dismissed H-1B Case: Business Analysis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF ZE-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 28,2017 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a furniture import and sales business, seeks to extend the Beneficiary's temporary 
employment as a "Business/Import Analyst" under the H-1 B nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-1B 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, California Service Center, denied the petition, concluding that there was insufficient 
evidence to establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The Petitioner 
then filed an appeal, which we dismissed. We denied the Petitioner's subsequent motion, 
concluding that the motion did not meet the filing requirements of either a motion to reopen or a 
motion to reconsider. 
The matter is now before us on another combined motion to reopen and reconsider. In its motion, 
the Petitioner provides the same assertions and job descriptions which were previously submitted 
and considered in prior proceedings. We will deny the motions. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
To merit reopening or reconsideration, a petitioner must meet the formal filing requirements (such 
as, for instance, submission of a properly completed Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with 
the correct fee), and show proper cause for granting the motion. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1). 
A motion to reopen is based on factual grounds and must ( 1) state the new facts to be provided in the 
reopened proceeding; and (2) be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider is based on legal grounds and must (1) state the reasons for 
reconsideration; (2) be supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision 
was based on an incorrect application of law or policy; and (3) establish that the decision was 
incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
Matter of ZE-
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Motion to Reopen 
In support of the motion, the Petitioner submits a brief explaining why it believes "the Service and AAO 
did not fully consider the specific facts of [the] H-1 B petition case ... when analyzing the evidence 
submitted with the initial H-1B Petition and the response to the Service's Request for Evidence." The 
Petitioner's brief then repeats the same assertions and job descriptions which were previously 
submitted and considered in prior proceedings. 
The Petitioner has not presented any evidence that could be considered new facts. Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not shown proper cause to reopen the proceeding. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
In support of the motion, the Petitioner provides the same job descriptions as previously provided, 
and makes the same general allegations of error as previously asserted in prior proceedings. But 
repeating the same job duties without further analysis, and making general claims of error without 
specifically addressing why our prior decision(s) was incorrect, is insufficient to meet the filing 
requirements for a motion to reconsider. 
A motion to reconsider must establish that the decision the Petitioner is seeking to reconsider was 
incorrect at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5(a)(3). In our decision denying the 
Petitioner's previous motion, we discussed several concerns which collectively prevented us from 
understanding the substantive nature of the proffered position. We pointed out, for example, that the 
record did not contain sufficient evidence of how the Beneficiary would perform the proffered job 
duties within the context of the Petitioner's retail operations without any apparent sales or showroom 
staff. We also pointed out that the Petitioner's general degree requirement is inadequate to establish 
that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The Petitioner's instant motion does 
not specifically address these and other deficiencies in the record. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that our prior decision was incorrect at the time of 
that decision. The Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reconsideration. 
' 
III. CONCLUSION 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The rriotion to reopen is denied. 
2 
Matter of ZE-
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter ofZE-, ID# 201706 (AAO Feb. 28, 2017) 
3