dismissed H-1B Case: Unspecified Specialty Occupation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 20, 2024 In Re: 35160803 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification 
for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 
8 U.S.C. § l 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to file a petition with U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 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 Nebraska Service Center Director denied the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
(petition), and through a lengthy case history we dismissed their lastest appeal and two subsequent 
motions. The Petitioner now files their third motion, a motion to reopen and reconsider. The Petitioner 
bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 
of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss 
the motions. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). According to the Instructions for Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B, Notice of 
Appeal or Motion), any new facts and documentary evidence must demonstrate eligibility for the 
required immigration benefit at the time the application or petition was filed. A motion to reopen that 
does not satisfy the applicable requirements must be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
A motion to reconsider must: (1) state the reasons for reconsideration , (2) be supported by any 
pertinent precedent decision to establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application 
of law or policy, and (3) establish that our prior decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the 
record at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). A motion to reconsider that does not satisfy 
these requirements must be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
The procedural history relating to this filing is lengthy and it is not necessary for us to restate it here. 
We incorporate the history by reference from our previous discussion on the matter. The issues here 
are whether the Petitioner: (1) has submitted new facts, supported by documentary evidence, to 
warrant reopening, and (2) has established that we incorrectly applied the law or USCIS policy in 
dismissing their second combined motion to reopen and reconsider. 
And the matters the Petitioner must first overcome within this motion are limited to the issues 
discussed within our most recent decision; the decision on their second motion. General support that 
a motion must first overcome the most recent decision lies within the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.S(a)(l )-(3) where it repeatedly discusses the underlying or latest decision, it limits the time one 
has to file a motion after the most recent decision, and it references jurisdiction resting with the entity 
who made the latest decision. This demonstrates that any motion must first address and overcome the 
most recent adverse decision before the filing party's arguments may move on to any issue that arose 
in a previous petition, appeal, or motion filing. 
Therefore, we will only consider new facts supported by evidence (for the motion to reopen) to the extent 
that it pertains to our latest decision dismissing the motion to reopen dated June 24, 2024. Likewise, we 
will only address the Petitioner's arguments that we erred in some manner (for the motion to reconsider) 
in that same decision. We will not entertain any discussion for any decision that occurred throughout 
these proceedings unless the Petitioner first shows "proper cause" to reopen or reconsider our June 24, 
2024 decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(i). The Petitioner's arguments in the motions consists of the 
following: 
The USCIS never properly considered the theory of equitable stopple [sic] to support a 
longer validity of the subject petition - nunc pro tune. 
The USCIS, based upon fundamental fairness and due process, should consider the 
Petitioner filing estoppel as a form of equitable reliefin U.S. Federal Court as a "new fact" 
for the purpose of reopening and reconsidering this matter. 
First, these are not new facts supported by documentary evidence to satisfy the requirements for a motion 
to reopen. The Petitioner has effectively presented the same argument within its two previous motions 
before this office, which we addressed at that time. As a result, we will dismiss the motion to reopen on 
that basis. Second, the Petitioner's claims do not establish that our prior decision was incorrect based 
on the evidence in the record at the time of the decision, nor did they support those claims with any 
legal basis to establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. 
Third, on the issue the Petitioner characterizes as "equitable stopple," we presume they meant 
equitable estoppel that is defined as: 
A defensive doctrine preventing one party from taking unfair advantage of another 
when, through false language or conduct, the person to be estopped has induced another 
person to act in a certain way, with the result that the other person has been injured in 
some way. This doctrine is founded on principles of fraud. The five essential elements 
of this type of estoppel are that (1) there was a false representation or concealment of 
material facts, (2) the representation was known to be false by the party making it, or 
the party was negligent in not knowing its falsity, (3) it was believed to be true by the 
person to whom it was made, (4) the party making the representation intended that it 
be acted on, or the person acting on it was justified in assuming this intent, and (5) the 
2 
party asserting estoppel acted on the representation in a way that will result m 
substantial prejudice unless the claim of estoppel succeeds. 
Black's Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024). We have no authority to apply the judicially devised doctrine 
of equitable estoppel to preclude a USCIS component from undertaking a lawful course of action that 
it is empowered to pursue by statute and regulation. See Matter ofHernandez-Puente, 19 I&N Dec. 
335, 338-39 (BIA 1991 ). Estoppel is an equitable form of relief that is available only through the 
courts. There is no delegation of authority, statute, regulation, or other law that permits us to apply 
this doctrine to the cases before us. Id. Accordingly, we have no authority to address the Petitioner's 
equitable estoppel claim. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that we should either reopen the proceedings or reconsider our 
decision. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3