dismissed H-1B Case: Logistics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 11822469 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 24, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "program manager - cost and material 
planning" 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)(l5)(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 of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the evidence of 
record does not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
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 I&N Dec . 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the 
questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. 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 
know ledge, 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) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
(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. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 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. ChertoJJ; 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"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons discussed below, we have determined that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 1 Specifically, we conclude that the record does 
not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate 
with a specialty occupation. 2 
A. First Criterion 
We tum first 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. To inform this inquiry, we will consider the information contained 
in the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational OutlookHandbook(Handbook) regarding the 
duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations it addresses. 3 
The Petitioner submitted the required DOL ETA Form 9035 & 9035E, Labor Condition Application 
for Nonimmigrant Workers (LCA) with this petition, where it classified the proffered position under 
1 Although some aspects of the regulatory c1iteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to suppo1i the petition, including evidence regarding the position and its business 
operations. While we may not discuss eve1y document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 We do not maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. That is, the occupational category 
designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered 
position, and we regularly review the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of 
occupations that it addresses. N eve1iheless, to satisfy the first criterion, the burden of proofremains on the Petitioner to 
submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position would normally have a minimum, specialty 
degree requirement, or its equivalent for entry. 
2 
the occupational title "Transportation, Storage, and Distribution Managers" corresponding to the 
Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 11-3071.00; more specifically, the Petitioner stated 
that the position corresponds to the SOC sub-code and category 11-3071.03, "Logistics Managers." 4 
We note that there are occupational categories which are not covered in detail by the Handbook. 5 The 
Handbook suggests that for at least some of the occupations, little meaningful information could be 
developed. When the Handbook does not support the proposition that a proffered position is a 
specialty occupation, it is the Petitioner's responsibility to provide probative evidence ( e.g., 
documentation from other objective, authoritative sources) that indicates whether the particular 
position in question qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner referenced DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) summary report for 
"Logistics Managers" - SOC code 11-3071.03 in support of this criterion. The O*NET Summary 
Report provides general information regarding the occupation, but it does not support the Petitioner's 
assertion regarding the educational requirements for the occupation. For example, the Job Zone Four 
designation indicates that most, but some do not, require a four-year bachelor's degree. It does not 
specify the specific field of study, if any, from which the degree must come. The occupation's 
Specialized Vocational Preparation (SVP) rating of 7 < 8 is even less persuasive. An SVP rating of 7 
to less than ("<") 8 indicates that the occupation requires "over 2 years up to and including 4 years" 
of training. While the SVP rating indicates the total number of years of vocational preparation required 
for a particular position, it is important to note that it does not describe how those years are to be 
divided among training, experience, and formal education which, by definition, includes high school 
education and commercial or shop training. 6 The SVP rating also does not specify the particular type 
of degree, if any, that a position would require. Moreover, the report does not indicate that the degrees 
of the respondents were in a specific specialty and does not distinguish the respondents' positions by 
career level (e.g., entry-level, mid-level, senior-level) or other relevant aspects. For all these reasons, 
we are not persuaded by the Petitioner's citations to O*NET. 
In the instant matter, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation from a probative, 
authoritative source to substantiate its assertion regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this 
particular position. 7 Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J). 
4 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to demonstrate 
that it will pay the Beneficiary the higher of either the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the "area of 
employment" or the actual wage paid by the employer to other employees with similar experience and qualifications who 
are performing the same services. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.73 l(a). 
5 We note that occupational categories for which the Handbook only includes summary data includes a range of 
occupations, including for example, postmasters and mail superintendents; agents and business managers of artists, 
performers, and athletes; farm and home management advisors; audio-visual and multimedia collections specialists; clergy; 
merchandise displayers and window trimmers; radio operators; first-line supervisors of police and detectives; crossing 
guards; travel guides; agricultural inspectors, as well as others. 
6 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/online/svp. 
7 The Petitioner submitted an opinion letter frottj I an associate professor of analytics and information systems 
atc=]University, which we will discuss under the second c1iterion to explain why it is not probative evidence and 
incorporate the discussion regarding the letter into our analysis of each criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
3 
B. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two alternative prongs: "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[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong contemplates the 
common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific 
position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
We generally consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common degree 
requirement: 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) (considering these 
"factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook, or other authoritative source, reports a 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. 
~port of this criterion, the Petitioner submitted an opinion letter written byl lat 
L__JUniversity. We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as 
advisory. Matter o_f 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. Id. 
I I opines that the requirements of a bachelor's degree in logistics and suprly chain 
management is "typical" for the position of program manager~ cost and material planning. I I !asserts that he is qualified to provide that opinion based on his educational background and 
experience as a university professor and in the industty. However,.__ _____ _. s resume 
submitted in support of his opinion letter does not establish that he developed personal knowledge of 
the hiring practices of a particular company, let alone indust7-wide hiring practices for positions in 
the "Logistics Managers" occupational category. Specifically,_ Is resume informs that, 
since 2002, his employment has been limited to academic instruction. Further, the record does not 
sufficiently demonstrate that he has conducted any research or studies pertinent to the educational 
requirements for "Logistics Managers" (or parallel positions) in the Petitioner's industry for similar 
organizations and is recognized by professional organizations as an authority on those specific 
requirements. 
4 
Moreover, we observe that I I does not discuss the duties of the proffered position in any 
substantive detail. Rather, he restates the same duties listed in the Petitioner's response to the 
Director's request for evidence. He does not discuss them in the specific context of the Petitioner's 
business. There is no indication that he possesses any knowledge of the Petitioner's proffered position 
beyond this job description, e.g., visited the Petitioner's business, observed the Petitioner's employees, 
interviewed them about the nature of their work, or documented the knowledge that these workers 
apply on the job prior to documenting his opinion regarding the proffered position. His level of 
familiarity with the actual job duties as they would be performed in the context of the Petitioner's 
business has therefore not been substantiated. Therefore, I I's opinion bears minimal 
probative value. 
The Petitioner also submitted copies of two job announcements placed by other employers. However, 
upon review of the documents, we find that the Petitioner's reliance on the job announcements is 
misplaced. First, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that these organizations are similar. When 
determining whether the Petitioner and the organization share the same general characteristics, such 
factors may include information regarding the nature or type of organization, and, when pertinent, the 
particular scope of operations, as well as the level of revenue and staffing ( to list just a few elements 
that may be considered). It is not sufficient for the Petitioner to claim that an organization is similar 
and conducts business in the same industry without providing a legitimate basis for such an assertion. 
For instance, the Petitioner did submit information regarding the employers' revenue or staffing. The 
Petitioner did not sufficiently supplement the record of proceedings to establish that these advertising 
organizations are similar. 
Moreover, the advertisements do not appear to involve parallel positions. For example, the positions 
appear to be for more senior, experienced employment than the proffered position. 8 Further, the 
postings do not include sufficient information about the tasks and responsibilities for the advertised 
pos1t10ns. Thus, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the primary duties and 
responsibilities of the advertised positions are parallel to those of the proffered position. 
Further, the postings do not indicate that at least a bachelor's degree in a directly related specific 
specialty ( or its equivalent) is required. 9 For instance, both postings require a general degree in 
business. 10 Overall, the job postings suggest, at best, that although a bachelor's degree is sometimes 
required for these positions, a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty ( or its equivalent) is not. 11 
g For instance, the posting placed by Samsung states a requirement for a bachelor's degree and a minimum of 12 years of 
work experience in a relevant field. 
9 As discussed, the degree requirement set by the statutory and regulat01y framework of the H-IB program is not just a 
bachelor's or higher degree, but a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the duties of the 
position. See section 214(i)(l)(b) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
10 Although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business, 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, 484 F.3d at 147. 
11 It must be noted that even if all of the job postings indicated that a requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations (which they do not), the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from the advertisements with regard to 
determining the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. See generally 
Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 ( 1995). Moreover, given that there is no indication that the 
5 
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. 12 That is, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. 
Without more, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that a bachelor's degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
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. 
We reviewed the Petitioner's statements regarding the proffered pos1t10n; however, while the 
Petitioner provided additional information in how the duties would be carried out, in some instances 
that information falls short of explaining what the Beneficiaiy will actually do on a day-to-day basis 
in the proffered position. That is, the Petitioner has not explained in detail how tasks such as: 
• Facilitating and coordinating network cost meetings including Metrics Meeting, 
Cost All-in Meeting, etc. 
• Interacting with other groups to drive business success. For example, collaborating 
with supply chain inventory/output team to increase manufacturing in-line pace and 
output, so to improve productivity and cost efficiency 
• Setting up standards for company-wide program management. Providing coaching 
and mentoring to individual project owners to follow project management rules and 
critical path methodology 
• Working with Procurement to update materials master data such as pricing, 
conversion rate, and supplier allocation 
• Publishing forecast and communicating to internal and external customers 
including procurement, fab departments, finance, global central team and suppliers 
• Publishing monthly forecast accuracy report and spotting on issues 
• Performing supplier audits for vendor managed inventories 
• Facilitating bi-weekly Cost Tactical Meeting to review each department's cost P2P 
• Applying program management principles to drive corrective actions and 
continuous improvements 
advertisements were randomly selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately determined even if the 
sampling unit were sufficiently large. See id. at 195-196 (explaining that "[r]andom selection is the key to [the] process 
[of probability sampling]" and that "random selection offers access to the body of probability theory, which provides the 
basis for estimates of population parameters and estimates of enor"). 
12 The Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative the job postings are of the particular 
advertising employers' recruiting histo1y for the type of job advertised. As the advertisements are only solicitations for 
hire, they are not evidence of the actual hi1ing practices of these employers. 
6 
are so complex and unique that the knowledge required to perform them is usually associated with the 
attainment of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner asserts that 
the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in logistics or a related field. However, while a 
few related courses and skills may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, the 
Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated how an established curriculum of courses leading to a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perfmm the 
duties of the proffered position. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted copies of work examples prepared by the Beneficiary. However, 
the Petitioner did not sufficiently explain how these documents distinguish and differentiate the duties 
of the proffered position from the typical duties performed by other logistics managers, and why the 
proffered duties require a baccalaureate (or higher degree) in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as 
claimed. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position and references her 
qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education 
or experience of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner did not sufiiciently develop relative 
complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position, and it did not identify any tasks 
that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
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. The Petitioner 
asserts that it requires applicants for the proffered position to possess a bachelor's degree in logistics 
or a related field, but upon review of the record, we observe that the Petitioner did not submit 
information regarding employees who currently or previously held the position. The record does not 
establish that the Petitioner normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, directly related to the duties of the position. Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.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 perfmm them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
In the instant case, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by the 
Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. While the position may require that the Beneficiary 
possess some skills and technical knowledge in order to perform these duties, the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently explained how these tasks require the theoretical and practical application of a body of 
highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific 
7 
specialty ( or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation. The record does not include 
sufficient probative evidence that the duties require more than technical proficiency in the field. Thus, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated that its proffered position is one with duties sufficiently specialized 
and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The appeal will be 
dismissed for the above stated reasons. 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. The 
Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8