dismissed H-1B Case: Logistics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 11244706 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 4, 2021 
The Petitioner, a transportation company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "logistics 
engineer" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations . Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(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 of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief 
and asserts that the Director erred by denying the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence .1 We review the questions in this matter de nova. 2 Upon de nova 
review , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Act defines an H-lB nonimmigrant as a foreign national "who is 
coming temporarily to the United States to perform services .. . in a specialty occupation described in 
section 214(i)(l) ... "(emphasis added). 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. 
1 Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofCha wathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
2 See Matter of Christo 's Inc ., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . 
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: 
( 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. 
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. 3 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a "logistics engineer." In the March 2019 support 
letter, 4 the Petitioner provided the job duties of the proffered position as follows: 
• Review contractual commitments, customer specifications, or related information 
to determine logistics or support requirements. 
• Determine logistics support requirements, such as facility details, staffing needs, or 
safety or maintenance plans. 
• Direct the work oflogistics analysts. Supervise employees[.] 
• Evaluate effectiveness of current or future logistical processes[.] 
• Provide logistics technology or information for effective and efficient support of 
product, equipment, or system manufacturing or service. 
• Analyze or interpret logistics data involving customer service, forecasting, 
procurement, manufacturing, inventory, transportation, or warehousing. 
• Prepare or validate documentation on automated logistics or maintenance-data 
reporting or management information systems. 
• Develop or maintain cost estimates, forecasts, or cost models. 
• Design comprehensive supply chains that minimize environmental impacts or 
costs. 
3 See 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"). 
4 On appeal, the Petitioner provides additional details to the initially described duties. These details include other 
associated tasks and the percentage of time spent for each duty. For the sake of brevity, we have not recited the 
supplemental duties, however, we have reviewed them in full. 
2 
• Evaluate logistics methods to reduce environmental impact. 
• Review global, national, or regional transportation or logistics reports for ways to 
improve efficiency or minimize the environmental impact of logistics activities. 
Provide logistical facility or capacity planning analyses for distribution or 
transportation functions. 
The Petitioner's March 2019 support letter states the position's required education is at least a 
bachelor's degree in "an area of [t]ransporation [e]ngineering, or a closely-related discipline." 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we conclude that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Specifically, the record (1) does not describe the position's duties with sufficient detail; and (2) does 
not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate 
with a specialty occupation. 5 
At the outset, we observe discrepancies in the record that undermine the overall credibility of this 
petition. For example, the Petitioner provided an iteration of the proffered position's job duties that 
omitted the duty to "[ a ]nalyze or interpret logistics data involving customer service, forecasting, 
procurement, manufacturing, inventory, transportation or warehousing," and that iteration also had 
different percentages of time spent on each duty. The Petitioner did not offer explanations for the 
omission or revisions of the time allocated to each duty. We also note the Petitioner submitted two 
versions of the August 2018 opinion letter from I !containing inconsistent 
information regarding the number of logistical personnel currently at the company and the titles of 
their supervisors. These inconsistencies raise questions about the reliability of the testimony submitted 
b~ I In another document submitted with their appeal, the Petitioner indicates "1-3 years 
of experience" are required for the proffered position although the Petitioner did not identify any 
experience requirement initially. Also, several documents in the record are not consistent with the 
initial educational requirement of a bachelor's in transportation engineering. 6 The Petitioner must 
resolve inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 7 
Unresolved material inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other 
evidence submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit. 8 
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 consider the information contained in the 
U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) regarding the duties 
5 The Petitioner submitted documentation to suppmt the H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered position 
and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each 
one. 
6 These inconsistencies will be discussed later in the decision. 
7 Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
8 Id. 
3 
and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations it addresses. 9 The Petitioner 
designated the proffered position on the labor condition application (LCA) as a standard occupational 
classification (SOC) code 13-1081 "Logisticians" occupation. The Petitioner's description of duties 
mirrors the general occupational duties provided in the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) 
Summary Report for "Logistics Engineers" SOC code 13-1081.01, a subcategory of the 
"Logistician' s" occupation. 10 
The Handbook's subchapter entitled "How to Become a Logistician" states that "[a] bachelor's degree 
is typically required for most positions, but that an associate's degree may be sufficient for some 
logistician jobs." 11 The Handbook reports that the bachelor's degrees possessed by logisticians are in 
"business, systems engineering, or supply chain management." 12 Because the Handbook recognizes 
that the duties of positions located within this occupational category may be performed by individuals 
with a range of degrees, including an associate's degree or a bachelor's degree in the general field of 
business, 13 it does not support a conclusion that the "Logisticians" occupation comprises an 
occupational group for which a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, 
is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. Consequently, the 
Handbook does not support the claim that positions located within the "Logisticians" occupational 
category normally require at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent. 
The Petitioner contends that the Handbook's usage of "typically" suggests that the "Logistics 
Engineer" occupation normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent 
and is a specialty occupation. The Petitioner cites to Next Generation Tech., Inc. v. Johnson, 328 F. 
Supp. 3d 252 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) to demonstrate federal courts have agreed with this interpretation of 
the Handbook. 
First, we are not bound to follow the published decision of a United States district court. 14 However, 
even ifwe were to consider the logic underlying Next Generation Tech., Inc., we would still conclude 
that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation 
under this criterion. While the Handbook may satisfy the first regulatory criterion for some 
occupations, it does not for others in such a categorical manner, such as this one. Moreover, the court 
in Next Generation Tech., Inc. relied in part on a USCIS policy memorandum regarding "Computer 
Programmers" indicating generally preferential treatment toward positions located within that 
9 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. Nevertheless, to satisfy the first criterion, the burden of proof remains 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. 
10 O*NET OnLine Summary Report for ·'13-1081.01 Logistics Engineers," 
https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/l 3- l 081.01 (last visited Feb. 3, 2021 ). 
11 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Logisticians, at 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/logisticians.htm#tab-4 (last visited Feb. 3, 2021 ). 
12 Id. 
13 We have consistently stated that 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 conclusion that 
the particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam Co1p., 484 F.3d at 147. See also 
Vision Builders, LLC v. USC1S. No. 19-3159, 20 WL 5891546, at *4 (D.D.C. Oct. 5, 2020). 
14 See Matter of K-S-, 20 l&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (BIA 1993). 
4 
occupational category, and "especially" toward companies in that particular petitioner's 
industry. However, USCIS rescinded the policy memorandum cited in Next Generation Tech., Inc. 15 
In this instance, the Handbook does not describe the normal minimum educational requirement for 
positions located within the "Logistician" occupational category in a categorical manner since it states 
that an associate's degree may also qualify an individual for entry into the position although a 
bachelor's degree is typical for most positions. Equally important, the Handbook indicates that when 
a bachelor's degree is in fact required, a bachelor's degree in business would suffice. Here the 
Petitioner has not sufficiently distinguished its particular position from those positions that require 
only an associate's degree, or an unspecified bachelor's degree in business. It has not established that 
a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into its particular position. 16 We also note that although, the Handbook's report is insufficient 
to establish that this occupation is a specialty occupation under the first criterion, it does not preclude 
the Petitioner from establishing its particular position is a specialty occupation with other authoritative 
sources or under one of the other regulatory criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits documents from Study.com, Learn.org, and the Transportation 
Journal 17 as sources that discuss the educational levels for logistics positions. However, these 
documents do not appear to be from industry authoritative sources. Nor do the websites or the author 
of the Transportation Journal article appear to be sources that have gathered the necessary evidence to 
establish an industry standard for the proffered position. Study.com and Learn.org appear to be 
educational resources for students, and not industry professional associations that reflect the 
educational requirements for specific occupations within an industry. The Learn.org document states 
a bachelor's degree is "recommended" for logistics managers 18 and that "most" employers require it; 
but also states that undergraduate degrees are available, and that "[a]ssociate's degree programs teach 
customer service, supply chain management, inventory management, marketing and operations 
management. Although the Transportation Journal article appears to be in an industry publication, the 
article does not discuss a common degree requirement currently across the industry. Rather, the article 
discusses the future of logistics education. Neither the websites nor the article provide sufficient 
information to conclude that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, 
15 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0142, Rescission of the December 22, 2000 "Guidance memo on HlB 
computer related positions" (Mar. 31, 2017), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/nativedocuments/PM-6002-
0142-H-1 BComputerRelatedPositionsRecission.pdf. 
16 The Petitioner misquotes the Director's decision in this matter when it claims that the denial decision states "If a business 
administration degree is presented as a sufficient requirement for the position, then the position does not meet the statut01y 
and regulatory definition of a specialty occupation." This statement is not in the denial decision. The Petitioner also 
asse1ts that federal case law has determined that such an occupation does not have to require a degree in a specific specialty, 
but rather the needs of a specialty occupation "can be met even where a specifically tailored baccalaureate program is not 
typically available for a given field" and cites generally to Tapis Intern. v. INS, 94 F.Supp.2d 172, 176 (D. Mass. 2000), 
Raj and Company v. US. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 85 F.Supp.3d 1241 (W.D. Wash. 2015) in support of its 
assertion. The Petitioner does not identity which occupation it is discussing when it refers to "such an occupation" and 
does not offer an analysis or explanation of what the cited cases hold. Without more context, we are unable to further 
address this assertion. 
17 The Petitioner submits an article called, "The Future of Logistics Education." This document indicates that this article 
was published in the "Transportation Journal, Vol 50. No. 1, 2011" 
18 The Leam.org document is for a "logistics manager." Although the position title is different, the article also indicates 
that alternative titles include "logistics engineer." However, the position discussed in the document seems to suggest a 
position with higher responsibility due to coordinating "multiple departments" and ·'employees." 
5 
is a common industry requirement within the industry or is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into a logistics engineer occupation. Therefore, the Petitioner's reliance on these documents is 
misplaced. These articles do not support the Petitioner's assertion that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation from a probative source to substantiate a 
claim that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is normally the minimum requirement for entry 
into this particular position. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
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 
common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific 
position. 19 
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 establish that such firms "routinely employ and 
recruit only degreed individuals." 20 
The Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which the Handbook ( or other 
independent, authoritative sources) reports an 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. 
As we considered this prong, we again reviewed the documents from Study.com, Learn.org, and the 
Transportation Journal. As previously discussed, none of the documents demonstrate a minimum 
degree entry requirement into the occupation from an industry professional association. Nor do these 
documents include sufficient evidence to refute the Handbook's report regarding the educational 
requirements for the logisticians occupation to enter into the occupation. 
Next, we will review the job postings submitted by the Petitioner with their appeal. To be relevant for 
consideration under this prong, the descriptions on the job postings must describe positions that are 
19 We will discuss the second prong of the second criterion in section D below. 
20 See Shanti. Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 1999) (quoting Hird/Blaker Co1p. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 
1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) ( considering these "factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
6 
parallel to the proffered position and the job postings must have been placed by organizations that 
( 1) conduct business in the Petitioner's industry and (2) are also "similar" to the Petitioner. Absent such 
evidence, job postings submitted by the Petitioner are generally outside the scope of consideration for 
this prong, which encompasses only organizations that are similar to the Petitioner. 
Although the Petitioner and the companies may perform some similar services, some of the companies 
do not appear similar to the Petitioner. Two of the companies appear to be staffing agencies, not 
transportation companies. Another company specializes only in the distribution of "countertop, 
flooring, and wall finishing materials," as opposed to the general transportation services the Petitioner 
provides. However, even ifwe concluded that these companies were similar organizations within the 
same industry, we would still conclude that the Petitioner had not established that the nature of the 
positions advertised in the job postings are parallel to those of the proffered position. 
Our review of the job postings confirms that these positions are different and are not "parallel" to the 
Petitioner's position. The proffered position requires no experience; however four of the job postings 
require an experienced individual. Specifically, one job posting requires at least six months of 
experience, and another posting requires one to three years of experience. Another position requires 
three to five years of experience, and one job posting requires at least ten years of experience. Two 
of the postings seem to require different levels of education for entry into the position. One job posting 
states an associate' s degree could be an option to enter the position. 21 Another posting states the 
company requires an individual with a master's degree to qualify for the position. We also note that 
two of the job postings have requirements not included to perform the proffered position. One job 
posting requires the position to be bilingual. Another requires the individual to have an active secret 
clearance. As such, these job postings do not demonstrate a "parallel position" to the proffered 
position. 22 
Even if all of the job descriptions and requirements on 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 does not demonstrate what statistically valid 
inferences, if any, can be drawn from the job postings with regard to the common educational 
requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. 23 Moreover, given that there is 
no indication that the advertisements were randomly selected, the validity of any such inferences could 
not be accurately determined even if the sampling unit were sufficiently large. 24 
Finally, we tum to the opinion letter ofl O J a professor at thel I Institute of Technology, 
who wrote regarding industry hiring requirements for the Petitioner's particular position. The 
Petitioner submitted one version oti I's letter with their RFE response, and another version 
with the appeal brief Although the letters are both dated Aug. 3, 2018, it appears the letters contain 
different information on the title of the proffered position and the number of these positions currently 
21 The ROCS Grad Staffing job posting states that an "[a]ssociates or [b]achelor's degree" is required for the position. 
22 If these are in fact parallel positions as claimed, we would have significant questions as to whether the proffered position 
corresponds to and supports the H-1 B petition, as required. 
23 See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 (7th ed. 1995). 
24 See id, at 195-96 (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 the01y, which provides the basis for estimates of population 
parameters and estimates of error"). 
7 
employed with the Petitioner. The RFE response letter states the Petitioner has "one Logistics 
Analysts working under the Technology Analysis (sic)." The appeal version states the Petitioner has 
"two Logistics Engineers working under the Operations Manager." The Petitioner does not 
acknowledge or provide any explanation for these discrepancies. 
In the letters] I also describes his experience as a professor and researcher in the industry 
and concludes that it is common for positions similar to the one proffered here to require at least a 
bachelor's degree.I I states that based on his "observation in the transportation and logistics 
industry," the Petitioner's duties are typical of the industry. He farther states the skills necessary to 
perform the job duties are "extensively trained at a university with a bachelor's degree or higher degree 
in logistics, operations management, or related majors." However.I I does not offer 
probative evidence to support his conclusion. I ldoes not discuss the Petitioner's stated 
educational requirements for the proffered position and why his educational requirement does not 
appear to correspond to the Petitioner's requirement for at least a bachelor's degree or equivalent "in 
an area of [ t ]ransportation [ e ]ngineering." For example, it is not clear how an operations management 
degree is related to a degree in the area of transportation engineering. In addition, while he may have 
anecdotal information based on his experience as a professor and as a researcher in the industry, he 
does not indicate he has published, conducted research, or run surveys regarding the minimum education 
requirements for positions such as the position proffered here. He also does not discuss any relevant 
research, studies, or authoritative publications he utilized as part of his review and foundation for his 
opinion that a position requires "a bachelor's degree or higher degree in logistics, operations 
management, or related majors." Asl l's opinion does not discuss alternative educational 
requirements and does not distinguish their conclusions from those of the Handbook, other 
independent sources, or professional associations, his analysis is questionable. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient probative 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. 
§ 2 l 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion at 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 record must establish that a petitioner's stated degree requirement is not a matter of preference 
for high-caliber candidates but is necessitated instead by performance requirements of the position.25 
Were we limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, an organization 
could bring any individual with a bachelor's degree to the United States to perform any occupation as 
long as the petitioning entity created a token degree requirement. 26 Evidence provided in support of 
this criterion may include, but is not limited to, documentation regarding the Petitioner's past 
recruitment and hiring practices, as well as information regarding employees who previously held the 
position. 
25 See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. 
26 Id. 
8 
On appeal, the Petitioner refers to one prior and two current employees to demonstrate its practice is 
to hire only someone with at least bachelor's degree in the specific field for a professional position 
within the company. The Petitioner states the previously employed individual was hired into the same 
job position, logistics engineer, in 2017 and the two current employees work in adjacent logistics 
positions. However, the appeal brief indicates these individuals have different job titles than the 
proffered position title of "logistics engineer." 27 In addition, the Petitioner does not provide any 
evidence of the individual's employment nor list the duties of the positions held by these individuals. 
We also note the organization charts 28 provided by the Petitioner do not demonstrate any other 
individual working as a "logistics engineer." As such, this information is insufficient to establish that 
any individual was employed in the same position as the position proffered here. 
The record does not establish that the Petitioner normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the proffered position. Therefore, the Petitioner has not 
satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
D. Second Prong of the Second Criterion and Fourth Criterion 
The second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) 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 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 perform them is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
First, we will review the Petitioner's job duties. Prior to the appeal, the Petitioner submitted job duties 
that were generic and routine. For instance, the Petitioner includes the following duties: 
• Determine logistics support requirements, such as facility details, staffing needs, or 
safety or maintenance plans; 
• Develop or maintain cost estimates, forecasts, or cost models; and 
• Design comprehensive supply chains that minimize environmental impacts or costs. 
Most of the job duties are verbatim from the general occupational duties provided in the O*NET 
Summary Report for "Logistics Engineers" SOC code 13-1081.01. 29 However, providing generic job 
duties for a proffered position from O*NET or another internet source, is not sufficient to establish 
27 The appeal brief states the prior and cunent employees have the job titles of "operation manager" and "logistics 
specialist," which differs from the proffered position's title of"logistics engineer." 
28 The Petitioner initially provided an organization chart with their RFE response. On appeal, the Petitioner submitted an 
updated chart included the names of the individual working in the position. We also note the appeal brief argues the 
"logistics specialist" is the same position as the proffered position. However, the title of"logistics specialist" is on neither 
of the organization charts. The cunent employee who the Petitioner identified as a "logistics specialist" is designated as a 
"warehouse specialist" on the appeal organization chart. 
29 O*NET OnLine Summary Report for ·'13-1081.01 Logistics Engineers," 
https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/13-1081.0l (last visited Feb. 3, 2021). 
9 
that the Beneficiary will be performing services in a specialty occupation. 30 While this type of 
description may be appropriate when defining the range of duties that may be performed within an 
occupational category, without information describing the Beneficiary's specific tasks to be performed 
within the Petitioner's business, the generic description does not establish the substantive nature of 
the proffered position's duties or demonstrate that performing such duties would require the theoretical 
and practical application of highly specialized knowledge and attainment of at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits several versions of the job duties in three separate documents: 
(1) the appeal brief, (2) Detailed Position Description, and (3) the Matrix document. 31 In summary, 
these documents include the original job duties with more detailed tasks, percentage of time spent on 
each duty, the knowledge and skills for each duty, the relevant course work taken by the Beneficiary, 
and work samples. However, as discussed below, these documents do not demonstrate that the duties 
are "complex or unique" or "specialized and complex" such that they require a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty. 
First, the expanded job duties with the amount of time worked on each duty provide a better 
understanding of what the Beneficiary will do, but they do not ultimately explain why the duties are 
so "complex or unique" or "specialized and complex". For example, the Petitioner includes the 
following details regarding the generic duty of "[r]eviewing contractual commitments, customer 
specification, or related information to determine logistics or support requirement": 
• The performance assessment is essential for the business in measuring the degree of 
improvement. The Logistics Engineers at [the Petitioner] is tasked with monitoring 
30 Cf Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava. 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990) (Specifics are 
an important indication of the nature of the Beneficiary's duties, otherwise meeting the requirements would simply be a 
matter of providing a job title or reiterating the regulation). 
31 On appeal, the Petitioner provided different versions of the proffered position's job duties and requirements. The appeal 
brief included a supplementary section that was missing the duty, "[a]nalyze or interpret logistics data involving customer 
service, forecasting, procurement, manufacturing, inventory, transportation or warehousing." \Ve also observe the appeal 
brief supplement states 15% of time for the duty "[ e ]valuate effectiveness of current or future logistical processes." The 
Detailed Position Description and Matrix documents show this duty at I 0%. Because of the missing duty and inconsistent 
data, the percentage on the appeal brief supplement add to 95%. 
We also note the Detailed Position Description indicates different requirements than initially presented. In their initial 
support letter. the proffered position requires no experience and "a minimum a Bachelor's Degree or its equivalent in an 
area of Transportation Engineering, or a closely-related discipline." However, Detailed Position Description requires the 
position to have "1-3 years of experience in transportation management and logistics in a logistics company" and "[ a ]t 
least Bachelor's in Transportation or a Supply Chain Management related field, such as Logistics Engineer, Logistics 
Analyst, Transportation Manager. Transportation, Storage, and Distribution Consultant." 
On appeal, the Petitioner cannot offer a new position to the Beneficiary, or materially change a position's title, its level of 
authority within the organizational hierarchy, the associated job responsibilities, or the requirements of the position. The 
Petitioner must establish that the position offered to the Beneficiary when the petition was filed merits classification for 
the benefit sought. See Matter ofMichelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248, 249 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978). A petitioner may not 
make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter 
of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). 
At minimum. these inconsistencies undermine the overall credibility of this petition. 
10 
and comparing monthly performance data, which is presented in the production output, 
time, costs, and efficiency. 
• The Logistics Engineer must analyze the periodic reports and compare them with the 
historical data to illustrate the degree of change in outputs, productivity, quality 
efficiency, costs of shipping, and profits. Since [the Petitioner] aims to expand its 
shipment collection services across the [U.S.] states, transportation performance 
assessment is crucial to inform the decisions. 
Although the details provide more context and explain how the duty relates to the Petitioner's business 
operation, these details do not appear to elevate the "complexity or uniqueness" or "specialization and 
complexity" beyond the generic job duties. 
In addition, neither a duty's relevant knowledge and skill, nor the courses taken by the Beneficiary, 
sufficiently develop the nature of the position itself such that we can ascertain whether it actually 
requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, but rather suggests that 
the Beneficiary only needs to develop certain skills or knowledge of certain subjects to perform the 
tasks. In other words, 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 claims are so "complex or unique" or "specialized and complex." While development of 
skills or knowledge in certain topics may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the duties of the proffered position require a baccalaureate or 
higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
We also reviewed the sample work product which includes the following projects: (1) Transportation 
Engineering and Design with Monthly Subscription Contracts, (2) Transportation Asset Management, 
E-Commerce in Marketing and Supply Chain Networks, (3) Transportation Systems Management, 
(4) Transportation Systems Evaluation, (5) Social Media Marketing Posts Guidelines, and (6) Supply 
Chain Management. 32 The narrative for each sample provides a general overview of the project but 
does not discuss why the duties to create or generate the product require at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty. Also, the screenshots or photos reveal few details about the duties involved in 
producing the work product. Without any substantive explanation, the sample work product does not 
convey an understanding of the "complexity or uniqueness" or "specialization and complexity" of the 
creation of the work product. The Petitioner did not sufficiently discuss or identify any tasks that are 
so "complex or unique" or specialized and complex" that only a specifically degreed individual could 
perform them. 
We now tum to the pos1t10n evaluation provided byl In his letter,~1----~ 
(1) describes the credentials he asserts qualify him to opine upon the nature of the proffered position; 
(2) states his familiarity with the industry; and (3) states the position is specialized and requires at least 
a bachelor's degree in logistics, operations management, or related majors. The professor provides a 
quick summary of some of the job duties and states they are "typical" to the industry.I Is 
assertions are not persuasive, as the professor does not discuss all of the Petitioner's job duties and 
fails to differentiate how the duties are "complex or unique" or "specialized and complex" in relation 
to the duties of a generic logistician engineering position that can be performed by a non-degreed or 
32 Each project sample included a small narrative and screenshots or photos. 
11 
non-specialized degree individual. The Professor also states two sets of skills will allow an individual 
to perform the job duties: (1) "highly specialized quantitative methods and complex math" and (2) 
data analysis. These skills do not appear unique to degrees in logistics, operations management, or 
logistics engineering, and I I does not discuss why other methods could not lead to a 
sufficiently similar knowledge set, for example, the amount ofrequired training or experience to gain this 
knowledge or alternate degrees that would be acceptable. As such, the opinion letter does not provide 
a sufficient basis to establish that the duties described requires a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty. 
The Petitioner also provided informational slides about their business, a printout of their website, 
billing invoices, and employee photos. Although these documents provide information about the 
Petitioner's business and their activities, it does not demonstrate or provide information to demonstrate 
that the proffered position is so "complex or unique" or "specialized and complex" that it can be 
performed only by an individual with a bachelor's degree in a specific field. 
Finally, we tum to the LCA. As noted, neither the Handbook nor the other evidence of record indicates 
that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is normally required. The Petitioner 
designated the proffered position as requiring Level I wage. 33 If a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or the equivalent, is not normally required for typical positions located within this 
occupational category, then we question whether a position with Level I wage characteristics would. 
In other words, that Level I designation when read in combination with the evidence presented 
indicates that this particular position is likely not so "complex or unique" or "specialized and complex" 
that the duties could only be performed by an individual with a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. The designated wage level does not demonstrate that the duties of the 
proffered position are "complex or unique" or "specialized and complex" as compared to logistics 
engineer positions that are not required to possess at least bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
the equivalent. 
The record lacks sufficiently detailed and unambiguous information to distinguish the proffered 
pos1t10n as more "complex or unique" or "specialized and complex" than other closely-related 
positions that can be performed by persons without at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) or 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
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. Moreover, the record 
does not establish that the Petitioner satisfied the statutory and regulatory definitions of specialty 
occupation. 
33 See Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, supra. It does not appear that, relative to other positions located 
within the occupational category, this is one with specialized and complex, or unique duties, as such a higher-level position 
would be classified as a Level III or Level IV position, requiring a significantly higher prevailing wage. While certainly 
not dispositive, a salary that is beneath the median wage for the occupational category in the area of intended employment 
(which is the case with a Level I wage) suggests that the position is not particularly specialized, complex, or unique relative 
to other positions within the occupational category. 
12 
IV. CONCLUSION 
As set forth above, we conclude that the evidence of record does not establish, more likely than not, 
that the proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Accordingly, 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. 
13