dismissed H-1B Case: Logistics

MATTER OF S-I-USA, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 21,2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a wholesaler of truck and trailer steel wheels, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "logistics manager" under the R-IB nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ J 101(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 Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish, as required, that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and contends that the petition should be 
approved. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
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. 
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: 
Matter ofS-1-USA, Inc. 
(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 have consistently interpreted 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. Cherto.ff, 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 stated in the H -1 B petition that the Beneficiary would serve as a "logistics manager." 
When asked to provide a more detailed job description in the first request for additional evidence 
(RFE), the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would spend 40% of her time performing the 
following duties: 
Evaluate existing supply chain systems and advise on system modifications and 
implementation strategy; advise on any shortcomings of existing processes and how 
they serve to mislead business decision-making which delays profitable action; help 
the management evaluate and manage the development of logistics staff responsible 
for business processes; analyze all aspects of corporate logistics to determine the most 
cost-effective or efficient means of transporting products or supplies; undertake 
detailed studies of business processes performed by logistics team, assess 
vulnerabilities within these processes and identify training needs; identify underlying 
supply chain processes and their capabilities, and develop business improvements in 
the light of potential business opportunities; identify gaps between current supply 
chain performance and the business strategy. 
She would spend 30% of her time performing these tasks: 
Help design supply chain strategy, and develop practical implementation plans; 
collaborate with other departments to integrate logistics with business systems or 
2 
Matter ofS-1-USA, Inc. 
processes, such as customer sales, order management, accounting or shipping; 
develop means to monitor strategy implementation and identify corrective action to 
the supply chain processes; identify customer service trends, and generate appropriate 
strategy options; determine the appropriate organizational structure for the supply 
chain and its logistics activities given its strategy, infrastructure, technology and 
customer service requirements; integrate logistics activities across supply chain to 
achieve improved customer service and develop new business models to achieve 
supply chain strategy; develop measurements to provide insight into supply chain 
activities and capabilities which focus on opportunities to improve customer service. 
Finally, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would spend 30% of her time performing these 
tasks: 
Develop and continuously improve supplier performance evaluation program and be 
involved with strategic sourcing; aid in product line forecast, pricing and 
development; assist in conducting analysis of new and existing products including 
competitive position, pncmg, market trends, manufacturing, features, and 
enhancements and help develop a long range strategy for each product line and sub 
category and maintain a comprehensive product development plan by category that is 
consistent with business objectives. 
The Petitioner explained that the position requires a bachelor's degree in supply chain management 
or a closely related quantitative business field. 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 1 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or 
its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation? 
A. First Criterion 
We tum first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. Department ofLabor's 
1 
Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
2 
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. 
3 
Matter ofS-1-USA, Inc. 
(DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses.3 
On the labor condition application (LCA)4 submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Transportation, Storage, and 
Distribution Managers" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 11-3071.5 
The Handbook is a career resource offering information on hundreds of occ;upations. However, 
there are occupational categories which are not covered in detail by the Handbook (instead it only 
includes summary data6), as well as occupations for which the Handbook does not provide any 
information. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 
Data for Occupations Not Covered in Detail (2016-17 ed.). 
The Handbook provides summary data for the occupational category "Transportation, Storage, and 
Distribution Managers." The Handbook reports that this occupational category includes logistics 
managers. 7 !d. It further states that the typical entry-level education for this occupation is a "high 
school diploma or equivalent." !d. Thus, the Handbook does not indicate that these positions 
comprise of an occupational group for which normally the minimum requirement for entry is at least 
a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent 
3 All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not, however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant 
information. That is, the occupational category designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the 
general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered position, and we regularly review the Handbook on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that we addresses. To satisfy the first criterion, however, the 
burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position 
would normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
4 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA in order 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. See 
Matter ofSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 2015). . 
5 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level I wage (the lowest of four assignable wage levels). We will 
consider this selection .in our analysis of the position. The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by 
the DOL provides a description of the wage levels. A Levell wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which 
the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the occupation. This wage rate indicates: (I) that 
the Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that she 
will be closely supervised and her work closely monitored and reviewed for ~ccuracy; and (3) that she will receive 
specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing 
Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://tlcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC_Guidance_Revised_ll_2009.pdf A prevailing wage determination starts 
with an entry level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering the experience, education, and skill 
requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. !d. 
6 The occupational categories for which the Handbook only includes summary data includes a range of occupations, 
including for example, postmasters and mail superintendents; agents and business managers of artists, performers, and 
athletes; farm and home management advisors; audio-visual and multimedia collections specialists; clergy; merchandise 
displayers and window trimmers; radio operators; first-line supervisors of police and detectives; crossing guards; travel 
guides; agricultural inspectors, as well as others. 
7 
In response to the RFE and on appeal, the Petitioner claims that the proffered position is a logistics manager position. 
4 
.
Matter ofS-1-VSA , Inc. 
In addition, we must take into account the Petitioner's statement on the LCA that it will pay the 
Beneficiary a Level I wage, which indicates that it is an entry-level position. Given the Handbook 's 
implication that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is not normally 
required for positions located within this occupational category, it seems unlikely that an entry-level 
position possessing the Level I characteristics outlined above would have such a requirement. To 
the contrary, the Handbook states directly that a high school diploma, or the\ equivalent, is the typical 
requirement for entry-level positions such as the one proffered here. 
The Petitioner submits information from several other sources on appeal for our consideration under 
this criterion, including DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET), as well as DOL's 
Specific Vocational Preparation (SVP) database. However, neither resource satisfies the first 
criterion. 
O*NET assigns logistics manager pos1t1ons a "Job Zone Four" rating, which groups it among 
occupations for which "most . . . require a four-year bachelor's degree, but some do not." It is 
therefore not clear that a bachelor's degree is even required, which is consistent with the Handbook. 
Further, as indicated above a requirement for a bachelor's degree alone is not sufficient. Instead, we 
have consistently interpreted 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., 
484 F.3d at 147; Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387. O*NET does not indicate that when a four-year 
bachelor's degree is required, that it must be in a specific specialty directly related to the occupation, 
or the equivalent. For both reasons, 
this information does not establish the proffered position as a 
specialty occupation . 
The Petitioner also points to DOL's classification of logistics manager positions at a Specific 
Vocational Preparation (SVP) rating of 7. However, an occupation 's SVP rating is not probative of 
a particular position being a specialty occupation, as these ratings are meant to indicate only the total 
number of years of training required for a particular position, but do not describe how those years are 
to be divided among training, formal education, and experience, arid do not specify the particular 
type of degree, if any, that a position would require.8 
Nor does the position evaluation the Petitioner submits satisfy its burden. While the conclusions of 
Professor are acknowledged , we find them unpersuasive. Professor discussion 
of the Petitioner 's business operation consists of a single sentence, and he does not discuss the 
Beneficiary's proposed duties as they would be performed within the context of the Petitioner' s 
specific business enterprise. Further, given that he repeatedly describes the complexity of the 
proposed duties, we find it significant that he does not reference the Petitioner's Level I wage-level 
designation, and question whether he was made aware that the proffered position possesses the Level 
I wage characteristics outlined above. Considered 
collectively, we find that these shortcomings 
indicate an incomplete .review of the position . 
For more information about SVP ratings , see O*NET Online Help Specific Vocational Preparation (SVP), 
https://www.onetonline. org/help/online/svp (last visited June 19, 20 17). 
5 
Matter ofS-1-USA, Inc. 
We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of 
Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&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. !d. Consistent with Caron Int 'l, we find that these evaluations do 
not satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l) and, for the sake of efficiency, hereby incorporate this 
finding into our analysis of the remaining three specialty-occupation criteria. 
The Petitioner urges us to evaluate the proffered position as one located within the "Logisticians" 
occupational category and corresponding to Standard Occupational Classification code 13-1081. 
However, that is not the occupational category for which the LCA was certified, and the Petitioner 
does not explain why it did not submit an LCA certified for a position located within that 
occupational category.9 The resources discussing the educational requirements for logistician 
positions, therefore, are not relevant. 
Even if we were to consider the Petitioner's evidence regarding the educational requirements of 
logistician positions, however, we would still find that it did not satisfy the first criterion. The 
Handbook, for example, states that an associate's degree provides sufficient preparation for some 
logistician positions. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook 
Handbook, Logisticians (2016-17 ed.). As the proffered position is an entry-level position with the 
Level I characteristics outlined above, this information from the Handbook would not support a 
finding that the proffered position is a specialty occupation under the first criterion. 
Nor would the information from US. News & World Report regarding logistician positions satisfy 
this criterion, as it indicates that an individual with a bachelor's degree in business, with no further 
specialization, could perform the duties of a logistician position. However, a requirement for a 
bachelor's degree in business would be inadequate to establish that a position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. A petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered position requires a precise and specific 
course of study that relates directly to the position in question. Since there must be a close 
correlation between the required specialized studies and the position, the requirement of a degree 
with a generalized title, such as business, without further specification, does not establish a position 
as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 
1988). 
To prove that a job requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge as required by section 214(i)(l) of the Act, a petitioner must establish that the position 
requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specialized field of study or its 
equivalent. As explained above, we interpret the degree requirement at 8 C.F.R. 
9 
The Petitioner's assertion that we should consider the educational requirements of logistician positions raises questions 
as to whether the LCA actually corresponds to and supports the H-1 B petition. However, because the proffered position 
is not a specialty occupation we will not explore this further, except to advise the Petitioner that it should be prepared to 
address the is'sue in any future H-1 B filings. "[U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] must determine whether the 
attestations and content of an LCA correspond to and support the H-1 B visa petition." Simeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 546. 
6 
Matter ofS-1-USA, Inc. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) to require a degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered 
position. We have consistently stated that, although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a 
degree in business administration, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, 
requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a finding that a particular position qualifies 
for classification as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. 
Thus, even if we were to analyze the proffered position as one located within the logisticians 
occupational category, we would still find that it did not satisfy the first criterion. 
For all of these reasons, we find that the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position is 
located within an occupational category for which the Handbook, or any other relevant, authoritative 
source, indicates that the normal minimum entry requirement is at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or the equivalent. Consequently, the evidence of record does not support a finding 
that the particular position proffered here, an entry-level position located within the "Transportation, 
Storage, and Distribution Managers" occupational category, would normally have such a minimum 
specialty degree requirement, or the equivalent. The Petitioner therefore has not satisfied the 
criterion at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
B. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two alternative prongs: "The degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may 
show that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
casts its gaze upon the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
We generally consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common 
degree requirement: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the 
industry's professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether 
letters or affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry to establish 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) 
(considering these "factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
. the Handbook, or another authoritative source, reports a requirement for at least a bachelor's degree 
7 
Matter o.fS-1-USA, Inc. 
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 to establish that 
such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." 
The record contains nine job vacancy announcements for our consideration under this prong. To be 
relevant for that consideration, the positions advertised in these job vacancy announcements must be 
"parallel positions," and the announcements must have been placed by organizations that conduct 
business in the Petitioner's "industry" that are also "similar" to the Petitioner. Upon review, we find 
that none of these job vacancy announcements meet this threshold. 
The Petitioner has not established that the advertised job opportunities are for "parallel positions." 
As noted, the Petitioner attested to DOL that the proffered position is a Level I, entry-level position. 
However, each of the nine advertised positions requires work experience, some significant. For 
example, one advertised position requires 15 years of work experience, another requires 10 years of 
work experience, three require 7 years of work experience, and one requires 6 years of work 
experience. These factors indicate that the advertised positions are not entry-level positions, and that 
they are therefore not "parallel" to the one proffered here. 
Nor does the record establish that any of these positions were placed by companies that conduct 
business in the Petitioner's industry, or that they are otherwise "similar" to the Petitioner. The 
advertisers include a staffing company, engineering firm, bottling company, e-commerce company, 
military base, and developer of lightweight vehicles. Another advertiser described its business 
operations as "confidential." Though the companies that placed two of the announcements 
submitted on appeal do seem closer to meeting this threshold, it is still not clear if they conduct 
business in the Petitioner's industry, and they are otherwise "similar" to the Petitioner in size, scale, 
and scope of operations, or any other essential factor. For example, one of the advertisers designs 
landing and braking systems, and states that it has 7,000 employees, and the other is a defense 
contractor with 63,000 employees. The Petitioner, on the other hand, has three employees and 
operates from a single-family residence it leases from the Beneficiary. 10 It is not apparent that these 
companies' hiring and recruiting practices are comparable to those of the Petitioner. 
For all of these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that any of these job vacancy 
announcements are relevant. Even if that threshold had been met, we would find that they did not 
satisfy this prong of the second criterion, as they do not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a spectfic 
specialty, or the equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
10 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's claim that its corporate parent has more than 2,000 employees. However, even if the 
Petitioner had substantiated that figure with documentary evidence regarding its workforce it would still not establish 
that we could consider the Petitioner similar to either of these companies. Regardless, both of these companies indicate 
that they would find acceptable a bachelor's degree in business with no further specialization. 
8 
Matter ofS-1-USA, Inc. 
organizations. 11 For example, the "confidential" company indicates that a bachelor's degree in any 
field of study would suffice, and several advertisers indicate that a bachelor's degree in business or 
business administration, with no further specialization, would be acceptable. 
Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shpws 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. 
We discussed findings of the Handbook and O*NET regarding the occupational category into which 
the Petitioner placed the proffered position above. Again, neither resource indicates that a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is normally required. The Petitioner's 
implications that the knowledge and associated entry requirements associated with the proffered 
position exceed those of other positions located within the occupational category are acknowledged. 
For example, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would herself "define and shape our 
organization," and emphasized the complex nature of the position and its constituent duties 
throughout the petition. However, its Level I wage designation undercuts any claim that it satisfies 
this criterion.12 In other words, if typical positions located within the occupational category do not 
11 
In addition, the Petitioner does not demonstrate what statistically valid inferences, if any, could be drawn from the job 
postings with regard to the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. 
See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 (7th ed. 1995). Moreover, given that there is no 
indication that the advertisements were randomly selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately 
determined even if the sampling unit were sufficiently large. 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"). 
As such, even if the job vacancy announcements supported the finding that the position requires a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, it could not be found that such a limited number ofpostings that appear to 
have been consciously selected could credibly refute the findings of the Handbook published by the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics 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. 
12 
The Petitioner's designation of this position 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, a 
Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty occupation, just as a 
Level IV 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 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 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)( I) of the Act. 
9 
Matter of S-f-USA, Inc. 
require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, then it is unclear how a position 
with the Level I characteristics described above would, regardless of the Petitioner's assertions. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position, and references her 
qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education 
or experience of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative 
complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position, and it did not identify any tasks 
that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 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. As 
the Petitioner concedes that this is a newly-created position, the evidence of record does not satisfy 
this criterion. 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's assertions regarding the specialization and complexity of the 
position's duties. However, as above, those claims are undermined by the Petitioner's Level I wage 
designation. Again, in classifying the proffered position at a Level I (entry-level) wage, the 
Petitioner effectively attested to DOL that the Bepeficiary would perform routine tasks that require 
limited, if any, exercise of judgment, that she would be closely supervised and her work closely 
monitored and reviewed for accuracy, and that she would receive specific instructions on required 
tasks and expected results. 13 The DOL guidance referenced above states that an employer should 
consider a Level I wage designation when the job offer is for a research fellow, a worker in training, 
or an internship. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated in the record that its proffered position is one with duties 
sufficiently specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
13 
Again, the Petitioner's designation of this position 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. 
10 
Matter ofS-1-USA, Inc. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
We find that the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 14 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofS-1-USA, Inc., ID# 383960 (AAO June 21, 2017) 
14 Because this issue precludes approval of the petition we will not address any of the additional issues we have observed 
in our de novo review of this matter. 
11