dismissed H-1B Case: Supply Chain Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF H-S-H-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 28,2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an acute care hospital, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "supply chain 
analyst" under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-1B 
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 Califomia'Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the proffered position 
is not a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Director erred in denying the 
petition. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
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 specializea 
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. 
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: 
Matter of H-S-H-
(I) 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; 
(J) 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). We have consistently interpreted the term "degree" 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 3 84, 3 87 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the H-IB petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a supply chain analyst. 
In a statement submitted in support of the petition, the Petitioner provided the following job duties 
for the position: 
• Assist in the purchasing of Medical and Surgical supplies and equipment for 
all departments ofthe hospital; 
• Work cooperatively with department managers in the selection, pricing and 
purchase of appropriate supplies and equipment; / 
• Work creatively to explore new, cost effective sources for supplies and 
equipment; 
• Use group purchasing contracts when possible, will obtain the supplies and 
equipment at the lowest overall cost to the hospital; 
• Be an active part of the Materials Management Committee[;] 
• Knowledgeable in the operation of the department computer system, order 
processing and back order follow-up in the non-stock areas; 
• Work with the manager of Purchasing and department managers to encourage 
product standardization; 
• Become knowledgeable of the stock and non-stock ordering and the receiving 
and storeroom functions to provide support in these areas, as needed; 
• Provide input for the performance evaluations of department employees; 
2 
Matter of H-S-H-
• Order all storeroom supplies on a periodic basis to ensure sufficient stock and 
plan proper stock organization; 
• Responsible for developing daily orders of routine General Store supplies; 
• Review and evaluate appropriate vendor selections for "stock" and "non-
stock" Purchasing; 
• Interact with sales representative in product evaluation and selection; 
• Ensure use of Contract Agreements, also updates manuals as needed; 
• Maintain purchasing document files within General Stores to ensure a smooth 
and timely processing of daily ordering; , 
• Interact with departmental managers and other hospital personnel regarding 
backorders, vendor selections, product specifications, etc.; 
• Assist with daily receipts and issue as needed; 
• Knowledge of the McKesson automated inventory system in all factors of its 
utilization and application[;] 
• Perform other job related duties as assigned. 
The Petitioner submitted an expanded description of these duties in response to the Director's 
request for additional evidence (RFE), which included the percentages of time the Beneficiary would 
devote to each of the duties. 
According to the Petitioner, the position requires at least a bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent in 
supply chain management, engineering management, industrial engineering, or a related field. 
III. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons set out below, we determine that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 1 Specifically, the record does not establish 
that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a 
specialty occupation.2 
A. First Criterion 
We turn 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 addresses? 
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 evidenc'e regarding the proffered 
position and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
3 
All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
3 
Matter of H-S-H-
On the labor condition application (LCA)4 submitted in support of the H-1B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Logisticians" corresponding to 
the Standard Occupational Classification code 13-1081.5 We reviewed the subchapter of the 
Handbook entitled "How to Become a Logistician." Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, 
Occupational Outlook Handbook, Logisticians (20 16-17 ed. ). 
Though the Handbook states that more companies prefer to hire workers with at least a bachelor's 
degree as logistics becomes increasingly complex, it does not indicate that it requires a bachelor's 
degree. In fact, the Handbook specifically states that logisticians may qualify for some positions 
with an associate's degree. As the proffered position is an entry-level position with the Level I 
characteristics outlined above, the Handbook does not support a finding that a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty is the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. 
Further, the Handbook also states that a bachelor's degree in "business" is acceptable for this position. 
While a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business, 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. See Royal Siam Corp., 
484 F.3d at 147. As noted, we interpret the degree requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to 
require a degree in a specific specialty (or its equivalent) that is directly related to the proposed position. 
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 further specification, does not 
establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558 
(Comm'r 1988). Therefore, the Handbook's recognition that a general, non-specialty "background" in 
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 we regularly review the Handbook on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. To satisfY the first criterion, howeyer, 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 is required to submit a certified LCA 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 experience and qualifications who are performing the same services. See 
Matter ofSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 545-46 (AAO 20 15). 
5 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 ofthe occupation. This wage rate indicates: (1) that 
the Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that she 
will be closely supervised and her work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that she 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://tlcdatacenter.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 H-S-H-
business may be sufficient for entry into the occupation suggests that a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty is not normally the minimum entry requirement for this occupation. 
For all of these reasons, the Handbook is insufficient to establish that the proffered position qualifies as 
a specialty occupation. 
We have reviewed the Petitioner's reference to O*NET OnLine's (O*NET) assignment of a Job Zone 
''Four" rating to the logisticians occupation, which groups it among occupations for which "most ... 
require a four-year bachelor's degree, but some do not." O*NET OnLine Summary Report for 
"13-1081.00 - Logisticians," https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/13-1081.00 (last visited Apr. 
26, 2017). It is therefore not clear that a bachelor's degree is even required, which is consistent with 
the Handbook. Further, as indicated above a requirement for a bachelor's degree alone is not 
sufficient. Instead, we have consistently interpreted the term "degree" 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., 484 F.3d at 147; Defensor , 201 F.3d at 387. O*NET does not 
indicate that when a four-year bachelor''s degree is required, that it must be in a specific specialty 
directly related to the occupation, or the equivalent. Further, the summary report provides the 
educational requirements of "respondents ," but does not account for 100% of the "respondents ." 
The respondents' positions within the occupation are not distinguished by career level (e.g., entry­
level, mid-level, senior-level). 
The Petitioner also points to the DOL's classification oflogistician positions at a Specific Vocational 
Preparation (SVP) rating of 7<8. However, an SVP rating of 7 to less than( "<") 8 indicates that the 
occupation requires "over 2 years up to and including 4 years" of training. While the SVP rating 
indicates the total number of years of vocational preparation required for a particular position, it is 
important to note that 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.6 For all these reasons, O*NET does not establish the proffered position as a 
specialty occupation. 
Nor is the letter from associate dean of academic affairs at 
sufficient to meet the Petitioner's burden. As does 
not discuss the Petjtioner's business operation in any meaningful detail, he does not discuss the 
duties of the proffered position as they would be performed within the context of that operation . 
With regard to those duties, we observe that his consideration of the position's responsibilities does 
not go significantly beyond the bullet-points listed in the Petitioner's RFE response. Further, when 
he does go beyond those bullet-points, he does not support his conclusions with 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. For example, 
states that the proffered duties "are not those of a lower-level employee performing 
6 For more information about SVP ratings, see O*NET Online Help Specific Vocational Preparation (SVP) , 
https://www.onetonline .org/help /online/svp (last visited Apr. 26, 20 17). 
5 
.
Matter of H-S-H-
tasks such as those duties performed by an Administrative Assistant or Stock Room Employee but 
rather those of a professional employee with a strong background in logistics and industrial 
engineering concepts 
and principles and a great deal of responsibility within the company." But he 
does not relate his conclusions to specific, concrete aspects of this Petitioner's business operations to 
demonstrate a sound factual basis for his conclusions. 
In particular, does not indicate that he considered, or was even aware of, the fact that the 
Petitioner submitted an LCA certified for an entry-level position with the Level I characteristics 
outlined above, which undermines assessment of the position's "great level of 
responsibility within the company." 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 professor's ultimate 
conclusion as to the educational requirements of the position upon which he opines. 
Considered collectively, we find that these shortcomings indicate an incomplete review of the 
pos1t10n. 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 ln(l, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988). As a reasonable exercise of our discretion, we 
discount his advisory opinion letter as not probative of any criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). Consistent with Caron Int 'l, we find that this evaluation does not satisfy 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l) and, for the sake of efficiency, hereby incorporate this finding into 
our analysis of the remaining three specialty-occupation criteria. 
The Petitioner has not established that the proffered position falls under an occupational category for 
which the Handbook, or other authoritative source, indicates that normally the minimum requirement 
for entry is at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Moreover, the 
Petitioner has not provided documentation from another probative source to substantiate its assertion 
regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. The record lacks sufficient 
evidence to support a finding that the particular position proffered here, an entry-level position located 
within the logisticians occupational category (as indicated on the LCA), would normally have such a 
minimum, specialty degree requirement or its equivalent. The duties and requirements of the position 
as described in the record· of proceeding do not indicate that this particular position proffered by the 
Petitioner is one for which a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is 
normally the minimum requirement for entry. 
Thus, 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· 
.
Matter of H-S-H-
casts its gaze upon the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
1. 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 
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, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
Here, and as already discussed, the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position is one 
for which the Handbook (or other independent, authoritative sources) reports an industry-wide 
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. In addition, there are no submissions 
from the industry's professional association indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry 
requirement. ' 
In support of its assertion that the degree requirement is common to the Petitioner's industry in 
parallel positions among similar organizations, the Petitioner submitted copies of five advertisements 
for various supply chain analyst positions in medical centers across the country. We note, however, 
that none of these postings require a bachelor's degree in supply chain management, engineering 
management, or industrial engineering. In fact, two of the postings, by 
and simply require a bachelor's degree, without further specification. 
The remaining three postings all indicate that varying degrees, including degrees in business, are 
acceptable prerequisites for entry into the position. Again, 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 
administration, without further specification, does not establish the position as a specialty 
occupation. Cf Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. at 560. None of the postings submitted 
demonstrate that a degree in a specific specialty is routinely required for parallel positions among 
similar organizations. 
Moreover, many of the advertisements do not appear to involve parallel positions. For example, the 
position advertised by is for a "Senior Supply Chain Management 
Analyst," requiring at least 
two to three years of experience in data and financial reporting. The 
"Supply Chain Data Analyst" position posted by requires at least four 
Matter of H-S-H-
years of experience in data analytics in a healthcare setting. Again, given the Petitioner's 
designation of the proffered position as a Level I, entry-level position, it appears that these postings 
are for more senior positions than the proffered position. The Petitioner has not sufficiently 
established that the primary duties and responsibilities of the advertised positions parallel those of 
the proffered position. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not 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. 
We find that the evidence of record does not distinguish the proffered position as unique from or 
more complex than other supply chain analyst positions that can be performed by persons without at 
least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
For example, the evidence of record does not credibly demonstrate relative complexity or uniqueness as 
aspects of the proffered position. Specifically, it is unclear how the proffered position, as described, 
necessitates the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge such that 
a person who has attained a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent is 
required to perform them. Rather, we find that, as reflected in this decision's earlier quotation of the 
duty description from the record of proceeding, the evidence of record does not distinguish the 
proffered position from other positions falling within the "Logisticians" occupational category, 
which, the Handbook indicates, do not necessarily require a person with at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty or its equivalent to enter those positions. 
To begin with, while the Petitioner claims that the position involves "assist[ing] in the purchasing of 
Medical and Surgical supplies and equipment for all departments of the hospital," the Petitioner does 
not demonstrate how the supply chain analyst's duties described require the theoretical and practical 
· application of a body of highly specialized knowledge such that a bachelor's or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform them. Moreover, although the Petitioner 
asserts that the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in supply chain management, 
engineering management, industrial engineering, or a related field, the record does not include 
sufficient information relevant to a detailed course of study leading to a specialty degree, nor has the 
Petitioner established how such a curriculum is necessary to perform the duties it claims are so 
complex. While a few related courses may be beneficial 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 ofthe proffered position. 
8 
.
Matter of H-S-H-
The Petitioner's numerous assertions regarding the complexity of the proffered position are 
acknowledged, and we have similarly considered claims regarding the Beneficiary's 
"great level of responsibility within the company." However, its Level I wage designation undercuts 
the claim that it satisfies this criterion. 7 In other words, if typical positions located within the 
occupational category do not require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, 
then it is unclear how a position with the Level I characteristics described above would, regardless of 
the Petitioner's assertions. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position, and references her 
qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education 
or experience of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. " 
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. Consequently, as the Petitioner does not demonstrate 
how the proffered position is so complex or unique relative to other positions located within the 
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 concluded that the 
petitioner has satisfied the second alternative prong of8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.P.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 response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted copies of educational credentials, pay 
stubs, and job applications for two employees it claims also held the position of supply chain analyst. 
The Petitioner, however, did not submit any evidence pertaining to its previous employees' duties, 
such as position descriptions or resumes reflecting their titles and the duties they performed for the 
Petitioner during their employment. Moreover, it appears that these individuals possessed degrees in 
hospitality management and business administration, and not in the fields (supply chain 
management, engineering management, and industrial engineering) it currently deems a prerequisite 
for such a position within its company. As such, we cannot determine that the previous employees 
7 
The Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its claim that the position is 
particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. Nevertheless, a 
Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty occupation, just as a 
Level IV wage-designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain occupations (e.g., doctors or 
lawyers), a Level I, entry-level position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
. its equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation qualifies 
as a specialty occupation ifthat higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. That is, a position's wage-level designation may be a relevant factor but is not 
itself conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)( I) of the Act. 
9 
.
Matter of H-S-H-
had a bachelor's degree in supply chain management or a related field, or that they were employed in 
the same or similar position to the proffered position such that we can conclude that the Petitioner 
normally requires a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for this position. 
Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 8 
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. 
The Petitioner asserts that the job duties of the proffered position are specialized and complex. We 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 wage, and hence one not likely distinguishable by relatively 
specialized and complex duties. We also refer to our previous discussion of op1mon 
letter, where he claims the Beneficiary's position has a "great level of responsibility within the 
company" and that the nature of his responsibilities is "so specialized and complex." Again, given 
the Petitioner's designation of the proffered position as a Level I, entry-level position, we question 
the evaluator's factual basis for these conclusions as well as the educational requirements of the 
position upon which he opines. 
We have also reviewed the Petitioner's description of duties for the proffered position. While we 
understand that the Beneficiary must have technical knowledge in order to perform these duties, the 
Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how these duties require the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the 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 .. 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). 
8 
While a petitioner may believe or otherwise assert that a proffered position requires a degree in a specific specialty, that 
opinion alone without corroborating evidence cannot establish the position as a specialty occupation. 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, 20 I F. 3d at 387. In other words, if a petitioner's degree 
requirement is only symbolic and the proffered position does not in fact require such a specialty degree, or its equivalent, 
to perform its duties, the occupation 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 "specialty occupation"). 
10 
Matter of H-S-H-
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
ORDER:· The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of H-S-H-, ID# 329432 (AAO Apr. 28, 2017) 
II