dismissed H-1B Case: Supply Chain Management

MATTER OF S-E-, INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision ofthe 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 24, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a furniture and accessories wholesaler, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"supply chain analyst" under the H-1 B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § IIOI(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The H-18 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, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner had not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation in 
accordance with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the evidence of record is sufficient that the visa petition should be approved. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal 
I. LAW 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U .S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
Matter of S-E-, Inc. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
(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 perform the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has consistently 
interpreted the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(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 proposed 
position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (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). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the H-1 B petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would serve as a "supply chain 
analyst." In a letter, dated March 24,2015, the Petitioner stated: 
In his capacity as a Supply Chain Analyst, [the Beneficiary] will be providing the 
following services to our company: 
• Analyze ·supplier performance using tools like root cause 
analysis and identify opportunities for improvement periodically. 
• Develop and make reports on supply chain key performance 
indicators on a regular basis for the management team and 
contribute to facilitating decision making using these reports. 
• Monitor inventory position for the company's products and make 
suggestions to expedite/de-expedite purchases and manage 
demand. 
2 
Matter of S-E-, Inc. 
• Interpret data on logistics elements, such as availability, 
maintainability, reliability, supply chain management, strategic 
sourcing or distribution, supplier management, or transportation. 
• Communicate to all company's global suppliers and work to 
resolve all supply chain related issues to ensure the on time 
product delivery. 
• Provide ongoing analyses in areas such as transportation costs, 
parts procurement, back orders, or delivery processes 
• Perform ad hoc analysis and reports on logistic performance 
measures for management. 
• Manage consignment program with business partners and 
replenish inventory as required. 
• Remotely monitor the flow of inventory, using Web-based 
logistics information systems to track delivery of containers of 
products. 
• Develop or maintain models for logistics uses, such as cost 
estimating or demand forecasting 
• Perform cross-functional assignments with sales, marketing, 
finance and warehouse teams. 
• Enter logistics-related data into databases using Lean 
Manufacturing and Six Sigma production processes, as well as 
using Excel, Word, Microsoft Access for reports. 
• Communicate and present to upper management effectively. 
The Petitioner also stated, "The requirement for the position is a Bachelor's degree in Supply Chain 
Management, or a related field." 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation.' 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties the Beneficiary would perform in the 
proffered position require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a 
specialty occupation.2 
1 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 8 petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position and its business op~rations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
3 
Matter ofS-E-, Inc. 
A. First Criterion 
We tum first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's 
(DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses3 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-IB petition, the Petitioner 
stated that the proffered position corresponds to SOC Code and Title 13-1081, Logisticians, from 
O*NET4 The Handbook states the following about the educational requirements of logistician 
positions: 
Logisticians may qualify for some positions with an associate's degree. However, as 
logistics becomes increasingly complex, more companies prefer to hire workers who 
have at least a bachelor's degree. Many logisticians have a bachelor's degree in 
business, systems engineering, or supply chain management. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., 
"Logisticians," http://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/logisticians.htm#tab-4 (last visited 
May 23, 2016). 
The Handbook indicates that logistician positions do not require a minimum of a bachelor's degree 
or the equivalent for entry, as it indicates that an associate's degree may suffice for some positions. 
Further, as to those logistician positions that may require a bachelor's degree, the Handbook 
indicates that an otherwise undifferentiated bachelor's degree in business administration may suffice. 
3 All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at th'e Internet site 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not, however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant 
information. That is, the occupational category designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the 
general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered position, and USCIS regularly reviews the Handbook on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. To satisfY the first criterion, however, the 
burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position 
would normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
4 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level I wage (the lowest of four assignable wage levels). We will 
consider this selection in our analysis of the position. The ''Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by 
the DOL provides a description of the wage levels. A Level I wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which 
the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the occupation. This wage rate indicates: (I) that 
the Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that he 
will be closely supervised and his work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that he will receive 
specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing 
Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://flcdatacenter.com/download/.NPWHC Guidance_Revised _I I_ 2009.pdf. A prevailing wage determination starts 
with an entry level wage and progresses to-a higher wage level after considering the experience, education, and skill 
requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. !d. 
4 
Matter of S-E-, Inc. 
A degree with a generalized title, such as business administration, without further specification, is 
not a degree in a specific specialty. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz As soc~., 19 I&N Dec. 558 (Comm'r 
1988). As such, an educational requirement that may be satisfied by an otherwise undifferentiated 
bachelor's degree in business administration is not a requirement of a minimum of a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
In the instant case, the Petitioner also cited O*NET' s inclusion of logistician positions within Job 
Zone 4 and Specific Vocational Preparation level (SVP level) 7.0 to < 8.0 as evidence that it 
qualifies as a specialty occupation position. 
A designation of Job Zone 4 indicates that a position requires considerable preparation. 5 It does not, 
however, demonstrate that a bachelor's degree in any specific specialty is required, and, therefore, 
does not demonstrate that a position so designated is in a specialty occupation as defined in section 
214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). See the O*NET OnLine Help Center, at 
www.online.onetcenter.org/ help/online/zones, for a discussion of Job Zone 4, which explains that 
this Zone signifies only that most but not all of the occupations within it require a bachelor's 
degree. Further, the Help Center's discussion confirms that Job Zone 4 does not indicate any 
requirements for particular majors or academic concentrations. Therefore, despite counsel's 
assertions to the contrary, the OWL and O*NET information is not probative of the proffered 
position qualifying as a specialty occupation. 
Similarly, the inclusion of logistician positions within SVP level 7.0 to < 8.0 does not demonstrate 
that a particular job requires the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, as a minimum for entry into the occupation. 
The following is an explanation of the various levels of specific vocational preparation: 
Level 
I 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
Time 
Short demonstration only 
Anything beyond short demonstration up to and including 1 month 
Over 1 month up to and including 3 months 
Over 3 months up to and including 6 months 
Over 6 months up to and including 1 year 
Over I year up to and including 2 years 
Over 2 years up to and including 4 years 
Over 4 years up to and including I 0 years 
Over I 0 years 
See http://www.onetonline.org/help/online/svp. 
5 For an explanation of Job Zones, see http://www.onetonline.org/help/online/zones. 
5 
Matter ojS-E-, Inc. 
Thus, an SVP rating is meant to indicate only the total number of years of vocational preparation 
required for a particular position. 6 It does not describe how those years are to be divided among 
training, formal education, and experience, and it does not specify the particular type of degree, if 
any, that a position would require. Further, the SVP level of logistician positions makes clear that a 
logistician position may require as little as two years of preparation. For both reasons, the SVP level 
of logistician positions does not indicate that such positions require a minimum of a bachelor's 
· degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent, and does not, therefore, demonstrate that they qualify 
as specialty occupation positions. 
Further, we find that, to the extent that they are described in the record of proceedings, the duties 
that the Petitioner ascribes to the proffered position indicate a need for a range of knowledge of 
shipping, but do not establish any particular level of formal, postsecondary education leading to a 
bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty as minimally necessary to attain such knowledge. 
For all of these reasons, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(l). 
B. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: '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[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
casts its gaze upon the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
I. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a 'specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by 
USCIS 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 "routinely employ 
and recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 
1999)(quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, II 02 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
Here and as already discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for 
which the Handbook (or other independent, authoritative source) reports an industry-wide 
6 For an explanation of SVP levels see http://www.onetonline.org/help/online/svp. 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-E-, Inc. 
requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Thus, we 
incorporate by reference the previous discussion on the matter. Also, there are no submissions from 
the industry's professional association indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry 
requirement. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not submit any letters or affidavits from similar firms 
or individuals in the Petitioner's industry attesting that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only 
degreed individuals." 
The Petitioner did provide vacancy announcements placed by other companies. They are for 
positiqns entitled, Supply Chain Business Analyst, Supply Chain Analyst, Sr. MPM (Manufacturing 
Process Management) Specialist, Subcontract Program Manager, and ENG Logistics Specialist II. 
Some of those vacancy announcements do not state an educational requirement. Another 
announcement suggests that the educational requirement of the positions it announces may be 
satisfied by a degree in business administration, which, as was explained above, absent additional 
specification, is not a degree in a specific specialty. Those vacancy announcements are not, 
therefore, persuasive evidence in support ofthe proposition that such positions require a minimum of 
a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
None of those vacancy announcements appears to have been placed by furniture wholesalers, which 
is the Petitioner's industry. Some were placed by a manufacturer of high-tech weaponry 
and similar electronics; a similar manufacturer; and a craft store 
chain. Another was placed by a recruiting company and does not specify the industry the position 
advertised is in. As none of the jobs discussed in the vacancy announcements have been shown to 
be within the Petitioner's industry, they are not directly relevant to whether the Petitipner can satisfy 
the first alternative prong of 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)(2). 
Further, the Petitioner has designated the proffered position a wage Level I position which, as was 
explained above, is an entry-level position relative to others in the occupational category. The 
position designated ENG Logistics Specialist II, by virtue of the suffix "II," is unlikely to be an 
entry-level position. As such, it is unlikely to be a position parallel to the proffered position, and has 
not been shown to be relevant to the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
Some of the vacancy announcements state a requirement of a considerable amount of specific 
experience, which suggests that the positions they discuss are also not analogous to wage Level I 
positions and are not, therefore, directly relevant to whether the Petitioner has satisfied this criterion. 
In order to attempt to show that parallel positions require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty or its equivalent, the Petitioner would be obliged to demonstrate that other wage 
Level I logistician positions, entry-level positions requiring only a basic understanding of the duties 
of a logistician position, require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its 
equivalent, the proposition of which is not supported by the Handbook. 
Finally, even if all of the vacancy announcements were for parallel positions with organizations 
similar to the Petitioner and in the Petitioner's industry and unequivocally required a minimum of a 
7 
(b)(6)
Matter ofS-E-, Inc. 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent, the Petitioner has not demonstrated what 
statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from the few announcements provided with regard 
to the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. 7 
The Petitioner also submitted two evaluations of the proffered position. of 
the Department of Business Management of 
prepared the first evaluation. It states that "Based on the [Petitioner's] operations," the proffered 
position requires, "the level of knowledge and analytical capability that would only reliably have 
been gained via bachelor's study in Supply Chain Management or a related field." 
of the 
prepared the second position evaluation. She stated that the proffered position requires a 
degree with the coursework appropriate to the performance of the duties listed by the Petitioner, 
which could include a bachelor's degree in supply chain management, industrial engineering, or 
process engmeenng. 
We reviewed those letters in their entirety. However, as discussed below, neither persuades us that 
the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
One of the evaluators based his evaluation on the duties listed in the Petitioner's March 24, 2015, 
letter. The other is based on a substantially similar set of duties. However, the record contains no 
indication that either evaluator possesses any knowledge of the Petitioner 's proffered position 
beyond those brief duty descriptions. For example, they did not discuss the duties of the proffered 
position in any substantive detail, but simply relied on the same generalized, bullet-pointed list of 
duties contained in the Petitioner's letter. Further, although one provided a brief description of the 
Petitioner's business ("Texas-based home furnishing wholesaler"), and stated that his opinion is 
"Based on the operations of the company," neither demonstrates or asserts in-depth knowledge of 
the specific business operations or how the duties of the position would actually be performed in the 
context of the Petitioner's specific business enterprise. For instance, there is no evidence that either 
evaluator visited the Petitioner's business, observed the Petitioner's employees, interviewed them 
about the nature of their work, or documented the knowledge that they apply on the job. 
The evaluators assert a general industry educational standard for logistician positions without 
referencing any supporting authority or any empirical basis for the pronouncement. Likewise, they 
do not provide a substantive, analytical basis for their opinions and conclusions. They do not relate 
their conclusions to specific, concrete aspects of the Petitioner's business operations to demonstrate 
7 users "must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true." Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 3 76 (AAO 201 0). As just discussed, the Petitioner has not established the relevance of the 
job advertisements submitted to the position proffered in this case. Even if their relevance had been established, the 
Petitioner still would not have demonstrated what inferences, if any, can be drawn from these few job postings with 
regard to determining the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations in 
the same industry. See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 ( 1995)~ 
8 
Matter of S-E-, Inc. 
a sound factual basis for their conclusions about the educational requirements for the particular 
position here at issue. Accordingly, the very fact that they attribute a degree requirement to such a 
generalized treatment of the proffered position undermines the credibility of their opinions. 
Furthermore, there is no indication that the Petitioner advised the evaluators that the Petitioner 
characterized the proffered position as a low, entry-level logistician manager position, for a 
beginning employee who has only a basic understanding of the occupation (as indicated by the 
wage-level on the LCA) relative to other positions within the occupational category. It appears that 
the evaluators would have found this information relevant to their analyses. Moreover, without this 
information, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the evaluators possessed the requisite 
information necessary to adequately assess the nature of the Petitioner's position and appropriately 
determine parallel positions based upon job duties and responsibilities. We therefore consider this a 
significant omission. 
In summary, and for each and all of the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the opinion letters 
provided do not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The 
conclusions reached by the evaluators are not supported by independent, objective evidence 
demonstrating the manner in which they reached such conclusions. There is an inadequate factual 
foundation established to support the opinion and we find that the opinions are not in accord with 
other information in the record. As such, neither the evaluators' findings nor their conclusions are 
worthy of any deference, and their 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 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 1988). As a reasonable exercise of our discretion we discount the 
advisory opinion letters as not probative of any criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). For 
efficiency's sake, we hereby incorporate the above discussion and analysis regarding the opinion 
letter into each of the bases in this decision for dismissing the appeal. 
For all of the reasons above, the evidence of record does not establish that a requirement of a 
bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to parallel positions 
with organizations that are in the Petitioner's industry and otherwise similar to the Petitioner. The 
Petitioner has not, therefore, satisfied the criterion of the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
9 
Matter of S-E-, Inc. 
A review of the record of proceedings finds that the Petitioner has not credibly demonstrated that the 
duties the Beneficiary will be responsible for or perform on a day-to-day basis constitute a position 
so complex or unique that only a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent can perform it. Even when considering the Petitioner's descriptions of the proffered 
position's duties, the evidence of record does not establish why a few related courses or industry 
experience alone is insufficient preparation for the proffered position. While a few related courses 
may be beneficial, or even required, in performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner has 
not demonstrated how an established curriculum of such courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the duties of the proffered 
position. The description of the duties does not specifically identify any tasks that are so complex or 
unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them: The record lacks sufficiently 
detailed information to distinguish the proffered position as more complex or unique from other 
positions that can be performed by persons without at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. 
This is further evidenced by the LCA submitted by the Petitioner in support of the instant 
petition. As noted above, the Petitioner attested on the submitted LCA that the wage level for the 
proffered position is a Level I (entry-level) wage. Such a wage level is for a position which only 
requires a basic understanding of the occupation; the performance of routine tasks that require 
limited, if any, exercise of judgment; close supervision and work closely monitored and reviewed for 
accuracy; and the receipt of specific instructions on required tasks and expected results, is contrary 
to a position that requires the performance of complex duties8 It is, instead, a position for an 
employee who has only basic understanding of the occupation. 
Therefore, the evidence of record does not establish that this position is significantly different from 
other positions in the occupation such that it refutes the Handbook's information to the effect that 
there is a spectrum of degrees acceptable for such positions, including degrees that are less than a 
bachelor's degree. In other words, the record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish 
the proffered position as unique from or more complex than positions that can be performed by 
persons without at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. As the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate how the proffered position is so complex or unique relative to other 
positions within the same occupational category that do not require at least a baccalaureate degree in 
a specific specialty or its equivalent for entry into the occupation in the United States, it cannot be 
8 The issue here is that the Petitioner's designation of this position as a Levell, entry-level position undermines its claim 
that the position is particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same 
occupation. Nevertheless, it is important to note that a Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position 
from classification as a specialty occupation. In certain occupations (doctors or lawyers, for example), an entry-level 
position would still· require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for 
entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not retlect that an occupation qualifies as a specialty 
occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. That is, a position's wage level designation may be a consideration but is not a substitute for 
a determination of whether a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter ofS-E-, Inc. 
concluded that the Petitioner has satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 
In the instant case, the Petitioner identified two people, and whom it says 
have worked in the proffered position, and provided resumes that show that they have bachelor's 
degrees. The Petitioner did not provide transcripts, diplomas, or any other evidence to corroborate 
the assertions on those resumes. 
Absent supporting documentation a curriculum vitae is not sufficient to meet the petitioner's burden 
of proof. The resumes of and represent claims made by and 
rather than evidence to support their claims, and the record of proceeding lacks 
documentary evidence to establish or corroborate the claims regarding the education and 
professional experience made in their resumes. Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter 
of So.ffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm 'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
Further, the Petitioner, which has 59 employees and was established in did not indicate 
whether and are the only people to have held the proffered position, or the 
only people to have held it recently. As such, even if the. evidence were sufficient to show that 
and have the claimed degrees, the evidence would still be insufficient to show 
that the Petitioner normally requires a bachelor's degree for the proffered position. 
Further, the Petitioner provided an organizational chart that shows that one of those employees, 
supervises the Beneficiary and another inventory coordinator. Since the Petitioner has 
designated the proffered position a wage Level I position, an entry-level position for an employee 
with only a basic understanding of the occupation, to perform routine tasks under close supervision, 
it is unlikely to be a supervisory position.· Therefore, evidence pertinent to the educational 
requirement the Petitioner places on the Beneficiary's supervisor is not directly relevant to this 
criterion, as he does not, and apparently will not, hold the same position.
9 
For all of these reasons, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion · at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(J). 
9 If the Petitioner does plan to elevate the Beneficiary to a supervisory role, this would raise the issue of whether the 
petition is supported by a corresponding LCA, which was certified for an entry-level position in which the employee 
needs only a basic understanding of the occupation, will perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of 
judgment, and will himself work under close supervision. 
II 
Matter C!fS-E-, Inc. 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner 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. 
In the instant case, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by 
the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. We again refer to our earlier comments and 
findings with regard to the implication of the Petitioner's designation of the proffered position in the 
LCA as a Level I (the lowest of four assignable levels) wage. That is, the Level I wage designation 
is indicative of a low, entry-level position relative to others within the occupational category, and 
hence one not likely distinguishable by relatively specialized and complex duties. Upon review of 
the totality of the record, the Petitioner has not established that the nature of the specific duties is 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 also incorporate our earlier discussion and analysis regarding the duties of the proffered position, 
and the designation of the position in the LCA as a Level I position (the lowest of four assignable 
wage-levels) relative to others within the same occupational category. The Petitioner has not 
demonstrated in the record that its proffered position is one with duties sufficiently specialized and 
complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied any one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has 
not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The burden is on the 
Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 l&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofS-E-, Inc., ID# 17058 (AAO May 24, 2016) 
12