dismissed H-1B Case: Biopharmaceutical

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10066004 
Motion of Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : WL Y 24, 2020 
The Petitioner, a biopharmaceutical manufacturing company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "quality assurance lot review specialist II" under the H-1 B nonimmigrant 
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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the evidence ofrecord 
does not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. We dismissed the 
subsequent appeal concluding that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The matter is before us on a combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. In the combined 
motions, the Petitioner contends that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 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 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we 
will dismiss the motions. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence . 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2) . A motion to reconsider must establish that our decision was based on an incorrect 
application oflaw or policy, and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of 
proceedings at the time of the decision . 8 C.F.R . § 103.5(a)(3) . A motion to reconsider must be 
supported by a pertinent precedent or adopted decision, statutory or regulatory provision, or statement 
of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) or Department of Homeland Security policy. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner's motions do not meet the motion requirements; therefore, we will dismiss the motions. 
A. Motion to Reopen 
In support of the motion, the Petitioner submits a brief explaining why it believes that the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. Notably, the Petitioner's motion restates the arguments it 
made in its appeal.1 Reasserting previously stated facts does not constitute "new facts." The Petitioner 
also submits a letter signed by four of its senior staff, job advertisement placed by other employers, and 
evidence it previously provided.2 In the letter, the "Head of Quality Assurance (QA) Operations" recites 
her qualifications, provides information regarding the Petitioner's business operations and the quality 
team, and discusses the Beneficiary's training and experience. However, the letter does not discuss new 
relevant facts that demonstrate the position's specialization and complexity. Furthermore, while the 
author states that the position requires a bachelor's degree "preferably in Life Sciences field of study" and 
that the members of the quality team complete "highly specific and technical training to demonstrate 
proficiency in the role before performing job functions independently," she does not provide new relevant 
facts to demonstrate how an established curriculum of courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the duties of the proffered position. With 
regards to the Beneficiary's training and experience, we note that the test to establish a position as a 
specialty occupation is not the education or experience of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position 
itself requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. We follow 
long-standing legal standards and determine first, whether the proffered position qualifies for 
classification as a specialty occupation, and second, whether the Beneficiary was qualified for the position 
at the time the nonimmigrant visa petition was filed. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 
558, 560 (Comm'r 1988) ("The facts of a beneficiary's background only come at issue after it is found 
that the position in which the petitioner intends to employ him falls within [a specialty occupation]."). 
Here, as discussed in our decision of the appeal, the Petitioner has not established that its requirements 
satisfy the requirements of a specialty occupation. 
With respect to job advertisements placed by other employers, we have discussed the deficiencies of such 
advertisements in our decision of the appeal. The Petitioner does not address these deficiencies on 
motion. Rather, it merely submits more job advertisements, but does not discuss how these job 
advertisements submitted on motion establish that the degree requirement in a specific specialty is 
common in the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
The record on motion does not include new facts that demonstrate the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. Therefore, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause to reopen the proceeding. 
1 Notably, the Petitioner's motion brief is virtually verbatim of its appeal brief 
2 We note that while the letter was signed by four of the Petitioner's senior staft: the author of the letter did not sign the 
letter. Furthermore, in its brief, the Petitioner asserts that ·'the initial evidence coupled with the newly submitted expert 
opinion satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(4)(iii)(A)(4)." However, the record does not contain a new expert opinion 
submitted in support of the motion. 
2 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our decision was based on an incorrect application of law 
or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the 
time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Further, a motion to reconsider must be supported by 
pertinent authority. 
Here, the Petitioner does not state specific reasons for reconsideration but rather repeats its previous 
arguments without discussing or offering an analysis of how the previous decision was based on an 
incorrect application of law or policy. Moreover, the record on motion does not establish how our 
decision was incorrect based on the evidence ofrecord at the time of the initial decision. The Petitioner 
has not provided a legal basis to reconsider the previous decision. Therefore, the Petitioner has not 
shown proper cause for reconsideration. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause to reopen the proceeding or proper 
cause for reconsideration. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3