dismissed H-1B Case: Poultry Processing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 4274428 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 6, 2020 
The Petitioner, a company engaged in poultry processing, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a 
"production superintendent" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a 
position that requires both: (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge; and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty ( or its 
equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the evidence of 
record does not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation . On appeal , 
the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in the decision. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 1 
I. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the entire record, 2 for the reasons set out below, we have determined that the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
A. Specialty Occupation 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. In her decision, the Director thoroughly discussed the Petitioner's failure to 
meet any of the four regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I) - (4). Upon consideration 
of the entire record, including the evidence submitted and arguments made on appeal, we adopt and 
affirm the Director's decision with the comments below. See Matter of P. Singh, Attorney, 26 I&N 
Dec. 623 (BIA 2015) (citing Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872,874 (BIA 1994); see also Chen v. 
INS, 87 F.3d 5, 7-8 (1st Cir. 1996) ("[I]f a reviewing tribunal decides that the facts and evaluative 
1 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard. Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). 
2 While we may not discuss every document submitted , we have reviewed and considered each one. 
judgments prescinding from them have been adequately confronted and correctly resolved by a trial 
judge or hearing officer, then the tribunal is free simply to adopt those findings" provided the tribunal's 
order reflects individualized attention to the case). 
On appeal, the Petitioner submitted documentation previously submitted in response to the Director's 
request for evidence. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) 
Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) specified that "many industrial production managers 
have a bachelor's degree in business administration or industrial engineering." The Petitioner asserts 
that the Director has mischaracterized the Handbook to conclude that a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty is not normally the minimum requirement for the proffered position. The Petitioner cites to 
Next Generation Tech., Inc. v. Johnson, 328 F. Supp. 3d 252, 267 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) to state that the 
Director's conclusion has no "rational connection" to the Handbook. 
We first note that we are not bound to follow the published decision of a United States district 
court. SeeMatterofK-S-,20I&NDec. 715, 719-20(BIA 1993). Nevertheless,evenifweconsidered 
the logic underlying the matter, we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
As recognized by another court, while the Handbook may establish the first regulatory criterion for 
certain professions, many occupations are not described in such a categorical manner. 3 See In nova 
Sols., Inc. v. Baran, 2019 WL 3753334, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2019) (declining to follow Next 
Generation Tech., Inc.). For example, "[the Handbook's] description for the Computer Programmer 
occupation does not describe the normal minimum educational requirements of the occupation in a 
categorical fashion." Id.; see also Xiaotong Liu v. Baran, 2018 WL 7348851 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 
2018). "Accordingly, [the Petitioner] could not simply rely on [the Handbook] profile, and instead 
had the burden to show that the particular position offered to [ the Beneficiary] was among the 
Computer Programmer positions for which a bachelor's degree was normally required." See Innova 
Sols., Inc. 2019 WL 3753334, at *8. 
Moreover, the court in Next Generation Tech., Inc. relied in part on a United States Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) policy memorandum regarding "Computer Programmers" indicating 
generally preferential treatment toward computer programmers, and "especially" toward companies 
in that particular petitioner's industry. However, USCIS rescinded the policy memorandum cited by 
the court in Next Generation Tech. Inc.4 
In addition, the Petitioner cites to Tapis Int'l v. INS, 94 F. Supp. 2d 172 (D. Mass. 2000), and 
Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012), among other cases, to 
support its claim that the first regulatory criterion does not preclude the finding of a specialty 
occupation position when multiple disciplines may be permitted. We are not persuaded. The Tapis 
court similarly confirmed that the agency is "not unreasonable in interpreting the guidelines to demand 
3 Such professions would include surgeons or attorneys, which indisputably require at least a bachelor's degree for entry 
into the occupation. 
4 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0142, Rescission of the December 22, 2000 "Guidance memo on HlB 
computer related positions" (Mar. 31, 2017), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/nativedocuments/PM-6002-
0142-H-1 BComputerRelatedPositionsRecission.pdf. 
2 
that an employer require a degree in a specific field. Otherwise a position would qualify if any 
bachelor's degree were required." Tapis, 94 F. Supp. 2d at 175. 
We agree with the general proposition that "[ t ]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is what is 
important." Residential Finance, 839 F. Supp. 2d at 997 ( citing Tapis, 94 F. Supp. 2d at 175-76). 
Moreover, we generally agree that, if the requirements to perform the duties and job responsibilities 
of a proffered position are a combination of a general bachelor's degree and specialized experience 
such that the standards at both section 214(i)(l )(A) and (B) of the Act have been satisfied, then the 
proffered position may qualify as a specialty occupation. However, these general propositions are not 
applicable here. 
Instead, they are applicable in circumstances where (1) a specific degree is not available in a particular 
field, and (2) the beneficiary has obtained the equivalence to that specific degree through a 
combination of general education and specialized experience. The Petitioner does not demonstrate 
that the same circumstances existed here, e.g., that a degree in finance does not exist or is not typically 
available, or that a liberal arts degree is acceptable only under certain circumstances. 
In any event, the Petitioner has famished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition 
are sufficiently analogous to those in Residential Finance and Tapis, all of which concerned 
marketing-related. 5 And 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 even within the same district. See K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. at 719-20. 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 oflaw. Id. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the denial "relies" upon the designation of the Labor Condition 
Application (LCA) as a wage Level I position. However, a Level I wage-designation does not preclude 
a proffered position from classification as a specialty occupation, just as a Level IV wage-designation 
does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain occupations (e.g., doctors or lawyers), 
a Level I, entry-level position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not 
reflect that an occupation qualifies as a specialty occupation if that higher-level position does not have 
an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. That is, 
a position's wage level designation may be a relevant factor but is not itself conclusive evidence that 
a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 
Here, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. 
II. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
5 It is important to note that the district judge's decision in Residential Finance appears to have been based largely on the 
many factual errors made by the service center in its decision denying the petition. See, e.g., 839 F. Supp. 2d at 996-97. 
3 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner 
has not met that burden here, and the petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4