dismissed H-1B Case: Restaurant Management

(b)(6)
MATTER OF P-E- INC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 23,2016 
MOTION ON CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner , a restaurant chain, seeks to temporarily emplo
y the Beneficiary as an "area coach 
operations-in training" under the H-1 B nonimmigrant classification. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section l01(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § l101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-lB 
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, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
evidence of record does not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation in 
accordance with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. 
Thereafter , the Petitioner filed the instant motion (receipt number and, 
simultaneous ly, an appeal (receipt number . We will deny the motion. 
1 
The regulations do not establish any procedure by which a petitioner may file an appeal and, at the 
same time, a separate motion to reopen or reconsider. 2 The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii) 
states that jurisdiction over a motion generally rests with the official who made the latest decision in 
the proceeding- here, the Director of the California Service Center. By filing an appeal, however, 
the Petitioner placed the proceeding under the jurisdiction of our office - the Administrative Appeals 
Office (AAO) -pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(iv). Because, for this type of proceeding, the 
AAO has appellate authority over the Service Centers, our decisions must supersede Service Center, 
decisions. Under these circumstances, it would serve no useful purpose for the Director to render a 
new decision on the motion while a separate appeal is pending. 
Furthermore, once we have rendered a final decision on an appeal, any motion filed prior to our 
decision becomes moot. Also, of course, there exists the chance that the Director's decision on 
motion may conflict with our decision on appeal. The adjudication of the petition must follow a 
1 We will render a separa te decision on the Petitioner 's appea l. 
2 The Director noted in the decision that the Petitioner could file an appea l or, alternatively, a motion. 
Malter of P-E- Inc 
single uninterrupted thread; it cannot branch off into two simultaneous and possibly conflicting 
proceedings. For all of these reasons, the Petitioner cannot file a motion with the Director and, at or 
near the same time, an appeal with the AA0 3 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter ofP-E- Inc, ID# 18469 (AAO June 23, 2016) 
3 We acknowledge that 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(iii) pennits the Director to treat an appeal as a motion under certain 
circumstances, but in this instance, the Petitioner has not requested that the appeal be considered as a motion. Rather, the 
Petitioner has submitted two separate filings- one as a motion, and one as an appeal. 
2