dismissed H-1B Case: Finance

'-@@ data deleted to 
Pevent clearly unw-ted 
hvasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COP x 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 04 043 50381 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: APR 1 0 2006 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 1 0 1 (a)( 1 S)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
2dd zfl* 
+ Robert P. Wiemann, ire or 
Administrative ~~~eaflffice 
WAC 04 043 503 8 1 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the matter was appealed 
to the Administrative Appeals Oflice (AAO). The AAO issued a summary dismissal based on the petitioner's 
failure to specify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. The petitioner filed a 
motion to reopen. The motion will be denied. 
The petitioner is a real estate services company that seeks to employ the beneficiary as a financial analyst. 
The petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant 
to section lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1 10 1 (a>( 15)(H>(i>(b>. 
The director denied the petition because the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
On motion to reopen, counsel submits a brief. 
Counsel's assertions do not satisfy the requirements of either a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider. 
Counsel's submission of additional evidence does not satisfy the requirements of a motion to reopen. 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. 5 103.5(a)(2). 
On motion, counsel submits a brief and supporting documents addressing the director's decision, but does not 
address the AAO's decision dismissing the appeal based on the petitioner's failure to specify any erroneous 
conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. This cannot be considered to be a "new fact" related to the 
previous decision, as required by the law. Generally, the new facts must be material and unavailable 
previously, and could not have been discovered earlier in the proceeding. See 8 C.F.R. 5 1003.2(c)(l). Here, 
no evidence in the motion contains new facts that were previously unavailable. The documents submitted on 
motion could have been submitted within 30 days of filing the appeal, as counsel indicated would occur. 
The matters filed as a motion also fail to satisfy the requirements of a motion to reconsider. A motion to 
reconsider must: (1) 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 Citizenship and 
Immigration Services policy; and (2) establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record 
at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(3). The AAO decision that this motion addressed was 
in compliance with the regulatory direction at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(v), cited in that decision, to summarily 
dismiss any appeal when the party concerned fails to identify specifically any conclusion of law or statement 
of fact for the appeal. The motion provides no evidence that, in its appeal to the AAO, the petitioner had 
identified specifically any conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. Therefore, there is no basis 
for granting a motion to reconsider. 
A motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). In visa 
petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1361. The petitioner has not met that burden. 
WAC 04 043 5038 1 
Page 3 
ORDER. The motion is dismissed. The previous decision of the AAO, dated August 16, 2004, is affirmed. 
The petition is denied.