dismissed H-1B Case: Supply Chain Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7097288 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-IB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 22, 2020 
The Petitioner, a computer processor manufacturer, seeks to extend the Beneficiary's temporary 
employment as a "manager, supply chain" under the H-IB nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations . 1 The H-IB 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 Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant 
Worker, concluding that the record did not establish that the proffered position qualified as a specialty 
occupation . On appeal, the Petitioner submits new evidence and asserts that the Director erred in 
denying the petition. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 2 
I. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the entire record, for the reasons set out below, we have determined that the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation . 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that the offered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation . In her decision, the Director thoroughly discussed the Petitioner's failure to 
meet any of the four regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J)-(4). Upon consideration 
of the entire record, including the evidence submitted and arguments made on appeal, we adopt and 
affirm the Director's decision with the comments below. 3 
1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) , 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
2 The Petitioner must establish eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 
375-76 (AAO 2010). While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 See Matter of P. Singh, Attorney , 26 I&N Dec. 623 (BIA 2015) (citing Matter of Burbano , 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 
1994)); see also Chen v. INS , 87 F.3d 5, 7-8 (1st Cir. 1996) ("[I]fa reviewing tribunal decides that the facts and evaluative 
judgments prescinding from them have been adequately confronted and correctly resolved by a trial judge or hearing 
officer, then the tribunal is free simply to adopt those findings" provided the tribunal's order reflects individualized 
attention to the case). 
In addition to the Director's analysis concluding the Petitioner did not demonstrate the pos1t10n 
satisfied the definition of a specialty occupation, we add an additional shortcoming. Specifically, the 
Petitioner's degree requirements of a bachelor's degree in business administration, without farther 
specialization is the issue. A requirement for a bachelor's degree in business is inadequate to establish 
that a position qualifies as a specialty occupation. A petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered 
position requires a precise and specific course of study that relates directly and closely to the position 
in question. Since there must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies and the 
position, the requirement of a degree with a generalized title, such as "business" without farther 
specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. 4 
These requirements do not satisfy the statutory and regulatory framework of the H-1B program. The 
requirement is not just a bachelor's or higher degree, but a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty 
that directly relates to the position's duties. 5 Although a general-purpose bachelor's degree may be a 
legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify 
a finding that a particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. 6 A lack of a 
specific degree requirement, which we have in this case, precludes the Petitioner from demonstrating 
that the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Regarding much of the Petitioner's appellate discussion of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), it ignores that the requirement is not simply a bachelor's degree, but that 
degree must also be in a specific specialty or an equivalent. We construe the term "degree" within the 
regulation to mean not just any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is 
directly related to the proposed position. 7 The Director sufficiently addressed the arguments the 
Petitioner presents on appeal, and the petitioning organization does not establish that the Director erred 
in her analysis. 
Within the proceedings before the Director, the Petitioner did not assert eligibility or present evidence 
under the first prong of the second criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). Nevertheless, it now 
submits evidence and claims eligibility under that provision on appeal. The Petitioner should not raise 
previously unclaimed eligibility issues or offer evidence related to those new claims on appeal. 8 Such 
4 Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). 
5 See section 214(i)(l)(b) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
6 Royal Siam Cmp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007). See also Irish Help at Home LLC v. Melville, 13-cv-
00943-MEJ, 2015 WL 848977 *6-8 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2015), aff'd, 679 F. App'x 634 (9th Cir. 2017). 
7 See Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147 (describing "a degree requirement in a specific specialty" as "one that relates 
directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 
2000); Parzenn Partners. LLC v. Baran, No. 19-cv-11515-ADB, 2019 WL 6130678, at *4 (D. Mass. Nov. 19, 2019); 
Pa}Joy, Inc. v. Cuccinelli, No. l 9-cv-03977, 2019 WL 3207839, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 16, 2019); Stellar IT Sols., Inc. v. 
USC1S, No. 18-cv-2015, 2018 WL 6047413, at *8 (D.D.C. Nov. 19, 2018). 
8 See Matter of Soriano, 19 l&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988); Matter of Obaigbena, 19 l&N Dec. 533, 537 (BIA 1988). Cf 
Matter of Jimenez, 21 l&N Dec. 567, 570 n.2 (BIA 1996) (finding that claims of eligibility presented for the first time on 
appeal are not properly before the appellate body and generally, that body will not issue a determination on the matter). 
Further, issues that are raised for the first time on appeal will not normally be considered within the appellate proceedings. 
McKenzie v. USCIS, 761 F.3d 1149, 1154-55 (10th Cir. 2014) cert. denied, 135 S.Ct. 970 (2015); also sec Emu/ex Corp. 
v. Varjabcdian, 888 F.3d 399 (9th Cir. 2018), cert. granted, 139 S. Ct. 782 (2019), and cert. dismissed as improvidently 
granted, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019); Osborn v. Visa Inc., 797 F.3d 1057 (D.C. Cir. 2015), cert. granted, 136 S. Ct. 2543 (2016), 
2 
late-asserted claims are not contemporaneous and appear to be a direct response to an adverse aspect 
of the Director's decision. The reason for filing an appeal is to provide an affected party with the means 
to remedy what he or she perceives as an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact within a 
decision in a previous proceeding. 9 Without adequately presenting this issue before the Director, the 
Petitioner deprived the Director of the ability to sufficiently review the relevant factors. 
An issue that forms a central aspect of the Petitioner's eligibility claims that was not adequately raised 
and presented to the Director, should not factor into our determination as a seminal matter. 10 The 
Petitioner has not explained why we should consider this issue at the appellate stage, when it failed to 
raise this issue before the Director. If the Petitioner wished to address this question, it should not start 
at the appellate stage, but before the initial reviewing authority. Therefore, to address this issue, the 
Petitioner must take this up by filing a new petition. 11 Moreover, we briefly note the new evidence 
does not aid the Petitioner in its claims as all but one job posting imposes higher requirements than 
this position through experience or certifications. As a result, almost all the positions appear to be 
more senior in scope than the one proffered in the petition. 
Under the second prong of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2), the Petitioner claims the 
Director's analysis did not consider the revised job description it offered in the request for evidence 
(RFE) response. Although the Petitioner offered greater details relating to the position when it 
responded to the RFE, that description continued to fall short of demonstrating the position is so 
complex or unique that only an individual with a qualifying degree could perform in it. Again, the 
Petitioner's acceptance of a general bachelor's degree in business administration, without further 
specialization, undermines its eligibility claims under this provision. 
Setting that aside, the Petitioner described the position in a manner that does not demonstrate the 
position is sufficiently complex or unique. For instance, it offered several functions such as the need 
to develop long-term strategies, or capital and engineering solutions in support of those strategies, but 
without explaining how those functions mandate a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. The 
Petitioner offered several other responsibilities that share this same shortcoming. The Petitioner did 
not submit sufficient information relevant to a detailed course of study leading to a specialty degree 
to establish how such a curriculum would be necessary to carry out the complexities or uniqueness of 
the position. A few related courses may be beneficial, or even required, in performing certain elements 
of the position. Nevertheless, we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated how an established 
program of such courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, is required to successfully serve in the proffered position. 12 While it appears that the 
and cert. dismissed as improvident(v granted, 137 S. Ct. 289-90 (2016). 
9 See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
10 See Emu/ex Co1p. v. Va1jabedian, 888 F.3d 399 (9th Cir. 2018), cert. granted, 139 S. Ct. 782 (2019), and cert. dismissed 
as improvidently granted, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019) (in which one party sought a rehearing en bane before the Ninth Circuit, 
arguing a point for the first time before the panel, and only in passing. See Petition for Writ of Certiorari at 1 L Emu/ex 
Co1p. v. Va1jabedian. No. 18-459 (Oct. l L 2018)). 
11 Soriano, 19 l&N Dec. at 766; Obaigbena, 19 l&N Dec. at 537. 
12 Xiaotong Liu v. Baran, No. SACV1800376JVSKESX, 2018 WL 7348851, at *12 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2018) (finding 
that although some coursework may be helpful preparation for a job, that does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that 
those courses are required for the position). 
3 
position may have some complexities, the Petitioner still has not explained why a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty is required to perform it. 
Turning to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(3), the job posting the Petitioner references 
on appeal appears to be dated approximately six months after it filed the petition. A petitioner must 
establish eligibility at the time it files the nonimmigrant visa petition. 13 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) may not approve a visa petition at a future date after a petitioner or a beneficiary 
becomes eligible under a new set of facts.14 Therefore, evidence created after the petition filing date 
should not factor into the Petitioner's eligibility. 
Further, as the Petitioner lists its available positions on its own website-and as it is a well-established 
information technology company-it would not seem an undue burden for it to possess records of its 
previous job postings. 15 Particularly jobs such as the proffered position in which the Petitioner is required 
to maintain certain records to demonstrate compliance with U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) 
regulations. 16 Even if we considered the job posting in the RFE response, the Petitioner did not provide 
further information or evidence regarding its recruiting history for the position. Without more, the 
submission of one job posting is not persuasive in establishing that the Petitioner normally requires at 
least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims the letters from its employees should demonstrate it meets the third 
criterion. Such claims within the petitioning organization's correspondence essentially equate to 
assertions rather than evidence to support such claims. The Petitioner did not offer a means by which 
we could verify the contents of the employees' letters, nor did it off er material to corroborate the 
content. Such statements made without supporting documentation are of limited probative value and 
are insufficient to satisfy the Petitioner's burden of proof 17• 18 Were USCIS limited solely to 
reviewing a petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, then a petitioner could bring any 
individual with a bachelor's degree to the United States to perform any occupation as long as the 
petitioning organization created a token degree requirement. 19 
Under the final criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4), the Petitioner's appeal brief provides a 
lengthy description of why the position within its company, containing duties that are so specialized 
and complex due to the nature of its business. It then states that this background-one "to understand 
the supply and demand, available resources, and inventory management of the company"-"can only 
be achieved through the experience of applying the fundamental theoretical and practical supply chain 
13 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12). 
14 Matter of Michelin Tire Corp .. 17 T&N Dec. 248, 249 (Reg' 1 Comm'r 1978) ( finding that nonimmigrant eligibility 
criteria must be met at the time a petitioner files the petition). 
15 Jobs at Software AG, Software AG (Aug. 14, 2019), https://jobs.softwareag.com/. 
16 See generally, 20 C.F.R. § 655.760. 
17 Matter ofSoffici, 22 l&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998). 
18 Innova Sols., Inc. v. Baran, 338 F. Supp. 3d 1009, 1023 (N.D. Cal. 2018); 1756, Inc. v. Aft); Gen, 745 F. Supp. 9, 17 
(D.D.C. 1990); see also Glob. Fabricators, Inc. v. Holder, 320 F. App'x 576, 580 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding this office's 
determination that "the conclusory averments of [the Petitioner's] own Human Resources and Safety Manager as to the 
complexity of the job, without some objective corroborating evidence or other indication of how the position [] differs 
rrom the industry-wide norm" was a reasonable conclusion. 
19 Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. 
4 
concepts and principles gained through at least a bachelor's level education or the equivalent in 
Business Administration, Supply Chain, or Engineering." The Petitioner did not explain how a degree 
from an educational institution that is unrelated to or associated with its actual business conveys such 
knowledge. In other words, the Petitioner did not explain how a degree in any of the specified fields 
provides the particularized knowledge necessary to familiarize a candidate with the specific inner 
workings of the petitioning organization. As a result, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
knowledge required to perform in the position in the petition is sufficiently different from similar 
positions that may not require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 20 
Finally, it is unclear whether the Petitioner's designation of the position at a Level III wage rate on the 
DOL Labor Condition Application is correct, when it described the position as: 
• A specialized, senior management role; 
• A seasoned supply chain professional; and 
• Designed for a seasoned and experienced, senior supply chain professional. 
However, as the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility through meeting the definition of a 
specialty occupation or through the four criteria, we will not provide detailed analysis regarding the 
correctness of its wage level designation. 
II. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner 
has not met that burden here, and the petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
20 It is permissible for USCIS to include a comparison of the position offered in a petition with other non-qualifying 
positions in general. See Royal Siam COip., 484 F.3d at 145. 
5