dismissed H-1B Case: Health Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-H-H-S-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 23, 2016 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a horne health care provider, seeks to continue to employ the Beneficiary as a 
"medical and health services manager" under the H-1 B nonimmigrant classification. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. We dismissed 
the appeal and denied a subsequent combined motion to reopen and reconsider. The matter is again 
before us on a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. The motion will be denied. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
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 our 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 submission of a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 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 
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. § 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 
Matter ofC-H-H-S-, Inc. 
documentary evidence that establish eligibility at the time the underlying petition or application was 
filed." 1 
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 
ofCoelho, 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.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 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, 
1 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(J) states in pertinent part: 
Each 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, and such instructions are incorporated into the regulations requiring its submission. 
2 
Matter ofC-H-H-S-, Inc. 
171-72 (1st Cir. 2013). Further, the reiteration ofprevious 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 of 0-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. at 60. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The submission constituting the combined motion to reopen and reconsider consists of the 
following: (1) the Form I-290B; (2) the Petitioner's brief in support ofthe motion; (3) a letter dated 
August 18, 2015, from the Petitioner that restates the proffered duties as previously provided; (4) 
copies of the Beneficiary's prior approval notices and pages from the Beneficiary's passport; (5) an 
Occupational Information Network (O*NET) summary report and a printout from the U.S. 
Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) for medical and health 
services managers; (6) documents regarding the Beneficiary's credentials; and (7) a copy of the 
decision Warren Chiropractic & Rehab Clinic, P.C v. USCIS, No. SACV 14-0964 AG (RNBx), 
2015 WL 732428 (C.D. Cal. 2015) (Warren Chiropractic). 
A. Motion to Reopen 
While the Petitioner has provided some documents as described above, the Petitioner has not 
presented any evidence that could be considered "new facts." Further, even if the documents could 
be considered as "new facts," the Petitioner has not established that the new facts possess such 
significance that they could change the outcome of the adjudication. 
We note that the Petitioner does not adequately address our prior finding that the proffered position's 
duties are not those typically performed by a medical and health services manager, but rather are 
consistent with the duties of a registered nurse position as described in the Handbook. Moreover, the 
Petitioner has not presented any evidence to refute that finding. 
Overall, it is not readily apparent how the newly submitted documentation would change the 
outcome of this case if the proceeding were reopened. See Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. at 4 73 
(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"); 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. at 94). A party seeking to reopen a proceeding bears a "heavy burden" of proof. INS v. Abudu, 
485 U.S. at 110. With the current motion, the Petitioner has not met that heavy burden. 
3 
Matter ofC-H-H-S-, Inc. 
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 
an incorrect application of law or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy. 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.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3) (detailing the requirements for a motion to reconsider). 
In the motion, the Petitioner cites to Chung Song Ja Corp. v. US. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services, No. C14-0177RSM, 2015 WL 1058110 (W.D. Wash. 2015) and Warren Chiropractic for 
the proposition that a medical and health services manager is a specialty occupation. However, we 
note that, as discussed previously, we did not find that the proffered position is that of a medical and 
health services manager, but instead is that of a registered nurse. Therefore, the facts of the instant 
petition are not analogous to those in Chung Song Ja Corp. and Warren Chiropractic & Rehab 
Clinic. Further, even if the Petitioner could demonstrate, which it did not do, that the proffered 
position is that of a medical and health services manager, we also note that, in contrast to the broad 
precedential authority of the case law of a United States circuit court, we are not bound to follow the 
decision of a United States district court in matters arising even within the same district. See Matter 
ofK-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715,719-20 (BIA 1993). Although the reasoning underlying a district judge's 
decision will be given due consideration when it is properly before us, the analysis does not have to 
be followed as a matter of law. !d. 
The Petitioner's stated reasons for reconsideration are insufficient to establish that our decision was 
incorrect. In the motion brief, the Petitioner asserted that the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation for the same reasons stated in prior proceedings. The Petitioner did not 
articulate how our July 27, 2015, decision that rejected these arguments was based on an incorrect 
application of law or policy. As previously discussed, the reiteration of previous arguments or 
general allegations of error will not suffice. The Petitioner 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. As the Petitioner did not properly state the reasons for reconsideration, 
the motion to reconsider must also be denied. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The combined motion does not meet the requirements for a motion to reopen or a motion to 
reconsider. Therefore, the combined motion will be denied. 
The Petitioner should note that, 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.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(iv). 
4 
Matter ofC-H-H-S-, Inc. 
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. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter ofC-H-H-S-, Inc., ID# 15580 (AAO Feb. 23, 2016) 
5