dismissed H-1B Case: Food Manufacturing

MATTER OF J-S- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 28, 2016 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a frozen pasta manufacturer, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"market researcher" 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. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The H-1B 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 Director, Vermont Service Center, initially approved the petition. Upon subsequent review, the 
Director revoked the approval of the petition, concluding that the record did not include credible 
evidence establishing that the Beneficiary is qualified to serve in a specialty occupation position in 
accordance with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. The Director also entered a 
finding of fraud. We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal, and further found that the evidence of record 
did not demonstrate that the proffered position was a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on a motion to reopen and reconsider. 
We will deny the combined motion. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
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 U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 5>fficer'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, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, that is properly completed and signed, and accompanied by the correct fee), but the 
Matter of J-S- Inc. 
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 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.F.R. § 103.5(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: 1 
Motion to Reopen: The motion must state new facts and must be supported by 
affidavits and/or documentary evidence that established eligibility at the time the 
underlying petition or application was filed. 
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 M~tions to Reconsider 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5(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 
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 C.F.R. 
chapter 1 to the contrary, such instructions are incorporated into the regulations requiring its submission." 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of J-S- Inc. 
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. 
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 ofprevious assertions 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 of 0-S-G- , 24 I&N Dec. at 60. 
II. DISCUSSION 
On motion, the Petitioner does not contest the dismissal of the appeal. The Petitioner requests only 
· that we withdraw the finding of fraud against the Petitioner, stating: "While we no longer seek to 
reinstate the approved H-IB petition, we believe the finding of fraud is overreaching ... . " The 
Petitioner itself, -while making a case for why the finding of fraud should be withdrawn, has 
nevertheless acknowledged that the submitted evidence contained various discrepancies that limit its 
probative value, and does not request that we overturn our decision to affirm the revocation of the 
petition. Accordingly, our decision to dismiss the Petitioner's appeal will not be disturbed. 
Our affirmation of the Director's finding of fraud made in our previous decision focused on the 
apparent falsification of educational documents submitted in support of the Beneficiary's 
qualifications. Specifically, in support of the Beneficiary's qualifications to perform the duties of 
the proffered position, the Petitioner submitted photocopies of the Beneficiary's diplomas and 
various evaluations of the Beneficiary's foreign academic credentials, as well as one laminated color 
copy of a diploma. No original documents were submitted. 
The petition, initially approved, was ultimately revoked after an investigative report conducted by 
the in Democratic Republic of the Congo, stated that the Beneficiary's 
degree presented by the Petitioner appeared to be fraudulent as it was never registered with the 
college and was never issued by After receiving this report, the 
Director issued a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR), which advised the Petitioner of these derogatory 
findings, as well as additional discrepancies noted in the Beneficiary's educational credentials. The 
Director ultimately found the Petitioner's response to the NOIR insufficient to clarify these 
discrepancies, and the petition's approval was revoked. The Director also entered a finding of fraud. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of J-S- Inc. 
In denying the appeal, we affirmed the Director's decision and finding of fraud. We found that the 
Petitioner had not submitted credible, probative evidence of the Beneficiary's foreign education, 
such as a consistent timeline of the dates the Beneficiary attended the 
We also noted numerous formatting, grammatical, and other technical issues in the 
documents purportedly issued by the Specifically, the seals ofthe 
differed significantly between documents, the "Attestation of 
Attendance" letter for the academic year of 2003-2004 misspelled the University's name on its own 
letterhead, and the Beneficiary's name was misspelled on the extract from the Official Academic 
Record for the 2000-2001 academic year. Although the Petitioner dismissed the discrepancies in the 
formatting and seals of the documents submitted as endemic issues in the Congo and not evidence of 
fraud, we found that the underlying inconsistent information submitted to demonstrate the 
Beneficiary's attendance at and diplomas from the in addition to 
the issues with the formatting and seals, suggested that the documents may have been fabricated. 
On motion, the Petitioner submits: (1) a letter from counsel; (2) a sworn statement by 
co-owner and president of the Petitioner; (3) a sworn statement by 
wife of the Petitioner's president and sister of the Beneficiary; (4) a sworn statement by the 
Petitioner's counsel; and (5) documentation about one of the evaluation 
services that evaluated the Beneficiary's foreign credentials. For the reasons discussed below, the 
Petitioner has not overcome the fraud finding, its sole challenge of our most recent decision. 
A. The Motion to Reopen 
In the Petitioner's motion, its sole challenge is the finding of fraud. Both the Petitioner's president 
and his wife assert that they had no knowledge the educational documents submitted were 
fraudulent, as they both claim to have no knowledge of the Congolese educational system and 
therefore do not know what such educational documents should look like. They claim, as does their 
attorney, that they relied on the evaluations prepared by and presumed that 
would have notified them had they suspected the documents were fraudulent or 
falsified. For the reasons discussed below, we will deny the motion to reopen , and affirm our 
previous decision, including the finding of fraud. 
First, we note that statements made without supporting documentation are of limited probative value. 
"[G]oing on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings." Matter of Soffici , 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Comm'r 1998) (citing-Matter ofTreasure Craft of Cal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
Given that these statements are not accompanied by additional corroborating evidence, we are not in 
a position to sufficiently evaluate the claims within the statements. Nevertheless, even assuming that 
the Petitioner did not have actual knowledge of the contents of the falsified documents, at issue is 
whether it may be absolved of its responsibility of the falsified documents submitted in support of 
the petition. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of J-S- Inc. 
I 
The evidence the Petitioner submitted in support of this motion does not absolve it of the 
responsibility to know the contents of the petition and supporting materials. As noted above, the 
educational documents submitted with the petition contain numerous discrepancies, including 
inconsistencies between the years attended and the years of study shown by the transcripts. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner does not explain why it claimed that the "Licencie" program is a 
two-year program in the record, but the attendance letters submitted in support of this contention 
show that the Beneficiary attended the "Licencie" program for three academic years. This is a 
significant discrepancy given its claim on motion to have no knowledge of the Congolese efiucation 
system. 
At no time did the Petitioner take responsibility for the contents or offering of the falsified 
documents. After receiving notification of the discrepancjes in the NOIR, the Petitioner instead 
indicated "that the Registrar's office may not have acknowledged [the Beneficiary's] degree due to a 
conflict over a tuition payment that may remain outstanding." It later stated that it was "confident 
that [it] will be able to provide compelling evidence t~at The Institute had demanded that the 
Beneficiary make an unnecessary and exorbitant payment to the school in order for them to confirm 
his attendance and graduation" and that the Beneficiary "refused to succumb to that 
quasi-blackmail." However, as noted in our previous decision, the Petitioner's statement that the 
Beneficiary owes an "outstanding" "tuition 
payment" on one hand, and that the school "demanded" 
"an unnecessary and exorbitant payment" on the other hand, are two different claims. The Petitioner 
.has not explained and submitted objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. !d. at 591-92. 
Moreover, the Petitioner has not further explained what "compelling evidence" of the University's 
claimed "quasi-blackmail" it possesses, nor has the Petitioner provided copies of such evidence, 
despite the Petitioner's "confiden[ce]" that it would be able to provide such evidence. Considering, 
at the time it filed this motion, it had been approximately nine months since the petition was revoked 
with a finding of fraud, the Petitioner had ample time to request, or secure documentation through 
individuals and entities associated with the to support its "quasi­
blackmail" claims. The Petitioner's abandonment of this argument, coupled with its stated 
ignorance relating to the falsified documents, does not absolve the Petitioner of the responsibility of 
knowing the contents of supporting evidence submitted in its petition. Again, going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of 
proof in these proceedings. Matter ofSoffici , 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
The Petitioner certified, under penalty of perjury, that the petition and all materials filed with it, 
either at the time of filing or thereafter, were true and correct. See section 287(b) of the Act; 
8 U.S.C. § 1357(b}; 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1746; 18 U.S.C. § 1621. The Petitioner's 
statement that it lacked actual knowledge of the falsified documents does not nullify the certification 
made on the Form I-129, under penalty of perjury. By signing the Form I-129, the Petitioner 
accepted the responsibility of apprising itself of the contents of the petition as well as materials filed 
in support of the petition. Based on the above stated reasons, we will deny the motion to reopen. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 
5 
Matter of J-S- Inc. 
B. The Motion to Reconsider 
The submission does not satisfy the requirements for granting a motion to reconsider. The Petitioner 
does not establish that our decision to affirm the Director's finding of fraud was based upon an 
incorrect application of law or policy to the evidence before us when we issued that decision. 
Further, the submission on motion does not cite relevant statutes, regulations, or precedent decisions 
that would support reconsideration of our finding when we issued that decision. Accordingly, we 
will also deny the motion to reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the above stated reasons, we affirm the dismissal of the appeal and the revocation of the 
petition, and affirm the finding of fraud. 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. § 13611361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter of J-S- Inc., ID# 45605 (AAO Oct. 28, 2016) 
6