dismissed H-1B Case: Medicine

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
FILE: WAC 02 08 1 52003 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: @J 1 4 2005 
IN RE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonirnmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1 lOl(a)(lS)(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. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 02 081 52003 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the Administrative 
Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed a subsequent appeal. The matter is again before the AAO on motion to 
reopen or reconsider. The motion will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is an acute care hospital that seeks to employ the beneficiary as an obstetrics team supervisor. 
The petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a nonimrnigrant 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. 
Q 1 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). The director denied the petition on the basis that the proffered position did not meet 
the definition of a specialty occupation. The AAO affirmed the director's findings. 
Counsel's submission does not satisfy either the requirements of a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider. 
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. Q 103.5(a)(2). 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 (CIS) 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. Q 103.5(a)(3). 
On motion, counsel submits a statement that essentially repeats the information submitted on appeal. Counsel's 
statement is not persuasive. As previously stated, a motion to reopen must state the new facts that will be 
proven if the matter is reopened, and must be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 
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. Q 1003.2(c)(l). Here, nothing in the motion contains new facts that 
were previously unavailable. No documentary evidence was submitted with the motion. 
The evidence also fails to satisfy the requirements of a motion to reconsider. Counsel does not supply any 
pertinent precedent decisions, or establish that the director or the AAO misinterpreted the evidence of record 
based on law or policy. 
A motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5(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. Q 1361. The petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed. The previous decision of the AAO, dated October 21, 2003, is affirmed. 
The petition is denied.