dismissed H-1B Case: Restaurant Management

(b)(6)
MATTER OF R-, LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 23, 2015 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR ANONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a restaurant, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a "restaurant manager" under the H-
1B 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. The Petitioner appealed the denial to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), 
which we dismissed. The matter is now before us on a motion to reconsider. The motion will be 
denied. 
We dismissed the appeal, concluding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the 
proffered position met any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), and thus, that the 
proffered position qualified for classification as a specialty occupation. On motion, the Petitioner 
asserts that the evidence of record was sufficient to establish eligibility under the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). The Petitioner contends that we erred in our analysis of this 
criterion by discounting the previously submitted letter from Ge~eral Counsel and 
Executive Vice President of the 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
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 
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)(6)
Matter of R-, LLC 
B. 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 when filed 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. 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 of 0-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. at 60. 
II. DISCUSSION 
' 
For the reasons discussed below, we will deny the motion to reconsider. 
In this matter, the Petitioner's motion does not satisfy the requirements of a motion to reconsider. 
The Petitioner's stated reasons for reconsideration are insufficient to establish that our previous 
decision was incorrect. 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that the letter from of the 
was sufficient to satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). The Petitioner 
states that this letter "was issued to explain why some employers require restaurant managers to have 
a Bachelor's degree or its equivalent, and limits the scope ofits assessment to the position offered by 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of R-, LLC 
the Petitioner in the instant petition." The Petitioner further states that "[ s ]ince the 
letter is specifically limited to assessing the Restaurant Manager position at 
the Petitioner in comparison with similar positions at other fine dining restaurants it satisfies the 
regulatory requirement of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2)." 
However, the Petitioner has not provided evidence corroborating its assertions on motion. 
letter itself does not indicate that he "limit[ ed] the scope of [his] assessment" to the 
particular position being proffered at the Petitioner's particular operations. Instead, the letter 
contains broad statements about "some employers" and "restaurant managers" in general, without . . 
specific and concrete references to the actual duties of the proffered position within the context of 
the Petitioner's particular operations. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is 
not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 
I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 
(Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
As we stated in our previous decision, there are numerous deficiencies with letter 
that led to our decision to accord it little probative value. For instance, we observed that 
did not explain the factual basis for his conclusions, as he did not state what documents 
and/or oral transmissions he reviewed, if any. did not indicate whether he made any 
personal observations or communicated with anyone with knowledge of the proffered position and 
its constituent duties. He also did not indicate whether he was aware of the Petitioner's submission 
of an LCA that was certified for a Level I, entry-level position. Moreover, did not 
specify whether a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is required to perform the duties of the 
proffered position, as his letter simply referred to a general bachelor's degree and such a degree 
requirement by "some" employers. However, the Petitioner did not specifically address these and 
other deficiencies we noted in our decision in support of the instant motion. 
Accordingly, we cannot find that the Petitioner has properly stated reasons for reconsideration, and 
supported those reasons by citations to pertinent statutes, regulations, and/or precedent decisions to 
establish that our decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The Petitioner's 
motion to reconsider must therefore be denied. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The motion does not meet the requirements for a motion to reconsider, nor does it merit 
reconsideration. The motion to reconsider will be denied. 
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 motion to reconsider will be 
denied, the proceedings will not be reconsidered, and our previous decision will not be disturbed. 
3 
Matter of R-, LLC 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter ofR-, LLC, ID# 14964 (AAO Dec. 23, 2015) 
4