dismissed H-1B Case: Supply Chain Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9097290 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAY 19, 2020 
The Petitioner, a distributer of electronics component and computer products, seeks to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as an "analyst , supply chain II" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification 
for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(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 California 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 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l) , defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, 
and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
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: 
( 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; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 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. Chertojf, 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"). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as an "analyst, supply chain II." In a letter submitted 
in support of the petition, the Petitioner described the duties and responsibilities of the proffered 
position as follows: 
• Analyze customer forecasts and trends for materials to determine feasibility of 
forecasted requirements and accuracy. 
• Monitors inventory pipeline to ensure assigned customer base receives inventory 
on time. 
• Prepares forecast models reflective of customer requirements and submits to 
appropriate internal departments for procurement and expediting. 
• Creates a variety of reports for customers detailing inventory availability and/or 
status. 
• Monitors assigned engagements to ensure all model metrics and measurements are 
being met and appropriate reporting requirements are adhered to. 
• Forecasts and monitors inventory requirements for assigned customer 
engagements. 
• Ensures service levels for assigned customer engagements are adhered to and met. 
The Petitioner stated that the position requires "a bachelor's degree in the specialty of Business, 
Systems Engineering, or Supply Chain Management or related field." 
2 
In its response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner expanded on these duties 
and indicated the percentages of time the Beneficiary would devote to each duty. 1 The Petitioner also 
changed the requirements of the position to "a bachelor's degree in Business, Systems Engineering, 
or Supply Chain Management or related field, plus 3-5 years of experience," or in the alternative "a 
master's degree in Business, Systems Engineering, or Supply Chain Management or related field and 
1-3 years of experience." 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons discussed below, we have determined that 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Specifically, we conclude that the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational 
background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation." 2 
As a preliminary matter, we note that the Petitioner provided inconsistent requirements for the 
position. With the initial filing of the petition, the Petitioner submitted a letter of ~rt authored by 
.__ ______ __, the manager of staffing at the Petitioner. In her letter, Msl__J stated that the 
position requires "a bachelor's degree in the specialty of Business, Systems Engineering, or Supply 
Chain Management or related field." However, in response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner 
submitted another letter from MsLJin which she stated that "at a minimum," the Petitioner requires 
"a bachelor's degree in Business, Systems Engineering, or Supply Chain Management or related field, 
plus 3-5 years of experience" ( emphasis added). She went on to state, "[ a ]ltematively, we would 
accept a master's degree in Business, Systems Engineering, or Supply Chain Management or related 
field and 1-3 years of experience." Ms~ !farther elaborated as follows: 
This position is specifically targeting a professional with at least a bachelor's degree, 
coupled with the knowledge and experience that would allow him or her to be 
productive immediately, without devoting extensive time to training a new hire who 
lacks the blend of academic understanding, skills, and real world experience necessary 
to succeed in this role. 
However, MsDdid not explain why she stated different requirements for the position in her letters. 
These variances call into question the true nature of the position. 
Ms. 0' s letter also contains inconsistent information regarding the salary the Petitioner will pay to 
the Beneficiary. While the Petitioner stated onte pelition that the Beneficiary will receive $80,000 
annually, in the initial letter of support, Ms. stated that the Petitioner "will employ [the 
Beneficiary] at an annual salary of $71,000." Notably, she also referred to the Beneficiary in the 
feminine pronoun case. The record lacks an explanation for these inconsistencies. Thus, we must 
1 For the sake of brevity, we will not quote the expanded version of the duties provided in the RFE response; however, we 
have closely reviewed and considered them. 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-lB petition, including evidence regarding the proffered position 
and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each 
one. 
3 
question the accuracy of the documents and whether the information provided is correctly attributed 
to this particular Beneficiary and position. 
The Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies 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. 
We will now review the evidence of record to determine whether the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 3 
A. First Criterion 
We tum first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. To inform this inquiry, we will consider the information contained 
in the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) regarding the 
duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations it addresses. 4 
On the labor condition application (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 code 13-1081. 5 The subchapter of the Handbook titled "How to 
Become a Logistician" states, that "[a] bachelor's degree is typically required for most positions, 
although an associate's degree may be sufficient for some logistician jobs." 6 The Handbook reports 
that the bachelor's degrees possessed by logisticians are in "business, systems engineering, or supply 
chain management." 7 Further, that the bachelor's degree programs "often include coursework in 
operations and database management, and system dynamics" and that "most programs offer courses 
that train students on software and technologies commonly used by logisticians." 8 Because the 
Handbook recognizes that this occupation may be performed by individuals with a range of degrees, 
including an associate's degree or a bachelor's degree in the general field of business, 9 it does not 
3 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
4 We do not 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. Nevertheless, to satisfy the first criterion, 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. 
5 A petitioner submits the LCA to DOL to demonstrate that it will pay an H-lB 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 2 l 2(n)(l) of the Act; 
20 C.F.R. § 655.73 l(a). 
6 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Logisticians, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/logisticians.htm (last visited May 18, 2020). 
7 Id. 
8 Id. 
9 We have consistently stated that, although 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 conclusion that 
the particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam Co1p., 484 F.3d at 147. 
4 
support a conclusion that the "Logisticians" occupation comprises an occupational group for which 
there is a common degree requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Though relevant, the information the Petitioner submits from O*NET does not establish the 
Petitioner's eligibility under the first criterion, as it does not establish that a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or the equivalent, is normally required. The 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. Instead, O*NET assigns 
these positions a "Job Zone Four" rating, which states "most of these occupations require a four-year 
bachelor's degree, but some do not." Moreover, 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. 10 For all of 
these reasons, O*NET does not establish the proffered position as a specialty occupation. 11 
The Petitioner also submitted an opinion letter authored by I I a professor at 
I I University. In her letter, Professor Marley (1) describes the credentials that she asserts 
qualifying her to opine upon the nature of the proffered position; (2) describes the duties proposed for 
the Beneficiary; and (3) states that these duties require at least a "Bachelor's degree in Business, 
Systems Engineering, Supply Chain Management or a related field." 12 We carefully evaluated the 
professor's assertions in support of the instant petition but find them insufficient. 
In her letter, the professor states that her assessment is based upon a review of the documents provided 
by the Petitioner, including the position description. The professor states that she also interviewed the 
senior supply chain manager at the Petitioner to further her understanding of the position. The 
professor states that she "believe[ s ]" that the duties of the position are "sufficiently specialized and 
complex that the knowledge required to perform these duties depends upon the attainment of a 
minimum of a Bachelor's degree in Business, Systems Engineering, Supply Chain Management or a 
related field" and that "a strong knowledge of these disciplines ... cannot be obtained form work 
experience alone." She goes on to say "[ a ]n expertise in complex global supply chains along with 
strong data analytics and communication skills differentiate this role from entry level positions making 
it specialized and complex." However, the professor does not explain how an individual would acquire 
such "expertise in complex global supply chains." The professor does not conclude that the position 
1° For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/ 
help/online/svp. 
11 On appeal, the Petitioner acknowledges that the Director's decision considered the infonnation contained in the 
Handbook and the O*NET Summary Repmt for Logisticians; however, emphasizes that the "O*NET and [the Handbook] 
entries should be considered in their totality." As we noted, we review the record in its totality. We consider each evidence 
individually and in the aggregate. Even when considered in the aggregate, for the reasons discussed above, O*NET and 
the Handbook do not support a conclusion that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
12 Again, although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business administration, 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. Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147. 
5 
requires experience in addition to a degree. The absence of a discussion of the Petitioner's experience 
requirement calls into question her level of familiarity with the actual job duties. 
Furthermore, while the professor states that "the candidate, in the role as an Analyst, Supply Chain II 
will be required to apply the skills learned in a degree program to perform high-level tasks," she does 
not discuss in detail which tasks are "high-level." She also mentions the position's "very broad scope 
of responsibilities ... due to its role in partnering with the Customer Management and Procurement 
Teams." However, she does not elaborate on what specific responsibilities the Beneficiary would 
have in partnering with this team. While we appreciate the professor's discussion of duties provided 
by the Petitioner, her analysis falls 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. We find the professor's opinion of the 
proffered position conclusory without sufficient analysis of the position. 
Moreover, while the professor states that she has taught many courses on topics related to supply chain 
management, attended recruitment events, and reviewed company education and experience 
requirements for professionals across industries, there is no indication that she has conducted any 
research or studies pertinent to the educational requirements for such positions ( or parallel positions) 
and no indication ofrecognition by professional organizations that she is an authority on those specific 
requirements. Even assuming she possesses expertise on the degree requirements for supply chain 
analysts, the professor's opinion letter does not substantiate her conclusion, such that we can make a 
determination that the Petitioner has met its burden of proof For example, she does not reference, 
cite, or discuss studies, surveys, industry publications, authoritative publications, or other sources of 
empirical information, which she may have consulted to complete her evaluation. 
Therefore, the letter froml lis insufficient to support the Petitioner's assertion that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 13 As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion 
statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 
(Comm'r 1988). However, we will reject an opinion or give it less weight if it is not in accord with 
other information in the record or if it is in any way questionable. Id. 
The record lacks sufficient evidence to support a finding that the proffered position is one for which a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry. For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner has not met its burden to 
establish that the particular position offered in this matter requires a bachelor's or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, directly related to its duties in order to perform those tasks. Thus, 
the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(]). 
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 
13 We hereby incorporate our discussion of the professor's opinion letter into our discussion of the other 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) criteria. 
6 
a degree[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong contemplates 
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. 
We generally consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common degree 
requirement: 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 establish 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) (considering these 
"factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
As noted, the Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is a common 
requirement within the industry for parallel positions among similar organizations. Also, the Petitioner 
did not submit evidence from an industry professional association or from firms or individuals in the 
industry indicating such a degree is a minimum requirement for entry into the position. 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner submitted copies of job announcements placed by other 
employers. However, because the Petitioner provided inconsistent job requirements for the proffered 
position, we are unable to determine whether the advertisements involve parallel positions. Even if 
we consider the Petitioner's "3-5 years of experience" requirement in addition to a bachelor's degree 
( or the master's degree with 1-3 years of experience), some of the advertised positions appear to be 
for more senior positions than the proffered position. For instance, the posting placed by Ingram Micro 
Commerce & Lifecycle Services requires a minimum of "10 years of varied experience, preferably in 
a 3PL/Logistics/supply-chain or consulting environment" in addition to a bachelor's or a master's 
degree. Similarly, the posting placed by Synnex Corporation requires "5-7 years of related 
experience" in addition to the degree requirement. The Petitioner has not sufficiently established that 
the primary duties and responsibilities of the advertised positions are parallel to the proffered position. 
In addition, some of the postings do not indicate that at least a bachelor's degree in a directly related 
specific specialty (or its equivalent) is required. For example, Arrow Electronics, Inc. and Tech Data 
Corporation accept unspecified bachelor's degrees. As noted earlier, the degree requirement set by 
the statutory and regulatory framework of the H-lB program is not just a bachelor's or higher degree, 
but a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the duties of the position. See 
section 214(i)(l)(b) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). Moreover, Arrow Electronics, Inc. states 
it "prefers" a bachelor's degree or the equivalent. A preference for a degree in a field is not necessarily 
an indication of a minimum requirement. Overall, the job postings suggest, at best, that although a 
7 
bachelor's degree is sometimes required for these positions, a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty 
( or its equivalent) is not. 14 
As the documentation does not establish that the Petitioner has met this prong of the regulations, 
further analysis regarding the specific information contained in each of the job postings is not 
necessary. 15 That is, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. 
Without more, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied 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. 
As discussed above, the Petitioner provided inconsistent requirements for the position. Therefore, we 
cannot determine the true nature of the position. Furthermore, the Petitioner's requirement of a 
bachelors' degree in business as an acceptable degree program to gain the knowledge necessary to 
perform the duties of the proffered position undermines its assertion that the position it proffers is 
specialized. As noted, the requirement of a bachelor's degree in business without further specification 
is inadequate to establish that a position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 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," 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). 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that it provided "substantial evidence demonstrating that a degree in 
business with specific coursework can prepare candidates" for the preferred position. The Petitioner 
further states that "in this case a degree in business is not an 'undifferentiated degree'" because it has 
14 It must be noted that even if all of the job postings indicated that a requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations (which they do not). the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from the advertisements with regard to 
determining the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. See generally 
Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 (1995). Moreover, given that there is no indication that the 
advertisements were randomly selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately determined even if the 
sampling unit were sufficiently large. See id. at 195-196 (explaining that "[r]andom selection is the key to [the] process 
[ of probability sampling]" and that "random selection offers access to the body of probability theory, which provides the 
basis for estimates of population parameters and estimates of error"). 
15 The Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative the job postings are of the particular 
advertising employers' recruiting history for the type of job advertised. As the advertisements are only solicitations for 
hire, they are not evidence of the actual hiring practices of these employers. 
8 
submitted "the voluminous amount of supporting evidence showing how the coursework required for 
this degree prepares an individual for the specific specialty in question" and draws our attention to 
four documents it submitted in response to the Director's RFE. These documents include an opinion 
letter from I I and a supplemental letter from Ms.c=] 16 Here, we include by reference 
our previous discussions of the letters provided by I , I and Ms.I I Furthermore, 
while both letters discuss a few courses that may be helpful in performing the proposed duties, neither 
of the letters sufficiently discusses how an established curriculum of such courses leading to a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the 
duties of the proffered position. For example, Ms. I I discusses the Beneficiary's previous 
coursework for the purpose of correlating the need for the Beneficiary's education with the associated 
job duties of the position. However, she does not discuss how a requirement of a general degree in 
"business" would establish the position as a specialty occupation. 17 Similarly, I I 
discusses a few courses that would provide "high level of expertise" for a candidate, but does not 
discuss in detail how an established curriculum is necessary to perform the duties she claims are 
"high-level." She also does not discuss how a requirement of a general degree in "business" would 
establish the position as a specialty occupation. While a few related courses and skills 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 of the proffered position. 
Furthermore, the record 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, while the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary "[m]onitors inventory 
pipeline to ensure assigned customer base receives inventory on time," it does not explain what actions 
the Beneficiary would take to "ensure" the customers receive inventory timely. The Petitioner does 
not explain its process of receiving and allocating its inventory and describes the Beneficiary's role in 
general terms such as "analyze," "review," and "monitor." Duties as described do not illuminate the 
substantive application of knowledge involved or any particular educational requirement associated 
with such duties. 
Moreover, in the expanded duties provided in response to the RFE, the Petitioner stated that the 
Beneficiary "collaborates and reaches consensus" and "trigger[s] buys for the procurement team." 
While the Petitioner submitted an organizational chart depicting the department in which the 
Beneficiary will be placed, it did not provide information regarding various departments with which 
16 The Petitioner referenced "Exhibits A C, E, and F" in support of its assertion. In the "Index of Evidence" page, the 
Petitioner identified Exhibit A as "Occupational Outlook Handbook entry for Logisticians," Exhibit C as "O*NET 
Summary Report for SOC Code 13-1081, Logisticians," Exhibit E as "Expert opinion letter from~ _____ __. 
c=J, Associate Professor of Supply Chain Management at I I University, and Exhibit F as "Supplemental 
Employer Support Letter." As we have already discussed the information contained in t~lbook ai;J.d ..... O.:trnT 
Summary Report for Logisticians, we will focus our discussion on the letters provided by Ms.L_____Jand Ms.L_J 
17 Moreover, we are required to follow long-standing legal standards and determine first, whether the proffered position 
qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation, and second, whether the Beneficiary was qualified for the position at 
the time the nonimmigrant visa petition was filed. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 T&N Dec. at 560. ("The facts 
of a beneficiary's background only come at issue after it is found that the position in which the petitioner intends to employ 
him falls within [a specialty occupation]."). 
9 
the Beneficiary will be interacting. Therefore, the various positions within the organizational set-up, 
the Beneficiary's position within the Petitioner's overall organizational hierarchy, and the extent of 
his duties cannot be determined. With the broadly described duties, the record lacks sufficient 
information to understand the nature of the actual proffered position and to determine that the duties 
require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained by 
a bachelor's degree, or higher, in a specific discipline. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the pos1t10n, and references his 
qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education 
or experience of a particular beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative 
complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position, and it did not identify any tasks 
that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. 
Therefore, the evidence of record does not establish that this position is significantly different from 
other positions within the logisticians occupational category such that it refutes the Handbook's 
information to the effect that there is a spectrum of preferred degrees acceptable for these positions, 
including associate's degree and degrees not in a specific specialty. In other words, the record lacks 
sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the proffered position as unique from or more complex 
than supply chain analyst or other closely related 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 of "analyst, supply chain II" is so complex or unique 
relative to other positions within the logisticians 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 of 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it normally 
requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner submitted one-page resumes of two of its employees and an 
organizational chart of a department depicting these employees and the Beneficiary in it. The 
Petitioner acknowledges that one of these employeesJ I does not hold a bachelor's degree 
in "Business, Systems Engineering, or Supply Chain Management" as it requires for the proffered 
position, but asserts that this individual "does hold the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty based on his extensive work experience." 18 However, the record lacks sufficient 
corroborating evidence substantiating the Petitioner's claim. 19 The Petitioner did not submit an 
evaluation of this individual's experience demonstrating the equivalency to a degree, nor did it submit 
a copy of his degree. The record also does not contain supporting evidence for the second individual's 
credentials, such as copies of his degrees or evaluations demonstrating the equivalency to a United 
18 On his resume, Mrc::=] states possessing a "Bachelor of Arts (BA), Biology/Natural Science" degree. 
19 Mrc=J' resume contains only the company names, position titles, and the dates of employment. 
10 
States bachelor's degree. One-page resumes the Petitioner submitted do not provide sufficient 
information regarding their credentials for us to ascertain that the Petitioner normally requires a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 20 
Moreover, the record does not sufficiently establish that these individuals hold the same or similar 
position as the one offered to the Beneficiary. Although the Petitioner claims that the position titles 
are the same, the record lacks evidence establishing that these individuals were hired into the supply 
chain analyst position that is the same or similar to the one offered to the Beneficiary. The Petitioner 
did not provide a detailed job duties and day-to-day responsibilities for these individuals. Further, the 
Petitioner did not provide the total number of people it has employed to serve in the proffered position. 
The Petitioner has been in operation since 1955. However, it submitted information only for the two 
employees who were hired in 2010 and 201 7 to demonstrate its hiring history for the proffered 
position. Consequently, it cannot be determined how representative the Petitioner's claim regarding 
these individuals are of the Petitioner's normal recruiting and hiring practice for its 65 years of history 
in business. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
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. 
As discussed above, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by 
the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position because the substantive nature of the position has 
not been developed. 21 In other words, the proposed duties have not been described with sufficient 
specificity to show that they are more specialized and complex than supply chain analyst positions 
that are not usually associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Nor has the Petitioner explained how the Beneficiary's tasks 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. That 
is, the Petitioner did not submit information relevant to a detailed course of study leading to a specialty 
degree and did not establish how such a curriculum is necessary to perform the duties it claims are so 
specialized and complex. Again, a few related courses may be beneficial in performing certain duties 
of the position, but the Petitioner has not demonstrated how an established curriculum of such courses 
20 Depending on the specificity, detail, and credibility of a document, we may give the document more or less persuasive 
weight in a proceeding. The Board oflmmigration Appeals (the Board) has held that testimony should not be disregarded 
simply because it is "self-serving." See Matter of Acosta, 19 T&N Dec. 211, 218 (BIA 1985). The BIA has also held, 
however, "We not only encourage, but require the introduction of corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, 
where available." Matter of S-A-, 22 T&N 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000). If testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or 
credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit corroborative evidence. Matter of Y-B-, 21 T&N Dec. 1136, 
1139 (BIA 1998). 
21 We also incorporate by reference the previous discussion on the matter under the second prong of criterion (2). 
11 
leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to 
perform the duties of the proffered position. 
The evidence of record does not establish that this position is significantly different from other supply 
chain analyst positions such that it refutes the Handbook's information to the effect that there is a 
spectrum of degrees acceptable for supply chain analyst positions within the logisticians occupational 
category, including degrees of general applicability and associate's degrees. In other words, the record 
lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the proffered position as more complex and 
specialized than supply chain analyst or other closely related positions that can be performed by 
persons without at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 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). 
Consequently, the Petitioner has not satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
12