dismissed H-1B Case: Child Care

(b)(6)
DATE: JUL 2 9 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION RECEIPT#: 
U.S. Department . of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
NO REPRESENTATIVE OF RECORD 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. 
If you believe we incorrectly decided your case, you may file a motion requesting us to reconsider our 
decision and/or reopen the proceeding. The requirements for motions are located at 8 C.P.R. § 103.5. 
Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this 
decision. The Form I-290B web page 
(www.uscis.gov/i-290b) contains the latest information on fee, filing 
location, and other requirements. Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO. 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
REV 3/2015 W\\''\V.UScis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. The 
petitioner appealed the denial to the Administrative Appeals Office, and we dismissed the appeal. The 
matter is again before us on a motion to reopen. The motion will be dismissed . 
On the Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129), the petitioner describes itself as a 
six-employee "Child Care Facility" established in In order to employ the beneficiary in what 
it designates as a part-time "Health Consultant, Child Development and Safety" position, the 
petitioner seeks to classify her as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialt y occupation pursuant to 
section 10l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) , 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The Director denied the pet1t10n, finding that the evidence did not establish that the proffered 
position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation position. We dismissed a subsequent 
appeal, affirming the Director's decision, and the petitioner filed the instant motion. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that this motion will be dismissed because it does not 
merit reopening. 
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 users 
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 that is properl y 
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 proce edings before the Service," "[a] motion that does not meet applicable requirements 
shall be dismissed ." 
B. Requirements for Motions to Reopen 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R . § 1 03.5(a)(2) , "Requirement s for motion to reopen ," states: 
A motion to reopen must [ (1)] state the new facts to be provided in the reopened 
proceeding and [(2)] be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence ... . 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
This provision is supplemented by the related instruction at Part 3 of the Form I-290B, which states : 
1 
Motion to Reopen: The motion must state new facts and must be supported by 
affidavits and/or documentary evidence. 
Further, the new facts must possess such significance that, "if proceedings ... were reopened , with 
all the attendant delays, the new evidence offered would likely change the result in the case." Matter 
o[Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464,473 (BIA 1992); see also Maatougui v. Holder, 738 F.3d 1230, 1239-
40 (lOth Cir. 2013). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The submission constituting the motion consists of the following: (1) the Form I-290B; (2) a letter 
from the petitioner dated March 27, 2014; (3) a list of the petitioner's current students ; (4) a portion 
of the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook); (5) an article , 
entitled Certified Health Education Specialist Education Requirements, printed from a website 
maintained by study.com at http://study.com/certified_health_education_specialist.html; (6) several 
articles published in Summer 2004 by the Healthy Child Care America (HCCA) campaign; and 
(7) portions of a publication of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) entitled Caring for 
Infants and Toddlers in Child Care and Early Education, published during 2014. 
Upon review , we find that the petitioner did not provide any new facts in this motion. It has not 
demonstrated that any of the documents submitted in support of this motion were previously 
unavailable and, more to the point, it does not indicate that any of the documents contain any "new 
facts" within the meaning of 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). Further, even if any of the facts in those 
documents could be construed as new facts, the petitioner has not established that they would change 
the outcome of this case if the proceeding were reopened. 
"There is a strong public interest in bringing [a case] to a close as promptly as is consistent with the 
interest in giving the [parties] a fair opportunity to develop and present their respective cases." INS 
v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 107 (1988). Motions for the reopening of immigration proceedings are 
disfavored for the same reasons as petitions for rehearing and motions for a new trial on the basis of 
newly discovered evidence. INS v. Doherty , 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992) (citing INS v. Abudu , 485 
U.S. 94 (1988)). A party seeking to reopen a proceeding bears a "heavy burden" of proof. INS v. 
Abudu, 485 U.S. at 110. With the current motion, the petitioner has not met that burden. 
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 must be executed and 
filed in accordance with the form instructions, notwithstanding any provision of 8 
CFR chapter 1 to the contrary , such instructions are incorporated into the regulations 
requiring its submission. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
III. CONCLUSION 
The petitioner should note that, unless USCIS directs otherwise, the filing of a motion to reopen or 
reconsider does not stay the execution of any decision in a case or extend a previously set departure 
date. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(iv). 
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; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec . 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the motion will be dismissed, the 
proceedings will not be reopened, and our previous decision will not be disturbed. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed.