dismissed H-1B Case: Logistics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 5644490 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-IB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 6, 2020 
The Petitioner, a newspaper production facility, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "press 
coordinator" under the H-IB 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)(15)(H)(i)(b) . The H-IB 
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 California Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
established that the proffered position is a specialty occupation . 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred and that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation . 1 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 2 
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 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. 
1The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-lB 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. 
2A petitioner must establish that it meets each eligibility requirement of the benefit sought by a preponderance of the 
evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I& N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). 
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. 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"); 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner identified the proffered position as a "press coordinator" on the Form I-129, Petition for a 
Nonimmigrant Worker. On the labor condition application (LCA)3 submitted in support of the H-1B 
petition, the Petitioner designated the proffered position under the occupational category 
"Logisticians" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 13-1081, at a 
Level II wage. Although we have reviewed the duties and each duty description in foll, we will not 
repeat each duty here. According to the Petitioner the duties of the proffered position require a 
"Bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent in Industrial Engineering, Industrial Management, Logistics, 
or a related field." 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties, as described, require the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of a highly specialized knowledge attained through at least a 
baccalaureate degree in a specific discipline. 
3 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B worker 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. § 655.73l(a). 
2 
A. First Criterion 
The criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(]) 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. 
We often look to the Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as 
an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations 
that it addresses. 4 The Handbook's subchapter entitled "How to Become a Logistician" states, that 
"[a] bachelor's degree is typically required for most positions, although an associate's degree may be 
sufficient for some logistician jobs." 5 The Handbook reports that the bachelor's degrees possessed by 
logisticians are in "business, systems engineering, or supply chain management." 6 Further, that the 
bachelor's degree programs "often include coursework in operations and database management, and 
system dynamics" and that "most programs offer courses that train students on software and 
technologies commonly used by logisticians." 7 Because the Handbook recognizes that this occupation 
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, 8 it does not support a conclusion that the 
"Logisticians" occupation comprises an occupational group for which there is a common degree 
requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 9 
The Petitioner also refers to the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) Summary Report for 
SOC code 13-1081 - Logisticians as supporting its degree requirement. We agree that O*NET 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." 10 Significantly, O*NET OnLine does not 
indicate that a four-year bachelor's degree required by Job Zone Four occupations must be in a specific 
specialty directly related to the occupation. A requirement of a general bachelor's degree for entry 
4 We do not, however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. The Handbook may be 
accessed at https://www.bls.gov. 
5 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Logisticians. 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/logisticians.htm (last visited Feb. 5, 2019). 
6 Id. 
7 Id. 
8 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 Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. See also 
Irish Help at Home LLCv. Melville, 13-CV-00943-MEJ, 2015 WL 848977, at *6-8 (N.D. Cal. Feb.24.2015), aff"d, 679 F. 
App'x 634 (9th Cir. 2017). 
9 The Petitioner refers to language from a non-precedent AAO decision as support for its asse1iion that the requisite 
knowledge to perform the duties of a specialty occupation position can be impaiied through studies in a variety of academic 
areas. This decision was not published as a precedent and therefore does not bind USCIS officers in future adjudications. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c). Non-precedent decisions apply existing law and policy to the specific facts of the individual case, 
and may be distinguishable based on the evidence in the record of proceedings, the issues considered, and applicable law 
and policy. Further, as discussed throughout the second and fourth criterion, the Petitioner has not adequately established 
how the various academic areas relate to the duties of the proffered position. 
10 O*NET OnLine Summary Report for "13-1081 - Logisticians," http://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/l 3-1081 (last 
visited Feb. 5, 2019). 
3 
into an occupation does not establish that the occupation is a specialty occupation. The O*NET Online 
information does not refer to any specific discipline as required, therefore the information is not 
probative of the proffered position being a specialty occupation. 
We have also considered the Petitioner's citation to Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS, for the 
proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is what is important. Diplomas rarely 
come bearing occupation-specific majors. What is required is an occupation that requires highly 
specialized knowledge and a prospective employee who has attained the credentialing indicating 
possession of that knowledge." 11 
We agree with the aforementioned proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is 
what is important." In general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and 
biochemistry, a minimum of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized as 
satisfying the "degree in the specific specialty ( or its equivalent)" requirement of section 214(i)(l )(B) 
of the Act. In such a case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be 
the same. Since there must be a close correlation between the required "body of highly specialized 
knowledge" and the position, however, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in two disparate 
fields, such as philosophy and engineering, would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree 
be "in the specific specialty ( or its equivalent)," unless the Petitioner establishes how each field is 
directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position. Section 214(i)(l )(B) of the 
Act ( emphasis added). As discussed throughout the remainder of the four criteria, the Petitioner has 
not sufficiently established that each specific field is related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position. 12 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that "a single major or specialty is not required for an occupational 
category to qualify as a specialty occupation" and that the Handbook "does not indicate that any 
Bachelor's degree qualifies a professional for a Logistician position, but rather [the Handbook] 
enumerates a specific field of study (i.e. a business, systems engineering, or supply chain management­
related field) as required for the role." Herein, the Petitioner requests that we consider the Handbook's 
range of acceptable degrees, including an associate's degree, and the O*NET's absence of a required 
degree in a specific specialty, as applicable to establishing the proffered position as a specialty 
occupation. However, the variety of paths available to enter into this occupation according to these 
authoritative sources undermines the Petitioner's argument that the particular position in this matter 
requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, directly related to the duties of 
the position. Moreover, we disagree with the Petitioner's implication that a requirement for a general 
purpose bachelor's degree (i.e. business) for entry into the occupation establishes it as a specialty 
occupation. 
11 Residential Finance Corp. v. USCrS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012). It is also important to note that in a 
subsequent case reviewed in the same jurisdiction, the comi agreed with our analysis of Residential Finance. See Health 
Carousel, LLCv. USCrS, No. 1:13-CV-23, 2014 WL 29591 (S.D. Ohio 2014). 
12 The court in Residential Finance did not eliminate the statutory "bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty" 
language imposed by Congress, as the Petitioner here seems to suggest. Rather, it found that the petitioner in that case had 
satisfied the requirement. which the Petitioner here has not. 
4 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation from a probative source to substantiate its 
assertion regarding 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)(I). 
B. First Prong of the 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 concentrates upon 
the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific 
position. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors we often consider 
include: whether the Handbook ( or another independent, authoritative source) 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." 13 
Here and as already discussed, 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. Also, there are no submissions from 
the industry's professional association indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry 
requirement. 
In support of its assertion that the degree requirement is common to the Petitioner's industry in parallel 
positions among similar organizations, the Petitioner submitted copies of several Linkedln job postings 
and the profiles of individuals who have held production or project management positions. We observe a 
lack of a common degree among the individuals featured in the Linkedln profiles, which includes a 
bachelor's in business administration; a bachelor's in physics with a master's in management; an 
associate' s degree in business administration combined with an unspecified education of three years' 
duration; and a bachelor's in industrial technology. 
We also note that from the organizations' descriptions contained in the postings, significant organizational 
differences exist when comparing these employers to the Petitioner. The petition states that the Petitioner 
was established in 2018 and has one hundred employees. By contrast, AmericanLitho, Inc. has between 
five and ten times the number of employees and has been in business for over fifty years longer than the 
Petitioner; F ASTSIGNS has approximately double the number of employees and has been operating for 
over thirty years longer than the Petitioner; and SG360° has between five and ten times the number of 
employees and has been operating for over sixty years. Little evidence was submitted that would permit 
us to draw any further comparisons or conclusions about the similarity between the Petitioner and these 
13 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)). 
5 
other organizations. As such, there is insufficient evidence to substantiate a claim that the organizations 
in the Linkedln postings are similar to the Petitioner. 
Even if all of the job postings and profiles 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 provided any independent evidence of how representative the job 
postings are of each particular employer's recruiting history for the type of job advertised. As the 
postings are only solicitations for hire, they are not evidence of the actual hiring practices of these 
employers. The profiles of four individuals do not demonstrate what statistically valid inferences, if 
any, can be drawn with regard to a common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions 
in similar organizations. 14 Moreover, given that there is no indication that the postings were randomly 
selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately determined even if the sampling 
unit were sufficiently large. 15 Finally, the title of the position alone does not provide sufficient 
indication that the positions are the same or similar. Without a description of the position or a list of 
duties, we cannot determine whether the proffered position and the positions referenced in the 
Linkedln printouts are parallel. 
As such, it cannot be found that this evidence could credibly refute the conclusions of the Handbook 
that such a position does not normally require at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent, for entry into the occupation in the United States. The record does not establish that 
similar organizations in the Petitioner's industry have a common degree requirement of a bachelor's 
or higher degree, or its equivalent, in a specific specialty, for a "press coordinator" occupation. The 
Petitioner has not provided other evidence to establish that "[t]he degree requirement is common to 
the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations." Thus it has not satisfied the first prong 
of the regulation 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. To satisfy this 
criterion, the record must establish that the specific performance requirements of the position 
generated the recruiting and hiring history. 16 Here, the Petitioner does not offer evidence of its past 
recruiting and hiring history for the proffered position, but rather submitted a human resources letter 
stating that a bachelor's degree or equivalent applicable experience in industrial engineering, industrial 
14 See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 (7th ed. 1995). 
15 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 theory, which provides the basis for estimates of population 
parameters and estimates of error"). 
16 On appeal, the Petitioner asse11s that the Director erred in disregarding the Petitioner's letter, which identifies the 
Petitioner's degree requirement when considering this criterion. However, as discussed, this criterion is not established 
by the Petitioner's degree requirements, but rather its recrniting and hiring history as well as information regarding 
employees who previously held the position. In addition, 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. See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. The Petitioner has not established that the proffered 
position requires a bachelor's level degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
6 
management, or logistics is an essential prerequisite for the proffered position. 17 Given that the 
Petitioner has had multiple opportunities to submit evidence of its recruiting and hiring history, but 
has not, combined with the fact that the Petitioner has been in business only since 2018, we are left to 
conclude that the Petitioner has no hiring history with regard to the press coordinator position. It 
appears that this is a first-time hiring for the position, and if so, it is unclear how an employer that has 
not previously 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). 
D. Second Prong of the Second Criterion and the Fourth Criterion 
As noted above, 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. § 2 l 4.2(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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner suggests that its operations are highly specialized and sophisticated so as to 
presuppose its need to hire a professional with the minimum of a bachelor's degree or the equivalent 
in a specific field. 18 Despite this assertion, the record contains little evidence to suggest that the 
Petitioner's operations are more specialized or sophisticated than other similar organizations. Instead, 
the Petitioner contends that the Director misinterpreted the H-1 B regulations as requiring "the 
proffered position be more specialized or complex than any other Press Coordinator position." The 
Petitioner states that the correct interpretation is that a petitioner must "demonstrate only that the job 
duties of its specific role are so specialized and complex so as to require a Bachelor's degree." 19 
However, as previously discussed, the Handbook indicates that typical positions within this 
occupational category do not require the minimum of a bachelor's degree or the equivalent in a specific 
field. As such, the issue remains that the Petitioner has not established that the duties of the proffered 
position exceed the duties of a typical position falling within this category so as to take it beyond the 
type of position described in the Handbook. As discussed below, the Petitioner has neither sufficiently 
established that the proffered position is complex, unique, or specialized within itself: nor has it 
submitted evidence to suggest that its press coordinator position is more complex, unique, or 
specialized than other parallel Logistician or press coordinator positions. 
In its RFE response, the Petitioner provides a chart of O*NET duties alongside the duties of the 
proffered position in order to support its claim that the proffered position requires considerable 
preparation, as does the Logistician position described by the Department of Labor. In matching the 
duties as such, the Petitioner suggests that the required preparation for the positions is similar, if not 
17 In its RFE response, the Petitioner submitted a job description of its pressroom manager position, which it contends is a 
similar position to the proffered position. However, the Petitioner did not submit any evidence to substantiate that this was 
an actual job posting, in that the printout bears no identifying features as to when, where, and for how long it was posted. 
Rather than a job posting, it appears that this document is a mere position description. The Petitioner also did not provide 
any evidence of who was hired or now occupies the position. Therefore, this document offers little probative value in 
establishing this criterion. 
18 Page 13 of the Petitioner's appellate brief. 
19 Page 14 of the Petitioner's appellate brief. 
7 
the same. In so doing, the Petitioner cannot then claim that the duties of the proffered position are 
more complex, unique, or specialized than those of the position described in O*NET. As previously 
discussed, the Handbook and O*NET do not support the assertion that "Logisticians" is a specialty 
occupation category. Therefore, if the duties of the proffered position are not more specialized or 
complex than the position described under SOC 13-1081, the Petitioner cannot satisfy the second 
alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) or the fourth criterion of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). 
In addition to this, the duties themselves do not reflect a complexity or uniqueness such that they can 
be performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. To illustrate, the duty of "monitor ADP for payroll approvals as well as track attendance" 
appears to require no specialized training to execute and to be very straightforward in nature. The 
Petitioner fails to connect how monitoring employee time, attendance, and payroll relate in any way 
to specialty occupation work, let alone work that is particularly complex or unique so as to satisfy the 
second or fourth criterion. Instead, the Petitioner summarily concludes that the Beneficiary will 
"utilize and apply his knowledge of production processes" to perform this duty without explaining 
how or why such knowledge would even be needed. 
The duty, "follow all Health and Safety rules and policies and ensure that all associates and temporary 
employees are in compliance ... " indicates that the Petitioner will provide on-the-job training, as 
evidenced by the description that "[ the Beneficiary] will undergo multiple training courses on 
manufacturing safety." Instead of establishing the complexity or uniqueness of this duty or explaining 
why it can be performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, the Petitioner instead offers the conclusory statement that the Beneficiary must 
"leverage principles, applications, and knowledge of press production management" to perform the 
duty. Furthermore, the Petitioner does not reconcile how undergoing on-the-job training in order to 
perform the duty coincides with the definition of specialty occupation work. 
Other duties including, "lead and facilitate team meetings" similarly require the Beneficiary to 
"leverage principles, applications, and knowledge of press production management" without 
explaining what that actually means. Such a generic coverall statement repeated after several different 
duties provides little insight into the specialized knowledge, if any, that will be used to carry out the 
duty. The Petitioner does not sufficiently explain why principles, applications, and knowledge of press 
production management would be needed to perform the duty. Moreover, the Petitioner does not 
adequately identify why the principles, applications, and knowledge of press production management 
gained through methods other than a bachelor's degree or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent could not be similarly leveraged to perform the duty. 
Overall, we observe that the Petitioner's use of additional detail to explain routine and basic functions 
does not develop the specialization, complexity, or uniqueness of the position. The Petitioner must 
establish why the duties require an advanced degree in a specific specialty. In its list of duties, the 
Petitioner does not offer an explanation or analysis, but rather jumps to the declaration that each duty 
requires the "theoretical and practical application of knowledge and skills which are typically gained 
through the attainment of a Bachelor's degree or equivalent in Industrial Engineering, Industrial 
Management, Logistics or a related discipline ... " 
8 
We also reviewed the ~------__.opinion regarding the specialization and complexity of the 
proffered position. From the outset, we note that I O Is opinion conflates the Beneficiary's 
suitabilit: or qualifications for the position with the minimum entry requirements for the position. D I J writes, "My opinion is based on my review of extensive documentation pertaining to the 
position of Press Coordinator with [the Petitioner] and the academic credentials of [the Beneficiary]." 
In so doing, he explicitly states that a factor in his analysis was the Beneficiary's qualifications for the 
position, rather than solely the position requirements. The test to establish a position as a specialty 
occupation is not the skill set or education of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. 20 Like the Petitioner.I I does not sufficiently explain 
or clarify which of the duties, if any, of the proffered position would be so specialized and complex 
or unique as to be distinguishable from those of similar but non-degreed or non-specialty degreed 
employment. 
Additionally, we cannot agree with I l's analysis of the Beneficiary's duties. D 
~--~k's letter repeats the Beneficiary's duties as they appear in the Petitioner's list, including: 
"monitoring ADP for payroll approvals; tracking associate attendance; leading and facilitating team 
meetings; ... participating in evaluations; ensuring that associates and employees are in compliance 
with Health and Safety rules ... "I I then declares that these duties "could not be performed 
by an individual who has a bachelor's degree in a field other than Industrial Engineering, Industrial 
Management, Logistics, or a closely related specialized field." (emphasis added). 
Here, what I I appears to assert is that no person without a degree in these specific fields 
would be capable o±: for example, leading and facilitating a team meeting or tracking employee 
attendance. However, I lhas not provided sufficient information to support this assertion. 
His opinion letter fails to connect why or how the duty of, for example, conducting a meeting or 
monitoring employee attendance would be found within the typical coursework of Industrial 
Engineering, Industrial Management, Logistics, or a related degree. I ~lso fails to explain 
why a person who has undertaken coursework leading to one of the delineated degrees would be 
equipped with the knowledge and skills needed to perform the duty of leading al d facj)jtatjng a 
meeting or tracking employee attendance. Taken at face value, we conclude that l's 
assertions about the proffered position's duties and how they relate to the need for a specialized degree 
are both illogical and conclusory. 
Finally, we observe that throughout! l's opinion letter, his analysis does not sufficiently 
differentiate between the need for a formal academic education in order to perform the duties of the 
position and similar knowledge or skills that can be gained through work experience. We read that it 
is I ~ opinion that: 
20We are required to follow long-standing legal standards and determine first, whether the proffered position qualifies for 
classification as a specialty occupation, and second, whether the Beneficiary was qualified for the position at the time the 
nonimmigrant visa petition was filed. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 T&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988) ("The 
facts of a beneficiary's background only come at issue after it is found that the position in which the petitioner intends to 
employ him falls within [a specialty occupation]."). 
9 
• "While the position ... requires the completion of at least a bachelor's degree in one of the 
foregoing fields, the job duties of the position clearly support the need for a specialized degree 
in order to enable an individual to perform the requisite job duties." 
• "A qualified candidate must be able to bring to bear critical academic concepts of industrial 
engineering, industrial management, and logistics ... " 
• "The Press Coordinator position demands a complex mix of sophisticated academic concepts 
that could only be learned through at least a bachelor's-level educational background in 
Industrial Engineering, Industrial Management, Logistics, or a related specialized field." 
• " ... [A] qualified candidate must have an educational background that includes studies in the 
subjects specified above." 
• " ... [I]t would be impractical to employ a candidate for the position who lacks a suitable 
educational background in one of the foregoing fields." 
• "[T]he position .. .is specialty in nature, requiring the ability to apply the knowledge associated 
with the attainment of at least a bachelor's-level degree in Industrial Engineering, Industrial 
Management, Logistics, or a related specialized field ... " 
This strong and definitive language, using the words "degree," "studies," "academic," and 
"educational," appears to leave no room for the possibility of equivalent skills and knowledge gained 
through experience. Yet, we note that I l's statements and opinions in other parts of the 
record allow for an experience-based substitution or equivalency of these educational requirements 
for the proffered position. Taken together, we conclude that I l does not clearly or 
sufficiently differentiate between the education required for the position or the experience that could 
serve as an equivalent. 
To summarize,! l's opinion concerning the proffered position comingles the pos1t10n 
requirements with the Beneficiary's qualifications, provides illogical and conclusory assertions with 
regard to the specific duties of the position, and does not clearly differentiate between formal academic 
education and work experience as comprising the minimum entry requirements for the positon. As 
such, his opinion fails to offer a meaningful analysis of why the particular duties are so specialized 
and complex or unique, such that the position itself requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent. 21 
The Petitioner has not established that its particular position is so complex or unique or that the nature 
of the position's specific duties is so specialized and complex such 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. The record does not satisfy the second prong of the second criterion or the 
fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
21 We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron Int'/, Inc., 
19 T&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. Here, the opinion presented 
does not offer a cogent analysis of the duties and why the duties require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. We 
hereby incorporate our discussion ofl ts opinion into our discussion of the other 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) 
criteria. 
10 
E. Summary of the Four Criteria 
The foregoing analysis demonstrates that the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position 
satisfies any of the requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), or that it qualifies as a specialty 
occupation pursuant to section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 
III. ADDITIONAL ISSUES 
As the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the proffered position is a specialty occupation, we need not 
fully address other issues evident in the record. That said, we wish to identify these additional issues 
to inform the Petitioner that these matters should be addressed in any future proceedings. 
A. Beneficiary Qualifications 
The record does not currently demonstrate that the Beneficiary's combined education and work 
experience is the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. The claimed 
equivalency is based almost exclusively on experience, as the Beneficiary appears to have completed 
only a high school education. The record does not establish (1) that the evaluator has authority to 
grant college-level credit for training and/or experience in the specialty at an accredited college or 
university with a program for granting such credit, or (2) that the Beneficiary's expertise in the 
specialty is recognized through progressively responsible positions directly related to the specialty. 
See 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4) and (D)(l). 
We further note that the Petitioner's RFE res onse and the Beneficiary's resume, state that the 
Beneficiary worked for from 1988 to 2010. A letter ofreference provided 
by I Is General Manager, '--------~~ states that the Beneficiary was 
employed at I I until March 2010, but another letter from I l's Vice 
President, Human Resources, Print Sector,.__ ____ __., states that the Beneficiary was employed 
there until 2009. This inconsistency undermines the credibility of the Beneficiary's work experience 
and because the Petitioner rests the Beneficiary's qualifications for the proffered position almost 
exclusively on work experience, this detail is material. 
B. Employer-Employee Relationship 
The Petitioner's initial support letter states that the Beneficiary will be "supervised and controlled by 
al lmanager ... employed at al I location ... [and] salary and benefits will be paid b~ I" 
We cannot ascertain from the record whol I is and how this entity relates to the Petitioner's 
business. It is also unclear why the Beneficiary's work product from I I contains a 
reference to a I I domain email address, particularly if I r was the Beneficir' s I 
previous employer. Lastl], we note that the Petitioner's representativeJ l President o 
I (the Petitioner) has an associated email address that appears to be for a 
separate person or entity, presumably from the San Francisco Chronicle. We note that this domain 
name was used in communications withl las well, but we cannot ascertain from the record how 
these entities are related. We also note that a similar San Francisco Chronicle individual with a 
slightly different email address appears on the labor condition application (LCA) as the employer 
11 
contact. These details raise questions as to whether the Petitioner would engage the Beneficiary in an 
employer-employee relationship. 
C. Prevailing Wage 
We observe that the LCA was certified on March 27, 2018 and that the prevailing wage for~I --~ 
I I during that period for a Logistician, SOC 13-1081, at a Wage II level was $67,434, which is 
different from the prevailing wage of $63,107 listed on the LCA. Though we acknowledge that the 
Petitioner has pledged to pay a higher wage to the Beneficiary than the prevailing wage, the Petitioner 
should be aware of the error. 
V. CONCLUSION 
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. 
12