dismissed H-1B Case: Healthcare Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-H-H-S-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 15, 2016 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a home health care provider, seeks to extend the Beneficiary's temporary 
employment as a "medical and health services manager" under the H-1 B nonimmigrant 
classification. 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, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
proffered position is not a specialty occupation. The Petitioner appealed the Director's decision to 
our office and we dismissed the appeal. Subsequently, the Petitioner submitted a combined motion 
to reopen and reconsider, which we denied. The Petitioner then filed another combined motion to 
reopen and reconsider, which we also denied. 
The matter is again before us on a motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider. In its motion, the 
Petitioner submits a brief and asserts that the Director erred in denying the petition and we erred in 
dismissing the appeal. 
The combined motion will be denied. 
I. LAW 
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 USCIS 
officer'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 that is properly 
completed and signed, and accompanied by the correct fee), but the Petitioner must also show proper 
Matter ofC-H-H-S-, Inc. 
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 documentary evidence that establishes eligibility at the time the 
underlying petition ... 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. § 103.5(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. 
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 fonn 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. 
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 of previous 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 ofO-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. at 60. 
II. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons discussed below, the combined motion will be denied. 
The issue here is whether we properly denied the combined motion on February 23, 2016. However, 
the Petitioner addresses the basis for the February 26, 2015, decision to dismiss the appeal, which is 
not the subject of this motion. The only issue correctly before us on this motion is whether the 
immediate prior decision - that is, our decision to deny the motion to reopen and motion to 
reconsider on February 26,2016- was correctly decided. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a). 
In the prior decision, we concluded that the Petitioner did not present "new facts" that could change 
the outcome of our decision. 
On this motion, the Petitioner submits a brief with supporting evidence. The Petitioner has not, 
however, presented any evidence that could be considered "new facts." For instance, the job duties 
the Petitioner describes on motion are the same as those previously listed. 
The Petitioner also resubmits information regarding the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational 
Outlook Handbook (Handbook) section and the O*NET OnLine Summary Report (O*NET OnLine) 
for medical and health services managers, which is not new evidence. Moreover, as previously 
discussed, they do not support the Petitioner's assertion that medical and health service managers 
qualify as a specialty occupation. 
Further,· the Petitioner asserts that its business continues to grow, and submitted new affiliation 
provider participation agreements. However, we note that the agreements are dated after the 
3 
Matter ofC-H-H-S-, Inc. 
petition's filing.2 As noted, the motion must be supported by documentary evidence demonstrating 
eligibility at the time of filing the petition. As such, the Petitioner's motion does not satisfy the 
requirements of a motion to reopen. The motion to reopen will be denied. 
We will also deny the motion to reconsider. In our previous decision, we found that the Petitioner 
did not articulate how our decision to deny the Petitioner's prior motion misapplied any pertinent 
statutes, regulations, or precedent decisions based on the previous factual record. 
Here, the Petitioner asserts that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation under the 
criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) and that USCIS did not use the preponderance of evidence 
standard in denying the petition. However, this motion is limited to our February 23, 2016, decision. 
The Petitioner does not articulate how that decision was based on an incorrect application of law or 
policy. Our February 23, 2016, decision did not specifically address the criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 
214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), as our decision was based upon whether or not the prior combined motion met 
the requirements for a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider. Accordingly, the Petitioner's 
motion to reconsider will 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.P.R.§ 103.5(a)(l)(iv). 
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. Accordingly, the combined motion will be denied, 
the proceedings will not be reopened or reconsidered, and our previous decision will not be 
disturbed. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter ofC-H-H-S-, Inc., ID# 18061 (AAO Aug. 15, 2016) 
2 It is further noted that the agreements are not signed by the other party and do not appear to be properly executed. 
4