dismissed H-1B Case: Supply Chain Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10556600 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-1B) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 01, 2020 
The Petitioner, a manufacturer and supplier of home and garden products, seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary as an "inventory analyst" under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations.1 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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 2 
We review the questions in this matter de novo.3 Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Act defines an H-1B nonimmigrant as a foreign national "who is 
coming temporarily to the United States to perform services ... in a specialty occupation described in 
section 214(i)(l) ... "(emphasis added). Section 214(i)(I) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(I), 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)(I) 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.4 Lastly, 
1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
2 See Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
3 See Matter of Christa's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
4 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)(l) 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"). 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(1) states that an H-1B 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 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. 5 
By regulation, the Director is charged with determining whether the petition involves a specialty 
occupation as defined in section 214(i)(1) of the Act. 6 The Director may request additional evidence 
in the course of making this determination. 7 In addition, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the 
time of filing the petition and must continue to be eligible through adjudication.8 
II. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently established 
the services in a specialty occupation that the Beneficiary would perform during the requested period 
of employment, which precludes a determination of whether the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation under sections 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 214(i)(1) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(1), 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) and (iii)(A). 9 Specifically, the record (1) does not 
describe the position's duties with sufficient substantive detail; and (2) has inconsistencies that 
undermine the Petitioner's claims regarding the proffered position. 
The Petitioner describes itself asl ~ home and garden 
products .... ! ----------~------~----___.I It was established in 
1989 and currently has more than 74 employees. 
5 See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
6 See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(2). 
7 See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8). 
8 See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). 
9 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-18 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. 
2 
The Petitioner identifies the proffered position as an "inventory analyst." It states the proffered 
position is a new one for the company and describes the duties as follows: 
Analyze supply chain processes to streamline activities and improve efficiency (25%) 
I Map supply chain Process flow charts 
I Find opportunities to improve the efficiencies in current supply chain and 
inventory processes 
Maximize economy by combining shipments or consolidating warehousing and 
distribution (10%) 
I Work with Merchandising Manager and vendors on shipment arrangements to 
strategically improve purchasing, materials, and inventory planning 
Analyze inventory statistics and manage strategic purchasing, material planning, and 
warehousing (20%) 
I Define and analyze performance metrics to identify areas for supply chain 
improvement 
I Analyze distribution needs and coordinate purchasing to maximize efficiencies 
by combining shipments, etc. 
Conduct demand forecasting to limit costs (15%) 
I Gather data and set up forecasting model to predict purchasing demand, product 
cost, and material needs 
I Maintain and improve demand forecasting on a monthly bas[is] 
Design and maintain reports for supply chain factors such as product cost and 
quality (30%) 
I Solve product cost and quality control issues 
I Work with vendors on quality issues and improvements 
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient information to discern whether the proffered position requires 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained through at 
least a baccalaureate degree in a specific discipline. Most of the Beneficiary's time will be spent 
analyzing supply chain processes or inventory statistics. The Petitioner does not provide, for example, 
context for the type of analysis performed, or what volume of product or inventory is involved for the 
Petitioner, who self-describes itself on appeal as a "small, product manufacturing company whose 
supply chain needs do not vary or change greatly." In response to the Director's request for evidence 
(RFE), the Petitioner provides a chart, which describes the knowledge, skills, and tools used to perform 
the proffered position's duties. Under the proffered position's analytical duties, the chart lists, i.e. 
"project management," and "supply chain analytics," without further explanation for how these 
courses, or concepts would be used in performing the duties. As another example, the Petitioner states 
the Beneficiary will design and maintain reports on product cost and quality, but does not explain, for 
example, the level of complexity of these reports, how these reports are used to solve product cost and 
quality issues and why their creation requires specialized knowledge. The chart lists "project 
management" and "strategic quality management" as necessary to perform this duty, again without 
additional explanation or analysis.10 The remaining duties similarly lack enough substantive detail for 
10 The record contains two letters of support by the Petitioner, however, substantive details on the position were not 
provided. For example, the Petitioner states the Beneficiary "will be required to rely on numerous complex business and 
3 
us to ascertain whether at least a bachelor's degree in a specific discipline would be necessary to 
perform the duties. 
Moreover, the record is also unclear on the role the proffered position has within the overall structure 
of the company. An organizational chart or description of the company's structure was not provided 
and we are unable to determine the level of responsibility ascribed to the proffered position. For 
example, the Petitioner designated the proffered position on the labor condition application (LCA) as 
a standard occupation classification (SOC) code 11-9199 "Managers, All Other" occupation, at a Level 
I (entry level) wage.11 In a letter submitted in support, the Petitioner clarifies the proffered position is 
classified as SOC code 11-9199.04 "Supply Chain Managers," a subcategory under "Manager, All 
Others."12 However, the proffered positions' duties appear more supportive than managerial when 
compared to "Supply Chain Managers." For example, a supply chain manager "[m]anages activities 
related to strategic or tactical purchasing ... controlling inventory, warehousing, or receiving,"13 while 
the Beneficiary would be "work[ing] with [a] Merchandising Manager ... to strategically improve 
purchasing, ... and inventory planning." (emphasis added). Similarly, a supply chain manager 
"[n]egotiate[s] prices and terms with suppliers, [and] vendors ... " and "[m]onitor[s] suppliers' 
activities to assess performance in meeting quality or delivery requirements,"14 while the Beneficiary 
would be "[w]ork[ing] with vendors on quality issues and improvements." (emphasis added). In 
addition, supply chain managers direct or coordinate financial forecasting services, while the 
Beneficiary will be "[g]ather[ing] data and set[ting] up forecasting model[s]" indicating a more 
supply chain concepts, including Operations Strategy, Quality Management ... Enterprise Resource Planning, Inventory 
Management, etc." However, merely listing these concepts, without more, does not explain their relevance to the job 
duties or specify the necessary knowledge and skills they impart to perform the position's tasks. 
11 On appeal, the Petitioner asserts "AAO case law confirms" the Director erred by conclusively determining that the 
proffered position was not a specialty occupation because it has a Level I wage-designation. However, in general, a 
petitioner must distinguish its proffered position from others within the same occupation through the proper wage level 
designation to indicate factors such as the relative complexity of the job duties, the level of judgment, the amount and level 
of supervision, and the level of understanding required to perform the job duties. See 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_11_2009.pdf. 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 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 relevant factor but is not itself conclusive evidence that 
a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)(l) of the Act. A review of the record establishes that the 
Director weighed several factors in her decision and did not come to her specialty occupation determination based solely 
on the Petitioner's Level I Wage designation on the LCA. 
12 The Petitioner relies on the Occupational Information Network (O*NET)'s occupational description to support the 
specialized nature of the proffered position. More specifically, the Petitioner submits O*NET's "Education" chart for 
"supply chain managers," depicting 96% of employers requiring at least a bachelor's degree. See O*NET Online 
Summary Report for "11-9199.04 - Supply Chain Managers," https://www.onetonline.org/Archive_ONET­
SOC_2010_ Taxonomy_09_2020/link/summary/11-9199.04 (last visited Dec. 01, 2020). While O*NET, which provides 
general information regarding the occupation, acknowledges that "most of these occupations require a four-year bachelor's 
degree," it does not demonstrate that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent is required. Id. 
The Petitioner does not provide another authoritative source for the occupation's educational requirements and therefore 
has not established that supply chain managers are categorically a specialty occupation. 
13 Id. 
14 Id. 
4 
hands-on role, rather than managing. Overall, supply chain managers evaluate, implement, develop, 
and monitor individuals, activities, and processes, 15 which are managerial descriptors not found in the 
proffered position's job duties. The Petitioner does not address these inconsistencies, which raises 
questions whether the LCA corresponds to the proffered position's duties and the substantive nature 
of the proffered position.16 
The Petitioner creates further ambiguity by asserting that the proffered position "overlaps in several 
key areas" to "Operations Research Analysts," SOC 15-2031. The Petitioner refers to the U.S. 
Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook's (Handbook) summary description 
and asserts "Operations Research Analysts" are similar because they "help managers decide how to 
allocate resources, develop production schedules, manage the supply chain, and set prices." 17 In 
response to the RFE, the Petitioner provides little analysis regarding this assertion, stating both 
"operations research analysts" and the proffered position "use advanced analytical methods to help 
organizations analyze and solve problems (including problems related to the company's supply chain) 
and make and implement recommendations to improve the company's processes." To the extent the 
proffered position's duties fall under more than one occupational category, the Petitioner must choose 
the relevant occupational code for the highest paying occupation, 18 which is not "Supply Chain 
Managers." While we need not determine which occupational category best applies to the proffered 
position, in addition to "Operations Research Analysts" we also note similarities between the duties 
and those of, for example, "Logistics Analysts," SOC 13-1081.02.19 The lack of a detailed description 
15 See Id. 
16 See Section 212(n)(1) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(a). 
17 We first observe that even if the proffered position includes some duties of an "Operations Research Analysts" 
occupation, such an occupation is not categorically a specialty occupation. To inform this inquiry, we consider the 
information contained in the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that 
it addresses. The subchapter of the Handbook titled "How to Become an Operations Research Analyst" states, in relevant 
part, that while "some schools offer bachelor's and advanced degree programs in operations research, some analysts have 
degrees in other technical or quantitative fields, such as engineering, computer science, analytics, or mathematics." Bureau 
of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Operations Research Analysts, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/math/operations-research-analysts.htm (last visited Dec. 1, 2020). The Handbook also indicates 
that courses in various fields such as engineering, mathematics, computer science, economics, and political science are 
useful because "operations research is a multidisciplinary field with a wide variety of applications." Id. While the 
Handbook indicates that a bachelor's or higher degree is required, by recognizing this occupation as multidisciplinary, the 
Handbook also strongly indicates that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is not a normal, minimum entry 
requirement for this occupation. Of note, we do not maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant 
information. The burden of proof remains on the Petitioner, who has not guided us to another source to support its assertion 
that the "Operations Research Analysts" occupation categorically is a specialty occupation and has not submitted sufficient 
evidence to support a finding that its particular position would normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, 
or its equivalent, for entry. 
18 See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. 
Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009); http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHCGuidance_Revised_11_2009.pdf. 
19 Logistics Analysts "analyze product delivery or supply chain processes to identify or recommend changes." See O*NET 
Online Summary Report for "13-1081.02 - Logistics Analysts," https://www.onetonline.org/Archive_ONET­
SOC_2010_ Taxonomy_09_2020/link/summary/13-1081.02 (last visited Dec. 1, 2020). At the time the Petitioner's LCA 
was certified, the Level I prevailing wage in the area of intended employment for "Logistics Analysts" was $25.03 per 
hour, and $28.63 for "Operations Research Analysts," which are higher than the prevailing wage for "Supply Chain 
Managers," which was $23.11 per hour. See https://flcdatacenter.com/OESWizardStart.aspx. Such a wage disparity 
highlights the difference between the "Supply Chain Managers" and "Operations Research Analysts" or "Logistics 
Analysts" occupational categories generally, and more specific to this case, the significance of the Petitioner's choice of 
the lower paying occupational category. 
5 
of the proposed duties demonstrating the actual nature of the position precludes a conclusion that the 
position is a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, further analysis is not provided but the Petitioner declares an "operations research analyst" 
would be subordinate to the proffered position: 
[T]he job duties of the Position Offered correspond closely with several of the same 
job duties listed in the OOH summary for the position of "Operations Research 
Analyst," such that a reasonable inference can be drawn that if an operations analyst 
assisting a manager with a company's supply chain functions must require a degree in 
a specific field, then certainly the supply chain manager overseeing that process must 
also possess at least a bachelor's degree in a specific field. 
The Petitioner also provides an opinion letter byl I PhD, Associate Professor of Industrial 
~ering atl I University, to support its position is a specialty occupation. Professor 
L__Jdoes not identify the proffered position's occupational category in her analysis but refers to it 
as an "operations management professional." I I also uses phrases such as, "when an 
organization decides to implement operations research to economize its processes," and "this 
workflow captures the essence of operations research and analysis." .__ ____ ___.'s analysis 
therefore raises issue with whether she was fully informed on the occupational category of the 
Petitioner's "inventory analyst" position. 20 As a result, it is unclear whether~----~ is 
accurately describing the skillsets necessary to perform the proffered position or whether she is providing 
an analysis of the "Operations Research Analysts" occupation when she makes statements such as, i.e. 
"[a] great deal of effort will be expended on gathering the data relevant to the problem ... translating 
it into mathematically tractable variables, and understanding constraint inequalities, [so] the 
fundamental problem that the operations research project is meant to solve can be mathematically 
conceptualized." Of note.I k does not indicate where in the record the Petitioner provides 
the level of specificity she includes in her analysis. These elaborated duties do not align with the duties 
of a "supply chain manager," the occupation petitioned for here. Considering these inconsistencies, 
I ts letter provides little probative value toward determining the educational requirements 
of the position and in assessing the nature of the position. 21 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient substantive detail regarding the duties the Beneficiary will 
perform, and the record has inconsistencies that undermine the Petitioner's claims regarding the proffered 
20 In her letter, I I states she is relying on the Petitioner's support letter, the detailed job description, her 
experience, as well as, an industry reference guide. In her decision, the Director states thatl ldid not 
"demonstrate or assert in-depth knowledge of [the Petitioner's] business operations or how the duties of the position would 
actually be performed in the context of [the Petitioner's] business." On appeal, the Petitioner asserts a "more detailed 
evaluation of [the Petitioner's] business operations was not necessary for I Ito issue her expert opinion in 
this case .... " However, an opinion that bases its conclusions on generalities is insufficient to satisfy the H-1B regulatory 
requirements. See Xiaotong Liu v. Baran, No. SACV1800376JVSKESX, 2018 WL 7348851, at *10 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 
2018) (finding generalizations not explaining how the author came to their conclusion, is insufficient to meet the regulatory 
requirements). 
21 See Matter of Caron lnt'I, 19 l&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (finding the service is not required to accept or may 
give less weight to an advisory opinion when it is "not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable.") 
6 
position. 22 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 an occupation that meets the statutory and regulatory definitions of a specialty 
occupation as defined by section 214(i)(1) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(1), 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii), and 
(iii)(A). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
22 Among other arguments advanced on appeal, the Petitioner contends that courts "have routinely rejected the position 
that in order to qualify as a specialty occupation for H-1B visa purposes, the degree must be in only one specific academic 
major or have a specific title, and it cites Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012) in 
support of that proposition. The court stated in Residential Finance that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree 
is what is important. Diplomas rarely come bearing occupation-specific majors." Id. at 997. We agree with both the 
Petitioner and with this principle stated by the judge in Residential Finance. However, we are unable to determine the 
services the Beneficiary will perform in the position and therefore are unable to establish the normal minimum educational 
requirement for entry into the particular position, which is the focus of criterion 1. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). For 
this reason, to the extent not already addressed, further discussion of the assertions made on appeal regarding whether the 
Petitioner satisfies any criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) is not necessary. 
7