dismissed H-1B Case: Supply Chain Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 17409430 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 9, 2021 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-lB nonirnrnigrant classification 
for specialty occupations. 1 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 Vermont Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's 
burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a preponderance of the evidence. 2 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 3 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
According to the filing requirements for applications and petitions found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l) , 
... [ a ]n applicant or petitioner must establish that he or she is eligible for the requested 
benefit at the time of filing the benefit request and must continue to be eligible through 
adjudication. Each benefit request must be properly completed and filed with all initial 
evidence required by applicable regulations and other USCIS instructions . Any 
evidence submitted in connection with a benefit request is incorporated into and 
considered part of the request. 
The regulations require that before filing a Form 1-129, Petition for a N onimrnigrant Worker , a 
petitioner obtain a certified labor condition application (LCA) from the Department of Labor (DOL) 
in the occupational specialty in which the H-lB worker will be employed. 4 Additionally, a petitioner 
submits the LCA to the DOL to demonstrate that it will pay an H-lB worker the higher of either the 
1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) , 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). 
2 See section 291 of the Act; Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
3 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
4 See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B). 
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. 5 
Section 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) of the Act defines an H-lB nonirnrnigrant as a foreign national "who is 
corning temporarily to the United States to perform services ... in a specialty occupation described in 
section 214(i)(l) ... "(emphasis added). Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the 
term "specialty occupation" as an occupation that requires "theoretical and practical application of a 
body of highly specialized knowledge, and attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific 
specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States." The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates section 214(i)(l) of the Act but adds a 
non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) provides that the 
proffered position must meet one of four criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation position. 6 Lastly, 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(J) states that an H-IB classification may be granted to a foreign national 
who "will perform services in a specialty occupation ... " ( emphasis added). 
Accordingly, to determine whether the Beneficiary will be employed in a specialty occupation, we 
look to the record to ascertain the services the Beneficiary will perform and whether such services 
require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained 
through at least a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Without 
sufficient evidence regarding the duties the Beneficiary will perform, we are unable to determine whether 
the Beneficiary will be employed in an occupation that meets the statutory and regulatory definitions of 
a specialty occupation and is a position that also satisfies at least one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). The services the Beneficiary will perform in the position determine: (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. 7 
By regulation, the Director is charged with determining whether the petition involves a specialty 
occupation as defined in section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 8 The Director may request additional evidence 
in the course of making this determination. 9 
5 See section 212(n)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 182(n)(l )(A); 20 C.F.R. § 655.73 l(a). 
6 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must be read with the statutory and regulatory definitions of a specialty 
occupation under section 214(i)(1) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). We construe 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"). 
7 See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
8 See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(2). 
9 See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8). 
2 
TI. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the 
services the Beneficiary will perform qualify as a specialty occupation under sections 
10l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b ), 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(l), 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) and 
(iii)(A). IO 
On the Form 1-129, the Petitioner identifies itself as a bottled water company and the proffered position 
as a supply chain analyst I. On the LCA submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Logisticians" corresponding to the 
standard occupational classification (SOC) code 13-1081. 
A. Nature of Position 
The Petitioner initially provided a 14-point list of duties which offered a broad overview of the 
proffered position. In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner 
re-organized the list and identified three of the initial duties as overall categories that the Beneficiary 
would focus on. The three categories are: (1) maintaining low forecast error on each tactical 
publication for all assigned customer accounts; (2) strategic sales forecast for assigned customer 
accounts; and (3) identifying opportunities to enhance processes and drive continuous improvement 
while maintaining a high-quality forecast. The Petitioner incorporated other of the initial duties as 
falling within the parameters of the three categories, which included repeating several duties as falling 
into both of the first two categories. The Petitioner allocated the time the Beneficiary would spend on 
those duties. 11 The Petitioner stated that the duties will be performed "in furtherance of generating 
and communicating the future customer orders to enable the supply chain team to meet them 
successfully." The Petitioner further identified subtasks for each of the duties listed. 
Although lengthy, the broad description is repetitive and does not include the necessary clarifying 
information to identify the proposed occupation or the knowledge necessary to perform the duties. 
That is, the duties are so broadly described we cannot ascertain either the application of knowledge 
needed to perform the position, or the occupation and wage level required. Without a description that 
establishes the substantive nature of the position, we cannot conclude 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. 
For example, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary will spend 20 percent of his time "[e]nsur[ing] 
sales team members communicates [sic] all non-foreseeable inputs (such as promotions, ads, price 
changes, product discontinuances, and others) through forecasting software properly and on time. 
Communicate these variations down the supply chain." To accomplish this task, the Petitioner adds 
that the Beneficiary will: host biweekly meetings with the sales team to learn about customer ordering 
patterns, trends, and disruptions; encourage the sales team to communicate the latest information 
10 The Petitioner submitted documentation in the underlying record to support the H-lB petition, including evidence 
regarding the proffered position and its business operations. Although we may not discuss every document submitted, we 
have reviewed and considered each one. 
11 The Petitioner's description of duties with the time allocated totals 97%. We note that in the first listing under the third 
category the Petitioner lists two subtasks but does not identify or allocate time to a particular duty or the two subtasks. 
3 
available as early as possible; gather all market information that disrnpts demand trends (promos, price 
changes, inventory policy updates such as building or burning inventory, new item additions, etc.); 
and obtain the final sales team approval of the resultant forecast to be communicated with the supply 
planning module. We understand these tasks involve working with sales team members, sharing 
information regarding customer accounts, gathering market information, and inputting the data to 
obtain a forecast that will be shared with the "supply chain planning module." From this general 
description, however, it appears that the Beneficiary's focus will be on using and maintaining 
third-party forecasting software, monitoring the software data, and validating the data and fixing 
errors. The Petitioner does not offer probative evidence, explanations, or analysis demonstrating how 
these duties require more than certifications in the third-party technology or experience in the industry. 
Similarly, the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary will spend approximately 30 percent of his time 
collaborating with the supply chain solutions team on the automation ofrepetitive tasks, generating an 
updated demand planning forecast dashboard (using Tableau, Excel, and Demand Guru software) on 
a weekly, monthly, and yearly basis, deleting obsolete information, and updating the database with 
sales data. Again, these tasks are generally described, thus, it is not possible to discern the application 
of knowledge necessary to perform the duties. The Petitioner does not explain why using forecasting 
software, Excel, Tableau, or other software to generate reports from a database requires a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
It appears from the description of duties that the Beneficiary will support the sales team with demand 
forecasting planning both tactically and strategically and will collaborate with the supply chain 
solutions team, however, the submitted partial organizational chart does not sufficiently demonstrate 
the organizational hierarchy and the roles and teams that may interact with the Beneficiary's position. 
For example, the Petitioner claims on the Form I-129 that it employs 3000 people, but the partial 
organizational chart identifies only 12 individuals, three including the Beneficiary who are part of the 
"Demand Planning Ma ... [sic]" team, five who appear to be part of a supply chain planning team, 
three that may or may not be part of a sales and operations planning team, and the director of the 
supply chain. The Petitioner does not explain the limited information on the organizational chart and 
the Beneficiary's role within the business. And the interactions amongst teams are not obvious from 
the organizational chart. Neither the description of duties nor the organizational chart assist in 
establishing the nature of the position and level of responsibility of this position within the company. 
As described, the duties appear to require some general business knowledge and knowledge of 
forecasting software but do not include sufficient information to conclude that the Beneficiary will 
require advanced knowledge in a specialized bachelor's field of study to perform the tasks. 
Additionally, we note that the Petitioner provides such a broad description for the proposed position 
that the duties could encompass any number of occupations and could include different levels of 
responsibility. We understand there may be overlap between various occupations, however, the 
information in the record is not sufficiently detailed so that we may ascertain the substantive nature of 
the proposed position and also analyze whether the petition is supported by an LCA which corresponds 
with the petition. That is, the Petitioner has not provided a sufficiently detailed description so that we 
may determine the duties are those of a "Logistician" and further that the duties require a bachelor's 
4 
level degree in a specific discipline, or the equivalent, in order to perform them. 12 The description 
does not establish that the Beneficiary's proposed tasks 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. 
B. Opinion 
We also reviewed the opinion authored by.__ _______ __, submitted by the Petitioner, for 
assistance in determining the substantive nature of the proffered position. I I opines that the 
duties of the proffered position, as described in response to the Director's RFE, require an educational 
background in "Data Science, Industrial Engineering, Logistic Engineering, Supply Chain 
Management, or a closely related field." 13 I I offers the conclusory opinion that the proffered 
position "can only be performed by an individual holding at least the equivalent of a Bachelor's degree 
in Data Science, Industrial Engineering, Logistic Engineering, Supply Chain Management, or a closely 
related field." He does not distinguish the proffered position from other logistician positions that 
might also prepare an individual to perform the duties of the position such as a general degree in 
business, an associate's degree, or experience in lieu of an academic education, for example . 
.__ __ __,!discusses predictive analytics and data mining and asserts that these concepts are part of 
gathering market information that disrupts demand trends, using and maintaining forcasting rftware, 
and generating a Tableau dashboard, duties that are part of the proffered position. does not 
discuss that gathering market information in this instance appears to be a matter of meeting with the 
sales teams and obtaining routine data, inputting the data into forecasting software, and using that 
information to generate a dashboard from pre-selected software. That is, I I does not provide a 
foundation for his leap from the overly general duties described to duties that include, according to 
I I preparing and executing a data mining operation, making predictions, and building 
dashboards. 14 We again point out the issue with the description of proposed duties, is that the 
Petitioner's described duties do not include sufficient detail. The record does not support! l's 
apparent speculation regarding the duties the Petitioner's position actually include. 
12 We reviewed the Petitioner's table comparing 5 of the proffered position's duties to 5 of the 22 duties listed in the 
Occupational Information Network (O*NET) summary report for "Logisticians" SOC code 13-1081 at 
https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/13-1081.00 (last visited Jul. 9, 2021). Contrary to the Petitioner's claim, the 
proffered position's duties correlate to the O*NET description only generally and could easily correlate to other 
occupations. Again, there is insufficient detail regarding the proposed position to analyze and conclude that the Petitioner's 
generally described proffered position falls within the ··Logisticians" occupational code or that it requires a specific 
bachelor's degree in order to perfmm the duties. 
13 It is unclear from the totality of the opinion whyl I believes that the proffered position requires a bachelor's 
degree or background in data science. Whilel I may have been given information regarding the position that is not 
in the record (which we have not been afforded the opportunity to review), he does not offer cogent analysis explaining 
why the position requires a bachelor's degree in data science. He also does not acknowledge that his opinion differs from 
the Petitioner's requirements for the position which do not include a bachelor's degree in data science as a requirement. 
The ambiguity created byl l's opinion also undermines the probative value of the opinion and raises questions 
regarding his knowledge of the particular position in this matter. The Petitioner must resolve this ambiguity in the record 
with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
14 For example, the Petitioner notes that the Beneficiary will generate an updated Tableau dashboard and a forecast bias 
Tableau eve1y week and a Tableau dashboard every month for tactical publication. The Petitioner does not explain what 
tasks are involved in generating these dashboards but it does not appear that the Beneficiary will be required to build them. 
5 
We also note thatl I attempts to relate a data science degree requirement to the fields of 
industrial engineering, logistic engineering, and supply chain management, degrees the Petitioner 
states fulfill its academic requirement to perform the position. As noted above, it is unclear whyD 
I ladds a degree field to the Petitioner's stated minimum requirements to perform the position. 
Nevertheless Is contention that the degrees accepted by the Petitioner rely on mathematic 
principles used in analytics and thus in his opinion "holders of a bachelor's or higher Industrial 
Engineering, Logistics Engineering, Supply Chain Management, or its equivalent, are qualified for 
positions in Data Science," does not establish the proffered position is a specialty occupation. We do 
not disagree with an inference that these degrees, along with a number of other degrees in quantitative 
fields, 15 could prepare an individual to perform the duties of the position. We disagree, however, with 
any inference that a bachelor's degree in data science, industrial engineering, logistics engineering, or 
supply chain management is required in order to perform the duties of the proffered position. Put 
simply, stating that a person with a bachelor's degree in data science, industrial engineering, logistics 
engineering, or supply chain management could perform the duties of the proffered position is not the 
same as stating that such a degree is required to perform those duties. 
~--~ts opinion is not corroborated in the record and it falls short of providing a meaningful and 
probative discussion of what the Beneficiary would do in the proffered position. His opinion does not 
assist in establishing the substantive nature of the position or the minimum requirements necessary to 
perform the duties of the position. We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the 
Petitioner as advisory. 16 For the reasons discussed, the opinion lends little probative value to the matter 
here.17 We are ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an individual's 
eligibility for the benefit sought; the submission of expert opinion letters is not presumptive evidence of 
eligibility. 18 
C. Counsel's Assertions on Appeal 
The Petitioner challenges the Director's reading of the DOL's Occupational Outlook Handbook's 
(Handbook) report on "Logisticians" and asserts that the Handbook's recognition that an associate's 
degree may be sufficient should not be a disqualification. 19 The Petitioner misunderstands the 
Director's decision. The Handbook refers to three different paths to enter into the occupation of 
"Logistician," a bachelor's degree, an associate's degree, or related work experience which may 
substitute for education. When there are multiple ways to enter into an occupation, the burden is on 
15 We note that if the proffered position requires only a quantitative foundation, such a mass grouping of degree-fields is 
simply too broad to support a finding that the proffered position meets the definition of a "specialty occupation" which 
requires a precise and specific course of study that relates directly and closely to the position in question. 
16 Matter of Caron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). 
17 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. Id. 
18 Id.; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, 502 n.2 (BIA 2008) ("Expert opinion testimony, while undoubtedly a 
form of evidence, does not purport to be evidence as to 'fact' but rather is admissible only if 'it will assist the trier of fact 
to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue."'). 
19 The Petitioner also asserts that the Director's reading of the regulation is unduly restrictive when they conclude that a 
bachelor's degree cannot be the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position. We emphasize that the four 
criteria listed at 8 C.F .R. § 2 l 4.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A) must be read in concert with the regulatory and statutory definitions of specialty 
occupation at section 214(i)( 1) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). The regulatmy and statutory definitions require that 
the bachelor's degree must be in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
6 
the Petitioner to establish which path is the minimum required to perform the duties it describes. As 
discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish the nature of the particular position sufficiently to 
conclude that the position falls within the "Logistician" occupation. However, even if the position is 
a logistician position, the Petitioner's reliance on the Handbook to establish that a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty is required is misplaced. 20 
That is, the Handbook indicates that a bachelor's degree is typically required for most positions but 
does not state that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is typically required for most positions. 
Although the Handbook goes on to report that many logisticians have a bachelor's degree in business, 
systems engineering, or supply chain management, it again does not indicate that one of these degrees 
is required. 21 Even if the Handbook's report specified that the minimum requirement to perform the 
occupation is a bachelor's degree in one of these fields, that the occupation may be performed with a 
general business degree alone precludes a determination that the position involves a "body of highly 
specialized knowledge" or that it requires the attainment of a bachelor's degree in a "specific 
specialty." 22 
The Petitioner also asserts that the job duties and the sample work product demonstrate that the work 
requires understanding data mining, forecasting, dashboarding, data analytics, and supply chains. 
Again, as discussed above, the description of job duties does not convey the substantive nature of the 
position and is insufficient to illuminate the substantive application of knowledge involved or any 
particular educational requirement associated with such duties. We reviewed the work product the 
Petitioner claims were produced by the Beneficiary. The work product includes screen shots of graphs, 
dashboards, and weekly reports generated from third-party software, as well as what appears to be 
work involved in cleaning, monitoring, and updating data modules. However, the work product does 
not convey the advanced knowledge required to perform tasks that may be associated with producing 
the work product. The Petitioner has not demonstrated how the work product is produced and that 
producing the work product requires a bachelor's degree in industrial engineering, logistics 
engineering, or supply chain management rather than basic knowledge of the particular forecasting 
software. The Petitioner has not established that the proposed duties are "complex or unique" or 
"specialized and complex." 
20 Of note, we also do not so narrowly interpret the regulatory and statutory definition as excluding positions from 
qualifying as specialty occupations if they permit, as a minimum entry requirement, degrees in more than one closely 
related specialty. See section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). In general, provided the specialties are 
closely related, e.g., chemistry and biochemistry, a minimum of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty 
is recognized as satisfying the "degree in the specific specialty ( or its equivalent)" requirement of section 2 l 4(i)( l )(B) of 
the Act. In such a case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be the same. 
21 We note that the Beneficiary has a foreign degree in mechanical engineering, which has not been evaluated to be 
equivalent to U.S. degree and a U.S. master's degree in industrial engineering. Although a beneficiary's credentials to 
perfonn a particular job are relevant only when the job is found to be a specialty occupation, we question whether the 
Beneficiary in this matter would qualify by the Handbook's standards if a "Logistician" occupation indeed required a 
minimum of a bachelor's degree in business, systems engineering, or supply chain management, which again, it does not. 
22 We have consistently stated that 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 Matter of 
Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). 
7 
The Petitioner further asserts that it normally requires a degree for the position and refers to the 
professional profiles of employees on Linkedin. We reviewed the profiles of six individuals who list 
their employment with the Petitioner in the position of supply chain analyst. These individuals are not 
included on the Petitioner's limited organizational chart. It does not appear that they work on the same 
team as the Beneficiary and thus it is not evident that their duties would be substantially similar to the 
proposed duties of the proffered position. Moreover, as the record does not include a complete 
organizational chart and the Petitioner has not provided the total number of its supply chain analysts, 
we also cannot conclude that these six employees are representative of the supply chain analysts the 
Petitioner employs. 
The Petitioner has not supported its assertions with probative evidence and the record is insufficient 
to establish the nature of the proposed position and establish that the duties as generally described 
require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Upon review of the totality of the evidence submitted, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient 
substantive detail regarding the duties the Beneficiary will perform or established the minimum degree 
requirements of the occupation. Therefore, we are unable to determine the substantive nature of the work 
and whether the Beneficiary will be employed in a position that satisfies at least one of the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) and is also a position that meets the statutory and regulatory definitions of 
a specialty occupation as defined by section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l ), 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii), and (iii)(A). In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. 23 The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
23 See Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 
8