dismissed H-1B Case: Logistics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-U- LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 26, 2019 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICES CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner , an international logistics and freight forwarder company , seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary as a "logistics analyst" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) , 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(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 Vermont 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 
1 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support 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. 
2 A petitioner must establish that it meets each eligibility requirement of the benefit sought by a preponderance of the 
evidence. Matter ofChawath e, 25 I& N Dec . 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). In other words, a petitioner must show that what 
it claims is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. To determine whether a petitioner has met its burden under the 
preponderance standard, we consider not only the quantity , but also the quality (including relevance , probative value, and 
credibility) of the evidence. Id. at 376; Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). 
Matter of A-U-LLC 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a 
non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered 
position must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
(]) 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. Chertojf, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in a 
specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner identified the proffered position as a "logistics analyst" on the Form I-129, Petition for a 
Nonimmigrant Worker. On the labor condition application (LCA)3 submitted in support of the H-lB 
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 I wage. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner listed the Beneficiary's duties 
and the time allocated to those duties as follows: 
• Performing analytical tasks to further the development and implementation of 
management tools including plans, schedules, and responsibility and compliance 
matrices. 20% 
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. § 655.731(a). 
2 
Matter of A-U-LLC 
• Facilitate the scheduling, processing, and monitoring of activities related to the 
coordination of shipments from origin to destination while ensuring safe, 
economical, and timely delivery. 20% 
• Review the company's logistics procedures and capacity, as well as requirements 
from clients, including targets, benchmarks and service agreements. Review and 
propose improvements to the company's existing logistics processes. 15% 
• Assist in establishing task priorities, and the tracking of freight movements, 
ensuring the availability of resources. Develop and maintain comprehensive 
models for estimating cost and forecasting demand. 15% 
• Evaluate freight classifications, tariff rates, schedules, and deadlines to ensure 
organizational logistical effectiveness, capacity utilization, cost containment, and 
customer satisfaction. 15% 
• Communicate and coordinate with internal team members, customers, shippers, 
consignees, agents, carriers, and transportation partners regarding Harmonized 
Tariff Schedules (HTS), valuation and duties verification, bond applications, 
customs clearance, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, Importer 
Security Filings (ISF), and Shipper's Export Declarations (SED) filing. 15% 
The Petitioner added explanations of each of these main duties. Although we have reviewed the 
descriptions in foll, we will not repeat each elaboration here. 4 According to the Petitioner these duties 
require a "Bachelor's degree or equivalent, at minimum, in Transportation Management, Logistics, 
Systems Engineering, or a closely related field." 
III. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner challenges the Director's analysis and conclusion on the regulatory criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(]), the first prong of(2), (3) and (4). 
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 
4 The Petitioner also omitted one of the initially described tasks from the list of main duties and their explanations, in its 
response to the Director's RFE. The Petitioner does not explain the omission of its initial requirement that the Beneficiary 
"maintain detailed, up-to-date records, reports, and documentation related to shipping operations." 
3 
Matter of A-U-LLC 
that it addresses. 5 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." 6 The Handbook reports that the bachelor's degrees possessed by 
logisticians are in "business, systems engineering, or supply chain management." 7 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." 8 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,9 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. 
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 
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, 839 F. Supp. 
2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012), 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." 
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 
5 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. 
6 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 Sep. 26, 2019). 
7 Id. 
8 Id. 
9 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. 
10 O*NET OnLine Summary Report for "13-1081 - Logisticians," http://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/13-108 l (last 
visited Sep. 26, 2019). 
4 
Matter of A-U-LLC 
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). Here, 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 its logistics analyst 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. 
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)(]). 
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[.]" 11 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." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 
2d 1151, 1165 (D.Minn. 1999)(quotingHird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 
1989)). 
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. 
To establish the first prong of this criterion, the Petitioner submitted two statements from companies 
within the freight forwarding industry. In the letter authored by I I a vice president with 
an eight-employee freight forwarding company,I O I asserts that "it is the industry standard to 
hire a Logistics Analyst who has at least a Bachelor's degree with concentrated coursework in 
Transportation Management, Logistics, Systems Engineering, or a closely related field .... " 
11 Although the Petitioner does not challenge the Director's conclusion on the second prong of this criterion, for 
thoroughness we will briefly discuss the second prong in section D below. 
5 
Matter of A-U-LLC 
Similarly, in the letter authored by I I president of a 36-employee shipping and 
transportation company.I lclaims that "the minimum qualification for the position of a 
Logistics Analyst is a Bachelor's-level degree education in Transportation Management, Logistics, 
Systems Engineering, or a closely related field, and that such is the industry standard for similarly 
sized companies." Neither author provides the foundational basis for their conclusory statement 
regarding the industry standard for this occupation. That is, they do not offer any relevant research, 
studies, surveys, or acknowledge authoritative publications that report such a position may be 
performed with less than a bachelor's degree, or a general bachelor's degree. The authors also do not 
offer evidence of or cite to the number of logistics analysts within their own companies, if any, and 
the actual degrees, if any, those logistics analysts may have. Without some evidence of the number 
of logistics analysts within their companies, the type of degrees routinely required, and the nature and 
level of responsibility of the positions, these opinions lack probative value in establishing that a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is a common degree requirement in parallel positions among 
similar organizations. 
The Petitioner also submitted four job postings as evidence to establish this prong of the criterion. 
First, the record does not include sufficient information regarding the advertising organizations to 
establish they are similar to the Petitioner in size and scope. Second, the advertised positions do not 
appear parallel to the proffered position except in the most general way. Further, the job postings 
demonstrate that there is a broad range of academic degrees acceptable to perform the duties described. 
The four advertisements refer to degrees in industrial engineering, operational research, data analytics, 
supply chain management, business, business administration, transportation, logistics, and accounting, 
as degrees acceptable to perform the advertised positions. Moreover, one of the advertisements notes 
that a degree in a specific discipline is preferred but does not indicate that it is a requirement. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that all the degrees listed in the advertisements are arguably related 
degrees as these fields would provide an individual the necessary knowledge to fulfill the job duties 
of a logistics analyst. However, these degrees, including degrees of general applicability, demonstrate 
at most that this occupation requires a broad base of knowledge. That is, the Petitioner has not 
established how the disparate degrees set out in the job postings include the same or similar "body of 
highly specialized knowledge," such that the knowledge would be attained with a bachelor's or higher 
degree in the specific specialty. The variety of acceptable fields of study to perform the duties of a 
logistics analyst confirms the Handbook's report that there is not a common degree requirement to 
perform the duties of a logistics analyst. The diversity of the degree requirements for positions the 
Petitioner compares to the proffered position is farther evidence that the proffered position is not a 
specialty occupation. 
Also on appeal, the Petitioner refers to an opinion authored by Professor and 
Chairperson, Department of Business Manaf ement, I I School ofBusiness,I I 
College of the City Universit~~---~ I !concludes, without analysis or foundational 
evidence, that the Petitioner's "competitors in the forwarding and logistics services industry normally 
require at least a bachelor's degree in Transportation Management, Logistics, Systems Engineering, 
or a related field or equivalent for positions comparable to the position of Logistics Analyst." This 
opinion is not probative in establishing this prong of this criterion. 
6 
Matter of A-U-LLC 
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 
"Logistics Analysts" 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. 12 Here, the Petitioner does not offer any evidence of its 
past recruiting and hiring history for the proffered position. We observe that the Petitioner's 
organizational chart identifies another individual in the position of logistics analyst. 13 However, it is 
unknown if this individual's position includes the same job duties and level of responsibility as the 
proffered position. If not, or if this is a first-time hiring for the position, 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. 
We understand that the Petitioner operates a four-person freight forwarding company and that it strives 
to provide the highest standards of efficiency, affordability, and quality. We also note the Petitioner's 
concern regarding the competitive market for the best service for international shipping and 
transportation services and its focus on transporting goods safely, timely, and economically. However, 
these standards and concerns do not set the particular position apart from other logistics analysts' 
positions that do not require a bachelor's degree or a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. We 
reviewed the shipper's log, shipping notification forms, dock receipts, import/export documents, and 
invoices and packing lists and the Petitioner's assertion on appeal that these documents show that the 
logistics analyst provides support to critical functions of its business. However, these documents 
12 On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in disregarding 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 recruiting 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, 20 I F .3d 
at 387-88. The Petitioner has not established that the position here requires a bachelor's level degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent. 
13 The Petitioner does not provide evidence of this individual's job duties, their level ofresponsibility, or their degree. 
7 
Matter of A-U-LLC 
although critical to any shipping, transportation, freight forwarding company, do not demonstrate that 
a bachelor's-level education is required to execute the day-to-day tasks of the Petitioner's freight 
forwarding business. 
We reviewed the manuals, also provided by the Petitioner, and note that the manuals provide the 
step-by-step basic instructions in carrying out many of what appears to be the functions of the 
Petitioner's business. We further reviewed the email correspondence to and from the Beneficiary and 
the individual identified as the operations and documentation manager on the Petitioner's 
organizational chart) and note the correspondence refers to preparing documents, confirming costs and 
responsibilities amongst the parties to the transportation and storage of goods. Although the manuals 
and email demonstrate that an individual in the logistical analyst's position requires an understanding 
of the shipping, import, and export documentation as well as some communication skills, they do not 
demonstrate why the proffered position requires a bachelor's-level degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent, in order to complete, discuss, understand, negotiate, and analyze such documentation. 
We also carefully reviewed the Petitioner's descriptions of duties as initially provided and expanded 
and revised in response to the Director's RFE. The Petitioner emphasizes on appeal that the proffered 
position requires the "strategic coordination of logistics operations for the company's international 
freight forwarding services," and that its logistics analyst "must be constantly monitoring activities 
and resources; tracking freight movements, reviewing procedures, requirements, and targets; 
facilitating and coordinating all logistics for multiple shipments; and compiling detailed reports of this 
data." Although we understand how these duties require organizational skills, it is not apparent that 
such skills are gained only through a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner adds that the logistics analyst analyzes the data reports and coordinates logistics 
procedures considering budgetary restrictions, benchmarks and service agreements, scheduling, 
freight movements, and compliance with State, Federal, and international laws and regulations. Again, 
however, the Petitioner does not detail how the tasks described elevate the proffered position to a 
specialty occupation. The tasks described overlap with other occupations, such as those of "Cargo 
and Freight Agents," SOC 43-5011 14 and "Freight Forwarders" SOC 43-5011.01, 15 occupations that 
are not specialty occupations. 16 
We recognize that some of the tasks may also fall within the "Logisticians" occupation as designated 
on the LCA. Thus, in an effort to understand the nature of the proffered position, we reviewed the 
wage level designated on the LCA. Here, the Petitioner designates the proffered position as a wage 
Level I. This designation undermines the Petitioner's claim that the position is particularly complex, 
specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. 17 In general, a 
14 See O*NET summary report at https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/43-501 l .OO (last visited Sep. 26, 2019). 
15 See O*NET summary report at https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/43-501 l .Ol (last visited Sep. 26, 2019). 
16 The O*NET summary report for these occupations, indicates that these two occupations fall within the Job Zone Two 
category, which indicates some preparation is needed and that a high school diploma is usually required. See id. 
17 Nevertheless, a Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty 
occupation,just as a Level TV wage-designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain occupations 
(e.g., doctors or lawyers), a Level I, entry-level position would still require a minimum ofa bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a Level TV wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation 
8 
Matter of A-U-LLC 
petitioner must distinguish its proffered position from others within the same occupation through the 
proper wage level designation to indicate factors such as the relative complexity of the job duties, the 
level of judgment, the amount and level of supervision, and the level of understanding required to 
perform the job duties. 18 Here the Petitioner repeatedly claims that the duties of its position are highly 
complex and that the Beneficiary's responsibilities are complex, but the Petitioner does not account 
for the complexity and specialization or uniqueness of the duties and level of responsibility with a 
commensurate certification of the Beneficiary's wage level on the LCA. Thus, the record does not 
include a description of duties that sufficiently and consistently establishes the Beneficiary's proposed 
role and level ofresponsibility within the Petitioner's business operations. 
The Petitioner also refers to its expanded version of duties and asserts that the additional detail and 
breadth of responsibility demonstrates that the duties of its logistical analyst are far more sophisticated 
and highly complex, and require more advanced knowledge than the logistician position described in 
the Handbook. However, adding 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. Here, the Petitioner does not offer an explanation 
or analysis but jumps to the Beneficiary's bachelor's-level coursework as providing the Beneficiary 
the specialized knowledge to prepare him to fill the proffered position. 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. The Petitioner does not sufficiently explain or clarify 
in the record 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. 
It appears that a few lower-level courses in transportation management or logistics, or business would 
suffice to perform the duties of the position. While a few related courses may be beneficial in 
performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner has not established that a foll curriculum of 
courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required 
to perform the duties of the proffered position. It is the Petitioner's burden to establish why its 
particular position is so specialized and complex, or unique, that the knowledge required to perform it 
is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. The Petitioner has not done so here. 
We also reviewed ._I ---~___.t_s_op._i_n_io~n regarding the specialization and complexity of the 
Petitioner's particular position. I !repeats the Petitioner's initial description of the proposed 
position and without analysis concludes: 
Based upon the job duties that have been prescribed for the proffered position, it is 
evident that the position requires the application of bachelor-level knowledge (at the 
qualifies as a specialty occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. That is, a position's wage level designation may be a relevant factor but is 
not itself conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)(1) of the Act. 
18 U.S. Dep't of Labor. Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance. Nonagric. 
Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ 
Revised_ 11 _ 2009 .pdf 
9 
Matter of A-U-LLC 
minimum) in mathematics, stat1st1cs and probability, database concepts and 
management, transportation management, transportation systems and techniques, 
principles of economics, principles of accounting, principles of management, project 
management, logistics management, supply chain management, management 
information systems, operations management, negotiation, international business, 
strategic management, and business communications. 
I then paraphrases many of the duties described and concludes that the position holder 
~n-e-ed_s_13_o_f~the above 1 7 courses to perform these duties. In the next paragraph, I !opines 
that the position holder "must apply advanced specialized knowledge in mathematics, statistics and 
probability, database concepts and management, economics, logistics management, supply chain 
management, and strategic management to gather and analyze quantitative data and develop models 
to estimate the cost of shipments, forecast demand for the firm's services, and optimize the company's 
logistics and transportation management operations using sophisticated statistical and analytical 
methodologies and techniques."! !offers no analysis regarding why these particular tasks 
require the position holder to have particular advanced knowledge. I lturther claims that 
the position holder must possess bachelor's-level communication knowledge to write reports and make 
oral presentations, to convey findings and recommendations, and to effectively communicate to 
outside parties. I I concludes that this knowledge "can only be acquired through completion 
of curricula at a university bachelor's level (at the minimum) in Transportation Management, 
Logistics, Systems Engineering, or a related field or equivalent." I !offers no analysis or 
foundation as a basis for his conclusory statements. He does not appear to consider that these same or 
similar skills may be learned in any number of fields that are not related to the three disciplines he 
identifies. 
Although I I asserts that his academic and professional experience has provided him with 
knowledge on how to analyze, evaluate, and characterize job duties, responsibilities, qualifications, 
and expertise, he does not share his analysis or provide objective evidence to support his conclusions. 
He does not discuss the results of formal surveys, research, statistics, or other objective quantifying 
information to substantiate his opinion. While he may have anecdotal information regarding industry 
hiring practices, he does not refer to authoritative publications or provide a statistical analysis of his 
anecdotal information to support his opinion. Further,! I does not address the Petitioner's 
designation of the proffered position as a wage Level I on the certified LCA. He also does not refer 
to the Petitioner's organizational chart 19 and discuss who will perform the routine shipping and freight 
forwarding administrative duties, if not the Beneficiary. We consider these omissions significant and 
question whetherl I possessed the requisite information to adequately assess the nature of 
the position and appropriately determine whether it actually involved specialized and complex or 
unique duties, or otherwise satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
We understand that an individual who takes one or several of the courses listed may be prepared to 
perform the duties of this position; however, the record does not include the necessary explanation of 
19 The Petitioner states that it is a four-person company and its organizational chati depicts a country manager, an 
operations and documentation manager, a logistics analyst, and a sales and marketing employee, as well as the proposed 
position. 
10 
Matter of A-U-LLC 
why the duties require the precise coursework of a specific degree. I I does not offer a 
meaningful analysis of why the particular duties are so specialized and complex or unique, such that 
the position itselfrequires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 20 
A broad educational background which includes quantitative, communication, and analytical 
knowledge does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. The Petitioner must establish that 
the position requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of specialized knowledge 
attained through a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty, or its equivalent, as a minimum 
for entry into the occupation. The record here does not include probative evidence establishing that 
the proposed position is so specialized and complex or unique such that only an individual with a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty directly related to the position can perform the position. 
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), and that it qualifies as a specialty occupation pursuant to section 
214(i)(l) of the Act. 
IV. 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. 
Cite as Matter of A-U- LLC, ID# 3866502 (AAO Sept. 26, 2019) 
20 We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron Int'/, Inc., 
19 l&N Dec. 79L 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. 
11