dismissed H-1B Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9746695 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-18) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 20, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "finance manager" under the H-18 
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). 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-18 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 Vermont Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
established the proposed position is a specialty occupation. We agreed with the Director and dismissed 
the subsequent appeal, and additionally concluded that the Petitioner had not established that the 
Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of a specialty occupation. The Petitioner thereafter filed 
11 motions and we dismissed each one. The matter is now before us on a 12th motion to reopen and 
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 1-2908, 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 
A. Motion to Reopen 
In support of the motion to reopen, the Petitioner states that it is submitting new evidence and facts to 
demonstrate the position of "Finance Manager" qualifies as a specialty occupation and the Beneficiary, 
qualifies for H-1B status. 
The record in support of this motion to reopen, however, does not include new facts or evidence. The 
Petitioner simply re-states a few duties and the requirements the Beneficiary must satisfy to qualify to 
perform an H-1B caliber position. The Petitioner appears to conflate the requirements to establish a 
position as a specialty occupation and the requirements to establish the Beneficiary is qualified to perform 
the duties of a specialty occupation. The Petitioner also disagrees with our analysis of previously 
submitted job postings but does not submit new evidence or facts to address the deficiencies we have 
discussed. 
As the record on motion does not include new, relevant evidence regarding this issue, the Petitioner 
has not shown proper cause to reopen this matter. The record on motion is insufficient to grant the 
motion to reopen. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
The Petitioner asserts that it has provided precedent to support its position. This record, however, does 
not state the reasons for reconsideration and establish that the initial decision and the 11 motions filed 
thereafter were based on an incorrect application of law or policy. Further, the current record does not 
establish that the previous decisions were incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of initial 
filing. Other than the assertion that it has provided precedent which is not supported in the record, the 
Petitioner provides no persuasive argument to support a motion to reconsider. 
The Petitioner also appears to recognize that we are not required to approve petitions where eligibility has 
not been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous.1 However, the 
Petitioner repeatedly refers to a petition filed by a different employer on behalf of this Beneficiary that 
was approved sometime in 2007. We emphasize here if the previous nonimmigrant petition was approved 
based on the same unsupported assertions that are contained in the current record, such approval would 
constitute material and gross error on the part of the Director. It would be "absurd to suggest that [U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services] or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding 
precedent." Sussex Eng'g, Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987). 
For the reasons listed above as well as the reasons identified in our previous decisions, the Petitioner 
has not shown proper cause to reconsider the previous decision. 
1 See Matter of Church Scientology lnt'I, 19 l&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). 
2 
111. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established proper cause to reopen this matter and has not shown proper cause 
to reconsider the previous decision. The Petitioner has not established the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation and has not established the Beneficiary is qualified to perform an H-1B caliber 
position. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3