sustained H-1B Case: Semiconductor Manufacturing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUN. 02, 2023 In Re: 27007997 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification 
for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The matter is now before us 
on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will sustain the appeal. 
The record in its entirety credibly reflects that the Petitioner's material analyst position requires an 
incumbent to procure, track, and receive materials required to achieve engineering milestones from 
the start to final configuration of mass production for the semiconductor materials the Petitioner 
produced. The record contains credible documentation describing the specific duties the material 
analyst will perfo1m to ensure appropriate tracking, sourcing, production, provision, and utilization of 
raw materials for production. The Petitioner submitted an expert opinion letter stating that the 
Petitioner requires an individual with a bachelor's degree in supply chain management or a related 
field and we find the record sufficient to support that assertion by a preponderance of the evidence. 1 
1 Counsel undermines this on appeal in several ways. For example, Counsel asserts that the wide range of potential fields 
of study such as logistics, supply chain management, and business contained in the U.S. Department of Labor's 
Occupational Outlook Handbook (the Handbook) entry for "Logisticians" comprise a specialty such that jobs falling within 
the classification are specialty occupations under 8 C.F .R. § 2 l 4.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)( 1). This is incorrect. Firstly, the Handbook 
reflects that a common minimum entry requirement for the logistician occupation is a bachelor's degree in business. 
Educational requirements consisting ofa general business degree compose a broad and general field of knowledge and not 
one which relates to a specialty affording theoretical and practical body of specific knowledge required to perform the 
When reviewed within the context of the Petitioner's business operations, we find the evidence of 
record sufficient to demonstrate that this Beneficiary's work would in fact involve a "body of highly 
specialized knowledge" attained through a precise and specific course of study that relates directly 
and closely to the proffered position. 
The evidence of record therefore establishes that the proffered position requires the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a bachelor's or 
higher degree in the specific specialty or its equivalent. It qualifies for classification as a specialty 
occupation as the term is defined at section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). It also 
establishes that the position is so complex or unique that it can only be performed by an individual 
with a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, and it therefore also satisfies 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). The record demonstrates that the Beneficiary possesses a U.S. master's 
duties of a proffered job. See Matter ofLing, 13 T&N Dec. 35 (Reg'! Comm'r 1968); Matter ofMichael Hertz Assocs., 19 
l&N Dec. 558 (Comm'r 1988); Matter of Caron Int'/, 19 l&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988). Secondly, whilst we do agree 
with Counsel that it is possible for a petitioner to accept multiple-degree fields and still have a proffered position be 
classified as a specialty occupation, the grouping of degree-fields as contained in the Handbook is simply too broad to 
support a conclusion that the range of fields comprises a specialty providing a body of theoretical and practical knowledge 
required to perform the duties of the position. And the cases Counsel cites to support this position in fact undercut their 
premise. The courts in Residential Finance Corporation v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 839 F.Supp.2d 985 
(S.D. Ohio 2012), and Chung Song Ja Corp. v. USCIS, 96 F.Supp.3d 1191 (W.D. Wash. 2015) were considering whether 
the statute requires that only one specific degree be accepted for a position to be specialized. Neither stands for the 
proposition that a wide variety of degrees can constitute a specialty required to perform the duties of a specialty occupation. 
Quite the opposite, Residential Finance found for the Plaintiff only after determining that the Plaintiff had established their 
minimum requirements capture the necessity of a baccalaureate degree in a specialized course of study in a field related to 
the proffered job's duties as a minimum. Residential Finance Corporation, 839 F.Supp.2d at 996. In Chung Song Ja 
C01p., the com1 similarly determined that a specialty occupation existed only after determining that the occupation required 
a specialized course of study. Chung Song Ja C01p., 9G F.Supp.3d at 1198. 
The Petitioner fm1her argues on appeal that caselaw in Next Generation Technology v. Johnson, 328 F.Supp.3d 252 
(S.D.N.Y. 2017) states that occupations "mostly" requiring a bachelor's degree as a minimum educational requirement for 
entry are specialty occupations. Nevertheless, the court in Next Generation Technology did not remove the statutory and 
regulatory requirement that the required bachelor's degree be in a field or fields related to one another in a manner 
composing a specialty required to perform the duties of the proffered job. And Counsel also argues that the Petitioner's, 
or in fact any petitioner's, self-imposed requirements can sustain a conclusion that a proffered position is a specialty 
occupation so long as those requirements consist of a bachelor's degree in a field or fields of study that compose a specialty. 
This is not correct. Were we limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, an organization 
could bring any individual with a bachelor's degree to the United States to perform any occupation so long as the 
petitioning entity created a token degree requirement. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). And 
the record does not contain documentation or evidence supporting anything other than the conclusion that the Petitioner's 
self-imposed requirements are a preference for high caliber candidates. 
Counsel's arguments, despite their pronouncements to the contrary, in sum seek to advance the proposition that any 
bachelor's degree requirement for a proffered position renders the position a specialty occupation and provide inapplicable 
authority in support. The unsupported statements of an attorney on appeal or in a motion are not evidence. See INS v. 
Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183, 188 n.6 (1984). However, given the overall credibility of this petition, bolstered by the 
Petitioner's detailed statement consisting of clear duties and reference to specific specialty knowledge gained through a 
course of study in a field related to the duties performed in the proffered job, we will disregard Counsel's erroneous legal 
theories consistent with Phinpathya. and we conclude that the Petitioner's proffered job is sufficiently complex or unique 
such that it can only be performed by an individual with a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty in accordance with 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2 
degree in supply chain management, so they are qualified to perform the duties of this specialty 
occupation. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
3