dismissed H-1B Case: Electrical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF W-M- INC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC.14,2017 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a taxi management company, seeks to continue to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as an "electrical engineer" under the H-1 B nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 
110l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition and we 
dismissed the subsequent appeal. The matter is now before us on a motion to reopen and a motion to 
reconsider. Upon review, we will deny the motions. 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be proved in the reopened proceeding and be 
supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5(a)(2). A motion to 
reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent precedent 
decisions to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS 
policy. Upon filing, a motion must include all initial evidence required by applicable regulations 
and other USCIS instructions. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). A motion that does not meet applicable 
requirements shall be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
The Petitioner indicated on the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, that it was tiled as a 
motion to reopen and reconsider and the brief is attached. However, rather than attaching a brief the 
Petitioner requested additional time after the motion tiling date to submit a brief. Although the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(vii) states that a petitioner may be permitted additional time to 
submit a brief or additional evidence to us in connection with an appeal, no such provision applies to 
a motion to reopen or reconsider. The additional evidence must comprise the motion. See 8 C.F.R 
§§ 103.5(a)(2) and (3). The Petitioner has not asserted new facts to be proved in the reopened 
proceeding, and does not cite binding precedent decisions or other legal authority establishing that 
we or the director incorrectly applied the pertinent law or agency policy and that the prior decisions 
were erroneous based on the evidence of record at the time. Therefore. the motions do not satisfy 
applicable requirements. 
Matter ofW-M- Inc 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter ofW-M- Inc, ID# 1133672 (AAO Dec. 14, 2017) 
2