dismissed H-1B Case: Logistics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-U-, LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 6, 2015 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a "sales of materials for the printing and binding industries" firm, seeks to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as an "Import/Export/Sourcing Logistician" under the H-1B nonimmigrant 
classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is now 
before us on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
I. ISSUE 
The issue before us is whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation m 
accordance with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. 1 
II. 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 
1 We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. Matter ofSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542 (AAO 2015); see 
also 5 U .S.C. § 557(b) ("On appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would 
have in making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 
I 002 n.9 (2d Cir. 1989). 
Matter of M- U-, LLC 
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.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualifY as a specialty occupation, a proposed position must 
meet one of the following criteria: 
(I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent IS normally the mm1mum 
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.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together 
with section 214(i)(1) of the Act and 8 C.P.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. Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); Matter qf W­
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 P.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.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) consistently interprets the 
term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.P.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 M- U-, LLC 
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, USCIS regularly approves H-lB petitions for qualified aliens 
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-lB 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. USCIS must examine the 
ultimate employment of the alien, 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 nor 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 claims in the Labor Condition Application submitted to support the visa petition that 
the proffered position corresponds to Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code and title 
13-1081, Logisticians, from the Occupational Information Network (O*NET). 
In a letter dated July 14, 2014, submitted with the visa petition, the Petitioner stated: 
[In the proffered position, the Beneficiary] will utilize his business administration 
experience to analyze and coordinate the import, export, and sourcing of goods and 
services. He will be responsible for the acquisition, distribution, internal allocation, 
delivery, and final disposal of resources. The [Beneficiary] will develop and 
implement project management tools such as plans, schedules, and accounting 
systems that will improve productivity and viability of the [Petitioner]. The 
[Beneficiary] will review operational records and reports to project sales and 
determine profitability as well as monitor customer preferences to determine the 
focus of sales efforts. He will improve and implement a system that tracks orders 
from the point of sale to shipment and delivery, minimizing possible delays and 
ensuring collection of payment. He will evaluate the financial aspects of product 
development, such as budgets, expenditures, research and development 
appropriations, and return-on-investment and profit-loss projections. The 
[Beneficiary] will improve and implement processes to document imports and exports 
in order to ensure the [Petitioner] is receiving the highest quality merchandise at the 
3 
Matter of M- U-, LLC 
lowest possible price, in the appropriate quantities. He will work with U.S. customs 
agents and suppliers to ensure the legal, cost-effective, and timely delivery of goods. 
He will also monitor imports and exports and determine the corrective action to be 
taken on any defective or unacceptable goods or services. 
The Petitioner stated that the position requires, at a minimum, a bachelor's degree in "Business 
Administration, Economics, Marketing International Business [sic], or related field." 
In response to the Director's RFE, issued September 9, 2014, the Petitioner provided, inter alia, 
vacancy announcements placed by other firms, a copy of its organizational chart, and a copy of the 
U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) chapter pertinent to 
logisticians. With respect to the educational requirement for the proffered position, the Petitioner 
stated that a bachelor's degree in business administration is required. 
C. Analysis 
Initially, we observe that the Petitioner asserts that a bachelor's degree in business administration, 
among other degrees, is sufficient for entry into the proffered position, without further requiring that 
the business administration degree be in any specific specialty within that wide field. A petitioner 
must demonstrate that the proffered position requires a precise and specific course of study that 
relates directly and closely 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 administration, without further specification, does not establish the 
position as a specialty occupation. C.f 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. As discussed supra, USCIS interprets the degree requirement at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to require a degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed 
position. 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. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007)_2 
2 Specifically, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit explained in Royal Siam that: 
The courts and the agency consistently have stated that, although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, 
such as a business administration degree, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, 
requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify the granting of a petition for an H-1 B specialty 
occupation visa. See, e.g., Tapis lnt'l v. INS, 94 F. Supp. 2d 172, 175-76 (D. Mass. 2000); Shanti, 36 
F. Supp. 2d at 1164-66; cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 191&N Dec. 558,560 ([Comm'r] 1988) 
(providing frequently cited analysis in connection with a conceptually similar provision). This is as it 
should be: elsewise, an employer could ensure the granting of a specialty occupation visa petition by 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of M- U-, LLC 
Again, the Petitioner claims that the duties of the proffered pos1t10n can be performed by an 
individual with only a general-purpose bachelor's degree, i.e., a bachelor's degree in business 
administration. Without more, this assertion alone indicates that the proffered position is not in fact 
a specialty occupation. The Director's decision must therefore be affirmed and the appeal dismissed 
on this basis alone. 
In addition, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence establishing the substantive nature of 
the duties that the Beneficiary will perform. 
The Petitioner stated that it has four full-time employees, 
and seven contractors. The Petitioner 
explained that its four employees "perform the executive, marketing, finance, and logistics 
operations of the company," while its contract employees "administer and complete the tasks within 
these departments." More relevant to the proffered position , the Petitioner stated that it contracts 
with a "support logistician and warehouse manager to assist [the Beneficiary] in completing logistics 
and recordkeeping tasks," as well as with an office assistant to provide "administration assistance" to 
the Beneficiary. The Petitioner clarifies on appeal that the support logistician and warehouse 
manager, , is located in Minnesota. 
However, the Petitioner has not adequately described and distinguished between the duties 
performed by the Beneficiary and his assistants. For instance, the Petitioner has not specifically 
identified what tasks are performed by the support logistician and warehouse manager and the office 
manager. While the Petitioner asserts that these contract employees "complete non-qualifying 
tasks," the Petitioner has not defined or otherwise illuminated the exact nature of these "non­
qualifying tasks." "[G]oing on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings." In re Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter ofTreasure Craft of Cal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
Nor has the Petitioner provided sufficient evidence demonstrating the nature and extent of these 
contractors' services to the Petitioner and Beneficiary. The Petitioner has not provided detailed 
information or documentation about these contractors , showing, for example , how many hours per 
week the support logistician and warehouse manager works, and the nature of the warehouse in 
Minnesota that she manages. 3 Moreover, the Petitioner has not provided any copies of contracts, fee 
agreements, or other similar documentation detailing the terms and conditions of these contractors' 
services. 4 While the Petitioner submitted eight emails sent by the Beneficiary to . these 
the simple expedient of creating a generic (and essenti ally artificial) degree requirement. 
!d. 
3 The Petitioner's office , where the Beneficiary will solely be working , is located in Texas. 
4 According to the Petitioner 's 2013 federal tax return , the Petitioner claimed only $156,062 in other deductions , 
including only $240 in "consulting " expenses and $13,898 in "miscellaneous " expenses. The Petitioner 's descriptions of 
its other deductions did not contain any other categories in which fees to the logistician and warehouse manager and 
office manager could reasonably have been included. The Petitioner claimed $130,683 in salaries and wages, 
presumably for its employees. We also note that the Petitioner also claimed a total compensation of $282 ,627 to two 
officers , one of whom is not listed on the Petitioner 's organizational chart. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of M-U-, LLC 
emails are insufficient to establish the exact nature and level of logistics support 
provides to the Beneficiary. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has described the proffered duties in broad, generalized terms that are 
insufficient to establish the actual tasks the Beneficiary will perform. For example, the Petitioner 
stated that the Beneficiary will spend 25% of his time on the duty of "[a]nalyze and coordinate the 
import, export, and sourcing of goods and services." However, the Petitioner did not explain which 
of its employees or contractors perform the day-to-day operational tasks required to carry out the 
import, export, and purchase of materials that the Beneficiary would purportedly "[a]nalyze and 
coordinate." We note that the Petitioner has previously employed the Beneficiary in the same 
position, but has not provided concrete examples of his work (other than the eight emails mentioned 
above). 
Overall, without further information and evidence concerning the job duties of the Beneficiary and 
his claimed assistants, we cannot determine the substantive nature of the proffered position, and 
consequently, whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Nevertheless , for the purpose of performing a comprehensive analysis of the proffered position, we 
will discuss the record of proceeding in relation to the four criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
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 record of proceeding 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. 
As was noted above, the Petitioner claims in the LCA that the proffered position corresponds to a 
logistician position as described in O*NET. We recognize the Handbook, cited by the Petitioner, as 
an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations 
that it addresses. 5 We reviewed the Handbook chapter entitled "Logisticians." The Handbook states 
the following with regard to the requirements of logistician positions: "Logisticians may qualify for 
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, industrial engineering, process engineering, or supply chain 
management." U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook , 
2014-15 ed., "Logisticians ," http:/ /www.bls.gov /ooh/business-and-financial/logisticians.htm#tab-4 
(last visited Oct. 19, 2015). 
The Handbook states that entry into a particular logistician position may require only an associate's 
degree. That companies increasingly prefer at least a bachelor's degree does not indicate that a 
5 
The Handbook , which is available in printed form, may also be accessed on the lntemet at http://www.bls .gov/oco/. 
Our references to the Handbook are to the 2014-15 edition available online . 
6 
Matter of M-U-, LLC 
bachelor's degree is a minimum requirement for entry. Further, the Handbook indicates that a 
bachelor's degree in business, without further specification, may suffice even for those logistician 
positions that may require a bachelor's degree. As was explained above, an educational requirement 
that may be satisfied by an otherwise undifferentiated bachelor's degree in business or business 
administration is not a requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
See Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. at 560. 
When the Handbook does not support the proposition that a proffered position is one that meets the 
statutory and regulatory provisions of a specialty occupation, it is incumbent upon the Petitioner to 
provide persuasive evidence that the proffered position more likely than not satisfies this or one of 
the other three criteria. In such case, it is the Petitioner's responsibility to provide probative 
evidence (e.g., documentation from other objective, authoritative sources) that supports a finding 
that the particular position in question qualifies as a specialty occupation. Whenever more than one 
authoritative source exists, an adjudicator will consider and weigh all of the evidence presented to 
determine whether the particular position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Here, the O*NET OnLine Summary Report for Logisticians, referenced by the Petitioner, is also 
insufficient to establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation normally 
requiring at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The O*NET Summary 
Report does not state a requirement for a bachelor's degree in a spec(fic specialty for this 
occupation. Rather, it assigns this occupation a "Job Zone Four" rating, which groups it among 
occupations for which "most ... require a four-year bachelor's degree, but some do not." O*NET 
OnLine Summary Report, "13-1 081.00 - Logisticians," http://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/ 
13-1081.00 (last visited Oct. 19, 2015). Further, O*NET OnLine does not indicate that four-year 
bachelor's degrees that may be required by Job Zone Four occupations must be in a specific 
specialty directly related to the occupation. Therefore, the O*NET OnLine information is not 
probative of the proffered position being classified as a specialty occupation position. 
The record lacks sufficient evidence from an authoritative source to support a finding that the 
particular position proffered here would normally have such a minimum, specialty degree 
requirement or its equivalent. The duties and requirements of the position as described in the record 
of proceeding do not indicate that this particular position proffered by the Petitioner is one for which 
a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(l). 6 
6 On appeal, the Petitioner refers to the Director's statement that "USCIS recognizes that the position of a logistician is 
normally considered professional, and that most of these positions require prospective employees to hold at least a 
bachelor's degree in business administration or a closely related field." 
The issue before us is not whether the proffered position is a "professional" position, but whether it qualifies for 
classification as a specialty occupation position. We observe, again, that a degree with a generalized title, such as 
business administration, without further specification, is not a degree in a specific specialty. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz 
Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. at 560. As such, an educational requirement that may be satisfied by an otherwise undifferentiated 
bachelor's degree in business administration is not a requirement of a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
7 
Matter of M-U-, LLC 
The requirement of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a spec?fzc 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.F.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: (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 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. Also, there are no submissions from the industry's 
professional association indicating that a specific degree is a minimum entry requirement for the 
occupation. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not submit any letters or affidavits from similar firms or 
individuals in the Petitioner's industry attesting that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only 
de greed individuals." 
The Internet job postings submitted by the Petitioner do not establish that a degree requirement is 
common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. First, we note that the 
Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative these job advertisements 
are of the particular advertising employers' recruiting history for the jobs advertised. Further, as 
they are only solicitations for hire, they are not evidence of the employers' actual hiring practices. 
specialty, or its equivalent, and does not qualify a position as a specialty occupation position. To the extent that the 
Director's statement may be read as stating, or implying, that logistician positions are specialty occupation positions 
because they require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in business administration or a closely-related subject, we 
withdraw that portion of the decision. 
We also withdraw the portions of the Director's decision stating that "[c]ompanies similar to [the Petitioner] in nature 
would normally contract out for the services of a logistician on an as-needed basis," and implying that a logistician 
position in a "large scale corporation" would normally qualify as a specialty occupation. The Director has not provided 
any reasoning or cited to any authoritative sources to support such statements. 
Matter of M- U-, LLC 
Second, upon review of the advertisements, they do not provide sufficient information about the 
advertising organizations to establish that they are similar to the Petitioner. Without such evidence, 
these advertisements are generally outside the scope of consideration for this criterion, which 
encompasses only organizations that are similar to the Petitioner. 7 Moreover, the descriptions of 
responsibilities in the advertisements are generally perfunctory and do not provide sufficient 
information to determine the role the successful applicant will play in the advertising organization or 
the level of responsibility that will be required of the successful applicant. 
Further still, while each of those vacancy announcements states a requirement of a bachelor's 
degree, each also indicates that a bachelor's degree in "business" or "business administration," with 
no additional specification, would be a sufficient educational qualification for the position 
announced. As explained above, an educational requirement that may be satisfied by an otherwise 
undifferentiated bachelor's degree in business administration is not a requirement of a minimum of a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 
I&N Dec. at 560. As such, those vacancy announcements do not contain a requirement of a 
minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent, and do not support a finding 
that parallel positions require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its 
equivalent. 
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. The evidence does not 
establish that similar organizations in the same industry routinely require at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for parallel positions. 
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 of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 8 
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 
specific specialty, or its equivalent 
7 Further, the companies that placed those announcements claim to be in industries such as construction, automobile 
parts, and "Wholesale Trade/Import-Export." There is insufficient evidence demonstrating that the advertising entities 
are similar to the Petitioner in terms ofthe type and level of services provided. 
8 USCIS "must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true." Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 20 I 0). As just discussed, the Petitioner has not established the relevance of the 
job advertisements submitted to the position proffered in this case. Even if their relevance had been established, the 
Petitioner still would not have demonstrated what inferences, if any, can be drawn from these few job postings with 
regard to determining the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations in 
the same industry. See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 (1995). 
9 
Matter of M-U-, LLC 
The evidence of record also does not satisfy the second alternative prong of 8 CF.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2), which provides that "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." A review of the 
record indicates that the Petitioner did not credibly demonstrate that the duties that comprise the 
proffered position entail such complexity or uniqueness as to constitute a position so complex or 
unique that it can be performed only by a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty. 
We find that the evidence of record does not demonstrate that the duties that collectively constitute 
the proffered position require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge such that a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
required to perform them. For instance, the Petitioner did not submit sufficient 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 of the proffered position. While a few related courses 
may be beneficial, or even required, in performing certain duties of the proffered position, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated how an established curriculum of such courses leading to a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a spec~fic specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the 
duties of the particular position here. 9 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Director "mischaracterized the nature of the U.S. business," 
and "failed to consider the role this U.S. company plays in supporting its two Mexican parent 
companies in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of printing, binding, and stationary products in 
Mexico and Central America." The Petitioner further states: "These global supply chain and 
logistics activities create sufficient complexity in the offered position to qualify it as a specialty 
occupation." The Petitioner also asserts that it requires a full-time logistician due to the volume of 
sales conducted by the parent companies, one of which reported total sales of USD $3.7 million in 
2014. 
However, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence establishing that this pos1t10n is 
significantly different from other positions in the occupation such that it refutes the Handbook's 
information to the effect that there is a spectrum of degrees acceptable for such positions, including 
degrees less than a bachelor's degree (e.g., an associate's degree) and degrees not in a specific 
specialty (e.g., business or business administration degrees). In this respect, the Handbook indicates 
that the manufacturing industry, which the Petitioner listed as its primary business activity on its 
2013 federal tax returns, employs a large percentage (25%) of logistician positions. U.S. Dep't of 
Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 ed., "Logisticians," 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financialllogisticians.htm#tab-3 (last visited Oct. 19, 2015). 
The Petitioner has not explained and documented how its global operations or the sales volume of its 
9 We acknowledge the Petitioner's submission of a chart listing the duties of the proffered position with a column titled, 
"How Bachelor's Degree in Business Administration, International Business or Related Field Relates to the Required 
Job Duty." However, as discussed earlier, a degree with a generalized title, such as business administration, without 
further specification, is not a degree in a specific specialty. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558. 
10 
Matter of M- U-, LLC 
parent company compares to other businesses in the manufacturing industry, or otherwise explained 
how these factors distinguish the proffered position as unique from or more complex than positions 
that can be performed by persons without at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
As the Petitioner did not demonstrate how the proffered position is so complex or unique relative to 
other positions within the same occupational category that do not require at least a baccalaureate 
degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for entry into the occupation in the United States, it 
cannot be concluded that the Petitioner has 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, as well as 
information regarding employees who previously held the position. 10 
The record contains insufficient evidence that the Petitioner ever employed anyone in the proffered 
position prior to hiring the Beneficiary to fill it. While a first-time hiring for a position is certainly 
not a basis for precluding a position from recognition as a specialty occupation, it is unclear how an 
employer that has never recruited and hired for the position would be able to satisfy the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3), which requires a demonstration that it normally requires at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for the position. We cannot conclude that 
the Petitioner has satisfied the third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). 11 
10 To satisfy this criterion, the evidence of record must show that the specific performance requirements of the position 
generated the recruiting and hiring history. A petitioner's perfunctory declaration of a particular educational requirement 
will not mask the fact that the position is not a specialty occupation. USCIS must examine the actual employment 
requirements, and, on the basis of that examination, determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
See generally Defensor v. Meissner, 20 I F. 3d 384. In this pursuit, the critical element is not the title of the position, or 
the fact that an employer has routinely insisted on certain educational standards, but whether performance of 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. 
11 While a petitioner may believe or otherwise assert that a proffered position requires a degree in a specific specialty, 
that opinion alone without corroborating evidence cannot establish the position as a specialty occupation. Were USCIS 
limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, then any individual with a bachelor's 
degree could be brought to the United States to perform any occupation as long as the employer artificially created a 
token degree requirement, whereby all individuals employed in a particular position possessed a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in the specific specialty or its equivalent. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d at 387. In other words, if a 
petitioner's degree requirement is only symbolic and the proffered position does not in fact require such a specialty 
degree or its equivalent to perform its duties, the occupation would not meet the statutory or regulatory definition of a 
specialty occupation. See section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty 
occupation"). 
l l 
Matter of M- U-, LLC 
The nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment ofa 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent 
Finally, the Petitioner has not satisfied the fourth criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), which is 
reserved for positions with specific duties so specialized and complex that their performance 
requires knowledge that is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Again, relative specialization and complexity have not been 
sufficiently developed by the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. 
The Petitioner claims that the nature of the specific duties of the position in the context of its 
business operations 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. We reviewed the Petitioner's statements regarding the proffered position and its 
business operations. However, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently 
developed by the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. That is, the proposed duties have 
not been described with sufficient specificity to establish that they are more specialized and complex 
than positions that are not usually associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent. 
Overall, the evidence of record is inadequate to establish that the duties of the position are so 
specialized and complex that the 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 
evidence of record does not, therefore, satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)( 4). 
The Petitioner has not 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. The appeal will be 
dismissed and the petition denied for this reason. 
III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 
The evidence of record is insufficient to establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. 
We recognize that this is an extension petition. The Director's decision does not indicate whether 
the prior approval of the other H -1 B petition was reviewed. If the previous petition was approved 
based on the same unsupported assertions that are contained in the current record, the approval 
would constitute material and gross error on the part of the Director. We are not required to approve 
petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may 
have been erroneous. See Matter of Church Scientology Int 'I, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm 'r 
1988). It would be "absurd to suggest that [USCIS] or any agency must treat acknowledged errors 
as binding precedent." Sussex Eng'g, Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987). 
12 
Matter of M- U-, LLC 
A prior approval does not compel the approval of a subsequent petition or relieve the Petitioner of its 
burden to provide sufficient documentation to establish current eligibility for the benefit 
sought. Temporary Alien Workers Seeking Classification Under the Immigration and Nationality 
Act, 55 Fed. Reg. 2,606, 2,612 (Jan. 26, 1990) (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. pt. 214). A prior approval 
also does not preclude USCIS from denying an extension of an original visa petition based on a 
reassessment of eligibility for the benefit sought. See Tex. A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 F. App'x 
556 (5th Cir. 2004). Furthermore, our authority over the service centers is comparable to the 
relationship between a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had 
approved nonimmigrant petitions on behalf of a beneficiary, we would not be bound to follow the 
contradictory decision of a service center. See La. Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 44 F. Supp. 2d 
800, 803 (E.D. La. 1999). 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 ofthe 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 ofM-U-, LLC, ID# 14394 (AAO Nov. 6, 2015) 
13