dismissed H-1B Case: Transportation

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: EAC 04 025 53438 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: OCT 2 6 2005 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonirnmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101 (a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All materials have been returned 
to the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 04 025 53438 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the nonimrnigrant visa petition. The matter is now on 
appeal before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). The appeal will be dismissed. The petition will be 
denied. 
The petitioner is a forwarding and transportation group. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as a 
transportation manager and to classify him as a nonimrnigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to 
section lOl(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 1101 
(a>( lw-o(i)(b>. 
The director denied the petition on the ground that the record failed to establish that the proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 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. 
As provided in 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation the position must meet 
one of the following criteria: 
(1) 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. 
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 record of proceeding before the AAO contains: (I) Form 1-129 and supporting materials; (2) the 
director's request for evidence (RFE); (3) the petitioner's response to the RFE; (4) the director's decision: 
and (5) Form I-290B, an appeal brief, and supporting documentation. The AAO reviewed the record in 
its entirety before issuing its decision. 
EAC 04 025 53438 
Page 3 
In Form 1-129 and an accompanying letter the petitioner described itself as a provider of logistics and 
transportation services to clients around the world. The petitioner indicated that its business was 
established in 1968, has 1,800 employees and gross annual income of $140 million, and serves a diverse 
clientele in the automotive, electronics, telecommunications, and chemical industries, as well as the U.S. 
government. The petitioner stated that it proposes to hire the beneficiary as a transportation manager for 
its Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Program activities to coordinate the export of cargo from U.S. military 
depots and commercial suppliers. As described by the petitioner, the duties of the position include: 
Planning and directing flow of air and surface traffic moving to overseas destinations. 
Supervising workers engaged in receiving and shipping freight. 
Preparation of shipping documentation, verifying compliance with export licensing 
requirements and International Traffic in Arms (ITAR) regulations and with U.S. 
customs and Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) regulations. 
Customer relations activities with clients who are primarily foreign embassies and liaison 
offices of foreign defense ministries. 
The minimum educational qualification for the transportation manager position, according to the 
petitioner, is a bachelor's degree in a business-related field. The beneficiary qualifies for the position, the 
petitioner stated, by virtue of his bachelor of science degree, with a major in decision science and 
management information systems, from the School of Management at George Mason University, granted 
in January 2003. 
In response to the RFE the petitioner asserted that the duties of the transportation manager position are 
specialized and complex because they require knowledge of the principles of international business, 
international trade, consumer behavior, advertising, and management, and the exercise of high-level 
responsibility involving broad professional discretion and decision-making authority. The duties of the 
position also require a thorough knowledge of Defense and State Department regulations governing the 
export of cargo from U.S. military depots, as well as the aforementioned U.S. export licensing, ITAR, and 
TSA regulations. According to the petitioner its four most recently hired employees involved in 
transportation management have bachelor's degrees in business-related fields. 
In his decision the director determined that the duties of the proffered position reflect those of a marketing 
manager as described in the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook). The 
director cited an excerpt from the Handbook indicating that a baccalaureate level of study in a specific 
field is not the normal minimum requirement for entry into the occupation. The petitioner's reliance on 
another DOL resource, the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) was misplaced, the director declared, 
because the DOT is not a reliable source to establish the educational qualifications of a specific 
occupation. The petitioner did not show that it had required applicants for the position in the past to have 
a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, the director determined, or that such a degree 
requirement is common to the petitioner's industry for parallel positions in similar organizations. Though 
the petitioner submitted a series of internet job announcements for similar positions, they did not 
demonstrate that applicants were required to have a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. The director 
concluded that the proffered position did not qualify as a specialty occupation under any of the criteria 
enumerated at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
EAC 04 025 53438 
Page 4 
On appeal counsel asserts that the director erred in classifying the proffered position as a marketing 
manager. The duties of the position, counsel asserts, are identical to those of a transportation, storage and 
distribution manager (as described in the DOL Handbook). Counsel submits a letter from another 
company in the international transportation services industry as evidence that a bachelor's degree in a 
business-related field is required for transportation manager positions. Counsel asserts that a 
transportation manager is considered a professional position based on its worker function code of 117 in 
the DOT, and that the internet job announcements of other companies for transportation managers 
requiring a bachelor's degree in a business-related field demonstrate that a baccalaureate degree in a 
specific field is an industry-wide requirement for the proffered position. 
In determining whether a position meets the statutory and regulatory criteria of a specialty occupation, 
CIS routinely consults the DOL Handbook as an authoritative source of information about the duties and 
educational requirements of particular occupations. Factors typically considered are whether the 
Handbook indicates a degree is required by the industry; 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 such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." 
See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F.Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D.Minn. 1999) (quoting HirdBlaker Colp. v. Sava, 
764 F.Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). CIS also analyzes the specific duties and complexity of the 
position at issue, with the Handbook's occupational descriptions as a reference, as well as the petitioner's 
past hiring practices for the position. See Shanti, lnc. v. Reno, id., at 1165-66. 
The AAO agrees with counsel that the proffered position does not fall within the Handbook's 
occupational category of marketing manager, but rather within its occupational category of 
"transportation, storage, and distribution managers." The duties of that occupation are described as 
follows in the DOL Handbook, 2004-05 edition, at 649. "Plan, direct, or coordinate transportation, 
storage, or distribution activities in accordance with governmental policies and regulations." With respect 
to the educational requirements for transportation, storage, and distribution managers, the Handbook 
states the following: "Most significant source of education or training: Work experience in a related 
occupation." Id. Based on the foregoing information the AAO concludes that the proffered position does 
not meet the first alternative criterion of a specialty occupation, at 8 C.F.R. rj 214,2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I), 
because a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty is not the normal minimum requirement for entry 
into the position. 
Counsel asserts that the DOTS SVP ("special vocational preparation") rating of 7 for the occupation of 
transportation manager demonstrates that it is considered a professional position. The DOT, however, is 
not a persuasive source of information about whether a particular job requires a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as a minimum for entry into the occupation. An SVP 
rating indicates the total number of years of vocational preparation required for a particular position. It 
does not specify how those years are to be divided among training, formal education, and experience, and 
it does not specify the particular type of degree, if any, that a particular position would require. Nor does 
the worker function code cited by counsel indicate that a degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent 
thereof, is the normal minimum requirement for entry into a transportation manager position. 
Accordingly, the DOT does not support counsel's assertion that the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation under 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
EAC 04 025 53438 
Page 5 
With regard to the second alternative criterion of a specialty occupation, at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2 
(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), the record includes the previously referenced internet job postings for parallel positions 
variously titled importJexport coordinator, export coordinatorlexpediter, importlexport specialist, and the 
like. While all six advertising companies state that a bachelor's degree is required, four of the six do not 
indicate that the degree must be in any particular specialty. Thus, the internet job postings do not 
establish that a degree requirement in a specific specialty is common to the petitioner's industry in 
parallel positions among similar organizations, as required for the proffered position to qualify as a 
specialty occupation under the first prong of 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
The petitioner submits a letter on appeal from the president of another company in the field of 
international transportation services - called First International - which states that it is common among 
employers in the industry to require their transportation managers to have a bachelor's degree in a 
business-related field. What the petitioner must demonstrate, however, is that the proffered position 
requires a precise and specific course of study that relates directly and closely to the position in question. 
The requirement of a degree with a generalized title such as business administration, without further 
specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. See Matter of Michael Hertz 
Associates, 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm. 1988). The letter from First International does not identify 
any precise and specific course of study within a bachelor's degree program in business administration 
that is required for entry into a transportation manager position in the international transportation services 
industry. Accordingly, the letter does not establish that a degree requirement in a specific specialty is 
common to the petitioner's industry in parallel positions among similar organizations, as required for the 
proffered position to qualify as a specialty occupation under the first prong of 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2 
(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
Nor does the evidence of record demonstrate that the proffered position is so complex or unique that a 
degree in a specific specialty is required to perform the job. Accordingly, the proffered position does not 
qualify as a specialty occupation under the second prong of 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2 (h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
As evidence that the proffered position meets the third alternative criterion of a specialty occupation, at 
8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3), the petitioner has submitted the names of four individuals it claims were 
its "most recently hired employees involved in transportation management" and copies of their degrees 
which include a bachelor of science in business administration, a master of business administration, a 
master of arts in international commerce and policy, and a bachelor of arts in political science with a 
major in international relations. The petitioner has not demonstrated how this variety of degrees 
establishes that it normally requires its transportation manager to have a degree in a specific specialty 
directly related to the position. Furthermore, there is no documentary evidence in the record that any of 
the four individuals identified by the petitioner is actually employed by the company, or that they are (or 
were) employed in the specific position of transportation manager. The language identifying the 
individuals as the "most recently hired employees involved in transportation management" is unclear as 
to whether they were hired for the particular position of transportation manager. Moreover, the record 
does not show that there are only four transportation managers among the petitioner's 1,800 employees. 
Simply going on record without supporting documentation does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of 
proof. See Matter of SofSici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Cornrn. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure CrafC of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Cornm. 1972)). Thus, the evidence of record does not establish that 
the petitioner normally requires a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty for the proffered 
position, as required for it to qualify as a specialty occupation under 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
EAC 04 025 53438 
Page 6 
Finally, the record does not show that the duties of the proffered position are so specialized and complex 
that they require knowledge usually associated with a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty. While the petitioner indicates that the beneficiary will be managing transportation in the FMS 
program and will communicate daily with foreign embassies and liaison offices, no evidence has been 
submitted to establish that the complexity of the transactions requires a baccalaureate or higher degree in 
a specific specialty. Accordingly, the position does not meet the fourth alternative criterion of a specialty 
occupation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
For the reasons discussed above, the record does not establish that the proffered position meets any of the 
criteria enumerated in 8 C.F.R. 5 214,2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to qualify as a specialty occupation. Therefore, the 
petitioner has not established that the beneficiary will be coming temporarily to the United States to 
perform services in a specialty occupation, as required under section lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 8 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b). 
The petitioner bears the burden of proof in these proceedings. See section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the AAO will not disturb the director's decision 
denying the petition. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.