dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-F-M-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 17, 2016 
MOTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a "wholesale and retail" business with five employees, seeks to employ the Beneficiary 
in what it designates as a "computer systems analyst" position. The Petitioner seeks to classify her as 
a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation. See section 101(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, Vermont 
Service Center, denied the petition. The Petitioner appealed the denial to us, which we dismissed. 1 
The matter is now before us on a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. 2 The combined motion 
will be denied. 3 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that this combined motion will be denied because the 
motion does not merit either reopening or reconsideration. 
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 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 
1 We dismissed the appeal because the Petitioner did not demonstrate that that the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. We further noted that the Petitioner had not established that it would pay the Beneficiary the 
required wage for her work if the petition were approved. 
2 The combined motion to reopen and reconsider was not accompanied by a Form G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance 
as Attorney or Accredited Representative. 
3 After receiving the motion submission, we sent the Petitioner's president a request for evidence. Although he 
responded to the request, he did not provide all of the requested of information. 
Matter of A-F-M-, Inc. 
motions in proceedings 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.P.R. § 1 03.5(a)(2), "Requirements 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." 
This provision is supplemented by the related instruction at Part 4 of the Form I-290B, which states: 
"Motion to Reopen: The motion must state new facts and must be supported by affidavits and/or 
documentary evidence that establish eligibility at the time the underlying petition or application was 
filed."4 
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 of 
Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992); see also Maatougui v. Holder, 738 F.3d 1230, 1239-40 
(lOth Cir. 2013). 
C. Requirements for Motions to Reconsider 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5(a)(3), "Requirements for motion to reconsider," 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: 
"Motion to Reconsider: The motion must be supported by citations to appropriate statutes, 
regulations, or precedent decisions 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." 
4 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(I) 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 I to the contrary, such 
instructions are incorporated into the regulations requiring its submission. 
2 
Matter of A-F-M-, Inc. 
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 of previous 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. 
II. DISCUSSION 
The submission constituting the combined motion consists of the following: (1) the Form I-290B, 
and (2) a letter in support of the combined motion. 
A. Motion to Reopen 
In addition to satisfying the minimum requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2), the Petitioner must 
also establish that the new facts to be proven in a motion to reopen possess such significance that 
they would likely change the results of the case. Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. at 473; see also 
Maatougui v. Holder, 738 F.3d at 1239-40. "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" ofproof. INSv. Abudu, 485 U.S. at 110. 
The letter in support of the combined motion is similar to a letter previously submitted to our office 
with the appeal. The Petitioner reiterates its need for assistance, the responsibilities of the proffered 
position, and its belief that the Beneficiary is capable of performing the job duties. The submission 
does not reveal facts that could be considered new under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2) and of such 
significance that it would likely change the results of the case. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by citations to 
pertinent statutes, regulations, and/or precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on 
3 
Matter of A-F-M-, Inc. 
an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy. A petition must state the specific factual and legal 
issues raised on appeal that were decided in error or overlooked in the initial decision. See Matter of 
0-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. at 60. A motion to reconsider a decision on an application or petition must, 
when filed, also establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time 
of the initial decision. See 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(3) (detailing the requirements for a motion to 
reconsider). 
In the combined motion, the Petitioner requests that we review and approve the case. The Petitioner 
did not articulate how the appeal decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. As 
the Petitioner did not properly state the reasons for reconsideration, the motion to reconsider must be 
denied. 
The submission does not meet the applicable requirements for a motion for an additional reason. 
More specifically, the motion does not contain a statement pertinent to whether the validity of the 
unfavorable decision has been or is the subject of any judicial proceeding, which is required by 
8 C.P.R. §103.5(a)(l)(iii)(C). Thus, the combined motion must also be dismissed for this reason. 
III. CONCLUSION 
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.P.R. § 
1 03.5(a)(l )(iv). 
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. Accordingly, the combined motion will be denied, 
the proceedings will not be reopened or reconsidered, and our previous decision will not be 
disturbed. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter of A-F-M-, Inc. ID# 15217 (AAO Feb. 17, 2016) 
4