dismissed H-1B Case: Marine Equipment Sales

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: SRC 04 071 52552 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: t#7 1 f) 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonirnrnigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101 (a)( 15)(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 
SRC 04 071 52552 
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 a marine equipment sales and service company that seeks to employ the beneficiary as a 
general manager. The petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty 
occupation pursuant to section lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101 (a>( 15>(H>(i)(b>. 
The director denied the petition because the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. On appeal, 
counsel submits a brief. 
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. 5 214.2(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. 
Se214.2(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. 
SRC 04 071 52552 
Page 3 
The petitioner is seeking the beneficiary's services as a general manager. Evidence of the beneficiary's duties 
includes the 1-129 petition and the petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence. According to 
this evidence, the beneficiary would perform duties that entail: coordinating business and service operations; 
formulating marketing, administrative, personnel, service and financial policies; coordinating inventory 
control; managing personnel; reporting to investors on progress of the business; managing current customer 
accounts; increasing the client base; increasing the services and products sold; developing promotions; 
providing appropriate training to personnel; and controlling the company's finances. Counsel indicated that a 
qualified candidate for the job would possess a bachelor's degree. 
The director found that the proffered position was not a specialty occupation. Citing to the Department of 
Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook), the director noted that the minimum requirement for 
entry into the position was not a baccalaureate degree or its equivalent in a specific specialty. The director 
found further that the petitioner failed to establish any of the criteria found at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
On appeal, counsel states that the Handbook is not definitive, and that the director imposed a standard not 
required by the statutes or regulations. Counsel also states that at least one previous general manager had a 
bachelor's degree. Counsel asserts that the director erroneously dismissed the petitioner's submissions from 
the Department of Labor's Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT), which indicated that the proffered 
position requires a bachelor's degree. 
Upon review of the record, the petitioner has established none of the four criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. 
8 214.2(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)(l) 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 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 fm or individuals in the industry attest that such firms 
"routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 
(D.Minn. 1999)(quoting HirdIBlaker COT. 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 position is a combination of a marketing manager and a top executive, as 
described in the Handbook. In the top executives entry, the Handbook indicates that in smaller organizations, 
such as independent retail stores or small manufacturers, a partner, owner, or general manager often is 
responsible for purchasing, hiring, training, quality control, and day-to-day supervisory duties. A marketing 
manager develops the company's marketing strategy and works to promote the firm's products and to attract 
potential customers. No evidence in the Handbook indicates that a baccalaureate or higher degree, or its 
equivalent, is required for either a marketing manager or a top executive job. The Handbook states that the 
SRC 04 071 52552 
Page 4 
educational background for both positions is widely varied. Therefore, it is not established that a degree in a 
specific specialty is required for entry into the proffered position. 
Counsel asserts, in part, that the DOT'S SVP rating was not considered, even though submitted into the 
record. The DOT is not a persuasive source of information regarding whether a particular job requires the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as a minimum for 
entry into the occupation. An 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 particular type of degree, if any, that a 
position would require. For this reason, the director did not err in discounting the DOT information. 
The petitioner did not submit evidence regarding parallel positions in the petitioner's industry or from 
professional associations regarding an industry standard. In addition, there is no documentation to support the 
complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position. The petitioner has, thus, not established the criteria set 
forth at 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l) or (2). 
The AAO now turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3) - the employer normally requires a 
degree or its equivalent for the position. In his letter with the initial petition, counsel stated, "[Tlhe petitioner's 
president, states that the two previous general managers . . . have had college degrees." On appeal, counsel states, 
"[Alt least one previous manager had a college degree." There is no evidence in the record, however, to support 
these statements. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comrn. 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Cornrn. 1972)). 
Finally, the AAO turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(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. 3 214.2(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. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the AAO notes that the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is 
qualified to perform the duties of a specialty occupation. The petitioner submitted an evaluation from Josef 
Silny and Associates, Inc., a company that specializes in evaluating academic credentials. The evaluator 
concluded that the beneficiary possesses the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in business administration with 
a major in marketing from an accredited U.S. college or university. However, the evaluation is based upon 
the beneficiary's education and work experience. A credentials evaluation service may not evaluate an alien's 
work experience or training; it can only evaluate educational credentials. See 8 C.F.R. 
SRC 04 071 52552 
Page 5 
8 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(3). The AAO will accept that portion of the evaluation that analyzes the equivalency of 
the beneficiary's foreign education. With respect to that portion of the evaluation analyzing the beneficiary's 
work experience, the evaluation carries no weight in these proceedings. Matter of Sea, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 817 
(Cornrn. 1988). While the evaluator is also a university professor, there is no evidence that he has authority to 
grant college-level credit for training and/or experience in the specialty at an accredited college or university 
which has a program for granting such credit based on an individual's training and/or work experience, as 
required by 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(l). For this additional reason, the petition may not be approved. 
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.