dismissed H-1B Case: Transportation

identifiring data deleted to 
prevent clezl.-l y unwarranted 
invasion of personal priv~y 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of tiomeland Security 
20 Mass Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 03 102 5 1785 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN 1 2 2006 
- 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(l S)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1 101(a)(l S)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 03 102 5 1785 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The director of the service center denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the matter is now 
before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. The petition will be 
denied. 
The petitioner is a transportation company seeks to employ the beneficiary as a sea freight manager. The 
petitioner, therefore, endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation 
pursuant to section lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1 10 1 (a)( 15)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition because the proffered position is not a specialty occupation, and the 
beneficiary is not qualified for a specialty occupation. On appeal, counsel submits a brief. 
The record of proceeding before the AAO contains: (I) the Form 1-129 and supporting documentation; (2) 
the director's request for additional evidence; (3) the petitioner's response to the director's request; (4) the 
director's denial letter; (5) the Form I- 129 and supporting documentation relating to WAC-0 1-048-5 1707, 
WAC-99-201-52598, and WAC-99-046-50490, petitions which had been filed by three employers on behalf 
of the beneficiary; and (6) the Form I-290B and supporting documentation. The AAO reviewed the record in 
its entirety before issuing its decision. 
The AAO will first address the director's finding that the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
Section 2 14(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 11 84(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 6r higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) 
as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. fj 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, the position must meet one of the 
following criteria: 
(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 
WAC 03 102 51785 
Page 3 
(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. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) interprets the term "degree" in the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(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. 
The petitioner is seeking the beneficiary's services as a sea freight manager. Evidence of the beneficiary's 
duties includes: the Form 1-129; the attachments accompanying the Form 1-129; the petitioner's support letter; 
and the petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence. According to this evidence, the 
beneficiary would perform duties that entail the following: direct and coordinate cargo forwarding and 
consolidating services with liner principals in Asia and other countries; survey the market, promote business, 
negotiate contracts, and supervise staff in arranging shipping details; organize and coordinate the customer 
and ship owner or agent, and advise on technical matters such as particulars of ship, port loadinddischarging 
equipment limits, foreign government rule, and related conventions of international maritime traffic, handling, 
loading and discharge of cargo and matters such as load limits, cargo limits, fees, tonnage, port of entry, and 
customs and tariffs; conduct studies on company ocean freight and cargo classifications, rates, and tariffs to 
provide a favorable ocean transportation rate; search and analyze international ocean freight rates, suitable 
vessels, and shipment routes and schedules that provide the best routing and rates; negotiate with the carrier 
on the service contract, ocean freight rate and charge, cargo classification, and volume tendered; act as a 
consultant on international ocean transportation movement related charges such as freight handling, transfer 
port of loading, port of entry, and credit; calculate ocean freight charges regarding shipment terms, cargo 
grade, weight stowage factor, transportation route, and loading and discharge rate, and negotiate with the ship 
owner andlor agent regarding shipment clause, responsibility clause, loading/discharging clause, tonnage, 
fees, demurrageldispatch, and payment; calculate cost and provide quotes and shipping schedules to the 
petitioner and keep the company budget. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary, who is considered to 
hold the educational equivalent of a baccalaureate degree in transportation management with an emphasis in 
shipping. 
In denying the petition, the director stated that an employer other than the petitioner had filed a similar 
petition as the one offered here on behalf of the beneficiary, and that CIS had approved the petition. The 
director stated, however, that each nonimmigrant petition is a separate proceeding with a separate record. See 
8 C.F.R. fj 103.8(d). In making a determination of statutory eligibility, the director stated that CIS is limited 
to the information contained in the record of proceeding. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(16)(ii). Although CIS may 
attempt to hypothesize as to whether the prior approvals were granted in error, the director stated that no such 
determination may be made without review of the original record in its entirety. According to the director, if 
the prior petitions were approved based on evidence that is substantially similar to the evidence contained in 
this record of proceeding, the approval of those petitions may have been erroneous, which the director 
concluded appears to be the case here. The director stated that CIS is not required to approve petitions where 
eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, 
e.g., Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm. 1988). Neither CIS nor any 
WAC 03 102 51785 
Page 4 
other agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery 825 
F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
In determining whether a position qualifies as a specialty occupation, the director stated that he looks beyond 
the title of the position, and considers the duties of the proposed position and the nature of the petitioner's 
business operations. Performing specialty occupation duties that are incidental to the primary duties is 
insufficient to establish a position as a specialty occupation, the director stated. The director found that the 
proposed duties reflect those of cargo and freight agents, as those occupations are depicted in the Department 
of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (the Handbook), and that it reports that such occupations do not 
require a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty. The director found the submitted job postings 
unpersuasive in establishing that a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty is a normal industry-wide 
requirement for entry into the offered position. Not all of the beneficiary's duties, the director concluded, 
meet the complexity or scope of responsibility normally required of an individual with a degree. The director 
determined that the beneficiary is not qualified for a specialty occupation. The director's concluded that the 
petitioner satisfied none of the four criteria outlined at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
On appeal, counsel discusses the Handbook's depiction of a cargo and freight agent, and he states that the 
proposed position is not that of a cargo and freight agent. A cargo and freight agent carries out orders and 
engages in routine activities, counsel asserts, whereas the beneficiary has significant decision-making that is 
similar to a distribution manager as that occupation is shown in the Federal Standard Occupational 
Classification System (SOC). Counsel states that the Handbook does not specifically describe the educational 
requirements of cargo and freight agents or state that a baccalaureate degree is not a normal, industry-wide 
requirement for agents. Counsel asserts that the director does not cite any authority to support his statement 
that all of the proposed duties must meet the complexity or scope of a specialty occupation. Counsel states 
that in the Internet postings five of the employers, Worldwide Dedicated Services, Tidewater Logistics 
Group, Ryder Systems, Exel Logistics, and the Logistics Division of Catepillar, Inc., are similar to the 
petitioner in that they are in the shipping and freight business. Their positions, counsel asserts, are similar to 
the one that is offered here, and the employers require a baccalaureate or higher degree. According to 
counsel, the Internet postings convey either a specific degree requirement or one that is inferred in relation to 
the nature of the job, transportation and logistics. Counsel contends that the beneficiary is qualified for the 
offered position. 
Upon review of the record, the petitioner has established none of the four criteria outlined in 
8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Therefore, the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
The AAO first considers the criteria at 8 C.F.R. $5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I) and (2): a baccalaureate or higher 
degree or its equivalent is the normal minimum requirement for entry into the particular position; a degree 
requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations; or a particular 
position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree. Factors often 
considered by CIS when determining these criteria include: whether the 2006-2007 edition of 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 attest that 
WAC 03 102 5 1785 
Page 5 
such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1 15 1, 
1 165 (D.Minn. 1999Xquoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Suva, 7 12 F. Supp. 1095,1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
In determining whether a position qualifies as a specialty occupation, CIS looks beyond the title of the 
position and determines, from a review of the duties of the position and any supporting evidence, whether the 
position actually requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, 
and the attainment of a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty as the minimum for entry into the 
occupation. Further, although a position might have some non-specialty-occupation duties, this would not 
preclude the position from being a specialty occupation; the AAO therefore agrees with counsel's assertion 
that not all of the proposed duties must meet the complexity or scope of a specialty occupation. 
Counsel asserts that the proposed position differs from that of a cargo and freight agent. The Handbook, a 
resource that the AAO routinely consults for its information about the duties and educational requirements of 
particular occupations, portrays cargo and freight agents as follows: 
[Cargo and freight agents] arrange for and track incoming and outgoing cargo and freight 
shipments in airline, train, or trucking terminals or on shipping docks. They expedite 
shipments by determining the route that shipments are to take and by preparing all necessary 
shipping documents. The agents take orders from customers and arrange for the pickup of 
freight or cargo for delivery to loading platforms. Cargo and freight agents may keep records 
of the cargo, such as its amount, type, weight, and dimensions. They keep a tally of missing 
items, record the condition of damaged items, and document any excess supplies. 
Cargo and freight agents arrange cargo according to its destination. They also determine the 
shipping rates and other charges that can sometimes apply to the freight. For imported or 
exported freight, they verifL that the proper customs paperwork is in order. Cargo and freight 
agents often track shipments electronically, using bar codes, and answer customers' inquiries 
on the status of their shipments. 
The AAO disagrees with counsel's assertion that the beneficiary's duties differ from those of the 
aforementioned depiction of a cargo and freight agent. Essentially, the beneficiary will direct and coordinate 
cargo, ensure all necessary documents are provided, maintain records, and determine the route that shipments 
take. These duties are encompassed within those of a cargo and freight agent. 
The AAO does not concur with counsel's claim that the Handbook does not indicate that cargo and freight 
agents do not require a baccalaureate degree in a specific academic specialty. The Handbook conveys: 
Many jobs are entry level and do not require more than a high school diploma. Employers, 
however, prefer to hire those familiar with computers. Typing, filing, recordkeeping, and 
other clerical skills also are important. 
WAC 03 102 51785 
Page 6 
Cargo and freight agents start out by checking items to be shipped and then attaching labels 
to them and making sure that the addresses are correct. Training in the use of automated 
equipment usually is done informally, on the job. As this occupation becomes more 
automated, however, workers may need longer periods of training in order to master the use 
of the equipment. Advancement opportunities for cargo and freight agents vary with the place 
of employment. 
Counsel states that the proposed position is a specialty occupation because it resembles a distribution manager 
as that occupation is shown in the SOC User Guide, found at http://www.bls.~ov/soc/socguide.htm. The SOC 
User Guide is not persuasive in establishing the offered position as a specialty occupation. According to the 
SOC User Guide, the 2000 SOC System was developed to allow government agencies and private industry to 
produce comparable data. Federal agencies use it to collect occupational data, "providing a means to compaE 
occupational data across agencies." Although occupations in the SOC User Guide are classified based on 
"work performed, skills, education, training, and credentials," the SOC User Guide does not describe whether 
an occupation requires a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific academic specialty. Thus, it does not 
establish whether a position would qualify as a specialty occupation. 
To establish a position as a specialty occupation a petitioner must do more than assert the position qualifies as 
a specialty occupation: it must submit relevant evidence to support its assertion. With the position offered 
here, the petitioner provides a description of the proposed duties; nevertheless, the record contains virtually 
no supporting evidence that would demonstrate the particulars of the beneficiary's duties and the need for 
knowledge associated with a baccalaureate degree in a specific field such as logistics. The AAO notes that 
the petitioner failed to amplify on the nature of its business operations, and submitted only a few documents 
relating to its operations. Those documents are the "Fictitious Business Name Statement," which shows the 
petitioner as using a business name; the Form 1120S, U.S. Income Tax for an S Corporation, for the years 
2001 and 2002; DE-6 Forms; and an organizational chart. The petitioner's business name is shown in the 
Chinese Consumer Yellow Pages under two categories: trucking and storage. The Form 1 120s indicates that 
the petitioner is a truck transport company providing general freight services. The DE-6 forms often reflect 
no more than ten employees, and the organizational chart shows employment of a president, vice-president, 
freight manager (the beneficiary), customer service, import clerk, documentation, sales manager, two truck 
drivers, and 11 independent contractor truck drivers. The submitted evidence, however, does little to 
establish that the proposed duties would require a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty. Simply going 
on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for the purpose of meeting the burden of 
proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). Consequently, the petitioner failed to 
demonstrate a factual basis in which to establish that the offered position is one that normally would require at 
least a bachelor's degree or its equivalent in logistics or a related specialty. 
The AAO notes that the job presented here is depicted as having the beneficiary's duties relate specifically to 
the shipping industry. No evidence in the record explains the discrepancy in the information shown in the tax 
records and the Chinese Consumer Yellow Pages, which reflect the petitioner as engaged in the trucking 
industry, with that of the beneficiary's job description. Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, 
WAC 03 102 51785 
Page 7 
of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support 
of the visa petition. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by 
independent objective evidence, and attempts to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies, absent competent 
objective evidence pointing to where the truth, in fact, lies, will not suffice. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 
591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Thus, based on the evidence in the record, the petitioner fails to establish 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I): 
that a baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent in a specific specialty is the normal minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position. 
To establish the first alternative prong at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), that a specific degree requirement 
is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations, the record contains job postings. 
Counsel states that some of the employers in the postings are similar in nature to the petitioner as they are in 
the same industry. The AAO does not agree. The employers in the job postings are not the same size or 
scope, or both, as the petitioner, a small transportation company, or this information is not disclosed in the 
posting. No information is given about the size of Tidewater Logistics Group, Alliant Foodservice, Inc.; 
Ameriserve; International E-Z UP, Inc.; Ryder system, Inc.; the traffic manager sought for the Atlanta area; 
Clarent Corporation; ADECCOI TAD Technical Services; Heartland Industries; The Martin-Brower 
Company, L.L.C.; the logistics manager for the Eugene, Oregon, company and the regional transportation 
manager for the Sacramento, California, company (job postings represented by Management Recruiters 
International); GE Medical Systems; and the employer with the reference code of CAM1 11. Companies that 
differ in size or scope, or both, from the petitioner are the Fortune 500 company seeking a 
transportationloperations manager; Exel Logistics Americas, a $700 million dollar company; the large 
transportation provider represented by Management Recruiters International; Graphic Packaging Corporation, 
a producer of packaging; Caterpillar, Inc., a company with over 7,000 employees; the multi-billion dollar 
company Boise Cascade Office Products; Zacky Foods and W.S. Lee and Sons, Inc., companies in the food 
industry; Dole Fresh Fruits; Toys "R" Us, a multi-billion dollar company; SPX Corporation, a provider of 
products and services for the servicing and maintenance arena; Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., a company 
with more than 17,000 employees; Corrpro, a company with 1,200 employees; the plastics manufacturer 
represented by F-0-R-T-U-N-E Personnel Consultants; and Ashland Specialty Chemical Company, a supplier 
of chemicals. The AAO notes that the following employers in the job postings do not require a baccalaureate 
degree in a specific academic discipline: Corrpro, Tidewater Logistics Group, the traffic manager sought for 
the Atlanta area, Clarent Corporation, ADECCOI TAD Technical Services, The Martin-Brower Company, 
L.L.C.; and Ashland Specialty Chemical Company. For the aforementioned reasons, the job postings fail to 
establish that a specific degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
organizations similar to the petitioner, which is the first alternative prong at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) as no 
evidence in the record shows the proffered position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by 
an individual with a degree. The evidence of record fails to establish that the offered position requires a 
baccalaureate degree in a specific academic specialty. Thus, the petitioner fails to establish the second 
alternative prong at 8 C.F.R. 5 2 14.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
WAC 03 102 51785 
Page 8 
No evidence in the record establishes the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3): that the petitioner 
normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position. 
To satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4), the petitioner must 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. As discussed at 
8 C.F.R. tj 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I), the petitioner failed to establish the offered position as requiring a 
baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty. Accordingly, the petitioner fails to establish this last criterion at 
8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
As related in the discussion above, the petitioner has failed to establish that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation. Accordingly, the AAO shall not disturb the director's denial of the petition on this 
ground. 
The director found that the approval by CIS of two petitions, WAC-0 1-048-5 1707 and WAC-99-20 1-52598, 
filed by employers other than the petitioner on behalf of the beneficiary were erroneous.' The record of 
proceeding contains all of the documents relating to the approved petitions. Based on a review of those 
records, the AAO finds that the documentary evidence concerning those cases differs markedly from the 
evidence submitted with regard to the instant petition. Thus, the approval of these petitions does not indicate 
that the present petition should be approved. For example, with respect to the petition filed by American 
Chung Nam, Inc. (WAC-01-048-51707), the petitioner submitted a company brochure that specifically 
described the manufacturing and export activities of American Chung Nam, Inc., such as manufacturing and 
exporting dry wall paper, disposable baby diapers, feminine sanitary napkins, kraft linerboard, and bleached 
and unbleached pulp, and the export of waste paper, recycled plastics, and scrap metals. While the 
adjudication of these prior petitions is not before the AAO, the AAO notes that the evidence adequately 
established that the position described in the petition filed by American Chung Nam, Inc. qualified as a 
specialty occupation. 
The AAO will now consider the director's conclusion that the beneficiary is not qualified to perform a 
specialty occupation. 
Section 214(i)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1184(i)(2), states that an alien applying for classification as an H-1B 
nonimmigrant worker must possess full state licensure to practice in the occupation, if such licensure is 
required to practice in the occupation, and completion of the degree in the specialty that the occupation 
requires. If the alien does not possess the required degree, the petitioner must demonstrate that the alien has 
experience in the specialty equivalent to the completion of such degree, and recognition of expertise in the 
specialty through progressively responsible positions relating to the specialty. 
' The AAO notes that the petition (WAC-99-046-50490) was denied by CIS and was for a position that 
differs from the one that is offered here. 
WAC 03 102 51785 
Page 9 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C), to qualify to perform services in a specialty occupation, an alien 
must meet one of the following criteria: 
(1) Hold a United States baccalaureate or higher degree required by the specialty occupation 
from an accredited college or university; 
(2) Hold a foreign degree determined to be equivalent to a United States baccalaureate or higher 
degree required by the specialty occupation from an accredited college or university; 
(3) Hold an unrestricted state license, registration or certification which authorizes him or her to 
fully practice the specialty occupation and be immediately engaged in that specialty in the 
state of intended employment; or 
(4) Have education, specialized training, and/or progressively responsible experience that is 
equivalent to completion of a United States baccalaureate or higher degree in the specialty 
occupation, and have recognition of expertise in the specialty through progressively 
responsible positions directly related to the specialty. 
In the denial, the director concluded that the beneficiary does not possess the educational equivalent of a 
bachelor's degree that is related to the offered position. 
Had the proposed position qualified as a specialty occupation requiring a baccalaureate degree in a specific 
specialty such as logistics, the AAO finds that the beneficiary would not have qualified for the proposed 
position. 
The evidence in the record does not establish the beneficiary's qualifications for the offered position pursuant 
to the first two criteria at 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C), namely, that the beneficiary hold a U.S. baccalaureate 
or higher degree required by the specialty occupation from an accredited college or university; or hold a 
foreign degree determined to be equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate or higher degree required by the specialty 
occupation from an accredited college or university. Here, the beneficiary does not possess a U.S. 
baccalaureate degree in an academic discipline that is directly related to the proposed position; nor does he 
hold a foreign degree that is deemed equivalent to such a U.S. baccalaureate degree. 
The AAO notes that the third criterion 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C), that the beneficiary hold an unrestricted 
state license, registration or certification which authorizes him or her to fully practice the specialty occupation 
and be immediately engaged in that specialty in the state of intended employment, is not a requirement of the 
offered position. 
Now, the AAO will consider the beneficiary's qualifications pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(#). To 
meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4), the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D) states 
that equating the beneficiary's credentials to a United States baccalaureate or higher degree shall be 
determined by one or more of the following: 
(1) An evaluation from an official who has authority to grant college-level credit for training 
and/or experience in the specialty at an accredited college or university which has a 
WAC 03 102 51785 
Page 10 
program for granting such credit based on an individual's training andlor work 
experience; 
(2) The results of recognized college-level equivalency examinations or special credit 
programs, such as the College Level Examination Program (CLEP), or Program on 
Noncollegiate Sponsored Instruction (PONSI); 
(3) An evaluation of education by a reliable credentials evaluation service which specializes 
in evaluating foreign educational credentials; or 
(4) Evidence of certification or registration from a nationally-recognized professional 
association or society for the specialty that is known to grant certification or registration 
to persons in the occupational specialty who have achieved a certain level of competence 
in the specialty; 
(5) A determination by the Service that the equivalent of the degree required by the 
specialty occupation has been acquired through a combination of education, specialized 
training, andlor work experience in areas related to the specialty and that the alien has 
achieved recognition of expertise in the specialty occupation as a result of such training 
and experience. 
No evidence in the record establishes the beneficiary's qualifications pursuant to 
8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(I), (2) or (4). 
The record contains an experiential evaluation from Foundation for International Services, Inc. (FIS), a 
credentials evaluation service. That evaluation found that the beneficiary possessed the equivalent of a 
bachelor's degree in transportation management with an emphasis in shipping based on his education and 
work experience. It should be noted that a credentials evaluation service may only determine the equivalence 
of a beneficiary's foreign education to a United States education for the purpose of these proceedings. A 
beneficiary's past work experience may only be evaluated by an official who has authority to grant college- 
level credit for training and/or experience in the specialty at an accredited college or university which has a 
program for granting such credit based on an individual's training andlor work experience. 
8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(I). The FIS evaluation does not meet this requirement and is, therefore, of little 
evidentiary value. Consequently, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(3) is not established. 
The AAO will now consider the beneficiary's qualifications under 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5). When CIS 
determines an alien's qualifications pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5), three years of specialized 
training andlor work experience must be demonstrated for each year of college-level training the alien lacks. It 
must be clearly demonstrated that the alien's training and/or work experience included the theoretical and 
practical application of specialized knowledge required by the specialty occupation; that the alien's experience 
was gained while working with peers, supervisors, or subordinates who have a degree or its equivalent in the 
specialty occupation; and that the alien has recognition of expertise in the specialty evidenced by at least one type 
of documentation such as: 
WAC 03 102 5 1785 
Page 11 
(i) Recognition of expertise in the specialty occupation by at least two recognized authorities 
in the same specialty occupation2; 
(ii) Membership in a recognized foreign or United States association or society in the specialty 
occupation; 
(iii) Published material by or about the alien in professional publications, trade journals, books, 
or major newspapers; 
(iv) Licensure or registration to practice the specialty occupation in a foreign country; or 
(v) Achievements which a recognized authority has determined to be significant contributions 
to the field of the specialty occupation. 
Upon a review of the record, the combination of the beneficiary's education and work experience is 
insufficient to establish the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in a field relating to the proposed position. 
According to FIS, the beneficiary's studies at the Qingdao Ocean Shipping Mariners College in the People's 
Republic of China are the equivalent to two years of university-level credit from an accredited maritime 
college in the United States. 
The record contains three letters from the beneficiary's prior employers. The employment letters do not 
describe the nature of the employers' business operations; thus, the AAO cannot conclude that the 
beneficiary's duties, in relation to the employers' businesses, would have required the theoretical and practical 
application of specialized knowledge of logistics or a related field. The letters do not state that the beneficiary's 
work experience was gained while working with peers, supervisors, or subordinates who have a degree or its 
equivalent in the specialty occupation. Further, the AAO notes that no evidence in the record establishes that 
the beneficiary has recognition of expertise in the specialty by two recognized authorities in logistics or a related 
discipline. 
For the reasons discussed above, the petitioner fails to establish the beneficiary's qualifications pursuant to 
8 C.F.R. 5 2 14.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5). 
2 Recognized authority means a person or organization with expertise in a particular field, special skills or 
knowledge in that field, and the expertise to render the type of opinion requested. A recognized authority's 
opinion must state: (I) the writer's qualifications as an expert; (2) the writer's experience giving such 
opinions, citing specific instances where past opinions have been accepted as authoritative and by whom; (3) 
how the conclusions were reached; and (4) the basis for the conclusions supported by copies or citations of 
any research material used. 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
WAC 03 102 5 178.5 
Page 12 
As related in the discussion above, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary holds a bachelor's 
degree in a field relating to the proposed position, had the position qualified as a specialty occupation. 
Accordingly, the AAO shall not disturb the director's denial of the petition on this ground. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.