dismissed H-1B Case: Logistics

(b)(6)
JUL 1 7 2015 
DATE: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION RECEIPT#: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Secul"ity 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigr ation Service s 
Adminislralive Appeals Office 
20 Mas sachusell s Ave .. N.W .• MS 2090 
Washington . DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section IOI(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
NO REPRESENTATIVE OF RECORD 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. 
If you believe we incorrectly decided your case, you may file a motion requesting us to reconsider our 
decision and/or reopen the proceeding. The requirements for motions are located at 8 C.F .R. § 103.5. 
Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this 
decision. The Form I-290B web page (www .uscis.gov/i-290b) contains the latest information on fee, filing 
location , and other requirements. Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO. 
Thank you, 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISIOA 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
I. PROCEDURALBACKGROUND 
On the Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129), the petitioner describes itself as a 
four-employee "Hispanic Wholesale Foods Distributor" established in In order to employ the 
beneficiary in what it designates as a "Distribution & Logistics Manager" position, the petitioner 
seeks to classify him as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to section 
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101( a )(15)(H)(i)(b ). 
The Director denied the petition, finding the evidence insufficient to establish that the proffered 
position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation position. On appeal, the petitioner 
asserts that the Director's basis for denial was erroneous and contends that the petitioner satisfied all 
evidentiary requirements. 
We base our decision upon our review of the entire record of proceeding, which includes: 
(1) the petitioner's Forni I-129 and the supporting documentation filed with it; (2) the service 
center's request for additional evidence (RFE); (3) the petitioner's response to the RFE; ( 4) the 
Director's denial letter; and (5) the Form I-290B and the petitioner's other submissions on appeal. 
1 
II. THE PROFFERED POSITION 
The Labor Condition Application (LCA) submitted to support the visa petitiOn states that the 
proffered position is a Logistics and Distribution Manager position, and that it corresponds to 
Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code and title 11-3071, Transportation, Storage, and 
Distribution Managers, from the Occupational Information Network (O*NET). The LCA further 
states that the proffered position is a wage Level I position. 
In a letter dated April1, 2014, , signing as the petitioner's president, stated: 
The [beneficiary] will be responsible for a variety of tasks including, but not limited 
to, the following: 
o Resolving problems involving transportation and logistics, both with 
respect to suppliers and customers. 
o Integrating the logistical functions of our company with its other 
functions, including manufacturing, sales, accounting, and finance. 
o Maintain records of, and report on, and develop relevant metrics for, 
customer service issues and delivery issues. 
We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
o Supervising logistics and transportation personnel. 
::::J Directing transportation and warehouse activities. 
o Negotiating and coordinating with both suppliers and customers to 
maximize the efficiency of our logistical supply chain. 
o Overseeing the productivity, accuracy, and timeliness of distribution 
functions. 
o Analyze the operational and financial aspects of logistical Issues 
including routing of deliveries and sourcing of supplies. 
o Establish logistical operation policies and standards. 
o Resolving customer and supplier complaints regarding shipping issues. 
o Collaborate with personnel in other departments of the company to 
formulate policies, procedures, goals and objectives so that the logistical 
and distribution functions of the company are efficiently interfaced with 
the functions of other departments. 
o Analyze financial and expenditure information regarding logistics and 
distribution to establish logistics and distribution plans, budgets and 
policies which minimize expenditures and maximize profits. 
o Oversee spending on logistics and distribution to assure conformity with 
approved budgets. 
[Verbatim.] 
As to the educational requirement of the proffered position, Mr. : stated: 
Petitioner requires all candidates for the proffered position to have a Bachelor Degree 
in Industrial Engineer or a related field that is Business oriented, from an accredited 
institution of higher education. 
[Verbatim.] 
In the RFE, the service center observed that the petitioner had indicated that the proffered position is 
supervisory, and asked the petitioner to identify the workers the beneficiary would supervise. In 
response, the petitioner provided an organizational chart that shows that the beneficiary would 
supervise warehouse workers and drivers. In a letter dated July 8, 2014, also submitted in response 
to the RFE, Mr. stated that the beneficiary would supervise those positions at the 
beneficiary's warehouse/distribution centers in Mississippi and . Georgia. 
In that letter, Mr. provided the following revised duty description: 
1 Programming/scheduling delivery providers for the arrival and unloading of 16.00% 
products. 
2 Assign routes to drivers, control and monitoring delibereis J sic l 14.00% 
0 
Assign tasks according to the Business requirements. 12.00% .) 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
4 Troubleshooting with vendors for goods and correction of misdelivery 8.00 % 
5 Daily Report to Administrative 
President regarding logistics activity 7.00 % 
6 Review and analysis of returns 8.00 % 
7 Planning logistics and distribution activities by period (Weekly, Monthly, Semi- 6.00 % 
Annual , Annual). ' 
8 Managing inventory 8.00 % 
9 Assign the storage location (in the distribution centres) of the goods delivered by ' 9.00 % 
suppliers 
' 10 Assigning delivery routes based upon orders received for products 7.00 % 
11 Prepare daily reports of the logistical flow of the distribution centres 5.00 % 
[Verbatim.] 
III. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
The issue is whether the petitioner has provided sufficient evidence to est ablish that it will employ 
the beneficiary in a specialty occupation position. 
A. Legal Framework 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "special ty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge , and 
(B) attainmen t of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equival ent) 
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 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.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, a proposed position 
must meet one of the following criteria : 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent IS normally the mm1mum 
requirem ent for entry into the particular position; 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECIS!OI\ 
(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 
of W-F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). As such, the criteria stated in 8 C.P.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.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory 
or regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this 
result, 8 C.P.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 regulabon at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) consistently interprets the 
term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.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 
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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISIOI\ 
Page 6 
B. Analysis 
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. 
The petitioner claims in the LCA that the proffered position corresponds to SOC code and title 
11-3071.00, Transportation, Storage, and Distribution Managers, from O*NET. The O*NET 
Summary Report pertinent to those positions states: 
This title represents a group of more specific occupations. For additional information, 
please select one of the specific occupations below. 
11-3071.01 Transportation Managers 
11-3071.02 Storage and Distribution Managers 
11-3071.03 Logistics Managers 
Occupational Information Network (O*NET) Summary Report for 11-3071.00, Transportation, 
Storage, and Distribution Managers, http://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/ll-3071.00 (last 
visited July 15, 2015). 
The O*NET duty description pertinent to 11-3071.03, Logistics Managers, describes the following 
duties: 
• Resolve problems concerning transportation, logistics systems, imports or 
exports, or customer issues. 
• Collaborate with other departments to integrate logistics with business systems or 
processes, such as customer sales, order management, accounting, or shipping. 
• Maintain metrics, reports, process documentation, customer service logs, or 
training or safety records. 
• Supervise the work of logistics specialists, planners, or schedulers. 
• Direct inbound or outbound logistics operations, such as transportation or 
warehouse activities, safety performance, or logistics quality management. 
• Direct or coordinate comprehensive logistical or reverse logistical functions for 
product life cycles, including acquisition, distribution, internal allocation, 
delivery, recycling, reuse, or final disposal of resources. 
• Negotiate with suppliers or customers to improve supply chain efficiency or 
sustainability. 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
NON-PRECEDENT DECIS!Ol\ 
• Direct distribution center operation to ensure achievement of cost, productivity, 
accuracy, or timeliness objectives. 
• Negotiate transportation rates or services. 
• Analyze the financial impact of proposed logistics changes, such as routing, 
shipping modes, product volumes or mixes, or carriers. 
Occupational Information Network (O*NET) Summary Report for 11-3071.03 Logistics Managers, 
http://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/ll-3071.03 (last visited July 15, 2015). 
We observe that the duties of the proffered position as described in Mr. April 1, 2014 
letter are largely a paraphrase of duties described in the O*NET report on logistics managers. This 
is a generalized description of the range of duties that may be performed within the occupational 
category, rather than of the substantive work that the beneficiary will perform within the petitioner's 
business operations. In establishing a position as a specialty occupation, a petitioner must describe 
the specific duties and responsibilities the beneficiary would perform in the context of the 
petitioner's business operations; however, Mr. April 1, 2014 letter contained a generic 
description of the duties of logistics managers in general. That duty description will be largely 
disregarded, therefore, and the more specific duty description included in Mr. July 8, 2014 
letter will be accorded vastly more weight. 
A baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position 
Turning to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), 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. 
We recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an 
authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations 
that it addresses. 2 The petitioner asserted that the Handbook addresses the proffered position in its 
Logistician chapter and that the Handbook supports the proposition that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation position. The Handbook's chapter on logisticians states the following about the 
educational requirements of those positions, in pertinent part: 
1 
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. 
The Handbook, which is available in printed form, may also be accessed on the Internet, at 
http://www.bls.gov/oco/. Our references to the Handbook are to the 2014-2015 edition available online. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
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 
July 15, 2015). 
The Handbook makes explicit that an associate's degree is a sufficient educational qualification for 
some logistician positions. That "more" employers now "prefer" logisticians with at least a 
bachelor's degree does not indicate that any logistician positions require a bachelor's degree, as a 
preference is not a minimum requirement. Further, even as to those positions that may require a 
bachelor's degree, the Handbook does not indicate that the requisite degree must be in any specific 
specialty. In fact, the Handbook indicates that a degree in business is a sufficient educational 
qualification for some logistician positions, and 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 Associates, 19 I&N Dec. 558 (Comm'r 1988). For all of those reasons, the Handbook 
does not indicate that logistician positions require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. 
In certain instances, the Handbook is not determinative. 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, 
notwithstanding the absence of the Handbook's support on the issue. 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. 
In order to satisfy this criterion, the petitioner also cited O*NET, stating that it indicates that most 
logistics manager positions require a bachelor's degree. Contrary to the petitioner's assertion, 
O*NET does not state a requirement for a bachelor's degree for most logistics manager positions. 
Rather, it assigns logistics managers a Job Zone "Four" rating, which groups them among 
occupations of which "most," but not all, "require a four-year bachelor's degree." Further, the 
O*NET does not indicate that the four-year bachelor's degrees required by some Job Zone Four 
occupations must be in a specific specialty closely related to the requirements of that occupation. 
Therefore, the O*NET information is not probative of the proffered position's being a specialty 
occupation. 
The Handbook does not support the claim that the occupational category of logisticians is one for 
which normally the minimum requirement for entry is a baccalaureate degree (or higher) in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. Even if it did (which it does not), the record lacks sufficient 
evidence to support a finding that the particular position proffered here, an entry-level logistics and 
distribution manager position (as indicated on the LCA), would normally have such a minimum, 
specialty degree requirement or its equivalent. The duties and requirements of the position as 
------------------~---·· 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISIOJV 
Page 9 
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)(J). 
The requirement of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 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)). 
Here and as already dis~ussed, 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 it has made a degree a minimum entry requirement. 
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 degreed 
individuals." 
The petitioner did provide several vacancy announcements posted by other companies. Those 
vacancy announcements are for positions entitled Distribution Logistics Manager, Logistics 
Specialist, Director of Logistics I, and Logistics Manager and were apparently intended to satisfy 
this criterion. 
Two of those vacancy announcements state that the positions they announce require a bachelor's 
degree, but not that the degree must be in any specific specialty. Those vacancy announcements do 
not contain a requirement of a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its 
equivalent. 
Another of the announcements states that a bachelor's degree in a supply chain management 
discipline is preferred for the position it announces, but that ten years of experience in distribution 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DEC!S/01\ 
Page 10 
or manufacturing management may be substituted for that preferred degree. Ten years of experience 
has not been demonstrated to be equivalent to a bachelor's degree. As such, that vacancy 
announcement does not state a requirement of a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. 
Further, the petitioner stated, on the LCA, that the proffered position is a wage Level I position, that 
is, an entry-level position for an employee who has only a basic understanding of the occupation. 
See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy 
Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://www. 
foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov /pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _11_ 2009 .pdf. However, the vacancy 
announcements provided all state an experience requirement, and some state a requirement of a 
considerable amount of very specific experience? The vacancy announcements provided have not 
been shown to be for positions parallel to the proffered position. 
Finally, even if all of the vacancy announcements were for parallel positions with organizations 
similar to the petitioner and in the petitioner's industry and each required a minimum of a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent, the petitioner has not demonstrated what statistically 
valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from those few announcements with regard to the common 
educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations.
4 
Thus, the evidence of record does not establish that a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to positions parallel positions with organizations 
that are in the petitioner's industry and otherwise similar to the petitioner. The petitioner has not, 
therefore, satisfied the criterion of the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
3 
One of the vacancy announcements provided states that the position it announces requires three years of 
experience in supply chain functions. Another states that the position it announces requires three years of 
frozen food experience, three years of vendor management experience, and three years of bid management 
expenence. 
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 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 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 general!)' Earl 
Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 (1995). 
(b)(6)
Page 11 
NON-PRECEDENT DECJS/01\ 
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 
The evidence of record also does not satisfy the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.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. 
Specifically, the petttwner did not demonstrate how 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 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 specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the duties of the particular 
position here. 
Further, as was also noted above, the LCA submitted in support of the visa petition is approved for a 
wage Level I position, an indication that the proffered position is an entry-level position for an 
employee who has only a basic understanding of such positions. 5 This does not support the 
proposition that the proffered position is so complex or unique that it can only be performed by a 
person with a specific bachelor's degree, especially as the Handbook suggests that some logistician 
positions do not require such a degree. 
The evidence of record does not establish that this position 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 associate's degrees and degrees that 
The issue here is that the petitioner's designation of this posttion as a Level I, entry-level position 
undermines its claim that the position is particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other 
positions within the same occupation. Nevertheless, it is important to note that a Level I wage-designation 
does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty occupation. In certain occupations 
(doctors or lawyers, for example), an entry-level position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation 
would not reflect that an occupation qualifies as a specialty occupation if that higher-level position does nol 
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 consideration but is not a substitute for a determination of whether 
a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)(1) of the Act. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISI0/1. 
Page 12 
are not in a specific specialty directly and closely related to the position. In other words, the record 
lacks sufficiently detailed information to 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 
specific 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. 
The petitioner has not expressly asserted 
Further, in his July 8, 2014 letter, Mr. 
in the proffered position. 
eligibility nor submitted evidence under this criterion. 
stated that the petitioner has never employed anyone 
While a first-time hiring for a pos1t1on is certainly not a basis for precluding a pos1t10n 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)(J), 
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). 
While a petitioner may believe or otherwise assert that a proffered position requires a specific 
degree, 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 petitioner 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 388. In other 
words, if a petitioner's stated degree requirement is only designed to artificially meet the standards 
for an H -1B visa and/or to underemploy an individual in a position for which he or she is 
overqualified and if 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§ 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term 
"specialty occupation"). 
(b)(6)
Page 13 
NON-PRECEDENT DECIS/0/\ 
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 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 duties of the 
proffered position, such as scheduling deliveries, assigning routes to drivers, correcting misdirected 
deliveries, reviewing and analyzing return shipments, managing inventory, assigning storage 
locations, etc., contain insufficient indication of a nature so specialized and complex that they 
require knowledge usually associated with attainment of a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty or its equivalent. 
Further, as was noted above, the petitioner filed the instant visa petition for a wage Level I position, 
a position for a beginning-level employee with only a basic understanding of such positions. This 
does not support the proposition that the nature of the specific duties of the proffered position is so 
specialized and complex that their performance is usually associated with the attainment of a 
minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent, directly related to the duties 
of a logistician, especially as the Handbook indicates that some logistician positions require no such 
degree. 
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. 
Therefore, the evidence ofrecord does not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)( 4). 
The evidence of record does not satisfy any of the criteria at 8 C.P.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. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
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; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.