dismissed H-1B Case: Supply Chain

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : WLY 31 , 2023 In Re : 26556482 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-IB nonimmigrant 
classification for specialty occupation s. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(B), 8 U.S .C. § l 10l(a)(l5)(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 the record did not establish 
that the Petitioner's proffered position was specialty occupation under section 2 l 4(i)(l) of the Act and 
8 C.F.R . § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J)-(4). The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo . Matter of Christa 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
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: (A) the 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) is a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) adds a non-exhaustive list of fields endeavor to the 
statutory definition . And the regulations require that the proffered position must also 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. 
The statute and the regulations must be read together to make sure that the proffered position meets 
the definition of a specialty occupation. See K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) 
(holding that construction of language which takes into account the design of the statue as a whole is 
preferred); see also COIT Independence Joint Venture v. Fed. Sav. And Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 
(1989); Matter of W-F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). Considering the statute and the regulations 
separately leads to scenarios where a petitioner satisfies a regulatory factor but not the definition of 
specialty occupation contained in the statute. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 
2000). The regulatory criteria read together with the statute gives effect to the statutory intent. See 
Temporary Alien Workers Seeking Classification Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 56 Fed. 
Reg. 61111, 61112 (Dec. 2, 1991). 
So we construe the term "degree" in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any baccalaureate 
or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered position 
supporting the statutory definition of specialty occupation. 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"). USCIS' application of this 
standard has resulted in the orderly approval ofH-lB petitions for engineers, accountants, information 
technology professionals and other occupations, commensurate with what Congress intended when it 
created the H-1 B category. 
And job title or broad occupational category alone does not determine whether a particular job is a 
specialty occupation under the regulations and statute. The nature of the Petitioner's business 
operations along with the specific duties of the proffered job are also considered. We must evaluate 
the employment of the individual and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. See Defensor, 201 F.3d 384. So a petitioner's self-imposed requirements are not as 
critical as whether the nature of the position a petitioner offers requires the application of a theoretical 
and practical body of knowledge gained after earning the required baccalaureate or higher degree in 
the specific specialty required to accomplish the duties of the job. 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary in H-lB classification to serve as a "supply chain 
planner." The Petitioner initially provided documentation from the U.S. Department of Labor's 
(DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) and Occupational Information Network 
(O*NET) relating to the logistician job category, job postings, a letter from the Petitioner's human 
resources generalist containing the proffered job's description, and the Beneficiary's educational 
2 
documentation with the petition. In response to the request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner 
submitted a new letter from the Petitioner's supply planning lead, and an advisory opinion fromD 
~-----__. emeritus professor systems and industrial engineering and emeritus dean of 
engineering at the University I I At appeal, the Petitioner resubmits the evidence and 
documentation it provided earlier in these proceedings as well as copies of case law as authority for 
its assertions. According to the Petitioner, the proffered job requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree 
in industrial engineering, mechanical engineering, operations research, supply chain or a related field. 
III. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons below, we have determined that the Petitioner's supply chain planner position does 
not qualify as a specialty occupation. The evidence the Petitioner has submitted into the record does 
not demonstrate that performance of the proffered job's duties requires an individual with a bachelor's 
degree in a specific related specialty. 
A. First Criterion 
The Petitioner's proffered job does not qualify as a specialty occupation under the first criterion of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(]). The regulations require a bachelor's or higher degree 
in a specific specialty as a threshold for entry into the proffered position. In support, the Petitioner 
submitted copies of DOL's Handbook and O*NET entries related to the logisticianjob classification. 
And the Petitioner submitted an advisory opinion byl Iwho purportedly holds emeritus 
positions at the University I I 
The first criterion's scope encompasses the question of whether a bachelor's or higher degree in a 
specific specialty related to a proffered job's duties, or the equivalent, is normally required. The 
standard of whether an individual petitioner's proffered position is a specialty occupation because it 
normally requires a degree or its equivalent as a threshold requirement for entry to the position is in 
the third criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). If we were to interpret the first criterion to 
relate to a specific petitioner's proffered position and its minimum requirements, it would render the 
third criterion of the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3) redundant. 
Whilst the Handbook is not an exclusive source of information, it is informative in that it contains the 
duties and educational requirements of a wide variety of occupations. So the occupational category 
chosen by the Petitioner is instructive in that it provides a framework within which to evaluate the 
general nature of the Petitioner's proffered job. Jobs within the logistician occupational category 
generally do not qualify as specialty occupations under the regulation's first criterion. Whilst the 
Handbook supports the contention that a bachelor's degree is "typically" required for a logistician, 
this alone is not sufficient to demonstrate eligibility for the H-1 B classification because the statute and 
regulation mandate that requirement be for a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the 
equivalent. The Handbook states that logisticians may have bachelor's degrees in a variety of different 
fields, such as "logistics," "supply chain management," "business," and "related fields." See Bureau 
of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Logisticians (Nov. 16, 
2022), https://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/logisticians.htm. The Handbook, therefore, presents 
two problems for the Petitioner. First and foremost, its statement that the duties of these positions can 
be performed by an individual with a bachelor's degree in business, with no further specialization, is 
3 
strong evidence that the Petitioner's position is not, in fact, a specialty occupation. Further problematic 
is that the wide range of acceptable baccalaureate level fields of study for a logistician does not 
describe or comprise a single common specialty amongst the fields of study. 
If a position is a "specialty occupation" under the statute and regulations, it is one which involves a 
"body of highly specialized knowledge" attained after completing a bachelor's degree or higher in a 
"specific specialty." A general degree requirement like a bachelor's degree in business, standing alone 
without any further specialization, is not a requirement for a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, 
or the equivalent. And this generally excludes any proffered position accepting such a degree as a 
minimum requirement for entry into the position from consideration as a specialty occupation. A 
bachelor's degree in business without further specialization, or the equivalent, is so broad that it could 
apply to a position in finance as well as general business operations and management in a variety of 
endeavors. So it cannot provide an individual with the "body of highly specialized knowledge" 
required to perform the duties of a specialty occupation. 
In accordance with the statutory and regulatory requirements, the agency has consistently disfavored 
general purpose bachelor's degree in business with no additional specialization. See Matter ofLing, 
13 I&N Dec. 35 (Reg'l Comm'r 1968); Matter ofMichael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558 (Comm'r 
1988); Matter of Caron Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988). Even after Congress revamped the 
H-lB program as part of the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649, 104 Stat. 4978, the 
agency's concerns with a general-purpose bachelor's degree in business with no additional 
specialization continued. See e.g. Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151 (D. Minn. 1999); 2233 
Paradise Road, LLC v. Cissna, No. l 7-cv-01018-APG-VCF, 2018 WL 3312967 (D. Nev., July 3, 
2018); XiaoTong Liu v. Baran, No. 18-00376-JVS, 2018 WL 7348851 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 21, 2018); 
Parzenn Partners v. Baran, No. 19-cv-11515-ADB, 2019 WL 6130678 (D. Mass., Nov. 19, 2019); 
Xpress Group v. Cuccinelli, No. 3:20-CV-00568-DSC, 2022 WL 433482 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 10, 2022). 
As the First Circuit Court of Appeals explained in Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147: 
The courts and the agency consistently have stated that, although a general-purpose 
bachelor's degree, such as a business administration degree, may be a legitimate 
prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not 
justify granting of a petition for an H-lB specialty occupation visa. See e.g., Tapis Int'! 
v. INS, 94 F. Supp.2d 172, 175-76 (D. Mass. 2000); Shanti, 36 F.Supp.2d at 1164-66; 
cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 ([Comm'r] 1988) 
(providing frequently cited analysis in connection with a conceptually similar 
provision). This is as it should be: elsewise, an employer could ensure the granting of 
a specialty occupation visa petition by the simple expedient of creating a generic ( and 
essentially artificial) degree requirement. 
The Petitioner encourages that we depart from the Handbook in this matter because it contends that 
"business" is a specific field of study and cites inapplicable or distinguishable cases in support. 
"Business" is not a specific specialty. It is a generalized degree title that without further specification 
does not establish a position as a specialty occupation. See Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147. Also, the 
Petitioner suggests that InspectionXpert Corporation v. Cuccinelli, 2020 WL 1062821 (M.D.N.C. 
Mar. 5, 2020) supports its proposition that a generalized business degree with no further specialization 
4 
can establish a position as a specialty occupation. But InspectionXpert is inapplicable here. In 
InspectionXpert the court considered whether the educational requirement of an engineering degree 
without further specialization was too broad for a quality engineer position. Whilst the court found 
that a generalized engineering requirement did comprise a specialty, it also distinguished engineering 
from other broad degrees, such as liberal arts or business administration degrees. Id. at *24. 
A requirement for a bachelor's degree in business with no further specialization is not a requirement 
for a degree in a specific specialty. For this reason alone, the Handbook does not support the proffered 
position as a specialty occupation. 
And the Handbook's indication that a wide range of degrees would adequately prepare an individual 
for a job located within this occupational category constitutes an additional reason why it does not 
support the proposition that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is normally 
required for these positions. We interpret the statutory "the" and regulatory "a" to mean a singular 
specialty. But we do not so narrowly interpret the statute and regulation such that multiple closely 
related fields of study would not constitute a specialty to perform the duties of a related specialty 
occupation. In general, 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 
214(i)(l)(B) of the Act provided the specialties are closely related such that they constitute a common 
specialty required to perform the duties of the position. If they constitute a common specialty, then 
the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be the same. If the required 
degree fields do not constitute a common specialty, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in 
disparate fields would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty 
( or its equivalent)." A minimum entry requirement that did include disparate fields of study, such as 
philosophy and engineering for example, would require the Petitioner to establish how each field is 
directly related to all the duties and responsibilities of the particular position. Section 214(i)(l )(B) of 
the Act. 
When the minimum requirement for entry into an occupation is any bachelor's degree from a wide 
variety of seemingly unconnected fields, that occupation cannot be a specialty occupation unless it is 
established that the fields constitute a single "specialty." So the Handbook does not support an 
assertion that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the 
minimum requirement for these petitions and does not support the particular position proffered here 
as being a specialty occupation. 
The courts in Residential Finance Corp. v USCIS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012), and Relx v. 
Baran, 397 F. Supp 3d 41 (D.D.C. 2019), do not stand for the proposition that a wide variety of degrees 
can constitute a specialty required to perform the duties of a specialty occupation as the Petitioner 
implies. Quite the opposite, the court in Residential Finance found for the plaintiff only after 
determining the plaintiff had established that their minimum requirements captured the necessity of a 
baccalaureate degree in a specialized course of study in a field related to the proffered job's duties as 
a minimum. Residential Finance Corporation, 839 F.Supp.2d at 996. In Relx, the court determined 
that a specialty occupation existed only after determining that the occupation required a specialized 
course of study leading to the degree the plaintiff had earned. Relx, 397 F.Supp.3d at 55. So where 
the Handbook permits a generalized degree with no specialization as an acceptable field of study, it 
5 
does not support a position located within that occupational classification as a specialty occupation 
under the first criterion of the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
And O*NET's summary report for "Logisticians" proceeds no farther than to establish a minimum 
entry requirement of a four-year bachelor's degree for "most" positions within the occupation. The 
summary report is silent about the specific specialty for the bachelor's degree. See O*NET Summary 
Report for "Logisticians," https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/13-1081.00. And as we state 
above, it is not enough that the position requires a bachelor's degree; the required degree must be in a 
field or fields comprising a specific specialty related to the theoretical and practical knowledge 
required to perform the duties of the proffered job. So the Petitioner's reliance on the summary report 
is misplaced. 
The Petitioner also provided an advisory opinion in an effort to establish eligibility under the first 
criterion. 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). But they are not 
presumptive evidence. See also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, 502 n.2 (BIA, 2008). And less 
weight is given to an advisory opinion where there is cause to question or doubt the opinion or if it is 
not in accord with other information in the record. Matter of Caron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. at 795. 
The advisory opinion is considerably doubtful. Its writer bases their opinion on two letters the 
Petitioner submitted in the petition's support: one from its human resources generalist and another 
from its supply planning lead. The advisory opinion's writer also mentions research into the issues 
presented, their own independent research, their asserted familiarity with the Petitioner and its 
competitors, and their self-expressed vast experience as sources for their opinions. But the advisory 
opinion appears to have been written in isolation from other applicable information or authority. It 
does not provide an individualized analysis of why the Petitioner's position is a specialty occupation 
when reliable sources such as the Handbook advise that such positions can be entered into with a 
bachelor's degree in business, with no farther specialization, or the equivalent, or with a variety of 
bachelor's level degrees in seemingly disparate fields which do not comprise a singular supporting 
body of theoretical and practical knowledge required to perform the duties of the proffered job. The 
writer concludes that the supply chain planner position is a specialty occupation because performance 
of its duties requires reliance on a diverse and seemingly unconnected list of concepts such as 
"advanced concepts pertaining to logistics, supply chain management, statistics, data analytics, data 
science, computer science, management science, management information systems, databased 
management systems, quality assurance engineering, and technology management." The breadth of 
the range of the concepts listed by the writer raises questions about whether a single cognizable 
specialty, even if rooted in various disciplines, is required to perform the duties of the position. And 
the advisory opinion contains only unsupported conclusory statements. There is no direct citation to 
specific research, authority, or credible source to support the writer's assertions other than an 
invocation of the writer's resume as justification. 1 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation from a probative source to conclude that a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty related to the duties of the job or its equivalent 
1 We will also evaluate the advisory opinion the Petitioner has submitted in the applicable sections of this decision to the 
extent that it asserts the Petitioner's proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation under other applicable criteria 
contained at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
6 
is required as a minimum qualification for entry to this particular position. So, the Petitioner has not 
satisfied the first criteria contained at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
B. First Prong of Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: (A) the degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations; or (B) the employer's particular position is 
so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree. The first prong, 
concerned with common industry practice is satisfied when the Petitioner establishes that their degree 
requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. The 
alternative prong of the second criterion 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 a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty related to the duties of the proffered position or its equivalent. 
To satisfy the first prong, a petitioner must establish eligibility by demonstrating that the degree 
requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions amongst similar organizations. The 
Petitioner states that its degree requirement for its supply chain planner position is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. In support, the Petitioner provided three 
job vacancy announcements and information about the companies placing the announcements. 
We regularly 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." 
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. Nor did the 
Petitioner submit evidence from an industry professional association, or from firms or individuals in 
its industry indicating such a degree is a minimum requirement for entry into the position. 
As stated earlier, the Petitioner submitted three job vacancy announcements in support of its assertion 
that the claimed degree requirement is common to the industry. However, to be relevant for 
consideration under this prong, the job vacancy announcements must advertise "parallel positions," 
and the announcements must have been placed by organizations that (1) conduct business in the 
Petitioner's industry and (2) are also "similar" to the Petitioner. The three job vacancy announcements 
the Petitioner submitted do not satisfy this threshold. 
We will first consider whether the advertised job opportumt1es could be considered "parallel 
positions." One of the job postings is for an associate business analyst. Examination of the duties of 
this position reflects a need for nothing more than "develop[ing] an understanding of. .. supply chain 
growth." The remaining job postings advertise supply chain professionals, but they do not also appear 
to parallel the offered position. The supply chain business operations specialist posting submitted 
contained duties which do not correspond with the duties of the Petitioner's supply chain planner. 
Whilst the Petitioner's supply chain planner's duties appear to heavily emphasize the logistical and 
planning components of the function, the supply chain business operations specialist description 
7 
reflects a heavy emphasis on purchasing and sourcing, raising the question as to whether the position 
in the posting is in a different job classification than the Petitioner's. And the associate director, supply 
chain systems operations cannot be considered a parallel position as the duties described are those of 
a top executive in business operations who is "responsible for growth and advancement of the Supply 
Chains Systems Operations Group" and "defines and delivers a cohesive customer service 
model/approach" and not of a logistician as contemplated by the duties of the Petitioner's supply chain 
planner. 
The Petitioner assigns error in the Director's evaluation of whether the other employers posting the 
job vacancy announcements (1) conduct business in the Petitioner's industry and (2) are also "similar" 
to the Petitioner. The Petitioner states that it is the entity best placed to determine and identify 
companies like itself in its industry. When determining whether the employer posting a job listing and 
the Petitioner share the same general characteristics, factors to be considered may include information 
regarding the nature or type of organization and, when pertinent, the particular scope of operations 
and levels of revenue and staffing. 
The Petitioner is a 3-D printer manufacturer. The job postings the Petitioner submitted were placed by 
a pharmaceutical company, a defense contractor, and an energy company. None conduct business in 
the Petitioner's industry. The Petitioner attested to its familiarity with its business and industry to 
persuade us to conclude that its subjective determination and self-identification of its industry is 
sufficient. But the Petitioner submits no convincing information, material, or explanation to explain 
how these vastly different entities are in the same industry as one another let alone with the Petitioner. 
For all these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that these job vacancy announcements are 
relevant. But even if that threshold had been met, we would still conclude that the Petitioner did not 
satisfy this prong of the second criterion, as these ads also did not indicate that a bachelor's degree in 
a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is common to the Petitioner's industry in parallel positions 
among similar organizations. The announcements the Petitioner submitted reflect that the advertising 
employers would accept a variety of degrees including a general-purpose degree in business 
administration,2 as well as degrees in engineering, marine operations, public policy, sustainability, 
information systems, operations management, and supply chain management. The Petitioner 
concludes that this establishes a common bachelor's degree requirement for the role in line with the 
different needs for different companies. But again, the Petitioner elevates a requirement for any 
bachelor's degree to mean that a position requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or fields 
comprising a specialty to perform the duties of the position. This is incorrect. The various bachelor's 
degrees which employers would have accepted for entry into the proffered position undermine the 
Petitioner's assertion that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is a common requirement for the 
proffered job because various unconnected degree requirements cannot compose a specialty which 
provides a basis for a body of theoretical and practical knowledge required to perform the duties of a 
position. Furthermore, the posting for the associate director, supply chain systems operations did not 
even specify educational fields other than to describe a generic "relevant discipline" and "familiarity 
in supply chain process." And the employer who sought a supply chain business operations specialist 
2 Again, a requirement for a bachelor's degree in business administration is not a requirement for a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty. Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147. To the contrary, that requirement generally means a position is not a 
specialty occupation. 
8 
posting reflects that it would accept work experience in lieu of education without quantifying the 
amount of work experience. 
And the Petitioner's reliance on I I advisory opm10n, to the extent it asserts the 
Petitioner's proffered position's educational requirement is common requirement within the industry 
for parallel positions among similar organizations, appears misplaced. Whilst I !identifies 
themself as an emeritus professor, academic counselor, and academic evaluator, the record does not 
develop their expertise regarding industry recruiting and hiring standards, which is especially 
important given the Petitioner's submission of evidence for consideration under this prong wherein it 
indicated that a standard may not exist. 
So we conclude that the advertisements provided do not support the Petitioner's argument concerning 
eligibility under the first alternative prong of the second criteria 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Second Prong of Second Criterion and Fourth Criterion 
The Petitioner claims that its proffered job is a specialty occupation under the alternate prong of the 
second criterion. As mentioned above, the alternative prong of the second criterion 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 a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty related to the duties of the proffered 
position or its equivalent and the fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4) requires a 
petitioner to establish that the nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the 
knowledge required to perform them is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or 
higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner stated that its supply chain planner must have a bachelor's or higher degree in industrial 
engineering, mechanical engineering, operations research, supply chain or a related field because its 
proffered job is complex or unique and requires the performance of specialized duties. We said earlier 
that the Petitioner submitted two letters into the record describing the supply chain planners job duties. 
The Petitioner assigns error to the Director and admonishes them for a lack of "analysis" explaining 
why the Petitioner's proffered position is not unique or complex as required by the regulations. But 
the Petitioner's assignment of error fundamentally misunderstands the nature of these proceedings. It 
is not the Director's burden to prove the Petitioner's ineligibility. It is always a petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence for the immigration benefit sought. Section 
291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The letter from the Petitioner's human resources generalist submitted 
initially with the petition provided a description of the supply chain planner duties with percentages 
of time and under a generalized heading to demonstrate the proffered job's complexity or uniqueness. 
However, the Petitioner provided no additional context, information, or explanation. With the 
response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted another letter by the Petitioner's supply planning lead 
attempting to demonstrate complexity or uniqueness by providing expanded duties. The Petitioner's 
expansion of the supply chain planner's duties breaks the main duties into component parts. The 
component parts put together make up the sum of the specific duty in the job description which 
corresponds with the job description in the Handbook. So it is unclear what the complexity or 
uniqueness of the Petitioner's proffered job is to demonstrate eligibility under the alternate second part 
of the second prong contained at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) 
9 
And the components parts do not demonstrate any additional complexity or uniqueness in this 
particular position. The duties contained in the human resources generalist's letter and the expanded 
duties in the supply planning lead's letter do not describe by themselves a position so specialized and 
complex that it would require the application of a theoretical and practical body of highly specialized 
knowledge gained after earning a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty to perform them so as to 
demonstrate eligibility under the fourth prong at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
The advisory opinion the Petitioner submitted is also unconvincing. Again, it is not presumptive 
evidence of eligibility; we are ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an 
individual's eligibility for the benefit sought. Matter o_f Caron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. at 795; see 
also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. at 502 n.2. The advisory opinion submitted by the Petitioner is 
unhelpful to demonstrate eligibility under the alternate prong of the second criterion and the fourth 
criterion. The writer concluded that the supply chain planner position is a specialty occupation because 
performance of its duties requires reliance on a diverse and seemingly unconnected list of concepts 
such as "advanced concepts pertaining to logistics, supply chain management, statistics, data analytics, 
data science, computer science, management science, management information systems, databased 
management systems, quality assurance engineering, and technology management." The writer did 
not articulate why these concepts are relied upon to perform the duties of the proffered position. They 
did not cite, refer to, or provide in the record any of the writer's research into the issues they are 
considering or other research into the issues. The writer did not compare and contrast the Petitioner's 
supply chain planner position to other logistics positions to distinguish it as unique or complex and 
specialized. The advisory opinion the Petitioner has submitted simply regurgitated the duties the 
Beneficiary would perform as supply chain planner in an expanded narrative format. They did not 
appear so specialized and complex such that a bachelor's degrees in a range of related disciplines 
comprising a single specialty related to the duties of the proffered position is the minimum requirement 
for entry. So whilst the writer concluded the duties that will be performed require a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty related to those duties, it did not explain why the position is more specialized 
and complex or the particular position complex or unique. 
The record lacks sufficient unambiguous information to set the Petitioner's supply chain planner 
position as more "complex or unique" or its duties "specialized and complex" from positions that do 
not require at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent to perform the duties of 
the Petitioner's officer job. So the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of the 
second criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) or the fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2 l 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)( 4). 
D. Third Criterion 
The Petitioner's proffered job does not qualify as a specialty occupation under the third criterion of 
the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). The third criterion requires an employer to 
demonstrate that it normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, 
related to the performance of the position's job duties. 
The Petitioner's RFE response expressed its preference for its supply chain planner to possess a 
bachelor's degree in industrial engineering, mechanical engineering, operations research, supply chain 
or a related field. The Petitioner asserts that its preference is in fact its normal requirement for its 
10 
supply chain planner position. In support of this preference the Petitioner submitted letters from its 
human resources generalist and supply planning lead. 
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, 201 F.3d at 387-88. Were we limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's claimed self­
imposed requirements, an organization could bring any individual with a bachelor's degree to the 
United States to perform any occupation so long as the petitioning entity created a token degree 
requirement. Id. 
The letters are insufficient to support the Petitioner's eligibility under the third criterion because they 
mainly express a preference, and then set forth job duties and responsibilities. The Petitioner does not 
provide any additional evidence or documentation which could have helped evaluate its eligibility 
under this criterion, such as current or prior job announcements, a list of current of former employees 
with position titles like the proffered position's title and degree titles, or copies of current or former 
employee's paystubs, degree, and resumes. 
The absence of any additional evidence or documentation other than two conclusory letters from the 
Petitioner cannot establish that the Petitioner's requirements compose anything more than a self­
imposed preference. So the Petitioner has not satisfied the third criterion of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
III. CONCLUSION 
It is the Petitioner's burden to provide competent and credible evidence of the nature of its proffered 
specialty occupation and the Beneficiary's qualification for the proffered position. The Petitioner has 
not met its burden for the reasons set forth above. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
11