dismissed H-1B Case: Procurement

(b)(6)
DATE: MAY 0 It 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service 
Administrative Appeals Ol'l'ice 
20 Massachuscfls Ave., N. W., 1\tlS 2lNO 
Washintrton. DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION RECEIPT#: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(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. 
-,����-� rg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www,uscis,gov 
(b)(6)
NON -PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center (hereinafter "t he director"), denied the 
nonimmigrant visa petition. The matter is now on appeal bef ore the Administrative Appeals 
Off ice (AAO ). The appeal will be dismissed. The petition will be denied. 
On the Form I -129 visa petition, the petitioner describes itself as a "s upplier of fashionable 
window accessories" established in In order to employ the be neficiary in what it identifies 
as a full-time position in the "P urchasing Agents, Except Wholesale, Retail, and Farm Products" 
occupational category, with "Pr ocurement-Domestic/International" as its job title, the petitioner 
seeks to clas sify the be neficiary as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to 
section 101(a)(15)(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 , finding that the petitioner had not established that the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation in accordance with the applicable statutory and 
regulatory provisions. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director's basis for denial of the 
petition was erroneous and contends that the petitioner satisfied all evidentiary requirements. 
The record of proceeding before us contains: (1) the Form 1-129 and supporting documentation; 
(2) the director's request for evidence (RFE); (3) the petitioner's response to the RFE; (4) the 
notice of decision; and (5 ) the Form I-290B and supporting materials. We reviewed the record in 
its entirety bef ore issuing our decision. 
For the reasons that will be discussed below, we concur with the director that the petitioner has 
not established eligibility for the benefit sought. Accordingly, the director's decision will not be 
disturbed. The appeal will be dismissed, and the petition will be denied. 
I. FACT UAL AND PRO CEDURAL BACKGRO UND 
In the petitiOn signed on March 14, 20 14, the petitioner indicates that it is seeking the 
benef iciary's services on a full-time basis at the rate of pay of $54,000 per year. In the March 14, 
20 14 letter of support, the petitioner claims that the ben eficiary will be responsible for the 
following duties, with percentage allotments: 
• Per centage of Time Spent on Duty 60% 
Description of Job Duties: [The benef iciary] will be responsible for the 
continuous and uninterrupted flow of raw materials imported from Asia to 
support manufacturing projected units and sales. He will also liaise with 
Asian vendors overseas; evaluate potential vendors in Asian markets as raw 
material suppliers; and optimize procurement based on current and forecasted 
volumes. The position requires the use of Asian languages such as Canto nese , 
Mandarin and Taiwanese in order to communicate with existing and potential 
vendors abroad 
• Percentage of Time Spent on Duty 40% 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Description of Job Duties: Furthermore, [the beneficiary] will prepare 
purchase orders with Asian vendors through computerized systems and 
placement of all procurement of raw materials. In addition to researching and 
evaluating findings, while working to improve quality standards and pricing to 
meet company objectives. He will also consolidate overseas shipments for 
economic efficiency. 
The petitioner indicated that the position requires an individual whose prof essional credentials 
"i nclude no less than a Bachelor's degree or equivalent in Management Information Systems." 
With the initial petition, the petitioner submitted a copy of the benef iciary's Bachelor of Scienc e 
degree and transcript from indicating the benef iciary's major in 
Management Information Systems. 
The petitioner submitted a Labor Condition Application (LCA) in support of the instant H-lB 
petitiOn . The LCA designation for the proffered position corresponds to the occupational 
classification of "P urchasing Agents, Except Wholesale, Retail, and Farm Prod ucts" - SOC 
_(ONET/OES Code) 13-10 23, at a Level I (entry level) wage. 
The director found the evidence insufficient to establish eligibility for the benef it sought, and 
issued an RFE on May 16, 20 14. The petitioner was asked to submit probative eviden ce to 
establish that a specialty occupation position exists for the benef iciary. The director outlined the 
specific eviden ce to be submitted. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted a letter dated August 4, 20 14 further detailing 
the duties of the position. As noted by the petitioner, 
The position of Procurement-Domestic/International demands an individual who must 
negotiate terms and communicate daily with suppliers of these materials with the 
understanding of the needs of our industry. It is through this position that [the 
petitioner] remains competitive in the U.S. marketplace. 
* * * 
The primary responsibilities for this position are: 
• Oversee and direct the continuous and uninterrupted flow of raw materials 
imported from Asia, which support our manufacturing projected sales 
unites in excess of $7,0 00,000 gross revenues annually. 
• Resear ch and liaise with suppliers of proprietary products specific to the 
window treatment manufacturing industry, maintaining key alliance 
among raw material suppliers within our specific business model and 
manufacturing needs. 
• Evaluate overseas supplies capabilities with regard to quality, technology, 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
service, capacity, financial strengths and commitment to [the petitioner] . 
• Independently negotiate select Asian supplier pricing agreements, able to 
fully bind the company financially up to $3,000,000 in annual raw 
materials procurement 
• Liaise with US-b ased engineers and Asian suppliers on specific product 
requirements, deadlines and restrictions. 
• Accurately forecast goods based on product budget restrictions. 
• Evaluate currency rate exchanges for Asian currencies on a daily basi s. 
• Consolidate and manage overseas shipment for economic efficiency. 
• Additionally, the candidate will be required to prepare purchase orders 
with Asian vendors through computerized systems and placement of all 
procurement of raw materials. 
Note, through this position, [the petitioner] will be able to eliminate two levels 
of middlemen in the industry. Thus, we are able to go directly to the source of 
suppliers of necessary raw materials described above. 
Furthermore, because the candidate will be liaising with Asian vendors, it is 
imperative that he or she be fluent in reading, writing, and speaking the 
Mandarin, Cantonese and Taiwan ese languages. Please note, the position of 
Procurement-Domestic/International involves specific responsibilities for the 
procurement, development and maint enance of Asian vendor/supplier 
relationships, an understanding of the raw materials, manufacturing projected 
units and sales is imperative for both the United States and our Asian 
suppliers. The ability to communicate, review and discuss various matters 
with our Asian suppliers and transportation agencies is essential to our 
operations in the United States. Further, the candidate must review whether 
the materials procured meet US standards. · Additionally, the candidate will be 
required to communicate with vendors/suppliers and transportation agencies 
ion (sic) a daily basis via telephone, email and other written corresponds (sic) 
in the Mandarin, Cant onese and Taiwanese languages. 
In addition to the petitioner's letter, the petitioner submitted, inter alia, a letter from 
Ph.D. Associate Pr ofessor of Marketing, . a letter from · 
Assistant Pr ofessor of Finance, ; a letter from , , Senior 
Vice President, a copy of a job posting for a "Pr ocurement Agent" from 
selected print-outs from website; job postings; the petitio ner's marketing 
brochure; and an excerpt from the Occupational Outlook Handbook pertaining to "P urchasing 
Managers, Buyers, and Purchasing Agents. 
The director reviewed the record of proceeding to determine whether the petthoner had 
established eligibility for the benefit sought. Although the petitioner claimed that the benef iciary 
would serve in a specialty occupation, the director determined that record of proceeding did not 
establish how the benef iciary's immediate duties would necessitate services requiring the 
(b)(6)
NON -PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and attainment 
of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum for 
entry into the occupation. The director denied the petition on September 26, 2014. 
The petitioner submitted an appeal of the denial of the H- 1B petition . With the appeal, a brief 
was submitted by counsel. Counsel cites Unico American Corp. v Watson, Case No. CY 89-
6958 (C .D. Cal. Mar. 19, 1991) and asserts said decision directs USCIS to defer to an employer's 
view rather than relying on governmental classification systems. Counsel further cites to 
Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 935 (6th Cir. 2012) and the court's" 
statement that "a petitioner should be decided on the actual record, utilizing the correct portions 
of relevant resources." Counsel also cites to Fred 26 Importers, Inc. v. DHS, F. Supp 2d 1174, 
1180-81 (C .D. Cal. 2006) for the proposition that "w hether the position is professional is 
unrelated to the size of the company, salary or prior company history of maintaining the 
position." Finally, counsel references a recent decision from this office for the proposition that 
the evidence submitted must be evaluated, rather than making a determination on "p re-conceived 
impression[ s] of what duties are typically performed." 
II. PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENC E STANDARD 
In the appeal brief, counsel references the preponderance of the evidence standard. With respect 
to the preponderance of the evidence standard, Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 36 9, 375-376 
(AAO 2010), states in pertinent part the following: 
Except where a different standard is specified by law, a petitioner or applicant in 
administrative immigration proceedings must prove by a preponderance of 
evidence that he or she is eligible for the benefit sought. 
* * * 
The "pr eponderance of the eviden ce" standard requires that the evidence· 
demonstrate that the applicant's claim is "probably true," where the determination 
of "t ruth" is made based on the factual circumstances of each individual case. 
* * * 
Thus, in adjudicating the application pursuant to the preponderance of the 
eviden ce standard, the director must examine each piece of evidence for 
relevance, probative value, and credibil ity, both individually and within the 
context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven 
is probabl y 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 "pr obabl y" true, the applicant or petitioner has 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
satisfied the standard of proof. See INS v. Cardoza-Foncesca, 480 U. S. 421, 431 
(1987) (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 beli eve that the claim is probably not true, deny the 
application or petition. 
Thus, in accordance with the preponderance of the eviden ce standard, U. S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) examines each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, 
and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the eviden ce, to 
determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true. The "p reponderance of the eviden ce" 
standard does not relieve the petitioner from satisfying the basic evidentiary requirements set by 
regulation. The standard of proof should not be confused with the burden of proof. Spe cifically, 
the petitioner bears the burden of establishing eligibility for the benefit sought. A petitioner must 
establish that it is eligible for the requested benefit at the time of filing the petition. In visa 
petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely 
with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; see e. g., Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N 
Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). As will be discussed, in the instant case, that burden has not been 
met. 
III. FINDIN GS MADE BEYOND THE DIRECTO R'S DECI SI ON 
We reviewed the record of proceeding in its entirety and, as will be discussed later in the 
decision, agree with the director that the petitioner has not established eligib ility for the be nefit 
sought. Moreover, we have identified an additional issue that precludes the approval of the 
H-1B petition that was not identified by the director. Consequently, even if the petitioner 
overcame the ground for the director's denial of the petition (which it has not), it could not be 
found eligible for the be nefit sought. 1 
The wage level designated by the petttwner on the LCA for the proffered position is 
questionable . More specifically, the record of proceeding contains discrepancies bet ween what 
the petitioner claims about the level of responsibility and requirements inherent in the proffered 
position set against the contrary level of responsibility and requirements conveyed by the wage 
level selected by the petitioner on the LCA. As noted above, the petitioner provided an LCA in 
support of the instant petition that indicates the occupational classification for the position is 
"P urchasing Agents, Except Wholesale, Retail, and Farm Products" at a Level I (entry) wage. 
Wage levels should be determined only after selecting the most relevant O*NET code 
classification. Then, a prevail ing-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 
occupational requirements, including tasks, knowledge, skills, and specific vocational 
1 We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
preparation (education, training and experience) generally required for acceptable performance 
in that occupation. 2 
It is important to note that prevailing wage determinations start with an entry level wage (Level 
I) and progress to a wage that is commensurate with that of a Level II (qualified), Level lii 
(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 prevailing 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. 3 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 tasks, independent judgment required, and amount of clo�e superviSIOn 
received as indicated by the job description. 
The "P revailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by DOL provides a description of 
the wage levels. A Level I wage rate is described by DOL as follows: 
Level I (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 
2 For additional information on wage levels, 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 .foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _11_ 2009.pdf. 
3 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 8 
http://www .foreignlaborcert. doleta.g ov/pdf/NPWHC _Guidanc e_ Revised _11 _ 20 09. pdf. 
In the instant case, counsel claims that the benef iciary will "i ndependent ly negotiate select Asian 
supplier pricing agreements." Counsel further claims that the ben eficiary will be able to "fully 
bind the company financially up to $3,000,000 in annual raw materials procurement" Counsel 
further asserts that the occupational category of Purchasing Managers, Buyers, and Purchasing 
Agents is broad and includes all levels of positions but that "t his position is more narrowly 
drawn and far more complex than the general position encompassed by the OOH. " 
The petitioner indicates in its letter dated August 4, 20 14 that it will rely on the be neficiary to 
negotiate terms and communicate daily with suppliers and that if communication to the suppliers 
is lost, the petitioner's collection, which "brin gs in $3.5 million a year, " and "our 
collection, which brings in approximately $3 million a year, would have to be 
discontinued, resulting in the loss of hundreds of jobs and customers who rely on the quality" the 
petitioner can provide . The petitioner further notes that the benef iciary will "oversee and direct 
the continuous and uninterrupted flow of raw materials, " "r esearch and liaise with suppliers, " 
"e valuate overseas supplier capabilit ies, " "i ndependently negotiate select Asian supplier pricing 
agreements;" will be able to "fully bind the company financially up to $3,000,000 in annual raw 
materials procurement, " "e valuate currency rate exchanges," and " consolidate and manage 
overseas shipment. " The petitioner concludes that since the be neficiary will be liaising with 
Asian vendors, it will be imperative that he be "fluent in reading, writing and speaking the 
Mandarin, Cantonese and Taiwanese languages. "4 
Such reliance on the be neficiary's work appears to surpass the expectations of a Level I 
purchasing agent position, as described above, which entails the employee working under close 
supervision, performing routine tasks that require only a basic understanding of the occupation 
and limited exercise of judgment. As noted above, a Level I designation is appropriate for 
research fellows, workers in training, and interns. In the instant case, rather than the 
beneficiary's work being "monit ored and reviewed for accuracy," it appears that the petitioner 
claims that it will be relying on the accuracy of the ben eficiary's work with regard to the growth 
of its operations and important business decisions for the company. 
Furthermore, as detailed above, the petitioner emphasizes the importance of foreign language 
skills for the proffered position. In accordance with the guidance provided by DOL , a language 
requirement other than English in a petitioner's job offer generally is considered a special skill 
for all occupations, with the exception of "F oreign Language Teachers and Instructors," 
"I nterpreters ," and "C aption Writers ." !d. In the instant case, the petitioner designated the 
proffered position under the occupational category "P urchasing Agents, Except Wholesale, 
Retail, and Farm Products" at a Level I (the lowest of four assignable wage levels) . Theref ore, it 
has not established that the foreign language requirement was reflected in the wage-level for the 
proffered position. 
4 The petitioner also submitted evidence that it employed the beneficiary in H -lB status for six years, 
which further undermines any assertion that this is an entry-level position. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
Thus, upon review of the assertions regarding the proffered position, we must question the 
stated requirements for the proffered position, as well as the level of complexity, independent 
judgment and understanding that are actually needed for the proffered position as the petitioner 
designated this position as a Level I entry-level job on the LCA certified by DOL . The 
assertions that the duties require a significant level of responsibility and expertise, and that the 
duties require foreign language skills, do not appear to be reflected in the wage level chosen by 
the petitioner on the LCA for the proffered position. 
This aspect of the LCA undermines the credibility of the petition and, in particular, the 
petitioner's assertions regarding the demands, level of responsibilities and requirements of the 
proffered position . It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the 
record by independent objective eviden ce. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such 
inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 58 2, 591- 92 (BIA 19 88). 
The regulation at 20 C.F.R . § 655. 705(b) requires that USCIS ensure that an LCA supports the 
H-lB petition filed on behalf of the beneficiary. Here, provided the proffered position was found 
to be a higher-level position that exceeded industry or normal standards as asserted elsewhere in 
the petition, the petitioner would have failed to submit a valid LCA that corresponds to the 
claimed duties and requirements of the proffered position; that is, specifically, the LCA 
submitted in support of the petition would then not correspond to the level of work, 
responsibilities and requirements that the petitioner ascribed to the proffered position and to the 
wage-level corresponding to such aspects in accordance section 21 2(n)(l )(A) of the Act and the 
pertinent LCA regulations. 
The statements regarding the requirements and claimed level of complexity, independent 
judgment and understanding required for the proffered position are materially inconsistent with 
the certification of the LCA for a Level I entry-level position. This conflict undermines the 
overall credibility of the petition. We find that, fully considered in the context of the entire 
record of proceeding, the petitioner has not established the nature of the proffered position and in 
what capacity the be neficiary will actually be employed. As a result, even if it were determined 
that the proffered position were a higher-level and more complex position as described and 
claimed elsew here in the petition in support of the petitioner's assertions that this position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation, the petition could still not be approved for this additional 
reason. 5 
5 The petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the nonimmigrant visa petition. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l). A visa petition may not be approved at a future date after the petitioner or beneficiary 
becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248. Moreover, a 
petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to 
USCIS requirements. See Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). The 
regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(E) instead require that the petitioner "file an amended or new 
(b)(6)
Page 10 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
IV. REVIEW OF THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION 
Specialty Occupation 
We will now address the director's basis for denial of the petition, namely her finding that the 
petitioner did not establish that it would employ the benef iciary in a specialty occupation 
position. Based upon a complete review of the record of proceeding, we agree with the director 
and find that the evidence does not establish that the position as described constitutes a specialty 
occupation. For efficiency's sake, we hereby incorporate the above discussion and analysis into 
the record of proceeding regarding the ben eficiary's proposed employment. 
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 21 4(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U. S.C . § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "s pecialty 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 specialtl (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United 
States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 21 4. 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. 
petition, with fee, with the service center where the original petition was filed to reflect any material 
changes in the terms and conditions of employment .... " 
6 Counsel contends on appeal that the director's use of "specific specialty" as a requirement was 
"erroneous." As this language appears in the text of the H-lB statute, we do not find counsel's assertion 
persuasive. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.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 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 pe rform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
As a threshold issue, it is noted that 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)( A) must logically be read together 
with section 214 (i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(ii). 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. SeeK Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 28 1, 291 (1988 ) (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 (198 9); Matter of W-F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 19 96). As such, the criteria stated in 8 
C.F.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.F.R. 
§ 214 . 2(h)(4)(iii) (A) but not the statutory or regulatory definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 
F.3d 384, 387 (5 th Cir. 2000). To avoid this result, 8 C.F.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.F.R. 
§ 214.2 (h)(4)(ii), U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Ser vices (USCIS) consistently interprets the 
term "d egree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 21 4.2(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. 
See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree 
requirement in a specific specialty" as "o ne that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities 
of a particular position "). Applying this standard, USCIS 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 Tequirement in the United 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
States of a ba ccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent directly related 
to the duties and responsibilities of the particular 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. USCIS 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 ba ccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for 
entry into the occupation, as required by the Act. 
B. Preliminary Findings 
1. Regarding the Proffered Posi tion's Duties and the Relative Complexity of the 
Position 
As a preliminary matter, we do not find that the record establishes 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 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 Purchasing Agents, Except Wholesale, Retail, and Farm Products 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 
l&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 19 98) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 
190 (Reg. Comm. 19 72)). 
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 explanations 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 description: 
Oversee and direct the continuous and uninterrupted flow of raw materials 
imported from Asia 
The evidence of record contains neither substantive explanation nor documentation showing the 
range and volume of raw materials that the beneficiary must oversee and direct. 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 aqove-referenced 
duties. Overall, we find that the description of the duties of the proffered position does not 
(b)(6)
NON -PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
adequately convey the substantive work that the be neficiary will perform within the petitioner's 
business operations. The description of the bene ficiary's duties lacks the specificity and detail 
necessary to support the petitioner's assertion that the proffered position qualifies 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 of 
Purchasing Agents, Except Wholesale, Retail, and Farm Products 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, as discussed in detail above, the petitioner's submission of an LCA certified for only 
a Level I, entry-level wage signifies the petitioner's endorsement of the appropriateness of a 
characterization 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 prevaili ng-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 benef iciary 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 does 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 be neficiary's 
employment or substantive evidence regarding the actual work that the be neficiary 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 communicate (1) the substantive nature and scope of the 
benef iciary's employment; (2) the actual work that the benef iciary would perform; (3) the 
complexity, uniqueness and/or specialization of the tasks; and/or (4) the correlation between that 
work and a need for a particular educational level of highly specialized knowledge in a specific 
specialty (or its equivalent). Conse quently, this precludes a determination that the petitioner's 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation under the pertinent statutory and regulatory 
prOVISiOnS. 
11. Regarding Professor and Professor Letters' 
In support of the H-1B petition, the petitioner submitted a letter from , Ph.D. The 
letter is dated August 5, 20 14. In her letter, Professor (1) describes the credentials that 
she asserts qualify her to opine upon the nature of the proffered position; (2) lists the duties 
(b)(6)
NON -PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
proposed for the beneficiary; (3) states her belief that the performance of the duties she lists 
requires at least a bachelor's degree; and (4) claims that these qualifications represent a common 
standard for parallel positions among similar organizations. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted a letter from The letter is dated August 
5, 2014. Professor (1) describes the credentials that he asserts qualify him to opine upon 
the nature of the proffered position ; (2) lists the duties proposed for the beneficiary; (3) states his 
belief that the performance of the duties he lists requires at least a bachelor's degree in Business 
Administration or a related field; and (4) claims that these qualifications represent a common 
standard for parallel positions among similar organizations. 
As a preliminary matter, we note that Professor first states in her letter that the position 
of Procurement-Domestic/International requires that the candidate possess "a t least a Bachelor's 
Degree in Business Administration, or a related business disciplines. " However, in conclusion, 
Professor states that the position is associated with the attainment "of a minimum of a 
bachelor's degree in Marketing, or a related field." She did not explain this inconsistency. It is 
incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent 
objective eviden ce. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice 
unless the petitioner submits competent objective eviden ce pointing to where the truth lies. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 58 2, 591- 92 (BIA 19 88). 
Further, we note that the opinion letters do not cite specific instances in which Professor 
or Professor past opinions have been accepted or recognized as authoritative 
on this particular issue. There is no indication that either individual has conducted any research 
or studies pertinent to the educational requirements for such positions (or parallel positions) in 
the petitioner's industry for similar organizations, and no indication of recognition by 
professional organizations that either individual is an authority on those specific requirements. 
Based upon a complete review of the record, we observe that neither individual has provided 
sufficient information regarding the basis of their claimed expertise on this particular issue. The 
documentation does not establish their expertise pertinent to the hiring practices of organizations 
seeking to fill positions similar to the proffered position in the instant case. Without further 
clarification, it is unclear how Professor and Professor education, training, 
skills or experien ce would translate to expertise or specialized knowledge regarding the current 
recruiting and hiring practices of an enterprise engaged in the supply of "fashionable window 
accessories" (as designated by the petitioner in the Form 1-129) or similar organizations for 
purchasing agents, except wholesale, retail, and farm products (or parallel positions). 
With regard to the opinion letters themselves, neither references nor discuss any studies, surveys, 
industry publications, authoritative publications, or other sources of empirical information which 
they may have consulted in the course of whatever evaluative process they may have followed. 
Neither Professor nor Professor demonstrates or asserts in-depth knowledge of 
the petitioner's specific business operations or how the duties of the position would actually be 
performed in the context of the petitioner's particular bu siness enterprise. For instance, there no 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
evidence that either has any in-depth knowledge of the petitioner's business operations gained 
through such means as visiting the petitioner's premises, observing the petitioner's employees, 
interviewing them about the nature of their work, or documenting the knowledge that they apply 
on the job. 
Neither Professor nor Professor discusses the duties of the proffered position in 
any substantive detail. To the contrary, they simply list the tasks in bullet -point fashion with 
little discussion. As a result, it is not evident that they analyzed the duties prior to formulating 
their letters. 
Importantly, there is also no indication that the petitioner advised either Professor or 
Professor that it characterized the proffered position as a low, entry-level procurement 
manager position (under the occupational classification of "P urchasing Agents, Except 
Wholesale, Retail and Farm Products "), for a beginning employee who has only a basic 
understanding of the occupation (as indicated by the wag e-level on the LCA) . The wage-rate 
indicates that the beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if 
any, exercise of judgment; that he will be closely supervised and his work closely monitored and 
reviewed for accuracy; and that he will receive specific instructions on required tasks and 
expected results. It appears that Professor and Professor would have found this 
information relevant for his opinion letter. Moreover, without this information, the petitioner has 
not demonstrated that either individual possessed the requisite information necessary to 
adequately assess the nature of the petitioner's position and appropriately determine parallel 
positions based upon the job duties and responsibilities. We consider this a material omission. 
Professor and Professor do not provide a substantive, analytical basis for their 
opinions and ultimate conclusions. Their opinions do not relate their conclusions to specific, 
concrete aspects of this petitioner's business operations to demonstrate a sound factual basis for 
the conclusion about the educational requirements for the particular position here at issue. 
Moreover, neither writer supported their conclusions by providing copies or citations of any 
research material used. Professor and Professor have not provided sufficient 
facts that would support the assertion that the proffered position requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty (or its equivalent). 
In summary, and for each and all of the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the opinion 
letters rendered by Professor and Professor are not probative eviden ce to 
establish the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The conclusions reached lack 
the requisite specificity and detail and are not supported by independent, objective eviden ce 
demonstrating the manner in which he reached such conclusions. Further, the opinions are not in 
accord with other information in the record. 
As such, neither Professor or Professor findings nor their ultimate conclusions 
are worthy of deference, and the opinion letters are not probative evidence towards satisfying any 
criterion of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We may, in our discretion, use as 
advisory opinion statements submitted as expert testimony. However, where an opinion is not in 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 16 
accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we are not required to accept or 
may give less weight to that evidence. Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 
19 88). 
As a reasonable exercise of our discretion we discount the opinion lette rs from Professor 
and Professor as not probative of any criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214 . 2(h)(4)(ii i)(A). It 
should be noted that, for efficiency's sake, the above discussion and analysis regarding the two 
letters are hereby incorporated as part of this decision's later analyses of the criteria at 8 C.F . R. § 
214.2 (h)( 4 )(iii)(A). 
111. Regarding the Letter from , Senior Vice President, 
In support of the assertion that the proffered position satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A), the petitioner also submitted an August 7, 20 14 letter from 
Senior Vice President, Mr. states the following in pertinent part: 
I hold the position of Senior Vice Pr esident with a Connecticut 
based company, and our primary business is the design and development of 
window covering components. I write this letter to detail the role of the position 
of Procurement-Domestic/International within our company and in the Window 
Coverings Industry in general. has been in the Window coverings 
industry for more than 30 years, and we only hire Procurement professionals who 
have at least a Bachelor's degree. 
Over the past several years, we have worked closely with [the petitioner] , who is 
a valued customer. We also share a business model similar to that of [the 
petitioner] , and other companies in the supply of custom window coverings. Our 
companies share much of the same structure and our business transactions are 
quite similar. Therefore, utilizing properly trained procurement professionals 
would be critical to their operations as well. 
As will now be discussed, we find that the letter does not constitute probative evidence of the 
proffered position satisfying any criterion described at 8 C.F.R . § 214.2 (h)(4)( iii)(A). 
Letters may generally be divided into two types of testimonial evidence: expert opinion evidence 
and written testimonial evidence. Opinion testimony is based on one's well-qualified belief or 
idea, rather than direct knowledge of the facts at issue. Black's Law Dictionary 1515 (8th Ed. 
2007) (defining "o pinion testimony"). Written testimonial evidence, on the other hand, is 
testimony about facts, such as whether something occurred or did not occur, based on the 
witness' direct knowledge. !d. (defining "written testimony"); see also id. at 151 4 (defining 
"affirmative testimony"). 
Depending on the specificity, detail, and credibility of a letter, USCIS may give the document 
more or less persuasive weight in a proceeding. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 17 
held that testimony should not be disregarded simply because it is "self-serving." See, e.g. , 
Matter ofS-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 13 28, 13 32 (BIA 2000) (citing cases). The BIA also held, however: 
"W e not only encourage, but require the introduction of corroborative testimonial and 
documentary evidence, where available." Jd. If testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or 
credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit corroborative evidence. Matter of 
Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 11 36 (BIA 19 98). 
First, the letter from Mr. did not discuss the duties of the proffered position in any 
substantive detail. Mr. effectively reiterates some, but not all, of the duties provided by the 
petitioner, duties which have already been determined to be relatively abstract and generalized. 
As we noted above, the duties 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. 
Next the letter is not accompanied by, and it does not expressly state the full content of, whatever 
documentation and/or oral transmissions upon which it may have been based. For insta nce, 
Mr. does not indicate how often he communicated with the petitioner in their course of 
business as to what the performance of the general list of duties cited by them would actually 
require, or whether they visited the petitioner's business premises. Nor does Mr. articulate 
whatever familiarity he may have obtained regarding the particular content of the work products 
that the petitioner would require of the beneficiary. 
Furthermore, Mr. description of the position upon which he opines does not indicate that he 
considered, or was even aware of, the fact that the petitioner submitted an LCA that was certified 
for a wage-level that is only appropriate for a comparatively low, entry-level position relative to 
others within its occupation which, as discussed above, signifies that the beneficiary is only 
expected to possess a basic understanding of the occupation. In any event, Mr. nowhere 
discusses this aspect of the proffered position. We consider this a significant omission, in that it 
suggests an incomplete review of the position in question and a faulty factual basis for the 
ultimate conclusions provided as to the educational requirements of the position upon which they 
opme. 
For all of these reasons, we find that the letter provided is not probative evidence towards 
satisfying any criterion set forth at 8 C. F.R. § 21 4. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A). For the sake of economy, we 
hereby incorporate the above discussion and findings into its analysis of each of the criterion at 
8 C.F.R . § 214 .2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
Based upon a complete review of the record of proceeding, we reiterate that the petitioner has 
not established (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 correlation between that work and a need for a 
particular educational level of highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. 
Consequently, this precludes a determination that the petitioner's proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation under the pertinent statutory and regulatory provisions. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 18 
Irrespective of the above findings, we will continue to discuss the evidence of record to identify 
other evidentiary deficiencies that preclude us from reasonably determining that the petition has 
satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.P .R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
C. Application of the Criteria at 8 C.P .R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A) 
We will first discuss the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 21 4. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A )(l ), which is satisfied by 
establishing that a baccalaureate or higher degree, or its equivalent, in a specific specialty is 
normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position that is the subject of the 
petition. 
We recognize DOL's Handbook as an authoritative source on the duties and educational 
requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 7 As previously discussed, the 
petitioner filed the LCA to indicate that the proffered position corresponds to "P urchasing 
Agents, Except Wholesale, Retails and Farm Products" - SOC (ONET/OES) Code 13-10 23. 
The Handbook addresses these occupational categories in the chapter entitled "P urchasing 
Managers, Buyers, and Purchasing Agents. " Importantly, in the initial submission, the petitioner 
indicated with the LCA that the duties, responsibilities, and requirements of the prof fered 
position are most similar to those of a purchasing agent. 
The subchapter of the Handbook entitled "H ow to Become a Purchasing Manager, Buyer, or 
Purchasing Agent" states the following about this occupational category: 
Education 
Educational requirements usually vary with the size of the organization. A high 
school diploma is enough at many organizations for entry into the purchasing 
agent occupation, although large stores and distributors may prefer applicants 
who have completed a bachelor's degree program and have taken some business 
or accounting classes. Many manufacturing firms put an even greater emphasis on 
formal training, preferring applicants who have a bachelor's or master's degree in 
engineering, business, economics, or one of the applied sciences. 
Purchasing managers usually have at least a bachelor's degree and some work 
experience in the field. A master's degree may be required for advancement to 
some top-level purchasing manager jobs. 
Trainin g 
7 Al l of our references are to th e 2014-20 15 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the 
Inter ne t site htt p ://www.bls.g ov/OC O/. We he reby incorporate the excerp t of the Handbook regarding the 
duties and requirem ents of the occupational category "P urchasing Managers, Buyers, and Pur chasing 
Agen ts " into the record of proceedi ng . 
(b)(6)
Page 19 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Buyers and purchasing agents typically get on-the-job training for more than 1 
year. During this time, they learn how to pe rform their basic duties, including 
monitoring inventory levels and negotiating with suppliers. 
Licenses, Certifications, and Registrations 
There are several recognized credentials for purchasing agents and purchasing 
managers. These certifications involve oral or written exams and have education 
and work experience requirements. 
The Certified Professional in Supply Management (CPSM) credential, offered by 
the Institute for Supply Management, covers a wide scope of duties that 
purchasing professionals do. The exam requires applicants to either have a 
bachelor's degree and 3 years of supply management experience, or for those 
without a bachelor's degree, 5 years of supply management experience and the 
successful completion of three CP SM exams. 
The American Purchasing Society offers two certifications: the Certified 
Purchasing Professional (CPP) and Certified Professional Purchasing Manager 
(CPPM). Candidates become eligible for these cert ifications through a 
combination of purchasing-related experience, education, and professional 
contributions (such as published articles or delivered speeches). 
AP ICS offers the Certified Supply Chain Professional (CSCP) credential. 
The Universal Public Procurement Certi fication Council offers two certifications 
for workers in federal, state, and local government: Certified Professional Public 
Buyer (CPPB) and Certified Public Purchasing Offi cer (CPPO). NIGP: The 
Institute for Public Procurement offers preparation courses for these certification 
exams. 
Work Experience in a Related Occupation 
Purchasing managers typically must have at least 5 years of e�perie nce as a buyer 
or purchasing agent. At the top levels, purchasing manager duties may overlap 
with other management functions, such as production, planning, logistics, and 
marketing. 
Advanc ement 
An experienced purchasing agent or buyer may become an assistant purchasing 
manager before advancing to purchasing manager, supply manager, or director of 
materials management. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 20 14-15 ed., 
Purchasing Managers, Buyers and Purchasing Agents, on the Internet at 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 20 
http:/ /www. bls.g ov /ooh/business-and- financial/purchasing-managers-buyers-and-purchasing­
agents. htm#tab-4 (last visited April 28, 20 15). 
The Handbook does not state that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into purchasing agent positions. The 
narrative of the Handbook indicates that the educational requirements usually vary with the size 
of the organization. It continues by stating that at many organizations, a high school diploma is 
sufficient for entry into purchasing agent positions. 8 
The Handbook states that large stores and distributors may prefer applicants who have 
completed a bachelor's degree program and have taken some business or accounting classes. 
The text suggests that a baccalaureate degree may be a preference among empl oyers of 
purchasing agents in some environments, but that many employers hire candidates with less than 
a bachelor's degree, including candidates possessing a high school diploma. A preference for a 
candidate with a degree is not an indication of a requirement for the same. 
The Handbook reports that there are several recognized certification credentials for purchasing 
agents and purchasing managers. It also provides basic inf ormation, including the general 
requirements for these credentials. There is no indication, however, that the petitioner requires 
the ben eficiary to have obtained any certification credential or other professional designation to 
serve in the proffered position. 
The record does not establish that the proffered position falls under an occupational category for 
which the Handbook (or other objective, authoritative source) indicates that normally the 
minimum requirement for entry into the particular position proffered here is at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Furthermore, the duties and requirements of the 
proffered position as described in the record of proceeding by the petitioner also do not indicate 
that this particular position is one for which a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry. 
When, as here, the Handbook does not support the proposition that the proffered positiOn 
satisfies this first criterion of 8 C.F.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 . In such case , it is the 
8 When reviewing the Handbook, we mus t again note that the peti tioner designated the proffered posi tion 
on the LCA under the occupa tional category "P urchasing Agents, Excep t Wholesale, Re tail, and Farm 
Produc ts. " We reiterate our earlier comments and findings with regard to the implicat ion of the 
peti tioner 's designation of the pro ffered posi tion in the LCA as a Level I (t he lowes t of four assignable 
levels}. This designation is indicative of a comparatively low, entry-level position relative to other 
purchasing agen ts . DOL guidance indicates that a Level I designa tion is appropriate for a posi tion as a 
research fellow, a worker in training, or an in ternship . Again, the Handbook indicates that for many 
entry-level positi ons, "[ a] high school diploma is enough ... " 
(b)(6)
NON -PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 21 
petitioner's responsibility to provide probative evidence (e.g., documentation from other 
authoritative sources) that supports a favorable finding with regard to this criterion. 
We here refer the petitioner back to our earlier comments and findings with regard to the letters 
submitted by Professor Professor and Mr. As noted above , we find that 
said letters are not probative evidence that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
As the evidence in the record of proceeding does not establish that at least a baccalaureate degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the 
particular position that is the subject of this petition, the petitioner has not satisfied the criterion 
described at 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A )(I ). 
Next, the petitioner has not satisfied the first of the two alternative prongs of 8 C.F.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 sharing all three characteristics of be ing (1) within the petitioner' s industry, 
(2) parallel to the proffered position, and also (3) located in organizations that are similar to the 
petitioner. 
As stated earlier, in determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often 
considered by US CIS 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 
"r outinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals. " See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d at 
1165 (quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. at 1102). 
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. Further, we incorporate here our previous findings regarding 
the letters submitted by Professor , Professor and Mr. 
Next, we find that the job-vacancy announcements submitted by the petitioner do not satisfy this 
alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 21 4. 2(h)(4)(ii i)(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 "t he 
degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations 
(emphasis added)." We note that the job advertisement for is for "C onstruction-
Residential & Commercial/Office ." The job advertisement is for 
"Automotive and Parts Mfg. " The ' job advertisement is for "E nergy and 
Utilities. " For the petitioner to establish that an organization is similar, it must demonstrate that 
the petitioner and the organization share the same general characteristics. Without such 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 22 
evidence, documentation regarding other organizations is generally outside the scope of 
consideration for this criterion, which encompasses only organizations that are similar to the 
petitioner. 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). It is not sufficient for 
the petitioner to claim that the organizations are (1) similar to it and (2) operate in the same 
industry without providing a legitimate ba sis for such an assertion. 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. Comm'r 197 2)). 
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. 
The extensive experience that some of the job advertisements specify as hiring requirements 
suggests that they involve the application of greater occupational knowledge than the proffered 
position. 9 So, the job-v acancy advertisements do not establ ish that the advertised positions are 
"parall el" to the proffered position. 
In addition, two of the submitted advertisements do not specify a requirement for a bache lor's or 
higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. The advertisement for a 
"P urchasing _Agent " only states "B achelor's degree in a related field" without any specification of 
any particular academic major. Likewise, the advertisement for a "P urchasing 
Agent-Level III" specifies a "B achelor's degree" with no indication that the bachelor's degree 
must be in any particular area or equivalent to a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific 
specialty. 
As the documentation does not establish that the petitioner has met this prong of the regulations, 
further a nal ysis re gar di ng t he s pecific information contained i n eac h of th e job postings is not 
necessary. That is, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. The evidence does 
not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation under this criterion of 
the regulations. 
9 By way of ex ample, the 
Experien ce : 2+ to 5 Years ." The 
advertisement for a "P urchasing Agent " states "Y ears of 
advertisement for a "P urchasing Agent -Level Ill" states 
"Y ears of Experience : 2+ to 5 year s. " The advertisement for "P urchasing 
Agent -P lasti cs " states " 3 to 5 years of pu rchasing exper ience ." The extensive expe rience that these job 
advertisements specify as hiring requirements suggests that they involve the application of greater 
occupational knowledge than the pr offered po sition. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 23 
Next, we find that the evidence of record does not satisfy the second alternative prong of 
8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which provides that "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." 
The statements in the record with regard to the claimed complex and unique nature of the 
proffered position are acknowledged. However, as reflected in our earlier comments and 
findings regarding the record's description of the duties comprising the prof fered position, the 
petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish why it is more likely than not that the 
proffered position can only be performed by a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty or its equivalent. 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. They simply do not establish a 
level of complexity or specialization that would elevate the proffered position above positions in 
the Purchasing Agents occupational group that the Handbook's information indicates can be 
performed by persons without a bachelor's or higher degree, or the equivalent, in a specific 
specialty. 
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 be neficiary 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 ben eficiary'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) 
either. 
We turn next to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J), 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. 1 0 
10 Any such assertion would be undermined in this particular case by the fact that the petitioner subm itted 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 24 
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 "s pecialty 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. This 
criterion was not addressed. As the evide nce 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.F.R. 
§ 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)(A)( 3). 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii)( A) requires a petitione r to establish that the 
nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to 
perform them is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
The petitioner asserts that the nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the 
knowledge required to perform them is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. We incorporate our earlier discussion 
and analysis regarding the duties of the proffered position, and the designation of the proffered 
position in the LCA as an entry-level position relative to others within the occupational category 
of "P urchasing Agents, Except Wholesale, Retail, and Farm Products ." The petitioner 
designated the position as a Level I position (the lowest of four assignable wage-levels), which 
DOL indicates is appropriate for "beginning level employees who have only a basic 
understanding of the occupation." Without further evidence, it has not been established that the 
petitioner's proffered position is one with specialized and complex duties compared to others 
within the occupation as such a position would likely be classified at a higher-level, such as a 
Level III (experienced) or IV (fully competent) position, requiring a substantially higher 
prevailing wage. As previously discussed, a Level IV (fully competent) position is designated by 
DOL for em ployees who "u se advanced skills and diversified knowledge to solve unusual and 
complex problems ." 
an LCA that had been cert ified for a Level I wage-level, which is appropriate for use with a 
compara tive ly low, en try-level position relative to other s within the same occupation. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 25 
The petitioner has submitted inadequate probative evidence to satisfy this criterion of the 
regulations. Th us, the petitioner has not established that the duties of the position are so 
specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated 
with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
We therefore conclude that the petitioner has not satisifed the criterion at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214. 2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)( 4). 
We note that counsel cites to Residential Fin. Corp. v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, 
839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S .D. Ohio 20 12), for the proposition that '"[t]he knowledge and not the title 
of the degree is what is important. Diplomas rarely come be aring occupation-specific majors. 
What is required is an occupation that requires highly specialized knowledge and a prospective 
employee who has attained the credentialing indicating possession of that knowledge." ' 
We agree with the aforementioned proposition that "[ t] he knowledge and not the title of the 
degree is what is important." In general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., 
chemistry and biochemistry, a minimum of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one 
specialty is recognized as satisfying the "d egree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)" 
requirement of section 21 4(i)(l )(B) of the Act. In such a case, the required "body of highly 
specialized knowledge" would essentially be the same. Since there must be a close correlation 
between the required "b ody of highly specialized knowledge" and the position, however, a 
minimum entry requirement of a degree in two disparate fields, such as philosophy and 
engineering, would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree be "i n the specific 
specialty (or its equivalent) ," unless the petitioner establishes how each field is directly related to 
the duties and responsibilities of the particular position such that the required body of highly 
specialized knowledge is essentially an amalgamation of these different specialties. Section 
21 4(i)(l )(B) of the Act (emphasis added). For the aforementioned reasons, however, the 
petitioner has not met its burden to establish that the particular position offered in this matter 
requires a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, directly relate d to 
its duties in order to perform those tasks. 
In any event, counsel has furnished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition 
are analogous to those in Residential Fin. Corp. v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services. 11 
We also note that, 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 Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715 (BIA 
11 
It is noted tha t the di stric t judge 's decision in tha t case appears to have been based la rgely on the many 
factual errors made by the service center in its decision denying th e petition . We furt he r note that th e 
se rvice cente r direct or's decis ion was not appea led to us . Based on th e district court's findings and 
desc ription of th e record, if tha t matter had first been appealed thr ough th e available administrative 
process, we may very well have remanded the matter to the service cente r for a new decis ion for many of 
th e same reasons articula ted by th e dist rict court if th ese errors could not have been remedied by us in our 
de novo review of th e matte r. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 26 
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. !d. at 71 9. 
Counsel also cites the unpublis hed court decision in Unico American Corp. v. Watson _, 
F. Supp . _, 1991 WL 110025 94 (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 19 88); Matter 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 
decision, for we base our decision upon the totality of the evidence in the record of proceeding 
bearing upon the specialty-occupation issue, and without sole or excessive reliance upon the 
relevant information contained in the Handbook. Furthermore, 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 analysis 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. 
Finally, with respect to counsel's reference to Fred 26 Importers v. DHS, 445 F. Supp. 2d 1174 
(C.D. Cal. 2006), we note that in that case the court found that USCIS had failed to provide a 
rational basis for its finding that the petitioner had failed to satisfy 8 C.F .R . 
§ 214.2 (h)( 4)(iii)( A)( 4). Such is clearly not the case here, as the director specifically discussed 
that criterion at page 8 of the decision, and discussed matters relevant to the analysis of that 
criterion throughout the decision. We have done the same on appeal. Even if that were not the 
case, we would be under no obligation to follow the holding in Fred 26 Importers: again, in 
contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case law of a United States circuit court, we 
reiterate here that we are not bound to follow the published decision of a United States district 
court in matters arising even within the same district, as detailed above . See Matter ofK-S-, 20 
I&N Dec. at 715. Although the reasoning underlying a district judge's decision will be given 
due consideration when it is properly before this office, the analysis does not have to be followed 
as a matter of law. !d. at 719. 
For the reasons related in the preceding discussion, the petitioner has not demonstrated that it has 
satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F .R. § 214. 2(h)(4)(iii) (A) and, therefore, it cannot be found 
that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The appeal will be dismissed and 
the petition denied for this reason. 
V. CONCL USION AND ORDER 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 27 
An application or peti tion that does not comply with the technical requirements of the law may 
be denied by us even if the service center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the 
initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. 
Cal. 200 1), aff'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d 
Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
Moreover, when we deny a petition on multiple alternative grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a 
challenge only if it shows that we abuse d our discretion with respect to all of the enumerated 
grounds. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1037, aff'd. 345 F.3d 
683; see also BDPCS, Inc. v. Fed. Communications Comm 'n, 35 1 F.3d 1177, 1183 (D.C. Cir. 
2003) ("W hen an agency offers multiple grounds for a decision, we will affirm the agency so 
long as any one of the grounds is valid, unless it is demonstrated that the agency would not have 
acted on that basis if the alternative grounds were unavailable ." ). 
Burden of Proof Blurb (multiple grounds) 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as an independent and alternative basis for the decision. 12 In visa petition 
proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 29 1 of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 136 1; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 12 7, 12 8 (BIA 
20 13 ). Here, that bur den has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
12 
As these mat ters preclude appr oval of the peti tion, we will not address any of th e additional issues we 
have identi fied on appe al .