dismissed H-1B Case: Business Management

MATTER OF B-H-E-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 3, 2016 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an electrical contractor, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "business 
manager" under the H-1B 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-IB 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. The Petitioner appealed the denial, 
which we dismissed on the basis that the Petitioner had not established that the proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. The Petitioner filed two motions to reconsider, both of which we 
denied. 
The matter is once again before us on another motion to reconsider. In its motion, the Petitioner 
asserts that our prior decisions should be reversed. We will deny the instant motion. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A. Overarching Requirement for Motions by a Petitioner 
The provision at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) includes the following statement limiting a USCIS 
officer's authority to reopen the proceeding or reconsider the decision to instances where "proper 
cause" has been shown for such action: "[T]he official having jurisdiction may, for proper cause 
shown, reopen the proceeding or reconsider the prior decision." 
Thus, to merit reopening or reconsideration, the submission must not only meet the formal 
requirements for filing (such as, for instance, submission of a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, that is properly completed. and signed, and accompanied by the correct fee), but the 
Petitioner must also show proper cause for granting the motion. As stated in the provision at 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4), "Processing motions in proceedings before the Service," "[a] motion that 
does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed." 
Matter of B-H-E-, Inc. 
B. Requirements for Motions to Reconsider 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3), "Requirements for motion to re~onsider," states: 
A motion to reconsider must [(1)] state the reasons for reconsideration and [(2)] be 
supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision was 
based on an incorrect application of law or Service policy. A motion to reconsider a 
decision on an application or petition must [(3)], [(a)] when filed, also [(b)] establish 
that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the 
initial decision. 
These provisions are augmented by the related instruction at Part 4 of the Form I-290B, which 
states: 1 
Motion to Reconsider: The motion must be supported. by citations to appropriate 
statutes, regulations, or precedent decisions when filed and must establish that the 
decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy, and that the decision 
was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of decision. 
A motion to reconsider contests the correctness of the prior decision based on the previous factual 
record, as opposed to a motion to reopen which seeks a new hearing based on new facts. Compare 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3) and 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 
A motion to reconsider should not be used to raise a legal argument that could have been raised 
earlier in the proceedings. See Matter of Medrano, 20 I&N Dec. 216, 219 (BIA 1990, .1991) 
("Arguments for consideration on appeal should all be submitted at one time, rather than in 
piecemeal fashion."). Rather, any "arguments" that are raised in a motion to reconsider should flow 
from new law or a de novo legal determination that could not have been addressed by the affected 
party. Matter ofO-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) (examining motions to reconsider under a 
similar scheme provided at 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)); see also Martinez-Lopez v. Holder, 704 F.3d 169, 
171-72 (1st Cir. 2013). Further, the reiteration ofprevious arguments or general allegations of error 
in the prior decision will not suffice. Instead, the affected party must state the specific factual and 
legal issues raised on appeal that were decided in error or overlooked in the initial decision. See 
Matter ofO-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. at 60. 
1 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(l) states in pertinent part: "Every benefit request or other document submitted to 
DHS [Department of Homeland Security] must be executed and filed in accordance with the form instructions, 
notwithstanding any provision of 8 CFR chapter I to the contrary, and such instructions are incorporated into the 
regulations requiring its submission." 
2 
Matter of B-H-E-, Inc. 
II. DISCUSSION 
For the reasons discussed below, the motion to reconsider will be denied. 
In the brief in support of this motion, the Petitioner explains why the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation for the same reasons stated in prior proceedings, including in its initial appeal 
and two previous motion proceedings. The Petitioner makes several references to the Director's 
decision and our previous decisions collectively. The Petitioner also resubmits copies of evidence 
which were previously submitted in prior proceedings. 
However, the issue here is strictly limited to whether our immediate prior decision, dated August 18, 
2016, was incorrect. The scope of the instant motion cannot be expanded to consider whether the 
Director's decision to deny the petition was incorrect, nor to (consider our previous decisions 
dismissing the appeal (on November 30, 2015), and denying the Petitioner's first motion to 
reconsider (on May 4, 20 16). Any concerns the Petitioner had with those prior decisions should 
have been raised in earlier proceedings. As previously stated, a motion to reconsider should not be 
used to raise a legal argument that could have been raised in earlier proceedings, as all available 
arguments for consideration should all be submitted at one time. See id; Matter of Medrano, 20 I&N 
Dec. at 219; Martinez-Lopez v. Holder, 704 F.3d at 171-72. 
The Petitioner did not specifically articulate how our August 18, 2016, decision was based on an 
incorrect application of law or policy. Other than passing references to this decision in its recitation 
of the case's factual and procedural history, the Petitioner did not specifically address our August 
2016 decision at all. Instead, the Petitioner's motion collectively addresses the Director's decision 
and our prior decisions, as opposed to only addressing any errors we may have committed in our 
August 2016 decision. For instance, the Petitioner states in the instant motion that "[t]he decisions 
issued by USCIS and AAO are not in accordance with the law, disregard factual circumstances, and 
are therefore errors in law and should be reversed." , Yet the Petitioner has not pointed to· any 
specific statements within our seven-page, August 18th decision, which the Petitioner believes were 
incorrect. We find that the instant motion focuses on the same allegations of error which were 
already raised and addressed in prior proceedings. General allegations of error and reiterations of 
previous arguments are insufficient to meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider. See Matter 
of 0-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. at 60; Matter of Medrano, 20 I&N Dec. at 219; Martinez-Lopez v. Holder, 
704 F.3d at 171-72. 
The documents constituting this motion do not articulate how our decision, dated August 18, 2016, 
misapplied any pertinent statutes, regulations, or precedent decisions to the evidence of record when 
the decision to deny the motion was rendered. Accordingly, the Petitioner's motion to reconsider 
will be denied. 
3 
Matter of B-H-E-, Inc. 
III. CONCLUSION 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter ofB-H-E-, Inc., ID# 154622 (AAO Nov. 3, 2016) 
4