dismissed H-1B Case: Business Analysis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 7843539 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR. 13, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a "business analyst" under the H-lB 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 Vermont Service Center Director denied the petition , concluding that the Petitioner had not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The Petitioner filed an 
appeal which we dismissed . Subsequently , the Petitioner filed a combined motion to reopen and to 
reconsider which we denied as untimely filed. The matter is now before us on a second motion to 
reopen and motion to reconsider. We will dismiss the motions. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
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)(l). 
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) 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) . 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Administration Appeals Office mailed the decision on the Petitioner's appeal on November 21 , 
2018. The motion to reopen and to reconsider our decision was received on December 26, 2018 , or 
35 days after our decision. As December 25, 2018 was a holiday , we considered that the combined 
motion was one day late. We dismissed the combined motion as untimely. On this second combined 
motion , the Petitioner requests that we exercise our discretion pursuant to 8 C.F.R . § 103.5(a)(l)(i) 
and consider the Petitioner's motion to reopen. 1 The record includes sufficient evidence to 
demonstrate that the Petitioner's late filing was due to the heavy mail traffic on December 23 and 24, 
2018. Accordingly, we will exercise our discretion and consider whether the information the 
Petitioner submitted is a sufficient basis to reopen this matter. 
A. Motion to Reopen 
The record on motion to reopen includes two letters which emphasize that the Petitioner provides 
management services to several convenience stores and a fast food restaurant and that the Beneficiary 
will work from the office headquarters. The Petitioner provides the same job description in these 
letters as previously provided. The letters also stress that the Petitioner's sole owner has the authority 
to sign on behalf of each of the separate companies. 
The letters do not include new facts and are insufficient as a basis to reopen this matter. As we stated 
in our previous decision on the merits, the description of duties does not establish the substantive 
nature of the proposed position. As we previously concluded the tasks described do not establish that 
they require a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner 
provides such a broad description that the duties could encompass any number of occupations. It is 
not possible to ascertain the nature and level of responsibility of the proposed position, including 
whether the duties as generally described correspond to the occupation designated on the certified 
labor condition application. The general description does not establish the substantive nature of the 
proffered position's duties or demonstrate that performing such duties would require the theoretical 
and practical application of highly specialized knowledge and attainment of at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty or its equivalent. The Petitioner has not established eligibility for this visa 
classification. 
As the record on motion does not include any new facts relevant to establishing the proffered position 
is a specialty occupation, the record is insufficient to grant the motion to reopen. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
As the Petitioner acknowledges we are precluded from considering a motion to reconsider that was 
untimely filed. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
1 The Petitioner appears to recognize and concede that we do not have discretion to excuse a delay in filing a motion to 
reconsider, even when the delay may be considered reasonable and beyond the control of the Petitioner. 
2