dismissed H-1B Case: Supply Chain Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 11275352 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 24, 2021 
The Petitioner, a manufacturing company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "supply 
chain manager" under the H-lB 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-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 Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the evidence of record 
does not establish that the proffered position qualifies as 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. 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the 
questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) of the Act defines an H-lB 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)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 184(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 .1 Lastly, 
1 8 C.F.R. § 2 l 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) must be read with the statutory and regulatory definitions of a specialty occupation under 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(I) states that an H-lB 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. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
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 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(2). The Director 
may request additional evidence in the course of making this determination. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(8). 
In addition, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the petition and must continue to 
be eligible through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner describes itself as a "leader in the design, engineering and production of complete 
enginel !solutions supplied ... in the engine and vehicle industries." The Petitioner seeks to 
employ the Beneficiary as a "supply chain manager." On the labor condition application (LCA)2 
submitted in support of the H-1 B petition, the Petitioner designated the proffered position under the 
occupational category "Logisticians" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification 
(SOC) code 13-1081, at a Level III wage. In a letter submitted in support of the petition, the Petitioner 
provided the following job duties (verbatim): 
The Supply Chain Manager for [ the Petitioner] must have good analytical and planning 
skills to establish supply requirements, review demand forecasts with the marketing 
team and manufacturing schedules with the production management team and establish 
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 Cmp. 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 paiticular position"). 
2 A petitioner submits the LCA to the U.S. Depaltment of Labor 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 duties, experience, and qualifications. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. 
§ 655.73l(a). 
2 
supply schedules and communicate requirements to members of the supply chain. In 
addition, the position must aim to ensure that all essential supplies are available when 
needed so that the Company can meet market requirements. 
Specifically, while reporting to the Company's Global Supply Chain leadership, the 
Supply Chain Manager will develop a reliable, global supply base to support New 
Product Development (NPD) and production environments, manage supplier 
engagement and delivery as part of the NPD process during the early stages of design 
and cost analysis and manage the transition of selected sourced materials into the 
regular production environments to enable the execution of delivery targets. 
In addition, the position will define and execute risk mitigation strategies to manage 
supplier risk in NPD and production based environments, develop & execute 
commodity strategies to manage the current and future needs of the business and 
manage global supplier relationships to ensure NPD & production targets are met in 
relation to cost, quality, delivery and reliability. 
The Petitioner stated that "[ d]ue to the technical and specific duties of the position, the Company 
reqmres ... at least a Bachelor's degree in Engineering, Supply Chain or a related field." 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality, we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation because the Petitioner's broadly-based 
description is insufficient to convey an understanding of the Beneficiary's proposed duties. 
Furthermore, the record contains inconsistent requirements for the proffered position. 3 
When determining whether a position is a specialty occupation, we look at the nature of the business 
offering the employment and the description of the specific duties of the position as it relates to the 
performance of those duties within the context of that particular employer's business operations. To 
ascertain the salient aspects of the proposed employment, we look to the Form 1-129, Petition for a 
Nonimmigrant Worker, and the documents filed in support of the petition. A crucial aspect of this 
matter is whether the Petitioner has sufficiently and consistently described its business operations and 
the duties of the proffered position such that we may discern the nature of the position and whether 
the position actually requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge attained through at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific discipline. 
First, the record does not contain a sufficiently detailed description of the duties within the context of 
the Petitioner's business operations. According to the Petitioner, it is formed by merging of two 
companies and it has offices in "Oklahoma, Texas, and California, as well as overseas operations and 
sales offices in Europe, China, Japan and Korea." The Petitioner did not provide operational specifics 
for each location. While the Petitioner indicated on the petition and the LCA that the Beneficiary will 
3 The Petitioner submitted documentation to suppmt 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. 
3 
be working at itsl I Texas office, in the job postings for the proffered position, it indicated 
that the individual holding this position is expected to travel 15% of the time. However, in the position 
descriptions provided in its letters, the Petitioner did not mention the travel requirement for the 
pos1t10n. The record is devoid of information regarding whether these travels will include the 
Petitioner's overseas locations, and whether there will be any change in the proffered duties resulting 
from the nature of the operations at the destination. Moreover, the proffered duties suggest that the 
Beneficiary will be interacting with various teams within the organization, such as the marketing team, 
the productions management team and with the members of supply chain, in the course of his duties. 
However, the record does not contain sufficient information regarding the Petitioner's business 
operations. The Petitioner has not submitted an organizational chart that would delineate its 
organization, and the Beneficiary's position within the overall organizational hierarchy. Therefore, 
the extent of the Beneficiary's duties cannot be determined. The evidence does not show the 
operational structure in a manner that we could meaningfully determine the Beneficiary's relative role 
therein. The Petitioner has not adequately evidenced the scope of the Beneficiary's responsibilities 
within the context of the Beneficiary's stated collaborative duties with the various teams in the 
organization's domestic and overseas locations. 
Next, there are inconsistencies in the requirements for the proffered position. As noted above, in its 
support letter, the Petitioner stated that the position requires a bachelor's degree in Engineering, 
Supply Chain or a related field and repeated the same degree requirement in its responses to the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE). The Petitioner did not indicate any experience requirement for 
the position in these letters; however, it stated that the supply chain manager "must have good 
analytical and planning skills." The record contains a copy of a job announcement posted by the 
Petitioner to which the Petitioner's human resources (HR) manager referred as "the same position 
(Supply Chain Manager)." This document was attached to the HR manager's affidavit as an exhibit. 
Notably, the position requirements provided in this document are inconsistent with the requirements 
stated in the Petitioner's letters. According to the job announcement, the position requires a bachelor's 
degree in "Engineering discipline, Supply Chain, or other related field of study" and the Petitioner 
prefers a master's degree. The document forth er specifies that the candidate needs to have an 
engineering background in "Mechanical or Electrical degree" and a "minimum of five to seven ( 5-7) 
years' experience in SCM supporting engineering & manufacturing" is required. The Petitioner also 
lists several types of experience it requires under the heading of "Demonstrated experience related to 
sourcing" including electronic components, PCBAs, castings, plastic moldings, and more. The 
Petitioner also requires "[ e ]xtensive experience in supplier negotiation, with an [sic] diverse global 
supply base." In its letters, the Petitioner does not state the experience requirements that it lists in the 
job announcement. 
The record contains another job announcement for a "Supply Chain Manager" position, also posted 
by the Petitioner. Notably, the duties 4 listed in this announcement are identical the ones contained in 
the other job announcement. In this document, the Petitioner stated that the position requires a 
bachelor's degree but "BS in Engineering or Engineering Technology highly preferred" 5 and a 
"Degree in Operations Research, Business, Supply Chain, Information Systems, or other related field 
4 The Petitioner listed the duties under a heading, "Key Job Elements." 
5 A preference for a degree in a field is not necessarily an indication of a minimum requirement. The record must establish 
that a petitioner's stated degree requirement is not a matter of preference for high-caliber candidates but is necessitated 
instead by performance requirements of the position. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
4 
of study with more than 5 years demonstrated experience in Automotive or related markets will be 
considered." The announcement also listed a "minimum of three to five (3-5) years' experience in 
Supply Chain Management (SCM) supporting Engineering & Manufacturing, and experience working 
with Supplier Quality" and also listed casting, machining processes, plastic moldings, and more under 
the "Demonstrated experience related to sourcing in key areas" heading. 
The Petitioner did not provide an explanation for the variances in the degree and experience 
requirements for the position. These variances call into question the true requirements for the position. 
The Petitioner must resolve the inconsistencies 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). Unresolved 
material inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence 
submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit. Id. 
The record also does not contain a sufficiently detailed description of the Beneficiary's duties to 
establish that the position requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 
specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty, 
or its equivalent. For example, the Petitioner states that the supply chain manager will "develop a 
reliable, global supply base to support New Product Development (NPD) and production environments 
... " However, the Petitioner does not provide details regarding what tasks are involved in the process 
of developing a global supply base and how exactly the Beneficiary supports the NPD and production 
environments. Nor does it explain what makes these duties complex. On appeal, the Petitioner 
emphasizes that its mission statement, I I' addresses the complex 
nature of its business and asks us to visit its website. While we recognize the technical aspect of the 
Petitioner's production operations, we note that the record contains insufficient information 
demonstrating that the proffered position requires the theoretical and practical application of a body 
of highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. The duties as described do not communicate (1) the actual work that the 
Beneficiary would perform, (2) the complexity, uniqueness and/or specialization of the tasks, and/or (3) 
the correlation between that work and a need for a particular level education of highly specialized 
knowledge in a specific specialty. 
We also question the proposed task to "manage global supplier relationships .... " The Petitioner did 
not explain what managing relationships entails. Furthermore, it did not establish how this duty 
require an individual with a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. While 
the position may require that the Beneficiary possess some skills and technical knowledge in order to 
perform this duty, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how managing relationships requires the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty, or its equivalent. 6 
The Petitioner asserts that "this position in fact a specialty occupation" because "O*NET On-Line 
summary report for Supply Chain Managers assigns this position to Job Zone 4" and directs us to see 
6 We also note that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient infonnation with regard to the order of importance or frequency 
of occmTence ( e.g., regularly, periodically, or at irregular intervals) with which the Beneficiary will perform the generally 
described duties. That is, the Petitioner submitted no information to establish the percentage of time the Beneficiary will 
perform any of the duties described. Thus, the record does not specify which tasks are major functions of the proffered 
position. This further limits an analysis of the complexity, specialization, or uniqueness of the proffered position. 
5 
"https://onetonline.org/link/summary/11-9199.04." 7 First, as noted above, the Petitioner designated 
the proffered position under the occupational category "Logisticians" corresponding to the Standard 
Occupational Classification (SOC) code 13-1081. 8 Therefore, it is unclear why the Petitioner is 
directing us to see a different occupational category. Nevertheless, we note that O*NET Summary 
Report assigns Logisticians (SOC code 13-1081) to Job Zone Four. 9 However, O*NET Summary 
Report provides general information regarding the occupation, but it does not support a conclusion 
that the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent. the 
Job Zone Four designation does not indicate that any academic credentials for Job Zone Four 
occupations must be directly related to the duties performed. In addition, the specialized vocational 
preparation (SVP) rating designates this occupation as 7 < 8. 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, experience, and formal education. The SVP rating also does not specify the particular type 
of degree, if any, that a position would require. 1° For all of these reasons, O*NET does not establish 
the proffered position as a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner submitted an opinion letter authored by.__ _______ _,, a professor at .... l ___ _. 
Institute of Technology. In his letter, the professor (1) described the credentials that he asserts qualify 
him to opine upon the nature of the proffered position; (2) described aspects of the job duties proposed 
for the Beneficiary; and (3) stated that the "the Supply Chain Manager role is clearly a specialty 
position and requires the services of someone with advanced training through a bachelor's program in 
Supply Chain Management, Engineering Management, or closely related fields." We carefully 
evaluated the professor's assertions in support of the instant petition but find them insufficient. 
In his letter, the professor restates the six bullet-point duties that are listed in the Petitioner's job 
announcements and concludes that the duties listed "would be considered professional position and 
would normally be filled by a graduate with a minimum of a bachelor's degree, or higher, in Supply 
Chain Management, Engineering Management, or closely related fields." However, his analysis of 
the position duties and the requirements fell short of providing a meaningful discussion of what the 
Beneficiary will actually do in the proffered position and how those duties require the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge. The professor asserts that the skills 
required for the position are developed in the 'junior and senior years of an undergraduate program in 
Supply Chain Management, Engineering Management or closely related fields" and lists several course 
titles. However, he does not offer a cogent analysis of why obtaining skills through these courses is the 
same as establishing that the duties require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
We find his letter conclusory without sufficient discussion of the proffered position and its 
requirements. 
7 According to O*NET OnLine. this occupational code is no longer in use and replaced with 11-3071.04 (Supply Chain 
Managers). 
8 The generic nature of the duty descriptions provided by the Petitioner further prevents us from properly evaluating 
whether the position was correctly designated under the '"Logisticians" occupational category. 
9 See https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/13-l 081.00. 
1° For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/ 
help/online/svp. 
6 
For the sake of brevity, we will not address other deficiencies within the professor's analysis of the 
proffered position as the Petitioner has not established the substantive nature of the work to be 
performed by the Beneficiary. We conclude that the professor's opinion letter lends little probative 
value to the matter here. Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (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."). 
Lastly, on appeal, the Petitioner asserts that in her first RFE, the Director has determined that the 
Petitioner has met one of the required criteria and therefore it has "proved" that the position is a 
specialty occupation. We conclude that the Petitioner's assertion is without merit as the Director 
issued a second RFE and clearly stated that the evidence submitted by the Petitioner was insufficient 
to satisfy any criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
The record contains inconsistencies regarding the Petitioner's requirements for the proffered position and 
the general duties provided for the position are insufficient to demonstrate the substantive nature of the 
services the Beneficiary would perform. Consequently, we are unable to evaluate whether the proffered 
position satisfies any criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), because it is the substantive nature of 
the Beneficiary's services that 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. 
The Petitioner has not established that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 11 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
11 As the lack of probative and consistent evidence in the record precludes a conclusion that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation and is dispositive of the appeal, we will not further discuss the Petitioner's assertions on appeal 
regarding 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
7