dismissed H-1B Case: Systems Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 12458945 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 11, 2021 
The Petitioner, an import-export company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "systems 
engineer II" under the H-1B nonirmnigrant 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 California Service Center denied the petition and affirmed her conclusion in 
response to a subsequent motion. The matter is now before us on appeal. We will reject the 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 l&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). 
I. BACKGROUND 
The Director denied the petition on two bases, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish: (1) that 
the proffered position is a specialty occupation; and (2) that the Beneficiary had properly maintained 
her nonimmigrant status . The Director affirmed both findings in response to the Petitioner's 
subsequent motion. 
The Petitioner has now appealed the Director's motion decision . The Petitioner does not address the 
Director's comments regarding the specialty-occupation on appeal. Instead, the Petitioner's appeal is 
based solely on the maintenance-of-status issue, which is an issue over which we do not exercise 
appellate jurisdiction. 
II. THE APPEAL MUST BE REJECTED 
The Form I-129 consists of separate benefit requests. 1 As it pertains to the matter at hand, the two benefit 
requests are: (1) the petition to classify the employment offer as appropriate for the H-lB category (the 
basis for classification); and (2) an application for the procedural benefit relevant to the Beneficiary's 
authorized stay in the United States (extension of her H-lB nonimmigrant status). 2 The regulations do 
not provide for an appeal from a denial of an extension of stay: "[ w ]here an applicant or petitioner 
demonstrates eligibility for a requested extension, it may be granted at the discretion of USCIS. The 
denial of an application for extension of stay may not be appealed." 8 C.F.R. § 214.l(c)(S). Moreover, 
the authority to adjudicate appeals is delegated to the AAO by the Secretary of the Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS) pursuant to the authority vested in him through the Homeland Security Act 
of 2002, Pub. L. 107-296. See DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); see also 
8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003). The AAO exercises appellate jurisdiction over the matters described at 
8 C.F.R. § 103.l(f)(3)(iii) (as in effect on Feb. 28, 2003). 3 As appeals from denials of requests for 
extension of stay are not listed as matters over which the AAO has jurisdiction, we must reject this appeal. 
III. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE APPEAL WOULD BE SUMMARILY DISMISSED 
If we did have jurisdiction over this appeal, and therefore were not compelled to reject it, we would 
still summarily dismiss it. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) mandates that an officer 
summarily dismiss an appeal when the Petitioner does not identify specifically any erroneous 
conclusion of law or statement of fact in the appeal. 
The Petitioner marked the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, to indicate that a brief and/or 
additional evidence was attached. However, the Petitioner's submission does not specifically identify 
any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact made by the Director regarding the specialty­
occupation issue. Instead, as indicated, the Petitioner's appellate brief only provided arguments to 
support the granting of the Beneficiary's requested change of status. Thus, even if we did have 
jurisdiction over the status issue, and were not rejecting it outright, we would still summarily dismiss 
1 These functions previously required two to three separate filings depending upon whether a change of status was being 
requested: one by the petitioner (Form I-129H) and the others by the beneficiary (Forms 1-506 and 1-539). For example, 
the regulations on January L 1991 provided that a petitioner "shall file a petition in duplicate on Form I-129H with the 
service center which has jurisdiction over I-129H petitions in the area where the alien will perform services or receive 
training or as further prescribed in this section." 8 C.F.R. § 2 l 4.2(h)(2)(i)(A) ( 1991 ). Further, the 1991 regulations required 
applications for a change of status or visa classification to be submitted by the nonimmigrant alien on Form I-506, 
Application for Change of Nonimmigrant Status, filed with the district director having jurisdiction over the place of 
employment if changing to H or L status. 8 C.F.R. § 248.3(a) and (b) ( 1991 ). In addition, the 1991 regulations provided 
that "[a]n alien ... shall apply for an extension of stay on Form I-539 .... [E]ach alien seeking an extension of stay 
generally must execute and submit a separate application for extension of stay to the district office having jurisdiction over 
the alien's place of tempora1y residence in the United States." 8 C.F.R. § 214.l(c)(l) (1991). In implementing the 
Immigration Act of 1990. Pub. L. No. 101-649, 104 Stat. 4978, these functions were combined into one form (Form 1-129) 
to more efficiently process the separate requests. See 56 Fed. Reg. 61111 (Dec. 2, 1991); 56 Fed. Reg. 61201, 61204 
(Dec. 2, 1991). 
2 See the Form 1-129 instructions found at: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/i-l29instr.pdf. Page 
five of the instructions lists the different uses of the Form 1-129 including the one at issue which is a request to "[e]xtend 
the stay of [a] beneficiary who now holds this status." 
3 There is one exception to this. Petitions for approval of schools under 8 C.F.R. § 214.3 are now the responsibility of U.S. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement and fall outside the jurisdiction ofUSCIS. 
2 
the appeal in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) because the Petitioner has not specifically 
identified any erroneous conclusion of law or statement made by the Director in her February 2020 
decision on the motion, which is the subject of this appeal. 
IV. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE APPEAL WOULD BE DISMISSED ON THE MERITS 
Even though the regulations require us to reject, and in the alternative, summarily dismiss the appeal, 
we will nonetheless provide a brief analysis of the specialty-occupation so that the Petitioner can be 
prepared to address these shortcomings in any future H-lB filings. 
A. 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 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. 
We note as a threshold issue that 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together with 
section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). In other words, this regulatory language 
must be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the statute as a 
whole. 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 statute 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). As such, the criteria stated in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) should 
3 
logically be read as being necessary but not necessarily sufficient to meet the statutory and regulatory 
definition of specialty occupation. To otherwise interpret this section as stating the necessary and 
sufficient conditions for meeting the definition of specialty occupation would result in particular 
positions meeting a condition under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) but not the statutory or regulatory 
definition. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384,387 (5th Cir. 2000). To avoid this result, 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must therefore be read as providing supplemental criteria that must be met in 
accordance with, and not as alternatives to, the statutory and regulatory definitions of specialty 
occupation. 
As such and consonant with section 214(i)(l) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(ii), we construe the term "degree" in the criteria at 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. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) 
( describing "a degree requirement in a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and 
responsibilities of a particular position"). 
To determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, we do not rely simply upon 
a position's title or the broader occupational category within which a petitioner claims the position is 
located. The specific duties of the proffered position, combined with the nature of the petitioning 
entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. We must examine the ultimate employment 
of the individual, and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. See generally 
Defensor, 201 F. 3d 384. The critical element is not the title of the position or an employer's self-­
imposed standards, but whether the position actually 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 as the minimum for entry into the occupation, as required by the Act. 
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). 
B. Analysis 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we conclude that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 4 
Specifically, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established the substantive nature of the work that 
the Beneficiary will perform due to a lack of specificity in its description of the duties and material 
inconsistencies contained within the record of proceeding. Because the Petitioner has not established 
the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the Beneficiary, we are precluded from 
determining that the proffered position satisfies any of the regulatory specialty-occupation criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
4 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the petition, including evidence regarding the position and its business 
operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
On the labor condition application (LCA) 5 submitted in support of the H-1B 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 I wage. 6 On the Form I-129, 
Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, the Petitioner identifies itself as an import-export startup 
established in 2016 with 11 employees. The Petitioner has a foreign parent company in China, and its 
U.S. presence specializes in selling aluminum wheels, textiles, artificial turf to car owners, and baby 
products under several labels. 
The Petitioner provided the following description of the proffered position, indicating that the 
Beneficiary will perform the following duties: 
• 40% administer logistics for clients including: schedule cost-effective transportation and 
storage for company materials and stock; use supply chain knowledge to identify the most 
efficient and cost-effective way to acquire and ultimately deliver the product(s); utilize logistic 
programs like Kuebix TMS and Appointing Plus Dock Scheduling to plan and track the 
shipment of products; apply supply chain management to analyze company's established 
logistical functions and determine if there is any area for improvement; oversee the activities 
of contractors to ensure products are delivered on schedule; perform cost analysis on system 
and product lifecycles and develop studies to demonstrate results; and apply finance and 
accounting experience to determine most competitive price points and report results to 
management. 
• 30% resource procurement and allocation including: lead a product's life cycle including how 
the product is acquired, allocated, and eventually delivered; produce all necessary supplies and 
services for the business, from moving equipment to packaging supplies; build strategic 
business alliances with suppliers to acquire products and supplies at cost-effective prices; and 
identify areas lacking resources and allocate such resources to ensure efficient operation. 
• 20% client and management report including: develop business relationships with clients to 
understand clients' needs and to streamline communication; review any proposals from 
management and incorporate appropriate suggestions into company's logistic functions; 
resolve any issues clients may have and clearly explain the proposed solutions to clients, 
management, and any other interested parties; and provide status reports to management so 
they are kept up-to-date on project or shipment statuses. 
• 10% market and competitor analysis including: conduct market and competitor research to 
determine marketing pricing structure and suggest any changes; conduct research to determine 
which suppliers provide the necessary supplies at the lowest rates; and research and locate 
5 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified labor condition application (LCA) 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 experience and qualifications who are performing the same 
services. Section 212(n)(l) ofthe Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.73l(a). 
6 A wage determination starts with an entry-level wage (Level I) and progresses to a higher wage level (up to Level TV) 
after considering the experience, education, and skill requirements of the Petitioner's job opp01tunity. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 
Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 
2009), available at https://www.flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised_ 11 _ 2009 .pdf. 
5 
appropriate warehouses and storage areas upon client's request based on operation and 
strategic business management knowledge. 7 
The Petitioner listed among the minimum qualifications for the pos1t10n a bachelor's degree in 
logistics, supply chain management, operations management, or a related field. 8 In addition, the 
Petitioner noted that fluency in Mandarin is preferred, as well as knowledge of global logistics, critical­
thinking/problem solving skills, financial management coursework, and knowledge of certain 
transport management skills. 9 
The above-listed duties are generic and lack the level of detail and specificity needed to sufficiently 
establish the substantive nature of the proffered position as well as the knowledge required to perform 
the duties. 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). 
The Petitioner does not detail specific duties and responsibilities to be performed by the Beneficiary 
in relation to its particular business interests. For example, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary 
will"[ u ]se supply chain knowledge to identify the most efficient and cost-effective way to acquire and 
ultimately deliver the product(s)." This duty-description does not explain what steps are involved in 
carrying out this duty or why an individual performing this duty would need the theoretical or practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge to perform it. The Petitioner lists "logistic 
programs" like Kuebix TMS and Appointing Plus Dock Scheduling, however there is no evidence 
submitted to show that an individual using these programs would need a bachelor's degree in a 
specialized field or that a bachelor's degree in a specialized field would include the practical use of 
7 The listed duties come from the Petitioner's October 11, 2019 letter in response to the Director's request for additional 
evidence (RFE or Petitioner's RFE response). However, in its initial letter of support ( dated March 25, 2019), the Petitioner 
stated that as a Logistician, the "[Beneficiary] will be mainly responsible for administering transportation logistics for our 
clients and researching market demands and competition to help with the logistical decision-making and iterations." We 
note that the description of the Beneficiary's work in the Petitioner's initial letter of support is not consistent with the job 
duties delineated in the same letter. Specifically, none of the position's described duties includes helping clients with 
"logistical decision-making and iterations" and it is unclear what "iterations" means in this context. Furthermore, 
according to the duties noted, only I 0% of the Beneficiary's time will be spent conducting market research yet the 
Petitioner describes this as a main duty. 
8 The listed degree fields come from the Petitioner's RFE response. However, in its initial letter of support ( dated March 
25, 2019), the Petitioner states that the minimum qualifications for the position are a bachelor's degree in "business 
economics, systems engineering, supply chain management, logistics, or the equivalent experience." The change in 
acceptable degree fields, without explanation, creates ambiguity regarding the substantive nature of the proffered position 
as well as the minimum qualifications for the position. 
9 The Petitioner's RFE response. 
6 
these programs as part of a curriculum. Two additional and vaguely-stated duties are: "[p ]erform cost 
analysis on system and product lifecycles and develop studies to demonstrate results" and "[ a ]pply 
finance and accounting experience to determine most competitive price points and report results to 
management." The amorphous nature of these stated duties makes it difficult to determine the 
substantive nature of the proffered position. For instance, we question whether "finance and 
accounting experience" refers to on-the-job training or prior work experience. Similarly, the duty 
requiring performance of cost analysis and developing studies is stated in too vague a fashion to 
understand how the knowledge acquired from a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty would be 
required to perform this duty. A review of the remaining duties finds the same vagueness and lack of 
specificity and does not provide the necessary details to understand the substantive nature of the 
proffered position. 
The Petitioner submitted two organization charts. In the first organization chart, the proffered position 
is shown to be at the top of the "logistics department" with two warehouse laborers listed under the 
proffered position. In a subsequently submitted organizational chart, the proffered position is shown 
to be in charge of one warehouse staff position. It appears, therefore, that the proffered position 
includes supervisory duties over at least one ( or more) warehouse staff However, none of the duties 
of the proffered position include management of warehouse staff or explain how the position would 
be used to oversee a warehouse staff position. In fact, there is no mention of warehouse staff in the 
listed duties, and instead, the job duties include the duty of overseeing contractors. The record's 
ambiguity about the position's level of responsibility and supervisory fonction(s) casts doubt about 
the substantive nature of the position. 
Overall, the Petitioner's description of duties, and the lack of specificity in the listed duties lead not 
only to ambiguity regarding the substantive nature of the position but also to concerns regarding 
whether the LCA 10 corresponds to the proffered position, as required. 11 For instance, the proffered 
10 The LCA serves as the critical mechanism for enforcing section 212(n)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 182(n)(l). See, Labor 
Condition Applications and Requirements for Employers Using Nonimmigrants on H-lB Visas in Specialty Occupations 
and as Fashion Models; Labor Certification Process for Permanent Employment of Aliens in the United States, 65 Fed. 
Reg. 80,110, 80,110-11 (proposed Dec. 20, 2000) (to be codified at 20 C.F.R. pts. 655-56) (indicating that the wage 
protections in the Act seek "to protect U.S. workers' wages and eliminate any economic incentive or advantage in hiring 
temporary foreign workers" and that this "process of protecting U.S. workers begins with [the filing of an LCA] with 
[DOL ]."). According to section 2 l 2(n)( I )(A) of the Act, an employer must attest that it will pay a holder of an H-1 B visa 
the higher of the prevailing wage in the "area of employment" or the amount paid to other employees with similar 
experience and qualifications who are performing the same services. Sec, 20 C.F.R. § 655.731 (a); Venkatraman v. REI 
Sys., Inc., 417 F.3d 418, 422 & n.3 (4th Cir. 2005); Patel v. Boghra, 369 F. App'x 722, 723 (7th Cir. 2010); Michal 
Vojtisek-Lom & Adm'r Wage & Hour Div. v. Clean Air Tech. Int'l, Inc., No. 07-97, 2009 WL 2371236, at 8 (Dep't of 
Labor Admin. Rev. Bd. July 30, 2009). 
11 While the Depaitment of Labor (DOL) is the agency that certifies LCA applications before they are submitted to USCTS, 
DOL regulations note that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (i.e., its immigration benefits branch, USCTS) is 
the department responsible for determining whether the content of an LCA filed for a pa1iicular Fonn T-129 actually 
suppolts that petition. See 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b), which states, in peitinent part (emphasis added): 
For H-lB visas ... DHS accepts the employer's petition (DHS Form I-129) with the DOL-ce11ified 
LCA attached. In doing so, the DHS determines whether the petition is supported by an LCA which 
corresponds with the petition, whether the occupation named in the [LCA] is a specialty occupation or 
whether the individual is a fashion model of distinguished merit and ability, and whether the 
qualifications of the nonimmigrant meet the statutory requirements for H-lB visa classification. 
7 
position's duties includes market analysis, which is not a duty found within the Occupational 
Information Network's (O*NET) tasks associated with "Logisticians." 12 By comparison, market 
analysis is found within the O*NET tasks associated with "Supply Chain Managers." 13 We point out 
that if the proffered position incorporates tasks that fall within more than one occupational category 
(i.e., "Logisticians," and "Supply Chain Managers"), the Department of Labor's (DOL) guidance 
states that the employer "should default directly to the relevant O*NET-SOC code for the highest 
paying occupation." At the time the Petitioner's LCA was certified, the level I wage for "Logisticians" 
in the area of intended employment was $57,075 per year, 14 which is significantly lower than the 
prevailing wage for "Supply Chain Managers," which was $74,339 per year. 15 Thus, the highest 
paying occupation, for the proposed position would be the "Supply Chain Managers" occupation and 
should have been so designated on the LCA. 16 
There are additional concerns related to the position's minimum qualifications that also suggest the 
wage level on the LCA is inaccurate and that therefore, the LCA does not correspond to the petition. 
As stated above, the Petitioner designated the position at a wage I level on the LCA. Under the DOL' s 
guidance, which provides a five-step process for determining the appropriate wage level for LCAs, 17 
step four focuses on "Special Skills and Other Requirements." 18 Here, a review of the tasks, work 
activities, knowledge, and job zone examples in the O*NET report for "Logisticians" does not reveal 
any foreign language-related aspects. 19 However, the Petitioner explains that the ideal candidate must 
be fluent in English and Mandarin because it has a parent company in China and the "perfect 
candidate" would have "strong bilingual communications with vendors and clients." 20 As a result and 
in accordance with the DOL's guidance, it appears more likely than not that the Petitioner should have 
increased the wage level on the LCA due to a foreign language requirement in its position. 
Along the same line, the Petitioner submitted several job postings in support of the petition, which the 
Petitioner argues are parallel to the proffered position. All of the submitted job postings require a 
minimum of three years related work experience with some requiring up to eight years related work 
experience and one of the job postings requires the minimum of a master's degree. The Petitioner's 
submission of several job postings requiring more than two years related work experience and one job 
posting requiring a master's degree creates ambiguity about the position's minimum qualifications 
and indicates further that the LCA does not correspond to the petition. The O*NET entry for 
"Logisticians," indicates that the occupation is a Job Zone Four occupation, which groups it among 
occupations for which "most ... require a four-year bachelor's degree, but some do not." Thus, if the 
submitted job postings are parallel to the proffered position, then in accordance with DOL guidance, 
The regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(6) requires that USCTS ensure that an LCA actually supp01ts the H-1 B petition filed 
on behalf of the Beneficiary. Here, the Petitioner has not submitted a valid LCA that corresponds to the position. 
12 See https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/l 3-l 081.00#Tasks (last visited Jan. 26, 2021 ). 
13 See https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/l l-307l .04#Tasks (last visited Jan. 26, 2021 ). 
14 See https://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults.aspx?code= 13-1081 &area=e=J&year= l 9&source= 1, Foreign 
Labor Certification Data Center Online Wage Library. 
15 See https://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults.aspx?area=e=J&code= 1 l-9 l 99&year= 19&source= 1. 
16 The Petitioner lists supply chain management as among the list of acceptable degree fields, which further supports 
finding that the more appropriate SOC would have been "Supply Chain Managers." 
17 Supra note 6. 
IS Id. 
19 Supra note 12. 
20 The Petitioner's RFE response. 
8 
there should have been an additional increase in the wage level to account for the requirement of a 
master's degree or any additional years of work experience beyond two years. More importantly, the 
inconsistent evidence regarding the minimum requirements for the proffered position raises additional 
questions regarding the nature and level ofresponsibility of the proffered position. 
Finally, for the sake of thoroughness we will briefly address the Petitioner's assertions made in its 
motion. 21 The Petitioner provided printouts from academic journals to establish the industry standard 
and educational requirements of the proffered position under criterion one of 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(h)(4)(ii). Specifically, the Petitioner provided articles from the Defense Transportation 
Journal, 22 the Journal of Business Logistics, 23 and from Supply Chain Management. 24 The first of 
these articles states that "[l]ogisticians and supply chain managers already working in the field may 
consider returning to school for an advanced degree to enhance their career potential" however there 
is no mention of which specific degree field should be pursued in order obtain the necessary 
specialized knowledge. 25 The remainder of these articles articulate that various business, logistics, 
and management skills are needed to perform the work of a supply chain manager or in a logistics 
position, however the articles do not support finding that a degree in a specific specialty is needed. 
For instance, one article cites to an industry survey which found 93% of logisticians had bachelor's 
degrees, however the article does not examine specific coursework and/or specialized classes, or find 
that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is required. 26 Another article explains how globalization 
is changing the supply chain management profession, and goes into detail about the numerous skills 
needed to perform in this field. 27 However, similar to the other articles submitted, this article does not 
specify which degree field is needed to perform in this role or that the degree in a specific specialty is 
"common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations" which is the standard set 
out in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
The Petitioner submitted the American Production and Inventory Control Society's (APICS) 
Distribution and Logistics Managers Competency Model which states that "[t]he majority of 
distribution and logistics management professionals hold post secondary degrees - a bachelor's or 
equivalent." The manual goes on to explain that the majority of degree holders have degrees in 
business, economics, engineering, or liberal arts studies. That the APICS document finds acceptable 
a bachelor's degree in business or liberal arts with no further specialization, alone precludes a 
determination that the typical logistics position involves a "body of highly specialized knowledge" or 
21 As noted above, the Petitioner filed two Fonn l-290Bs. The first was filed as a motion to reopen the denial of its Form 
1-129 with a concomitant motion to reconsider the denial of the Beneficiary's change of status request. The remainder of 
this decision will discuss arguments advanced by and evidence submitted with the Petitioner's motion to reopen the Fonn 
1-129 H-lB petition, which the Director of the California Service Center denied on Feb. 7, 2020, finding that the Petitioner 
has not established the proffered position was a specialty occupation. 
22 The journal article submitted from this publication is titled 1----
0
-------
0
------. 
(October 2017). 
23 The journal articles submitted from this publication are titled I I O I" (2001) and I O , , 
I f 
(2004). 
I 24 The jour:) artjc)e ~ubm~ted froFc~~~s
83
~blication is titled • .... I ......... , .............. P,..,........,.....,....,........,., 5....,.......,._.....,...,.,...~ ................... ...-.1L 
25 Supra note 22. 
26 I r page 214, Journal of BL~ts-in-es_s_L_o_g-is-ti-cs~,~l~_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-~~l-2-00_4 ___________________ __, 
27 Supra note 24. 
9 
that it requires the attainment of a bachelor's degree in a "specific specialty." The First Circuit Court 
of Appeals explained in Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147, that: 
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 the granting of a petition for an H-1B specialty occupation visa. See, e.g., Tapis 
Int'l 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. 28 
The Petitioner submitted its employees' resumes and university degrees to establish eligibility under 
the third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 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 the performance requirements of the position. See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. Were we limited 
28 Id. But see India House , Inc . v. McAleenan, --- F. Supp. ----, 2020 WL 1479519 (D.R.I. 2020). In India House the 
court distinguished Royal Siam on factual grounds but did not dispute its central reasoning: that a position whose duties 
can be fulfilled by an individual with a general-purpose bachelor's degree in business is not a specialty occupation. Here, 
the Petitioner's initial letter of support specifically recognizes an unspecialized bachelor's degree in business as being one 
of the many degrees it considers as providing adequate preparation to perform the duties of the proffered position. The 
agency has longstanding concerns regarding general-purpose bachelor 's degrees in business with no additional 
specialization. For example, in Matter of Ling , 13 I. & N. Dec. 35 (Reg'l Comm ' r 1968), the agency stated that attainment 
of a bachelor 's degree in business administration alone was insufficient to qualify a foreign national as a member of the 
professions pursuant to section 10 l(a)(32) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 110 l(a)(32). Twenty years later, the agency looked to 
the nature of the position itself and clarified that a requirement for a degree with a generalized title, such as business 
administration , without further specification , was insufficient to qualify the position as one that is professional pursuant to 
section 10l(a)(32) of the Act. Michael Hertz Assocs. , 19 I&N Dec. at 560. See also Matter of Caron Int '!, Inc., 19 I&N 
Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988) (vice president for manufacturing in a textile company was not a professional position because 
individual holding general degree in business, engineering or science could perform its duties). 
Congress created the modem H-lB program as part of the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649, 104 Stat. 4978. 
In doing so, it pivoted away from the prior H-1 standard of whether a position was "professional. " Instead, petitioners 
were now required to demonstrate that a proffered position qualified as a "specialty occupation ." Section 
10 l(a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) of the Act. In the final rule setting forth the requirements for the revamped H-lB program, the agency, 
responding to commenters suggesting that the proposed regulatory "specific specialty" requirement "was too severe and 
would exclude certain occupations from classifications as specialty occupations ," stated that "[t]he definition of specialty 
occupation contained in the statute contains this requirement." Temporary Alien Workers Seeking Classification Under 
the Immigration and Nationality Act, 56 Fed. Reg. 611 I 1, 61 I 12 (Dec. 2, 1991). 
The agency's concerns regarding a general-purpose, non-specific degree in business, or business administration , continued 
under the revamped H-lB program . See, e.g., Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151 (D. Minn. 1999); Royal Siam , 484 
F.3d at 147; 2233 Paradise Road, LLC v. Cissna, No. l 7--cv- 01018- APG- VCF, 20 18 WL 3312967 (D. Nev., July 3, 
2018); XiaoTong Liu v. Baran, No. 18-00376-JVS, 2018 WL 7348851 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 21, 201 8); Parzenn Partners v. 
Baran, No. 19-cv-11515-ADB, 2019 WL 6130678 (D. Mass., Nov. 19, 2019). 
To the extent the Petitioner is arguing that a bachelor's degree in business, with no further specialization ( or the equivalent), 
is a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, then consistent with agency history and federal case law, we must disagree. 
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 as long as the 
petitioning entity created a token degree requirement. Id. According to the two organization charts 
contained in the record, the Petitioner has only one logistician position in its organization and has 
never relied on the services of a logistician before. Therefore, the educational background of the 
Petitioner's other employees is not particularly relevant to establish that the proffered position requires 
a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty because none of the other employees perform the work of 
the proffered position. In addition, the Petitioner admits that it has never previously employed a 
logistician yet it has been in business since 2016 and the record does not make clear why the Petitioner 
now requires a logistician with this level of education. Without more, we cannot find that the 
Petitioner's degree requirement is necessitated by the actual job duties of the proffered position and 
eligibility under criterion 3 of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) has not been established. 
Several documents were submitted to establish eligibility under criteria 2B and 4 of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Specifically, the Petitioner submitted samples of the Beneficiary 's work product 
in the osition, a letter from an employee, a letter from the CEO of 
...._---------~----- • a catalog of courses taken by the Beneficiary in her master 
of business administration (MBA) program, and the Beneficiary's resume, MBA degree and MBA 
transcript. 
The support letters from I I and I I are insufficient to establish that the position is 
complex, unique, and/or specialized. The I I letter writer focuses exclusively on the 
Beneficiary's qualifications and MBA coursework , which is not the standard applied in determining 
if a position is complex, unique and/or specialized. Similarly, thd I writer concludes, without 
analysis, that the position is complex, and that the Beneficiary has performed the work satisfactorily. 
However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the skill set or education of a 
proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself qualifies as a specialty occupation. Thus, whether 
or not the Beneficiary in this case has satisfactorily performed the duties of the proffered position is 
irrelevant to the issue of whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, i.e., whether 
the duties of the proffered position require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 
specialized knowledge and the attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. Section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
In its response to the Director's request for additional evidence (RFE), the Petitioner puts forth two 
arguments, which we will address. The fust argument is that the Petitioner's different product lines 
and "multichannel distribution strategies" make the position relatively more complex than the average 
logistics manager position. Secondly, the Petitioner argues that there are various professional 
organizations 29 that offer specialized certifications, which makes the logistician inherently specialized. 
As to the first argument, the level of complexity in the position is not reflected in the job duties or in 
the level I wage designated on the LCA. 30 As to its second argument, the mere fact that there are 
29 See counsel 's RFE response, pg. 19. Counsel lists the American Society of Transportation and Logistics (AST&L) , 
the International Society of Logistics (SOLE), and the Association for Operations Management (APICS) among the 
organizations that offer logisticians specialized certifications. 
30 See supra note 6. According to the DO L's guidance a "[l]evel I ( entry) wage rates are assigned to job offers for beginning 
level employees who have only a basic understanding of the occupation . These employees perform routine tasks that 
require limited, if any, exercise of judgment. The tasks provide experience and familiarization with the employer's 
11 
professional organizations that provide certifications in a given field, does not establish the complex, 
unique, or specialized nature of a position. Here, the minimum qualifications for the position do not 
reflect that a professional certification is needed to perform the proffered position's duties, thus this 
argument is not relevant to our evaluation of the evidence and does not establish the Petitioner's burden. 
Thus, even if we were neither rejecting nor summarily dismissing the appeal, we would still dismiss it 
because (1) the record as currently constituted does not establish that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation; and (2) the LCA does not correspond to and support the H-1B petition, as required. 
V. CONCLUSION 
As discussed, the appeal must be rejected. Ifwe did not reject it, we would summarily dismiss it. And if 
we did neither, we would dismiss it on the merits. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected. 
methods, practices, and programs. The employees may perform higher level work for training and developmental purposes. 
These employees work under close supervision and receive specific instructions on required tasks and results expected. 
Their work is closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy. . .. ". The Petitioner describes this position as relatively 
sophisticated and requiring little or no supervision, which conflicts with the DOL's definition for a level I wage position 
and creates ambiguity about the substantive nature of the position. 
12