dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 17, 2024 In Re: 32004963 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-IB nonimmigrant 
classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) . The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to 
temporarily employ a qualified nonimmigrant 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 of the Texas Service Center denied the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, 
concluding the Petitioner willfully perpetrated a fraud by misrepresenting the terms and conditions of 
their proffered job opportunity. We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal affirming the Director ' s 
decision. The matter is now before us on combined motions to reopen and reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
Petitioner's combined motions to reopen and reconsider. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reopen is based on new facts that are supported by documentary evidence, and a motion 
to reconsider is based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The requirements of a motion to 
reopen are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2), and the requirements of a motion to reconsider are located 
at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 
103.5(a)(2). We interpret "new facts" to mean those that are relevant to the issues raised on motion 
and that have not been previously submitted in the proceeding, which includes within the original 
petition. Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not 
constitute "new facts." A motion to reopen that does not satisfy the applicable requirements must be 
dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
A motion to reconsider on the other hand must: (1) state the reasons for reconsideration, (2) be 
supported by any pertinent precedent decision to 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 in 
the record at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). A motion to reconsider that does not 
satisfy these requirements must be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
The review of a motion is limited to the basis for the prior adverse decision. The regulations at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(i) generally require that the decision a motion seeks to reopen or reconsider must have 
taken place within the prior 30 days. So, we follow the regulations as written and limit our review to 
the prior decision made within 30 days of filing the motion. We evaluate any new facts, arguments, or 
allegations of error in the application of law or service policy in connection with our decision upon 
which the current motion was filed. We may only grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and 
demonstrates eligibility for the benefit sought. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Motion to Reopen 
The Petitioner has not provided us with new facts warranting reopening the proceedings here. We 
interpret "new facts" to mean those that are relevant to the issues raised on motion and that have not 
been previously submitted in the proceeding. Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting 
previously provided evidence does not constitute submission of "new facts." The Petitioner does not 
provide any new facts that relate to our decision dismissing the Petitioner's appeal. The Petitioner instead 
submits a letter brief encouraging us to reopen the proceedings in which it again asserts that its submission 
of fraudulent documentation misrepresented as its own project is not a material misrepresentation. And 
the Petitioner again, as it did on appeal, cites to case law inITServe Alliance, Inc. v Cissna, 443 F.Supp.3d 
14 (D.D.C. 2020) and the unreported case United States ofAmerica v. Namrata Patnaik and Kartiki 
Parekh, No. 22-cr-00014-BLF, 2023 WL 1111829 (N.D. Cal. 2023) to support its assertions. 
Repeating the assertions and citations it previously submitted on appeal are not "new facts" by 
definition. So, the Petitioner's motion does not meet the requirements a motion to reopen contained 
in 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 
And the affidavit the Petitioner's president submits does not contain any new facts supported by documentary 
evidence. In their affidavit, the Petitioner's president draws attention to the Petitioner's submission of 
plagiarized project documentation and questions whether USCIS should have requested that documentation. 
But the Petitioner again conveniently ignores the plagiarized documentation and the falsity of its willful 
misrepresentation that the project documentation is their proprietary work as well as the fact that it had 
previously submitted the plagiarized documentation when it initially filed the underlying petition without any 
request or prompting by USCIS. The Petitioner has therefore not provided any new facts supported by 
documentary evidence constituting a factual basis for us to reopen the matter. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and that the decision was based on 
an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). The Board of Immigration 
Appeals generally requires that a motion to reconsider assert an error was made at the time of the 
2 
previous decision. The very nature of a motion to reconsider is the claim that the original decision was 
defective in some regard. See Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 57 (BIA 2006). 
A motion to reconsider must: (1) state the reasons for reconsideration; (2) be supported by any 
pertinent precedent decision to 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 in the record at the 
time of the decision. 
The Petitioner's motion to reconsider is not supported by any precedent decision to establish that our 
previous decision was based on an incorrect application oflaw or policy. It also does not establish that 
our decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the time of decision. Consequently, 
it does not meet the requirements for a motion to reconsider and does not overcome the reasons for 
our previous decision. 
Disagreeing with our conclusions without showing that we erred as a matter of law is not a ground to 
reconsider our decision. See O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. at 58. The Petitioner has not demonstrated how we 
erred in our previous decision on the Petitioner's appeal. So, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause 
for reconsidering our previous decision on its appeal. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner should note that the filing of a motion to reopen or reconsider does not provide any 
interim benefits such as staying the execution of any decision or extending a previously set departure 
date. 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(iv). The Petitioner has not demonstrated that we should either reopen 
the proceedings or reconsider our decision. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3