does not explain how this evidence demonstrates that the offered position would require a 
bachelor's degree in industrial engineering. The petitioner does not submit evidence of its expansion plans. 
The financial records convey the petitioner's financial status; however, this does not relate to the nature of the 
WAC 04 256 50682 
Page 5 
proposed duties. There is no documentary evidence of the petitioner's equipment, tools, machinery, or 
manufacturing procedures or processes. The submitted lease agreements did not indicate that the petitioner 
uses office space for manufacturing. The organizational chart shows three employees designated as 
production staff; nevertheless, there is no description of what is produced. Going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). Consequently, the petitioner failed to demonstrate a 
factual basis on which to establish that the offered position is one that normally would require at least a 
bachelor's degree or its equivalent in industrial engineering. 
The AAO's conclusion, from the various evidence to which it has referred, is that the petitioner fails to satisfy 
the first criterion at 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I), which is that a baccalaureate or higher degree or its 
equivalent in a specific specialty is the normal minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. 
To establish the first alternative prong at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) - that a specific degree requirement 
is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations - the petitioner submits Internet 
job postings and letters from companies. The job postings from Tiffany & Company, L'Oreal USA, and 
Estee Lauder are not persuasive in that they represent companies that differ significantly in size from the 
petitioner, a company with nine employees. Thus, the three companies are not similar to the petitioner. The 
record contains certificates of hiring requirements relating to MB Jewelry Design & Mfg. Ltd.; Masterpiece 
Jewelry & Watches, Inc.; Sonya Dakar Skincare, Inc.; and Philip Wolman and Company. Each of the 
certificates essentially states that "due to the complex nature of our firm, we only employ qualified 
individuals in light of an open position." For positions in areas such as marketing, management, finance, 
engineering, accounting, and information systems the signatories of the certificates state that their firm's 
minimum hiring requirement is a bachelor's degree in the related field and professional experience. The 
AAO notes that none of the signatories state that their firm has previously employed or is presently 
employing the in-house services of an industrial engineer, and that the industrial engineer performed duties 
which parallel to the proposed position. Moreover, letters from four companies is not sufficiently 
representative of the hiring requirements of the petitioner's industry. Based on the evidence in the record, the 
first alternative prong at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) has not been established by the petitioner. 
To satisfy the second alternative prong at 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), the petitioner must establish that 
the proffered position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree. 
Given the lack of specificity in the beneficiary's job description, the petitioner fails to demonstrate the 
complexity or uniqueness of the proposed position. Moreover, the petitioner fails to adequately explain the 
relevance of the evidence of record, such as the organizational chart, company advertisements, financial 
records, and lease agreements, and how it demonstrates the complexity or uniqueness of the proposed 
position. As such, the petitioner fails to establish the second alternative prong at 
8 C.F.R. fj 2 14.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
No evidence in the record establishes the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3): that the petitioner 
normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position. 
WAC 04 256 50682 
Page 6 
To satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4), the petitioner must establish that the nature of 
the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is usually 
associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. By describing the duties in very general 
terms, the petitioner fails to demonstrate that the nature of those duties is so specialized and complex, 
requiring knowledge that is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate degree. In addition, the 
petitioner does not explain how the evidence of record - the organizational chart, company advertisements, 
financial records, and lease agreements - establishes that the proposed duties are so specialized and complex 
that the knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate 
degree in a specific specialty. Accordingly, the petitioner fails to establish the criterion at 
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 on this 
ground. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.