dismissed H-1B Case: Software Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7469330 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 3, 2020 
The Petitioner, an online advertisement strategy firm, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as 
a "software engineer" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-IB 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 of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not demonstrate that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. We dismissed the subsequent 
appeal concluding that the Petitioner did not submit all requested additional evidence which precluded 
a material line of inquiry. 
The matter is before us on a combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. In the combined 
motions, the Petitioner contends that we erred by failing to articulate why the submitted evidence was 
not sufficient. We will dismiss the motions . 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence of new facts, 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). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility 
for the requested immigration benefit. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner's motions do not meet the motion requirements; therefore, we will dismiss the motions. 
A. Motion to Reopen 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2) does not define what constitutes a "new" fact, 
nor does it mirror the Board of Immigration Appeals' (the Board) definition of "new" at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 1003.23(b)(3) (stating that a motion to reopen will not be granted unless the evidence "was not 
available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing"). Unlike the Board 
regulation, we do not require the evidence of a "new fact" to have been previously unavailable or 
undiscoverable. Instead, we interpret "new facts" to mean facts that are relevant to the issue(s) raised 
on motion and that have not been previously submitted in the proceeding, which includes the original 
petition. Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not 
constitute "new facts." 
In support of the motion, the Petitioner submits a brief explaining why it believes that we failed to properly 
consider the evidence in the record. The Petitioner resubmitted the same evidence it previously provided 
with its appeal. The Petitioner has not presented any evidence that could be considered "new facts." 
The Petitioner's motion merely disagrees with our previous decision. It does not state new facts and is 
not supported by documentary evidence. Therefore, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause to 
reopen the proceeding. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our decision was based on an incorrect application of law 
or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the 
time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Further, a motion to reconsider must be supported by 
pertinent authority. 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that our appeal decision was "improper as a matter of law" because 
the decision did not articulate what weight was given to the evidence submitted in response to our 
Notice of Intent to Dismiss and Request for Evidence (NOID/RFE). However, when the Petitioner 
responded, it did not fully comply with the NOID/RFE because it did not provide a copy of a 
government-issued identification document for the signatory of the appeal as requested. Where a 
petitioner does not submit all requested additional evidence and requests a decision based on the 
evidence already submitted, a decision shall be issued based on the record. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14). 
Failure to submit requested evidence, which precludes a material line of inquiry, shall be ground for 
denying the benefit request. Id. 
The Petitioner has not established that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application law or 
policy, or that it was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of that decision. Therefore, 
the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reconsideration. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause to reopen the proceeding or proper 
cause for reconsideration. 
2 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3