dismissed H-1B Case: Logistics

(b)(6)
JUN 0 3 2015 
DATE: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION RECEIPT#: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service 
Administrative Appeals Office 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10l (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: 
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. 
���t.olle'lrtSer 
, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Ser vice Center (hereinafter "the director"), denied the 
nonimmigrant visa petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on 
appeal. The appea l will be dismissed. 
On the Form I-129 visa petition, the petitiOner describes itself as a transportation forwarding 
business. In order to employ the beneficiary in what it identifies as a po sition located within the 
"Logisticians " occupa tional category, with "Logistics Analyst" as its job title/ the pe titioner seeks 
to classify the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursua nt to section 
101( a)(15)( H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S. C. 
§ 11 01( a)(15) (H)(i)(b ). 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the evidence of record does not demonstrate that 
the proffered po sition qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. 
The record of proc eeding before this office contains the following: (1) the Form I -1 29 and 
supporting documentation; (2) the director's request for additional evidence (RFE); (3) the 
petitioner 's response to the RFE; (4) the director's letter denying the petition; and (5) the 
Form I-290B, a brief, and supporting documentation. 
We find that, upon review of the entire record of proceeding, the evidence of record does not 
overcome the director's grounds for denying this petition. Accordingly, the appea l will be dismissed, 
and the petition will be denied. 
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW 
As a preliminary matter and in light of counsel's references to the requirement,that U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Se rvices (US CIS) apply the Hpreponderance of the evidence" standard, we affirm 
that, in the exercise of our appellate review in this matter, as in all matters that come within our 
purview, we follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in the controlling 
precedent decision, Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-37 6 (AAO 2010) . In pertinent part, 
that decision states the following: 
Except where a different standard is specified by law, a petitioner or applicant in 
administrativ e immigration proceedings must pr ove by a pr eponderance of evidence 
that he or she is eligible for the benefit sought. 
* * * 
The Hpreponderance of the evidence" of "truth" is made based on the factual 
circumstances of each individual case. 
1 The Labor Condition Application (LCA) submitted by the petitioner in support of the petition was certified 
for the SOC (O*NET/OES) Code 13-108 1, the associated Occupational Classification of "Logisticians," and 
a Level I prevailing wage rate. 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
!d. 
* * * 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Thus, in adjudicating the application pursuant to the preponderance of the evidence 
standard, the director 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. 
Even if the director has some doubt as to the truth, if the petitioner submits relevant, 
probative, and credible evidence that leads the director to believe that the claim is 
"more likely than not" or "probabli' true, the applicant or petitioner has satisfied the 
standard of proof. See INS v. Ca rdoza-Foncesca, 480 U.S. 421, 43 1 (1 987) 
(discussing "more likely than not" as a greater than 50% chance of an occurrence 
taking place). If the director can articulate a material doubt, it is appropriate for the 
director to either request additional evidence or, if that doubt leads the director to 
believe that the claim is probabl y not true, deny the application or petition. 
We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 14 3, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004). In doing so, we apply the preponderance of the evidence standard as outlined in Matter of 
Chawathe. Upon our review of the present matter pursuant to that standard, however, we find that 
the evidence in the record of proceeding does not support the petitioner's contentions that the 
evidence of record requires that the petition at issue be approved. Apply ing the prepond erance of 
the evidence standard as stated in Matter of Chawathe, we find that upon our review of the entire 
record of proceeding, and with close attention and due regard to all of the evidence, separately and 
in the aggregate, submitted in support of this petition, the petitioner has not established that its 
specialty occupation claim is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. As the evidentiary analysis 
of this decision will reflect, the petitioner has not submitted relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence that leads us to believe that the petitioner's claims are "more likely than not" or "probablyn 
true. 
II. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND 
In the petition, which was signed on April 1, 2014, the petitioner indicated that it is seeking the 
beneficiary's services as a Logistics Analyst on a part-time basis at a rate of pay of $25.54 per hour. 
In its April 1, 2014 letter of support, the petitioner's Vice-President described the petitioner as 
follows: 
[The petitioner] is a California-headquartered freight forwarding and logistics company 
that controls the flow of goods and services from the source of production to the 
marketplace. Established since we have 27 ye ars of experience in the industry. 
[The petitioner] provides simple and efficient methods of operation process by offering 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
easy visibility and controllability for better management of customer's shipping 
processes and by provided dedicated customer service through our worldwide network. 
The petitioner's Vice President described the proposed duties and provided the associated 
percentages of time involved in their performance as follows: 
1. Use analytica1 and quantitative methods to understand, predict and enhance 
logistics processes between various clients, transporters and third party logistics 
firms in order to research the conduct of specific technical analyses such as 
capacity planning, warehouse analyses and transportation to effectuate a timely 
and smooth delivery of goods. (25%) 
2. Formulate policies and direct operations of ocean shipping and air freighting and 
set strategies to ensure achievement of corporate objectives. (1 5%) 
3. Review logistic policies and guidance, develop logistics support plans and 
provide input to other acquisition milestone documentations as well as conduct 
system design, alternative analysis and other logistics analyses. (1 5% ) 
4. Provide support and logistics expertise to logistics strategic planning efforts, 
business process reengineering efforts and various financial analyses. (10 %) 
5. Investigate problems and find root causes to develop solutions and compile 
periodic performance reports. (1 0%) 
6. Establish and monitor customer service perfonnan ce standards and maintain and 
develop management plans for key customers by working with clients to 
implement new strategic planning efforts. (10 %) 
7. Evaluate the performance of other international carriers and logistics 
intermediaries to improve and/or develop alternative logistic systems. (10 %) 
8. Ensure compliance with internationa l and U.S. laws relating to customs, 
transportation activities. (5%) 
The logistics analyst is responsible for overall logistics operations analysis and 
evaluation of [the] company's opera tions. The logistics analyst will maintain 
database s of logistics information . He will interpret data on logistics elements, such 
as availabili ty, maintaina bility, reliability, supply chain management, strategic 
sourcing or distributio'n, supplier management, or transpor ta tion. He will provide 
ongoing analyses in areas such as transportation costs, parts procurement, ba ck 
orders, or delivery processes and prepare reports on logistics performance measures. 
He will confer with logistics management teams to determine ways to optimize 
service levels, maintain supply-chain efficiency, or minimize cost. He will remotely 
monitor the flow of vehicles or inventory, using company's customized logistics 
information systems to track vehicles or containers. He will track product flow from 
origin to final delivery. He will recommend improvements to existing or planned 
logistics processes. He will deyelop and maintain models for logistics uses, such as 
cost estimating or demand forecasting. He will collaborate with the logistics team to 
improve efficiency, productivity and processes. He will prepare statistical data for 
contract negotiations and participate in negotiations. He will maintain logistics cost 
(b)(6)
PageS 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
analysis reports. He will lead the analysis and provide statistic al information on the 
tracking of shipments, returns and inventory. He will evaluate existing capabilities 
and establish new systems and processes for the tracking, measurement, report and 
analysis of all transportation schedules. He will coordinate inbound/outbound 
traffic- ocean, air, land and domestic, maximizing the cost effectiveness of this 
function. He will provide reports to management regarding inventory, distribution 
and freight. 
The petitioner's Vice President noted that the minimum requirement for the position is "Business, 
International Trade/Business, Economics, Logistics or closely related field of study." 
The director found the evidence insufficient to establish eligibility for the benefit sought, and issued 
an RFE on June 21, 201 4. The petitioner was asked to submit probat ive evidence to establish that a 
specialty occupation position exists for the beneficiar y. 
On August 7, 2014, counsel for the petitioner responded to the RFE. Counsel submitted a letter, 
organization charts, excerpts from the Occupational Outlook Handbook and O*Net, job postings, 
copies of the petitioner's position announcement and job postings; and documentation regardi ng 
current and former logistic employees. 
Counsel provided additional details regarding the duties of the proffered position: 
1. Use analytical and quantitative methods to understand, predict and enhance logistics 
processes between various clients, transporters and ·third party logistics firms in 
order to research the conduct of specific technical ana lyses such as capac ity 
planning, warehouse analyses and transportation to effectuate a timely and smooth 
delivery of goods. (25%) 
• Ma intain databases of logistics information. 
• Identify logistics areas for process improvement and cost savings to ensure 
expectations are met. 
• Define and formulate best logistics practices to meet and exceed on time delivery 
requirements. 
• Interpret data on logistics elements, such as availa bility, maintainability, 
reliability, supply chain managemen t, cost analysis, strategic sourcing or 
distribution, Stipplier management and/or transpor tation. 
• Prepare statistical data for contract negotiations and participatin g in negotiations. 
• Mainta in, track and analyze all inbound shipments, including working with 
ca rriers and 3PL providers. 
• Lead analysis and provide statist ical information on tracking of shipments, 
cargos, returns and inventory. 
e Provide on-going analy sis in areas such as tr ansportation costs, back orders or 
delivery processes. 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
• Analyze new logistics proposals and make recommendations regarding carri er 
selection, shipment frequencies, etc to assure lowest total cost considering 
inventor carryi ng costs and transportation costs. 
• Collaborate with logistics team to de termine ways to optimize service levels, 
maintain supply-chain efficiency or minimize costs. 
2. Formula te policies and direct operations of ocean shipping and air freighting and set 
strategi es to ensure achievement of corporate objectives. (15%) 
• Collaborate with associates to improve efficiency, productivity and processes. 
• Confer with logistics team to determine ways to optimize service levels, maintain 
supply-chain efficiency or minimize cost. 
• Continually analyze freight costs and facilitate establishing plans to reduce. 
• Generate, analyze and report freight numbers for management review. 
• Process, file and track, and report all freight carrier over, short and damage 
claims and interpret results, determine responsibility, effect settlement and 
influence operational changes, if necessary. 
• Collaborate with IT management and staff to develop, define and document 
technical systems and operational requirements. 
3. Review logistic policies and gui dance, develop logistics support plans and provide 
input to other acquisition milestone documentations as well as conduct system 
design, alternative analysis and other logistics analyses. (15%) 
• Prepare statistical data for contract negotiations and participate in negotiations. 
• Evaluate existing capabili ties and establish new systems and processes for 
tracking, measurement, reporting and analysis of all traffic. 
• Develop and/or maintain models for logistics uses, such as cost estimating and 
demand forecasting. 
• Develop reports to accurately show current trends in balance, utilization and 
contribution. 
• Gather and interpret financial data. Present findings to Logistics Manager to 
help develop logistics strategies. 
4. Provide support and logistics expertise to logistics strategic planning efforts, 
business process reengineering efforts and various financial analyses. (10%) 
• Responsible for budget center; Maintain cost analysis reports. 
• Provide ongoing analysis in areas such as transportation costs, back orders, 
and/or delivery processes. 
• Analyze financial impact of logistic changes, such as routing, shipping modes, 
product volumes or mixes, or carri ers. 
• Track monthly, quarterly and yearly freight costs and service performance 
me tries. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
5. Investigate problems and find root causes to develop solutions and compile periodic 
performance reports. (10%) 
• Prepare and provide reports to management : inventory, distribution, freight. 
• Prepare reports on logistics performance measures. 
• Proact ively identify problems and swiftly implement appropr iate solutions. 
• Perform root-cause analysis to identify underlying conditions that need to be 
changed to prevent recurrences of similar unwanted outcomes. 
• Create action plans to effectively reduce the cost of root cause. 
6. Establish and monitor customer service performance standards and main tain and 
develop management plans for key customers by working with clients to implement 
new strategic plan ning efforts. (10%) 
• Maintain ·and develop positive business relationships with customers' key 
personnel involved in or directly relevant to logistics activities. 
• Develop understanding of customers' needs and take actions to ensure that such 
needs are met. 
• Collaborate with other departments as necessary to meet customer requirements, 
to take advantage of sales opportunities or, in the case of shortages, to minimize 
negative impacts on a business. 
• Review logistics performance with customers against targets, benchmarks and 
service agreements. 
7. Evaluate the performance of other international carriers and logistics intermedi aries 
to improve and/or develop alterna tive logistic systems. (10%) 
• Coordinate inbound/outbound traffic; ocean, sea, air and domestic. 
• Maintain customer relations and communicate with carriers. 
• Establish and coordinate schedules with carriers and tender shipments. 
• Provide timely feedback to the company regarding carrier service failures. 
• Ensure outbound carrier meets delivery appoi ntments and establish an on-time 
reporting mechanism for carrier review. 
• Ma nage subcontractor activities, reviewing propo sals, developing performance 
specifications, and serving as liaisons between subcontractors and organizat ions. 
• Monitor performance, costing and competiveness of third part y distribution 
centers. 
• Analyze transportation costs to recommend carrier selection optimization 
opportunities . 
8. Ensure compliance with interna tional and U.S. laws relating to customs, 
transportation activities. (5%) 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
• Stay informed of logistics technology advances and apply appropriate 
technology to improve logistics processes. 
• Monitor performance, costing and competitiveness of US and intern ational 
customs brokers. 
• Responsible for ensuring compliance with all relevant laws and regulations. 
• Research trade references and other materials to stay abreast of changes in law, 
new technology and methods in logistics industry. 
The logistics analyst is responsible for overall logistics operations analysis and 
evaluation of company's operations. The logistics analyst will maintain databases of 
logistics information. He will interpret data on logistics elements, such as 
availability, maintainability, reliability, supply chain management, strategic sourcing 
or distribution, supplier management, or transportation. He will provide ongoing 
analyses in areas such as transportation costs, parts procurements, back orders, or 
delivery processes and prepare reports on logistics performance measures. He will 
confer with logistics management teams to determine ways to optimize service 
levels, maintain supply-chain efficiency, or minimize costs. He will remotely 
monitor the flow of vehicles or inventory, using company's customized logistics 
information systems to track vehicles or containers. He will track product flow from 
origin to final delivery. He will recommend improvements to existing or planned 
logistics processes. He will develop and maintain models for logistics uses, such as 
cost estimating or demand forecasting. He will collaborate with the logistics team to 
improve efficiency, productivity and processes. He will prepare statistical data for 
contract negotiations and participate in negotiations. He will maintain logistics cost 
analysis reports. He will lead the analysis and provide statistical information on the 
tracking of shipments, returns and inventory. He will evaluate existing capabilities 
and establish new systems arid processes for the tracking, measurement, report and 
analysis of all transportation· schedules. He will provide reports to management 
regarding inventory·, distribdtion and freight. 
The director reviewed the information provided by the petitioner and counsel to determine whether 
the petitioner had established eligibility for the benefit sought. On September 23, 2014, the director 
denied the petition. On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief and documentation in support. 
We will now address the director's determination that the proffered position is not a specialty 
occupation. Based upon a complete review of the record of proceeding, we agree with the director 
that the evidence of record does not establish that the position as described constitutes a specialty 
occupation. 
III. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
We will now address the director's determination that the proffered position is not a specialty 
occupation. Based upon a complete review of the record of proceeding, we find that the evidence of 
record does not establish that the position as described constitutes a specialty occupation. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
A. Law 
To meet the petitioner's burden of proof with regard to the proffered position's classification as an 
H� lB specialty occupation, the petitioner must establish that the employment it is offering to the 
beneficiary meets the following statutory and regulatory requirements. 
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.P.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.P.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, a proposed position 
must also meet one of the following criteria: 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular positi on ; 
(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 usual1y associated with the attain ment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
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.F.R. § 21 4.2 (h)(4)(i i). 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. See KMart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S . 28 1, 291 (1 988) (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 (1 989); 
Matter of W-F-, 21 I&N Dec. 50 3 (BIA 19 96). 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 38 4, 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 regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2 (h)(4)(ii), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCrS) consistently interprets the 
term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 214 .2(h)(4)(iii )(A) to mean not just any ba ccalaureate 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, 14 7 (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, USC rS 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 pa rticular position fairly represent the types of specialty occupations that 
Congress contemplated when it created the H-1B visa category. 
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. users 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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
B. Preliminary Finding Regarding the Proffered Position's Duties and the Relative Complexity 
of the Position 
Before proceeding further, upon consideration of the totality of all of the petitioner's duty descriptions, 
position descriptions, explanations, and assertions, as well as the complete complement of documents 
submitted in support of the petitioner' s specialty occupation claim, we find that the evidence in the 
record of proceeding does not establish relative complexity, specialization and/or uniqueness as 
distinguishing aspects of either the proposed duties or the position that they are said to comprise. 
While the petitioner and counsel may claim that the nature of the proposed duties and the position that 
they are said to comprise elevate them above the range of usual Logistician positions and duties by 
virtue of their level of specialization, complexity, and/or uniqueness, the evidence of record does not 
support these claims. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 
165 (Comm 'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Cornrn. 
1972)). Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not 
satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute 
evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N 
Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). 
As evident in the job description quoted above, the record of proceeding presents the duties comprising 
the proffered position in terms of relatively abstract and generalized functions. More specifically, they 
lack sufficient detail and concrete explanation to establish the substantive nature of the work and 
associated applications of specialized knowledge that their actual performance would require within 
the context of the petitioner's particular business operations. Take for example the following duty 
descriptions: 
Maintain databases of logistics information 
Prepare statistical data for contract negotiations and participate in negotiations. 
Provide support in order to achieve financial targets and other departmental goals 
and objectives based on pre-established budgets using up-to-date business tools 
The evidence of record contains neither substantive explanation nor documentation showing the range 
and volume of the logistics information databases that the beneficiary will have to maintain. Nor does 
the record contain substantive explanation or documentation showing the volume and range of 
statistical data that the beneficiary would have to prepare or the level of participation in negotiations 
that the beneficiary will be involved in. Likewise, the petitioner does not provide substantive 
information with regard to the particular work, methodologies, and applications of knowledge that 
would be required for the above-referenced duties. 
Overall, we find that the description of the duties of the proffered position do not adequately 
convey the substantive work that the beneficiary will perform within the petitioner's business 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
operations. The description of the beneficiary's duties lacks the specificity and detail necessary to 
support the petitioner's assertion that the proffered position quali fies as a specialty occupation. 
Thus, we conclude that, as generally described as all of the elements of the constituent duties are, 
they do not - even in the aggregate - establish the nature of the position or the nature of the 
position's duties as more complex, specialized, and/or unique than those Logistician positions that 
do not require the services of a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the 
equivalent. 
In addition, when at tempting to understand the actual duties of the proffered position and the level 
of complexity they may require, we look to the LCA submitted with the petition. The LCA 
provides not only the classification the petitioner believes most closely corresponds to the duties of 
its proffered position but also provides the petitioner's attestation regarding the appropriate 
preva iling-wage level attached to the level of responsibilities and complexity of tasks inherent in the 
position. As indicated above, by submitting an LCA certified for a Level I prevailing-wage rate, the 
petitioner asserted that the proffered position only merited that prevailing-wage rate, the lowest of 
the four possible prevail ing-wage rates. 
We note that wage levels attested to for submission of an LCA should be determined only after 
selecting the most relevant Occupa tional Information Network (O*NET) code classification. Then, 
a prevailing wage determination is made by selecting one of four wage levels for an occupation 
based on a comparison of the employer's job requirements to the occupa tional requirements, 
including tasks, knowledge, skills, and specific vocational preparation (educa tion, training and 
experience) generally required for ac ceptable performance in that occupa tion. 
Prevailing wage determinati ons start with a Level I (entry) and progress to a wage that is 
commensurate with that of a Level II (qualified), Level III (experienced), or Level IV (fully 
competent) after considering the job requirements, experience, education, special skills/other 
requirements and supervisory duties. Factors to be considered when determining the prevail ing­
wage level for a position include the 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. 2 The 
U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) emphasizes that these guidelines should not be implemented in a 
mechanical fashion and that the wage level should be commensurate with the complexity of the 
ta sks, independent judgment required, and amount of close supervision received. 
2 A point system is used to assess the complexity of the job and assign the wage level. Step 1 requires a "1" 
to represent the job's requirements. Step 2 addresses experience and must contain a "0" (for at or below the 
level of experience and SVP range), a "1" (low end of experience and SVP), a "2" (high end), or "3" (greater 
than range). Step 3 considers education required to perform the job duties, a "1" (more than the usual 
education by one category) or "2" (more than the usual education by more than one category). Step 4 
accounts for Special Skills requirements that indicate a higher level of complexity or decision-making with a 
"1"or a "2" entered as appropriate. Finally, Step 5 addresses Supervisory Duties, with a "1" entered unless 
supervision is generally required by the occupation. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
The wage levels are defined in DOL's "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance." A Level 
I wage rate, the attested wage level in this matter, is described as follows: 
Levell (entry) wage rates are assigned to job offers for beginning level employees 
who have only a basic understanding of the occupation. These employees perform 
routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment. The tasks provide 
experience and familiarization with the employer's methods, practices, and programs. 
The employees may perform higher level work for training and developmental 
purposes. These employees work under close supervision and receive specific 
instructions on required tasks and results expected. Their work is closely monitored 
and reviewed for accuracy. Statements that the job offer is for a research fellow, a 
worker in training, or an internship are indicators that a Level I wage should be 
considered. 
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 .foreignlabor cert.doleta.gov /pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _11 _ 2009. pdf. 
Here, the petitioner's submission of an LCA certified for only a Level I, entry-level prevaili ng-wage 
signifies the petitioner's endorsement of the appropriateness of a characte rization of the proffered 
position as a comparatively low, entry-level position relative to others within the occupation. That 
is, in accordance with the relevant DOL explanatory information on prevailing-wage levels, this 
wage rate indicates the petitioner's assertion that the beneficiary is only required to have a basic 
understanding of the occupation and carries expectations that the beneficiary perform routine tasks 
that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; that he would be closely supervised; that his work 
would be closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and that he would receive specific 
instructions on required" tasks and expected results. Based upon the petitioner's designation of the 
proffered position· as a Level I (entry) position, it does not appear that the. beneficiary will be 
expected to serve in a senior or leadership role. As noted above, according to DOL guidance, a 
statement that the job offer is for a research fellow, worker in training or an internship is indicative 
that a Level I wage should be considered. 
The abstract level of information provided regarding the duties of the proffered position and the 
wage level on the LCA do not provide sufficient information regarding the petitioner's position to 
determine that the position proffered here is a specialty occupation position. The petitioner has not 
provided sufficient details regarding the nature and scope of the beneficiary's employment or 
substantive evidence regarding the actual work that the beneficiary would perform. The record 
lacks evidence sufficiently concrete and informative to demonstrate that the proffered position 
requires a specialty occupation's level of knowledge in a specific specialty. The tasks as described 
do not establish (1) the substantive nature and scope of the beneficiary's employment; (2) the actual 
work that the beneficiary would perform; (3) the complexity, uniqueness and/or specialization of 
the tasks; and/or (4) the correlat ion between that work and a need for a particular educational level 
of highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty (or its equivalent). Consequently, this 
(b)(6)
NON�RECEDENTDECBION 
Page 14 
precludes a determination that the petitioner's proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation 
under the pertinent statu tory and regulatory prov isions. 
C. Application of the Criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) 
We will first discuss the criterion at 8 C.F.R.· § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which is satisfied by 
establishing that a bac calaureate or higher degree, or its equivalent, in a specific special ty is 
normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position that is the subject of the 
petition. 
We recognize DOL 's Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on 
the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupat ions it addresses.3 As noted 
above, the LCA that the petitioner submitted in support of this petition was certified for a job offer 
falling within the "Logisticians" occupational category, and we will accordingly analyze the 
proffered position as such. 
The Handbook states the following with regard to the duties of logisticians: 
Logisticians analyze and coordinate an organization's supply chain-the system that 
moves a product from supplier to consumer. They ma nage the entire life cycle of a 
product, which includes how a product is acquired, distributed, allocated, and 
delivered .. .. 
Logisticians typically do the following: 
• Direct the allocation of ma terials, supplies, and finished products 
• Develop business relationships with suppliers and customers 
• Work to understand customers' needs and how to meet them 
• Design strategies to minimize the cost or time required to move goods 
• Review the success of logistical functions and identify areas for improvement 
• Propose improvements to management and customers. 
3 The Handbook, which is available in printed form, may also be accessed online at 
http://www .bls.gov/ooh. This office's references to the Handbook are from the 2014-15 edition available 
online. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
Logisticians oversee activities that include purchasing, transportation, inventory, and 
warehousing. They may direct the movement of a range of goods, people, or 
supplies, from common consumer goods to military supplies and personnel. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Ha ndbook, 2014- 15 ed., 
"Logisticians, " http://www .bls.gov /ooh/business -and-financial/logisticians .htm#tab-2 (last visited 
May 27, 2015 ). 
The Handbook states the following with regard to the educational requirements necessary for 
entrance into the field: 
Logisticians may qualify for positions with an associate's degree. However, as 
logistics become 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. 
!d. at http://www .bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/logisticians.htm#tab-4 (last visited May 27, 
2015). 
The statements made by DOL in the Handbook regarding entrance into this occupational category 
do not support a finding that a bachelor's degree, or the equivalent, in a specific specialty is 
normally required. First, the Handbook specifically states that "[l]ogisticians may qualify for 
positions with an associa te's degree. " Furthermore, although a bachelor's degree may be preferred4 
by 11more" companies (though not even necessarily a majority), the Handbook makes clear that a 
bachelor's degree from the fields ofbusiness, industrial engineering, process engineering, or supply 
chain management would also suffice. The Ha ndbook's recognition that a bachelor's or higher 
degree is "preferred" but not exclusively "required" by employers, strongly suggests that a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is not a normal, minimum entry 
requirement for this occupation. 
Additionally, although the Handbook indicates that a ba chelor's or higher degree is preferred by 
more companies, it also indicates that ba ccalaureate degrees in various fields are acceptable for 
entry into the occupation. The Handbook's recognition that a bachelor's degree in "business" would 
provide sufficient preparation for a career as a logistician is further evidence that a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is not required for this position. Although a general­
purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business administration without further specification, 
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. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Cher toff, 484 F.3d at 147. The fields referenced do not 
constitute a specific specialty; such a wide range of acceptable majors or academic concentrations is 
4 It should be noted that hiring prefere nces are not necessarily synonymous with minimum hiring 
requirem ents. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 16 
not indicative of a position requiring the theoretical and practical application of a distinct body of 
highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty, as required by section 21 4(i )(1) of the Act and 
its implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2 (h). A petitioner must demonstr ate that the 
proffered position requires a precise and specific course of study that relates directly and closely to 
the position in question. Si nce 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 the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of 
Michae l Hertz Associates, 19 I&N Dec. 558 (Comm'r 19 88). 
Accordingly, as the Handbook indicates that entry into the Logisticians occupational group does not 
normally require at least a bachelor's degree or the equival ent in a specific specialty or its 
equivalent, it does not support the proffered position as satisfying this first criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A). That is, in light of the Handbook's information on the range of acceptable 
educational credentials for entry into the Logisticians occupational group, a position's inclusion within 
this group is not in itself sufficient to establish that position as one for which a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent is normally the minimum requirement for entry. 
Additionally, the materials from DOL's Occupational Information Network (O *NET OnLine) 
submitted by the petitioner do not establish that the proffered position satisfies the first criterion 
described at 8 C.P.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A), either. O*N ET OnLine is not particularly useful in 
determining whether a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is a 
requirement for a given position, as O* NET OnLine 's Job Zone designations make no mention of 
the specific field of study from which a degree must come. As was noted previously, we interpret 
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 specialt y that is directly related to the proffered position. The 
Specialized Vocational Preparat ion (SVP) rating is meant to indicate only the total number of years 
of vocational preparation required for a particular position. It does not describe how those years are 
to be divided among training, formal education, and experience and it does not specify the pa rticular 
type of degree, if any, that a position would require. 
Nor are we pe rsuaded by counsel's citation to the DOL's Di ctionary of Occupa tional Titles (the 
DOT), and her argument regarding the value of an SVP rating of 7 to 8. The DOT does not support 
the assignments of SV P ratings of 7 to 8 as indicative that a particular position requires at least a 
bachelor' s degree, or the equivalent, in a specific specialty. This is obvious upon reading Section II 
of the DOT's Appendix C, Components of the Definition Trailer, which addresses the Spec ialized 
Vocational Preparation (SVP) rating system,5 and which states, in pertinent part, the following: 
5 U.S . Dep't of Labor, Office of Administrative Law Judges, OALJ Law Library, Dictionary of Occupational 
Titles, http://w ww.oalj. dol.gov/PUBLIC/D OT/REFERENCES/DOTAPPC.HTM (last visited May 27, 2015). 
As noted at section A.l.l in DOL's Employment and Training Administration's Clearance Package 
Supporting Statement to the Office of Management and Budget, which is accessible on the Internet at 
http://www .onetcenter.org/dl_files/omb2011/Supporting_StatementA.pdf, "The O*NET data supersede the 
U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL's) Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOl), " and the DOT "is no longer 
updated or maintained by DOL. " It should also be noted that the DOT was last updated more than 20 years 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 17 
II. SPECIFI C VOCATIONAL PREPARATION (SVP) 
Spec ific Vocational Preparation is defined as the amount of lapsed time required by a 
typical worker to learn the techniques, acquire the information, and develop the 
facility needed for average performance in a specific job-worker situation. 
This training may be acquired in a school, work, military, institutional, or vocational 
environment. It does not include the orientation time required of a fully qualified 
worker to become accustomed to the special conditions of any new job. Sp ecific 
vocational training inclu des: vocational education, apprenticeship training, in-plant 
training, on-the-job training, and essential experience in other jobs. 
Spe cific vocational training includes training given in any of the following 
circumstances: 
a. Vocat ional education (high school; commercial or shop training; technical 
school; art school; and that part of college training which is organized around 
a specific vocational objective); 
b. Apprenticeship training (for apprenticeable jobs only); 
c. In-plant training (organized classroom study provided by an employer); 
d. On-the-job training (serving as learner or trainee on the job under the 
instruction of a qualified worker); 
e. Essential experience in other jobs (serving in less responsible jobs which lead 
to the higher grade job or serving in other jobs which qualify). 
The follow ing is an explanation of the various levels of spe cific vo cational 
preparatio n: 
Level Time 
1 Short demonstration only 
2 Anything beyond short demonstration up to and including 1 month 
3 Over 1 month up to and including 3 months 
4 Over 3 months up to and including 6 months 
5 Over 6 months up to and including 1 year 
6 Over 1 year up to and including 2 years 
ago, in 1991. See http://w ww.oalj. dol.gov/libdot.htm, the homepage of DOL's Office of Administrative Law 
Judges (OALJ), online edition of the DOT's Fourth Edition, Revised in 1991. 
(b)(6)
Page 18 
7 Over 2 years up to and including 4 years 
8 Over 4 years up to and including 10 years 
9 Over 10 years 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Note: The levels of this scale are mutually exclusive and do not overlap. 
Thus, an SV P rating of 7 to 8 does not indicate that at least a four-year bachelor 's degree is required 
to perform the duties of the proffered position or, more importan tly, that such a degree must be in a 
specific specialty closely related to the requirements of that occupat ion. For all of these reasons, the 
DOT excerpt submitted is of little evidentiary value to the issue presented on appeal . 
Nor does the record of proceeding contain any persuasive documentary evidence from any other 
relevant, authoritative source establishing that the proffered position's inclusion within the 
Logisticians occupational group is sufficient in and of itself to establish the proffered position as, in 
the words of this criterion, a "particular position " for which " [a] baccalaureate or higher degree or 
its equivalent is normally the minimum requirement for entry. 
11 
When, as here, the Handbook does not support the proposition that the proffered position of 
Logistician satisfies this first criterion of 8 C.P.R. § 214.2 (h)( 4)(iii)(A), it is incumbent upon the 
petitioner to provide persuasive evidence that the proffered position otherwise satisfies the criterion, 
notwithstanding the absence of the Handbook's support on the issue. ln such ca se, it is the 
petitioner's responsibility to provide probative evidence (e.g., documentation from other 
authoritative sources) that supports a favorable finding with �egard to this criterion. The regulation 
at 8 C.P.R. § 21 4. 2(h)(4)(iv) provides that "[a]n H-1B petition involving a specialty occupation 
shall be accompanie .d by [ d]ocumentation . . . or any other required evidence sufficient to 
establish ... that the services the beneficiary is to perform are in a specialty occupation. 
11 
As the evidence in the record of proceeding does not establish that at least a baccalaureate degree in 
a specif!c specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requireme1t for entry int o the 
particular position that is the subject of this petition, the petitioner has not satisfied the criterion 
described at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2 (h)(4)(iii )(A)(l ). 
Next, we find that the petitioner has not satisfied the first of the two alternative prongs of 8 C.P.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 identifiable as being (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 at 11 65 
(D.Minn. 19 99) (quoting Hird!Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095 , 11 02 (S. D.N.Y. 19 89)). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 19 
Here and as already discussed, the petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for 
which the Handbook reports an industry-wide requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. Also, the record contains no letters or affidavits from firms or persons in the 
industry attesting to such a requirement. Further, there is no evidence of a professional association 
having made a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, a minimum requirement for 
entry. 
Next, we find that the job-vacancy announcements submitted by the petition�r with the initial H-lB 
submission, in response to the director's RFE, and on appeal, do not satisfy this alternative prong of 
8 C.P.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(i ii)(A)(2), either. That is, neither the job-vacancy announcements 
themselves nor any other evidence within the record of proceeding establish that those 
advertisements pertain to positions that are parallel to the proffered position, as required for 
evidence to merit consideration under the first alternative prong is position. In this regard, we make 
several specific findings. 
First, we note that under 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), the petitioner must establish that "the 
degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations 
(emphasis added)." For the petitioner to establish that an organization is similar, it must demonstrate 
that the petitioner and the organization share the same general characte ristics. When determining 
whether the petitioner and the organization share the same general characteristics, such factors may 
include information regarding the nature or type of organization, and, when pertinent, the particular 
scope of operations, as well as the level of revenue and staffing (to list just a few elements that may 
be considered). The prints-outs from www .manta.com provided by the petitioner do not suffice to 
establish this criterion, as the information is general in nature. 
In addition, the petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative these job 
advertisements are of the particular advertising employers ' recruiting and actual hiring history for 
the type of jobs advertised, let alone how representative they are of the industry practice in those 
areas. 
We also see that the extensive experience that approximately twenty-five of the job advertisements 
specify as hiring requirements suggests that they involve the application of greater occupational 
knowledge than that of the proffered position.6 However, as noted above, the petitioner's 
6 By way of example, the advertisement for a "Logistics Manages" states "MBA degree or 
related, or a BNBS degree plus 5 years of progressive experience in field or related." The 
advertisement for a "Logistics Analyst" states "1 year experience in 
forward ing/logistics, basic accounting, customer service, and communicating with customers and internally 
at all levels." :tdvertisement for a "Logistician" states "Require MBA, Master's degree in 
Logistics, or its equivalent, i.e., BA plus 5 years of experience in related fields." 
advertisement for a "Logistics Procurement Analyst" states "At least 4-years experience in a logistics-related 
field, preferably US domestic transportation." The advertisement for a "Logistics Manger" states 
"5+ years of Supply/Chain Logistics management experience in a manufacturing environment, preferably 
within the aerospace industry." The extensive academic background and/or experience that these job 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 20 
submission of an LCA certified for a Level I wage rate suggests that the petitioner regards the 
proffered position as a comparatively low, entry-level position relative to others within its 
occupation and one in which the beneficiary would only be expected to possess a basic 
understanding of the occupation. It is therefore difficult to envision how these attributes assigned to 
the proffered position by the petitioner by virtue of its wage-level designation on the LCA would be 
parallel to the positions described in these job vacancy announcements. So, the job-vacancy 
advertisements do not establish that the advertised positions are "parallel" to the proffered position. 
Furthermore, while some of the advertisements bear the title "Logistician ," the occupational group 
identified in the petitioner's certified LCA, or "Logistics Analyst," the title of the proffered position, 
it is the nature of the duties comprising the advertised positions that would determine whether those 
positions are in fact parallel to the proffered posi tion. However, we see that the duty descriptions of 
the advertised positions and their constituent duties are not substantially similar to the proffered 
position's duties as stated in the petitioner's letters. 
In addition, approximately fifteen of the submitted advertisements do not specify a requirement for 
a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. For example, the 
advertisement for a "Logistics Transportation and Compliance Analyst" only 
states "College degree required, but can omit in lieu of direct experience ." The 
advertisement for a "Logistics Ana lyst OH" only states "Hold a minimum of a 
Bachelor's degree.'' The advertisements for an "S CM/Logistic Sales Manager" and an 
"International Forwarding General Manager " only state nBachelor's degree and/or equivalent 
experience.n The advertisement for a "Senior Logistician" states "Bachelor's Degree." 
Likewise, the advertisement for a "Logistics Planning Analyst" states nEducation 
Level : Bachelor's Degreen with no indication that the bachelor's degree must be in any particular 
area or equivalentto a bachel� r's or higher degree in a specific special ty. 
As the submitted vacancy- announcements are not probative evidence towards satisfying this 
criterion, further analysis of their content is not necessary. 
Thus, the petitioner has not satisfied the first of the two alternative prongs of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214 .2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), as 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 for positions sharing 
all three characteristics of being (1) within the petitioner's industry, (2) parallel to the proffered 
position, and also (3) located in organizations that are similar to the petitioner. 
Next, we find that the evidence of record does not satisfy the second alternative prong of 
8 C.P.R. § 21 4. 2(h)(4)( iii)(A)(2), which provides that nan employer may show that its particular 
position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree." 
advertisements specify as hiring requirements suggest that they involve the application of greater 
occupational know ledge than the proffered position. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 21 
We here refer the petitioner back to our comments and findings with regard to the generalized and 
relatively abstract terms in which the proposed duties and the position that they are said to comprise 
were presented. In this particular case, the evidence of record does not credibly demonstrate that 
the duties the beneficiary will perform on a day-to-day basis constitute a position so complex or 
unique that it can only be performed by a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. The record of proceeding does not contain evidence establishing relative 
complexity or uniqueness as aspects of the proffered position, let alone that the position is so 
complex or unique as to require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 
specialized knowledge such that a person with a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty 
or its equivalent is required to perform the duties of that position. Rather, we find that as reflected 
in this decision's earlier quotation of duty descriptions from the record of proceeding, the evidence 
of record does not distinguish the proffered position from other positions falling within the 
"Logisticians '' occupational category, which, the Handbook indicates, do not necessarily require a 
person with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent to enter those 
positions. 
Counsel and the petitioner 's assertions are ·further undermined by the fact that the petitioner 
submitted an LCA certified for a job prospect with a prevailing-wage level that is only appropriate 
for a position in which the beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, 
if any, exercise of judgment; will be closely supervised and his work closely monitored and 
reviewed for accuracy; and will receive specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. 
As the evidence of record therefore does not establish how the beneficiary's responsibilities and 
day-to-day duties comprise a position so complex or unique that the position can be performed only 
by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent, the 
petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong at 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
We turn next to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3), which entails an employer 
demonstrating that it normally requires a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty or its 
equivalent for the position. 
Our review of the record of proceeding under this criterion necessarily includes whatever evidence 
the petitioner has submitted with regard to its past recruiting and hiring practices and employees 
who previously held the position in question. 
To satisfy this criterion, the record must contain documentary evidence demonstrating that the 
petitioner has a history of requiring the degree or degree equivalency, in a specific specialty, in its prior 
recruiting and hiring for the position. Additionally, the record must establish that the imposition of a 
degree requirement is not merely a matter of preference for high-caliber candidates but is necessitated 
by the performance requirements of the proffered position.7 
7 Any such assertion would be undermined in this particular case by the fact that the petitioner submitted an 
LCA that had been certified for a Level I wage-level, which is appropriate for use with a comparatively low, 
entry-level position relative to others within the same occupation. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 22 
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 employer 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 387. In other words, if a 
petitioner's assertion of a particular degree requirement is not necessitated by the actual 
performance requirements of the proffered position, the position would not meet the statutory or 
regulatory definition of a specialty occupation. See section 214 (i)(l) of the Act; 
8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation"). 
The director's RFE specifically requested the petitioner to document its past recruiting and hiring 
history with regard to the proffered position. Thus, the director provided the petitioner with an 
additional opportunity to establish a history of recruiting and hiring for the proffered position only 
individuals with a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent. In response 
to the RFE, counsel noted that the petitioner has always required at least a bachelor's degree for all 
logistics position. In support, the petitioner submitted organizational charts, job position 
announcements, employee documents, including tax documentation, pertaining to four8 employees 
that comprise its logistics departments, and documentation pertaining to a previous logistics 
employee, The petitioner also submitted evidence that one of the petitioner's 
employees in the Logistics department, . was granted H-lB approv al. 
To begin, we note that the petitioner did not submit any substantive information corroboratively 
detailing the four employees' actual job duties, their pay level, and other relevant factors such as 
when their employment in the position began; whether they had their degree by that time; and the 
educational requirements, if any, that the petitioner may have specif ied in recruiting efforts for the 
job in which the referenced individuals are now employed. The petitioner also did not provide any 
information regarding the complexity of the job duties, supervisory duties (if any), independent 
judgment required or the amount of supervision received. It is unclear whether the duties and 
responsibilities of these individuals are the same or related to the proffered position. As for the 
petitioner's current H-lB emplo yee, , the petitioner did not submit copies of the prior 
H-lB petition (s) and the respective supporting documents.9 Thus, the submission is not probative in 
8 Although counsel listed five current employees in the Logistics department, counsel notes that one of those 
employees, has an "HlB pending. " 
9 Nevertheless, even if this evidence had been submitted and even if it had been determined that the facts in 
those cases were analogous to those in this proceeding, those decisions are not binding on USCIS. While 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c) provides that this office's precedent decisions are binding on all USCIS employees in the 
administration of the Act, unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. Moreover, if the previous 
nonimmigrant petitions were approved based on the same unsupported and contradictory assertions that are 
contained in the current record, the approvals would constitute material and gross error on the part of the 
director. We are not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been 
demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g. Matter of Church 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 23 
establishing this criterion of the regulations, and we accord little to no weight to the petitioner's 
unsubstantiated assertions about the individuals employed in the Logistics Department. 
Furthermore, with respect to the petitioner's past job position announcements submitted in response 
to the director's RPE, the evidence does not establish that petitioner's asserted degree requirement 
for the proffered position is not merely a matter of preference for high-caliber candidates but is 
necessitated by the performance requirements of the proffered position. This determination is 
strengthened by the petitioner' s submission as the supporting LCA one that was certified for the lowest 
wage-level, which is appropriate for a comparatively low, entry-level position relative to others 
within its occupation. 
As the evidence of record does not demonstrate that the petitioner normally requires at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for the proffered position, the petitioner 
has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2 (h)( 4)(iii)(A)( 3). 
Next, we find that the evidence of record does not satisfy the criterion at 
8 C.P.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4), which requires the petitioner to establish that the nature of the 
proffered position's 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 the specific specialty or 
its equivalent. 
As reflected in this decision's earlier discussions and findings regarding record 's duty descriptions -
which we hereby incorporate into this present anal ysis - the nature of the proposed duties as 
described in the record of proceeding do not show the level of specialization and complexity 
required to satisfy this criterion. As generically and generally as they were described, the duties of 
the proposed position are not presented with sufficient detail and explanation to establish the 
substantive nature of the duties as they would be performed in the specific context of the petitioner' s 
particular business operations. Also as a result of the generalized and relatively abstract level at 
which the duties are described, the record of proceeding does not establish their nature as so 
specialized and complex that their performance would require knowledge usually associated with 
attainment of at least a ba chelor's degree in a spe cific special ty, or the equivalent. By the same 
token and as evident in the duty descriptions themselves, the nature of the proposed duties are not 
developed with sufficient substantive detail to distinguish them from the nature of the duties of 
positions within the Logisticians occupational group whose performance does not require the 
Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). It would be absurd to suggest that USCIS 
or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 
F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore, this office's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a court 
of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had approved the nonimmigrant petitions, we 
would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a service center. Louisiana Philharmonic 
Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), aff'd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 200 1), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 
51 (2001). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 24 
application of knowledge usually associated with attainment of at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific special ty. 
Furthermore, we reiterate our earlier comments and findings with regard to the implication of the 
petitioner's designation of the proffered position in the LCA at a Level I wage. As already noted, by 
virtue of this submission, the petitioner effectively attested to DOL that the proffered position is a 
low-level, entry position relative to others within the same occupation, and that, as clear by 
comparison with DOL 's instructive comments about the next higher level (Level II), the proffered 
position did not even involve "moderately complex tasks that require limited judgment" (the level 
of complexity noted for the next higher wage-level, Level II). 
For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 
8 C.P.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii )(A)(4), as the evidence of record has not established that the duties of the 
proffered position are 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. 
The evidence in the record of proceeding does not establish that the proposed duties meet the 
specialization and CQmplexity threshold at 8 C.P.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)( iii)(A)(4) . 
Nor do we find the cases cited by counsel on appeal persuasive. 
With regard to Young China Daily v Chapp ell, 742 F. Supp. 552 (N.D. Cal. 1989 ), we note that 
while USCIS should not limit its review to the size of a petitioner and must consider the actual 
responsibilities of the proffered position, we also note that it is reasonable to assume that the size of 
an employer's business has or could have an impact on the claimed duties of a particular position. 
See EGEnterprises, Inc. d/b/a/ Mexican Wholesale Grocery v. Department of Homeland Security, 
467 F. Supp. 2d 728 (E.D. Mich. 2006). Thus, the size of a petitioner may be considered as a 
component of the nature of the petitioner's business, as the size impacts upon the actual duties of a 
particular position. The petitioner 's reliance on is therefore not persuasive. 
Regardless, in contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case law of a United States circuit 
court, we are not bound to follow the published decision of a United States district court in matters 
arising within the same district. See Matte r of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715 (BIA 19 93). Although the 
reasoning underlying a district judge's decision will be given due consideration when it is properly 
before us, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. Id. at 719. 
Counsel also cites the unpublished court decision in Unico American Corp. v. Watson, 
_ F. Supp . _, 1991 WL 11 002594 (C.D. Cal. 1991), to state that we should give deference to 
the employer's view, should consider fully the employer's evidence and should not rely simply on 
standardized government classification systems (e.g., the Handbook). Counsel, however, has 
furnished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition are analogous to those in this 
unpublished decision. Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of 
counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do 
not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988 ); Matt er of 
Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 19 83); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 
19 80). In any event, we are not running counter to the proposition for which counsel cites this 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 25 
decision, for we base our decision upon the totality of the evidence in the record of proceeding 
bearing upon the specialty-oc cupation issue, and without sole or excessive reliance upon the 
relevant information contained in the Handbook. 
Again, in contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case law of a United States circuit court, 
we are not bound to follow the published decision of a United States district court in cases arising 
within the same district. See Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. at 71 5. The reasoning underlying a 
district judge's decision will be given due consideration when it is properly before us; however, the 
anal ysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. !d. at 719. In addition, as the published 
decisions of the district courts are not binding on us outside of that particular proceeding, the 
unpublished decision of a district court would necessarily have even less persuasive value. 
As the petitioner has not satisfied at least one of the criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 214 .2(h)( 4)(iii)( A), it 
cannot be found that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. Accordingly, the appeal will 
be dismissed, and the petition will be denied. 
IV. BENEFICIARY'S QUAL IFICATIONS 
The director also found that the beneficiary did not appear to be qualified to perform the duties of 
the proffered position if the job had been determined to be a specialty occupation. A beneficiary's 
credentials to perform a particular job are relevant only when the job is found to be a specialty 
occupation. As discussed in this decision, the petitioner has not established that the proffered 
position requires a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
Therefore, we need not and will not address the beneficiary's qualifications. 
V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 
Based upon a complete review of the record of proceeding, we find that the evidence does not 
establish that the position as described more likely than not constitutes a specialty occupation. The 
petitioner has not established that it has satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2( h)(4)(iii)(A) 
and, theref ore, it cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Accordingly the appeal will be dismissed and the petition will be denie d. 
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. § 13 61; Ma tter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 12 7, 12 8 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.