dismissed H-1B Case: Logistics Engineering

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 04 075 50778 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: OCT 3 7 2005 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 04 075 50778 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the matter is now before 
the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. The petition will be denied. 
The petitioner is an importer and distributor of electric light fixtures that seeks to employ the beneficiary as a 
logistical engineer. The petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty 
occupation pursuant to lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1 10 1 (a)( 15)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition because the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. On appeal, 
counsel submits a brief and additional evidence. 
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. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, the position must meet one of 
the following criteria: 
(I) 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. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) 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. 
The record of proceeding before the AAO contains: (1) Form 1-129 and supporting documentation; (2) the 
director's request for additional evidence; (3) the petitioner's response to the director's request; (4) the 
director's denial letter; and (5) Form I-290B and supporting documentation. The AAO reviewed the record in 
its entirety before issuing its decision. 
The petitioner is seeking the beneficiary's services as a logistical engineer. Evidence of the beneficiary's 
duties includes: the 1-129 petition; the petitioner's January 6, 2004 letter in support of the petition; and the 
WAC 04 075 50778 
Page 3 
petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence. According to this evidence, the beneficiary would 
perform duties that entail: handling domestic freight forwarding, supply and logistics, supply inventory, 
warehousing solutions, transportation management, and service logistics; directing and coordinating program 
activities designed to provide the petitioner with the latest logistics technology; analyzing contractual 
commitments, customer specification, design changes; and other data in order to plan and develop the 
appropriate logistics system or program; resolving logistical problems; and designing warehousing 
transportation solutions. The petitioner indicated that the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in 
engineering. 
The director found that the proffered position was not a specialty occupation because the petitioner had not 
demonstrated that it has a bona fide engineering position available for the beneficiary. The director found 
further that the proposed duties, which entail supervising a warehouse supervisor and warehouse workers, are 
not so complex as to require a bachelor's degree. The director also found that the petitioner failed to establish 
any of the criteria found at 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). . 
On appeal, counsel states, in part, that the proffered position most closely resembles an industrial engineer, 
which qualifies as a specialty occupation. Counsel submits copies of job postings and states that logistical 
engineers are commonly employed by similar businesses. Counsel also states that a bachelor's degree is a 
normal, industry-wide minimum requirement for a logistical engineer. 
Upon review of the record, the petitioner has established none of the four criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Therefore, the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
The AAO turns first to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I) and (2): a baccalaureate or higher 
degree or its equivalent is the normal minimum requirement for entry into the particular position; a degree 
requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations; or a particular 
position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree. 
Factors often considered by CIS when determining these criteria include: whether the Department of Labor's 
Occupational Outlook Handbook (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 1 1 5 1, 1 1 65 (D. Minn. 1999)(quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 7 12 F. 
Supp. 1095,1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
The AAO routinely consults the Handbook for its information about the duties and educational requirements of 
particular occupations. The AAO does not concur with counsel that the proffered position most closely resembles 
an industrial engineer, a position that is primarily found in manufacturing industries and businesses that provide 
manufacturing-related consulting services. None of the beneficiary's job duties entails the level of responsibility 
of that occupation. A review of the Handbook, 2004-2005 edition, finds that the proffered position is similar to 
that of a general manager. No evidence in the Handbook indicates that a baccalaureate or higher degree, or its 
equivalent, is required for a general manager job. 
Regarding parallel positions in the petitioner's industry, the petitioner submitted Internet job postings for 
industrial engineers. There is no evidence, however, to show that the employers issuing those postings are 
similar to the petitioner, or that the advertised positions are parallel to the instant position. The advertisements 
WAC 04 075 50778 
Page 4 
are for industrial engineers for the nation's largest party supply discount chain and for a direct seller of beauty 
products with over seven billion dollars in sales. The petitioner has not demonstrated that the proposed duties 
of the proffered position are as complex as the duties described in the advertised positions. Thus, the 
advertisements have no relevance. 
The record also does not include any evidence from professional associations regarding an industry standard, 
or documentation to support the complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position. The petitioner, therefore, 
has not established the criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I) or (2). 
The AAO now turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3) - the employer normally requires a 
degree or its equivalent for the position. As the record indicates that the proffered position is a new position, the 
petitioner, therefore, has not established the criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
Finally, the AAO turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(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. 
To the extent that they are depicted in the record, the duties do not appear so specialized and complex as to 
require the highly specialized knowledge associated with a baccalaureate or higher degree, or its equivalent, 
in a specific specialty. Therefore, the evidence does not establish that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation under 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
As related in the discussion above, the petitioner has failed to establish that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation. Accordingly, the AAO shall not disturb the director's denial of the petition. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.