dismissed H-1B Case: Supply Chain & Logistics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 5338247 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAY 29, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to extend the Beneficiary's temporary employment as a "supply chain & logistics 
analyst" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations . Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S .C. § 110l(a)(l5)(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. The Petitioner 
filed an appeal, which we dismissed concluding that the record (1) did not demonstrate the substantive 
nature of the proffered position , and (2) did not establish that the job duties require an educational 
background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. The matter is now before 
us on a motion to reconsider. 
On motion to reconsider the Petitioner asserts that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application 
oflaw or policy . We will dismiss the motion. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
To merit reopening or reconsideration, a petitioner must meet the formal filing requirements (such as, 
for instance, submission of a properly completed Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with the 
correct fee), and show proper cause for granting the motion. 8 C.F.R . § 103.S(a)(l). 
A motion to reopen is based on factual grounds and must (1) state the new facts to be provided in the 
reopened proceeding; and (2) be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider is based on legal grounds and must (1) state the reasons for 
reconsideration ; (2) establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy; 
and (3) establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the 
initial decision . 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3) . 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner does not offer new facts but instead filed a motion to reconsider asserting that our 
decision is inconsistent with the regulation. 
A. Nature of the Position 
We determined that the Petitioner's broadly-based description was insufficient to convey an 
understanding of the Beneficiary's proposed duties; thus, we could not conclude that the duties 
described a specialty occupation. 
On the labor condition application (LCA) 1 submitted in support of the pet1t10n, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position as corresponding to a Standard Occupation Classification (SOC) 
code 13-1081 "Logisticians" occupation at a Level I wage. The Petitioner's description of duties for 
the proposed position listed eight duties, five of which were copied verbatim or virtually verbatim 
from the Occupational Information Network's (O*NET) summary report for the SOC code 11-9199.04 
"Supply Chain Managers" occupation. The three remaining tasks paraphrased duties listed in the 
O*NET's summary report for the SOC code 13-1081.02, "Logistics Analysts" occupation, a 
sub-category of the occupation designated on the LCA. On motion, the Petitioner asserts that these 
duties are the duties the Beneficiary will be performing. 
First, we again emphasize that when discussing an occupational title such as "Logistics Analysts" or 
even "Supply Chain Managers," the Petitioner cannot repeat portions of the generalized descriptions 
found in the O*NET. Such a generalized description is necessary when defining the range of duties 
that may be performed within an occupation but cannot be relied upon by a petitioner when discussing 
the duties attached to specific employment. In establishing a position as a specialty occupation, a 
petitioner must describe the specific duties and responsibilities to be performed by a beneficiary in 
relation to its particular business interests. In the instant matter, the petitioner has not offered a 
description of the duties of its proffered position beyond the generalized outline it provided at the time 
of filing. It has not detailed the actual work to be performed for this position rather than describing 
the occupation. It cannot, therefore, establish that the position meets any of the requirements for a 
specialty occupation set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
Second, if the Petitioner is relying on the O*NET list of duties to establish its position is a specialty 
occupation, we observe that the O*NET does not support a claim that the proposed position, with these 
general and basic duties, requires a bachelor's degree in the specific specialty, or its equivalent as 
required by section 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) of the Act. Rather, O*NET assigns this occupation a Job Zone 
"Four" rating, which groups it among occupations for which "most ... require a four-year bachelor's 
degree, but some do not." Further, the O*NET summary report does not indicate that any four-year 
bachelor's degree required by Job Zone Four occupations must be in a specific specialty directly 
related to the occupation. Thus, if the Petitioner relies only on these generic duties as the duties the 
1 A petitioner is required to submit an LCA to the Department of Labor to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B worker the 
higher of either the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the area of employment or the actual wage paid 
by the employer to other employees with similar duties, experience, and qualifications. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 
20 C.F.R. § 655.73l(a). 
2 
Beneficiary is expected to perform, it has established, at most, that the position may require a general 
bachelor's degree, not a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as required. 
Here, the Petitioner has provided a basic outline of the proposed duties without sufficiently probative 
and informative evidence to demonstrate that the proffered position requires a specialty occupation's 
level of knowledge in a specific specialty. We reiterate that without evidence of the substantive nature 
of the work the Beneficiary will perform, the record precludes a conclusion that the proffered position 
satisfies any criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), because it is the substantive nature of that work 
that determines (1) the normal minimum educational requirement for entry into the particular position, 
which is the focus of criterion 1; (2) industry positions which are parallel to the proffered position and 
thus appropriate for review for a common degree requirement, under the first alternate prong of criterion 
2; (3) the level of complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position, which is the focus of the second 
alternate prong of criterion 2; ( 4) the factual justification for a petitioner normally requiring a degree or 
its equivalent, when that is an issue under criterion 3; and (5) the degree of specialization and complexity 
of the specific duties, which is the focus of criterion 4. 
Further, the generic description of the duties does not establish the substantive nature of the proffered 
position or demonstrate that performing such duties would require the theoretical and practical 
application of highly specialized knowledge and attainment of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent, as required by the Act. Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the Beneficiary 
will be employed in an occupation that meets the statutory and regulatory definitions of a specialty 
occupation and that the position also satisfies at least one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
The Petitioner has not substantiated its claim that our initial analysis of and conclusion regarding the 
proposed position conflicts with the regulatory and statutory requirements. 
B. Minimum Requirements 
The Petitioner initially claimed that its proposed position required a bachelor's degree in business 
administration, supply chain management, logistics, or a closely related field. On appeal, the 
Petitioner added that the bachelor's degree in business administration must include a specialization in 
supply chain management. On motion, the Petitioner contends that we ignored the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) 2 which indicates that "a position may qualify as a specialty occupation 
if the employer requires a bachelor's degree, or its equivalent ( emphasis in Petitioner's original)." The 
Petitioner, here, focuses on the "or its equivalent" language and claims that it "submitted undisputed 
evidence that it requires a bachelor's degree from a limited number of academic fields (supply chain 
management or business) in addition to specialized management skills or experience." The Petitioner 
does not state where this undisputed evidence exists in the current record. 3 
2 The Petitioner appears to be citing to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J), which sets forth this criterion as "[t]he employer 
normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position[.]" 
3 The Petitioner, in its appeal briet: stated that "[t]he job duties for this position at hand require skills or knowledge that 
cannot be obtained by on the job training. but rather only attained by collegiate studies in a school of business, which 
offers numerous courses in supply chain management (emphasis added)." This appears to conflict with the Petitioner's 
new claim on motion that it required specialized management skills or experience in addition to the previously noted 
academic degrees. The Petitioner's continuous revision to its actual requirements to perform the duties of the proposed 
position cast doubt on the credibility of the Petitioner's claims. 
3 
However, for the Petitioner's information, we agree that in satisfying the specialty occupation 
requirements, both the Act and the regulations require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent, and that this language indicates that the degree does not have to be a degree in a single 
specific specialty. We also 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 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. We do not conclude, however, that any position can 
qualify as a specialty occupation based solely on the claimed requirements of a petitioner. We have 
examined the broad outline of the duties of the position and the Petitioner's various academic degree 
requirements to perform the duties of the position, however, based on the generically described duties 
we cannot conclude that the duties described satisfy the statutory requirement that the position itself 
requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as the minimum 
for entry into the occupation. See section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the 
term "specialty occupation). The record does not satisfy the requirements of this statute and thus does 
not establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
C. Prior Approval 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services had approved the 
prior petition filed on behalf of the Beneficiary. The Petitioner asserts that not approving an extension 
of the petition is an abuse of discretion. We are not required to approve applications or petitions where 
eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. 
See Matter of Church Scientology Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 593,597 (Comm'r 1988); see also Sussex Eng'g, 
Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F .2d 1084, 1090 ( 6th Cir. 1987). Furthermore, we are not be bound to follow 
a contradictory decision of a service center. La. Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 
WL 282785, at *3 (E.D. La. 2000), ajfd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001). Here, as discussed in our 
initial decision and above, the Petitioner has not established the substantive nature of the position and 
has not provided a consistent version of its own minimum requirements to perform the duties of the 
position. As discussed, the record does not establish that, more likely than not, the proffered position 
is a specialty occupation under any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Moreover, the 
record does not establish that the Petitioner satisfied the statutory and regulatory definitions of 
specialty occupation. 
We have reviewed the various cases presented by the Petitioner to show that we misinterpreted current 
policy and law when determining whether the Petitioner has established the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation. Our review of these cases in relation to the totality of the record does not 
demonsrate that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy based on the 
evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. Thus, the record does not provide a sufficient 
basis to reconsider the prior decision. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
4