dismissed H-1B Case: Logistics

MATTER OF I-B-S-, INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 22, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a clothing wholesale business, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an 
"import and logistics manager" under the H -1 B nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 110l(a)(15)(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 
proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. Upon de novo review, we will dismiss 
the appeal. 
I. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
A. Legal Framework 
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) states, in pertinent part, the following: 
Specialty occupation means an occupation which [(1)] requires theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in fields of human 
Matter of 1-B-S-, Inc. 
endeavor including, but not limited to, architecture, engineering, mathematics, 
physical sciences, social sciences, medicine and health, education, business 
specialties, accounting, law, theology, and the arts, and which [(2)] requires the 
attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as 
a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, a proposed 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. 
As a threshold issue, it is noted that 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together 
with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). In other words, this regulatory 
language must be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the statute 
as a whole. SeeK Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281,291 (1988) (holding that construction 
of language which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is preferred); see also COlT 
Independence Joint Venture v. Fed Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); Matter ofW-F-, 
21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). As such, the criteria stated in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) should 
logically be read as being necessary but not necessarily sufficient to meet the statutory and 
regulatory definition of specialty occupation. To otherwise interpret this section as stating the 
necessary and sufficient conditions for meeting the definition of specialty occupation would result in 
particular positions meeting a condition under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory or 
regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this 
result, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) must therefore be read as providing supplemental criteria that 
must be met in accordance with, and not as alternatives to, the statutory and regulatory definitions of 
specialty occupation. 
As such and consonant with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) consistently interprets 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 proffered position. See 
2 
Matter of 1-B-S-, Inc. 
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"). Applying this standard, US CIS regularly approves H-1 B petitions for qualified 
individuals who are to be employed as engineers, computer scientists, certified public accountants, 
college professors, and other such occupations. These professions, for which petitioners have 
regularly been able to establish a minimum entry requirement in the United States of a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, directly related to the duties and 
responsibilities of the particular position, fairly represent the types of specialty occupations that 
Congress contemplated when it created the H-1B visa category. 
To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCIS does not simply 
rely on a position's title. The specific duties of the proffered position, combined with the nature of 
the petitioning entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. users must examine the 
ultimate employment of the individual, and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 384. The critical element is not the title 
of the position or an employer's self-imposed standards, but whether the position actually requires 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for entry into 
the occupation, as required by the Act. 
B. The Proffered Position 
The Petitioner described the position in its support letter dated March 25, 2015, as follows: 
[C]reate policies or procedures for logistics activities; manage stock levels, delivery 
times and transport costs; resolve problems concerning transportation, logistics 
systems, imports or exports, or customer issues; negotiate transportation rates or 
services; coordinate and control the order cycle; evaluate performance and quality; 
liaise and negotiate with suppliers/manufacturers and retail stores; analyze logistical 
problems and produce new solutions; assess and organize logistic[ s] in terms of 
transport requirements, receipt, handling, storage and distribution of products; 
establish proper warehousing and recording systems; analyze statistical information 
on the tracking of product shipments, returns, and inventory; coordinate international 
and domestic transportation; ocean, sea, air and domestic, maximizing the cost 
effectiveness of this function; and maintain appropriate records and reports, and 
provide the reports to management. 
In response to the request for additional evidence (RFE), the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary 
would spend 45 percent of his time on coordination and organization, 30 percent of his time on 
analysis, 15 percent of his time on negotiation, and 10 percent on management. The Petitioner also 
stated that the proffered position requires at least a "Bachelor's Degree in Business, Logistics, or 
Supply Chain Management." 
3 
Matter of 1-B-S-, Inc. 
The Petitioner submitted a labor condition application (LCA) in support of the instant H-lB petition. 
The Petitioner indicated that the proffered position corresponds to the occupational category 
"Logisticians" with SOC (ONET/OES) code 13-1081 at a Level I (entry level) wage. 
C. Analysis 
A baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position 
We will first discuss the proffered position in relation to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which requires that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. 
USCIS recognizes the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL)'s Occupational Outlook Handbook 
(Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements ofthe wide variety 
of occupations that it addresses. 1 We reviewed the section of the Handbook covering "Logisticians," 
including the section entitled "How to Become a Logistician," which states the following: 
A bachelor's degree is typically required for most positions, although an 
associate's degree may be sufficient for some logistician jobs. Industry certification 
and work experience in a related field is helpful for jobseekers. 
Education 
Logisticians may qualify for some positions with an associate's degree. 
However, as logistics becomes increasingly complex, more companies prefer to hire 
workers who have at least a bachelor's degree. Many logisticians have a bachelor's 
degree in business, systems engineering, or supply chain management. 
Bachelor's degree programs often include coursework in operations and 
database management, and system dynamics. In addition, most programs offer 
courses that train students on software and technologies commonly used by 
logisticians, such as radio-frequency identification (RFID). 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-
17 ed. "Logisticians," http://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/logisticians.htm#tab-4 (last 
visited Mar. 17, 2016). 
1 All references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. The excerpts of the Handbook regarding the duties and requirements of the referenced 
occupational category are hereby incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
4 
Matter of 1-B-S-, Inc. 
The Handbook does not indicate that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into this occupation. Rather, the 
occupation accommodates other paths for entry, including less than a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty such as an associate's degree. Further, although the Handbook states that a bachelor's 
degree requirement is typical, many logisticians have degrees from disparate fields such as business 
(with no further specialization), systems engineering, or supply chain management. 
In general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and biochemistry, a minimum 
of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized as satisfying the "degree in 
the specific specialty (or its equivalent)" requirement of section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act. In such a 
case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be the same. Since 
there must be a close correlation between the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" and 
the position, however, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in seemingly disparate fields, such 
as business (with no specialization), systems engineering, and supply chain management would not 
meet the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)," unless 
the Petitioner establishes how each field is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position such that the required body of highly specialized knowledge is essentially an 
amalgamation of these different specialties. 2 Section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act (emphasis added). The 
Petitioner has not done so here. 
Moreover, the requirement of a bachelor's degree in business is inadequate to establish that a 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. A petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered 
position requires a precise and specific course of study that relates directly to the position in 
question. Since there must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies and the 
position, the requirement of a degree with a generalized title, such as business, without further 
specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz 
Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). To prove that a job requires the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge as required by section 214(i)(l) of 
the Act, a petitioner must establish that the position requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specialized field of study or its equivalent. users has consistently stated that, although 
a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business administration, 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.ff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007). 
2 
Whether read with the statutory "the" or the regulatory "a," both readings denote a singular "specialty." Section 
214(i)(l )(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(ii). Still, we do not so narrowly interpret these provisions to exclude 
positions from qualifying as specialty occupations if they permit, as a minimum entry requirement, degrees in more than 
one closely related specialty. This also includes even seemingly disparate specialties provided the evidence of record 
establishes how each acceptable, specific field of study is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of 1-B-S-, Inc. 
Accordingly, as the Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation, it does not support 
the particular position proffered here as being a specialty occupation. 
In the record of proceedings, the Petitioner refers to the Occupational Information Network 
(O*NET) to state that "a bachelor's degree or higher is normally required as a minimum requirement 
for the position." However, O*NET is not particularly useful in determining whether a 
baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is a standard entry requirement for a 
given pos1t10n. O*NET states that "[m]ost of these occupations require a four-year bachelor's 
degree, but some do not." Further, it does not state that a degree must be in a specific specialty. 
Again, we interpret 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. Chertoff, 484 F.3d at 147. Furthermore, the Specialized 
Vocational Preparation (SVP) ratings, which are cited within O*Net OnLine's Job Zone 
designations, are meant to indicate only the total number of years of vocational preparation required 
for a particular position. The SVP ratings do not describe how those years are to be divided among 
training, formal education, and experience and it does not specify the particular type of degree, if 
any, that a position would require. 3 
The Petitioner also provided an evaluation and supplementary letter prepared by 
a professor of marketing and logistics at the concluded that 
the proffered position requires at least a "baccalaureate education in a specific academic specialty, to 
include Logistics or Supply Chain Management or other business administration fields featuring 
substantial statistical and quantitative analysis components." 
We fully carefully evaluated assertions in support of the instant petition, but for the 
following reasons, find that his opinions have limited probative value. Specifically, 
states that "the duties that [the Petitioner] has ascribed to its Import and Logistics Manager position 
are closely analogous to those listed in the entry for 'Logistics Manager"' in the Handbook and 
"Import and Logistics Manager" in O*NET. However, we note that the Petitioner indicated on the 
LCA that the proffered position corresponds to the occupational category "Logisticians" with SOC 
(ONET/OES) code 13-1081, not "Logistics Managers" with SOC (ONET/OES) code 11-3071.03.4 
Even if we assume that the proffered position is still that of a logistician who would perform 
managerial duties, rather than a logistics manager, we note that this is not supported by the entry 
3 See O*NET OnLine Summary Report for "13-1 081 - Logisticians (last visited Mar. 17, 20 16); O*NET OnLine Help -
Job Zones, http://www.onetonline.org/help/online/zones (last visited Mar. 17, 2016). 
4 The prevailing wage for a Level I logistics manager for GA, is $54, I 01 per year, which is higher than 
the Beneficiary's proffered salary at $45,885. See http://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults.aspx? 
area= &code=ll-307l&year=l5&source=l (last visited Mar. 17, 2016). 
(b)(6)
Matter of 1-B-S-, Inc. 
level wage in the LCA. 5 The Level I wage rate indicates that the Beneficiary is only required to 
have a basic understanding of the occupation and carries expectations that the Beneficiary will 
perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgement; that he would be closely 
supervised; that his work would be closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and that he would 
receive specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. 
It appears that would have found information regarding the LCA occupational category 
and the wage level relevant for his opinion letter. Moreover, without this information, the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that possessed the requisite information necessary to adequately 
assess the nature of the Petitioner's position and appropriately determine the requirements based 
upon the job duties and responsibilities. 
Further, does not reference, cite, or discuss any studies, surveys, industry publications, 
authoritative publications, or other sources of empirical information which he may have consulted to 
complete his evaluation. Furthermore, he did not support his conclusions with citations to or copies 
of any research material he may have used. 
We may, in our discretion, use advisory opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as expert 
testimony. 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 efficiency's sake, we hereby incorporate 
the above discussion regarding the letter into our analysis of each criterion at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). 
In this case, the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position falls under an occupational 
category for which the Handbook, or other authoritative source, indicates that normally the 
minimum requirement for entry is at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J). 
5 The wage levels are defined in DOL's "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance." A Level I wage rate is 
described as follows: 
Level I (entry) wage rates are assigned to job offers for beginning level employees who have 
only a basic understanding of the occupation. These employees perform routine tasks that require 
limited, if any, exercise of judgment. The tasks provide experience and familiarization with the 
employer's methods, practices, and programs. The employees may perform higher level work for 
training and developmental purposes. These employees work under close supervision and receive 
specific instructions on required tasks and results expected. Their work is closely monitored and 
reviewed for accuracy. Statements that the job offer is for a research fellow, a worker in training, or an 
internship are indicators that a Level I wage should be considered. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. 
Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC_ 
Guidance_Revised_ll_2009.pdf. 
(b)(6)
Matter of 1-B-S-, Inc. 
The requirement of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel 
positions among similar organizations 
Next, we will review the record regarding the first of the two alternative prongs of 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). This prong alternatively calls for a petitioner to establish that a requirement 
of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common for positions 
that are identifiable as being (1) in the petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered position, and 
also (3) located in organizations that are similar to the petitioner. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by 
USCIS 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 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 
1999) (quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook (or other independent, authoritative source) reports a standard industry-wide 
requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, we 
incorporate by reference the previous discussion on the matter. 
In support of the assertion that the degree requirement is common to the Petitioner's industry in 
parallel positions among similar organizations, the Petitioner submitted copies of job advertisements. 
However, upon review of the documents, we find that the Petitioner's reliance on the job 
announcements is misplaced. 
For the Petitioner to establish that an organization in its industry is also similar to it, it must 
demonstrate that the Petitioner and the organization share the same general characteristics. Without 
such evidence, documentation submitted by a Petitioner is generally outside the scope of 
consideration for this criterion, which encompasses only organizations that are similar to the 
Petitioner. 
The advertisements do not contain sufficient information regarding advertising employers to conduct 
a legitimate comparison of the organizations to the Petitioner. For example, the job posting from 
a staffing company, states that its client is an international, specialty food producer, 
which does not appear to be in the same industry as the Petitioner, and there is no further 
information such as the level of revenue and staffing to establish that it is similar to the Petitioner. 
Further, while some employers require a bachelor's degree, they do not require a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty (or its equivalent). As discussed, although a general-purpose bachelor's 
degree may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without 
8 
Matter of 1-B-S-, Inc. 
more, will not justify a finding that a particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty 
occupation. See Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. 
Moreover, the positions do not appear to be for parallel positions. For example, a "merchandising 
manager-European imports" position requires a general bachelor's degree, plus five to seven years of 
experience. The Petitioner designated the proffered position on the LCA as a Level I (entry-level) 
position in comparison to others within the occupation. The advertised position appears to be for 
more senior position than the proffered position. 
As the documentation does not establish that the Petitioner has met this prong of the regulations, 
further analysis regarding the specific information contained in each of the job postings is not 
necessary. That is, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not established that a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the Petitioner's industry in positions that are (1) in the 
Petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered position, and also (3) located in organizations that 
are similar to the Petitioner. For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first 
alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by 
an individual with a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
spec?fic specialty, or its equivalent 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
The evidence of record does not establish that this position is significantly different from other 
positions in the occupational category such that it refutes the Handbook's information that a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent is not required for the proffered position. 
Upon review, we find that the Petitioner has not sufficiently developed relative complexity or 
uniqueness as an aspect of the proffered position. 
As discussed previously, the LCA submitted by the Petitioner indicates a wage level at a Level I 
(entry) wage, which is the lowest of four assignable wage levels. Without further evidence, the 
record of proceeding does not indicate that the proffered position is complex or unique as such a 
position falling under this occupational category would likely be classified at a higher-level, such as 
a Level III (experienced) or Level IV (fully competent) position, requiring a significantly higher 
prevailing wage. 
Moreover, the Petitioner did not submit information relevant to a detailed course of study leading to 
a specialty degree and did not establish how such a curriculum is necessary to perform the duties it 
may believe are so complex and unique. While a few related courses may be beneficial, or even 
9 
Matter of 1-B-S-, Inc. 
required, in performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how an 
established curriculum of such courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the duties of the proffered position. 
The Petitioner did not establish that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can only be 
performed by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The employer normally requires a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
spec(fic specialty, or its equivalent, for the position 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. To 
this end, we usually review the Petitioner's past recruiting and hiring practices, information 
regarding employees who previously held the position, and any other documentation submitted by a 
petitioner in support of this criterion of the regulations. To merit approval of the petition under this 
criterion, the record must also establish that a petitioner's imposition of a degree requirement is not 
merely a matter of preference for high-caliber candidates but is necessitated by performance 
requirements of the position. 
The Petitioner has not provided any evidence that it has previously employed or recruited anyone as 
a logistician to perform the proffered duties. Therefore, the evidence of record does not indicate that 
the Petitioner normally requires a baccalaureate or higher degree in a spec(fic specialty, or its 
equivalent, for the proffered position under the third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). 
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 in a specific specialty, or its equivalent 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to 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 in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner provided a description of the duties of the proffered 
position and information regarding its business operations. Upon review of the record of the 
proceedings, relative specialization and complexity have not been credibly developed by the 
Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. 
We further incorporate our earlier discussion and analysis regarding the Petitioner's characterization 
of the proffered position in the LCA as a Level I logistician position (the lowest of four assignable 
wage-levels). Without further evidence, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that its proffered 
10 
Matter of 1-B-S-, Inc. 
position is one with specialized and complex duties as such a position falling under this occupational 
category would likely be classified at a higher-level, such as a Level III (experienced) or Level IV 
(fully competent) position, requiring a substantially higher prevailing wage.6 
The Petitioner has submitted insufficient evidence to satisfy this criterion of the regulations. We, 
therefore, conclude that the Petitioner did not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
For the reasons related in the preceding discussion, the Petitioner has not established that it has 
satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A) and, therefore, it cannot be found that 
the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 7 
II. CONCLUSION 
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; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013) (citing Matter of Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493, 495 (BIA 1966)). Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofl-B-S-, Inc., ID# 15887 (AAO Mar. 22, 2016) 
6 A Level IV (fully competent) position is designated by DOL for employees who "use advanced skills and diversified 
knowledge to solve unusual and complex problems" and requires a significantly higher wage. 
7 Since the identified base for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we will not address other grounds of 
ineligibility we observe in the record of proceeding. 
11