dismissed H-1B Case: Real Estate

U.S. DepaP&mewt of Homeland Security 
20 Mass Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
US. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: EAC 02 I34 5 1432 Office: VEMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: Gcf 1; dp - - - -. 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Petition for a Noni want Worker Pursuant to Section 10 l (a)(1 S)(H)(i)(b) of the - 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 B 18l(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) 
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 
EAC 02 B 34 5 1432 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the noni grant visa petition and the 
Ad~nistrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed a subsequent appeal. The matter is again before the M0 
on motion to reopen or reconsider. The motion will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a real estate agency that seeks to employ the beneficiary as a contract administrator. The 
director denied the petition on the basis that the proposed position is not a specialty occupation, and the AAO 
dismissed a subsequent appeal. 
On mtion, counsel submits the following documents: 
1) An April 16, 2004 letter from the petitioner; 
2) An undated letter from ReMax 2000; 
3) An article from the Handbook about real estate brokers and sales agents; 
Corporation; and 
5) A May 1, 2004 letter hm- with LRA Worldwide. 
Counsel states the evidentiary record reflects that the proposed position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
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. 3 103.5(a)(2). Generally, the new facts must have been 
previously unavailable and could not have been discovered earlier in the proceedings. See 8 C.F.R. 
1003.2(c)(l). Here, the submitted evidence does not present "new9' facts to be proved in the reopened 
proceeding. The April 16, 2004 letter from the petitioner, the undated letter from ReMax 2000, the letter 
from-? and the May 1, 2004 letter from contain the same assertions that the 
AAO previously considered on appeal, which is that the proposed position requires bilingual and bilcultwal 
skills, and howledge of the legal system in the United States and in Spanish speaking countries. As the 
AAO already considered these assertions in the March 30, 2004 decision, this evidence does not present new 
facts. h the March 30, 2004 decision the AAO also discussed the Handbook's information; thus, this 
evidence on mtion does not present new facts. The letters and infomation from the Handbook therefore fail 
to satisfy the requirements for a motion to reopen. 
A motion to reconsider must: (I) 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 
gration 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. 5 103.5(a)(3). On motion, counsel does not indicate my 
reasons for reconsideration of the AAO's decision; accordingly, counsel fails to satisfy the requirements of a 
motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider. 
A motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. 3 103.5(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. 3 1361. The petitioner has not met that bmden. 
BAC 02 134 51432 
Page 3 
OWER: The motion is dismissed. The previous decision of the MO, dated December 16, 2003, is affmed. 
The petition is denied.