dismissed EB-1A Case: Aerial Contortionist

U.S. Department of IIomeland Security 
20 Mass Ave., N W , Rm 3000 
ih~::$I;1g 5.:*3 &;'e:e-J tq 
 Washington, DC 20529 
and 1mmigrat;on 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(bj(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1 153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF 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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. tj 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. tj 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
4 - 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the hector, Texas Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in 
the arts. The director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, the petitioner argues that she meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. Q; 204.5(h)(3). 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in thls subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim 
and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
Specific supporting evidence must accompany the petition to document the "sustained national or international 
acclaim" that the statute requires. 
 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
 An alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a "one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award)." Id. Absent such an award, an alien can establish the necessary sustained acclaim by meeting at least 
three of ten other regulatory criteria. Id. However, the weight given to evidence submitted to fblfill the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3), or under 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(4), must depend on the extent to which such evidence 
demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the 
alien's field of endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition 
of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(2). 
This petition, filed on March 23,2007, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as 
an aerial contortionist. The petitioner initially submitted a work schedule for 2007, a letter verifying her 
current employment, and an approval of a nonimmigrant visa petition (0-1). In response to a Request for 
Evidence ("RFE") dated July 20, 2007, the petitioner submitted a letter fiom her current employer, 
information about her current employment and employer including schedules, news articles, information 
abo~t the 2007 Diva Search, pictures from Country Music Television ("CMT") Loaded, information about the 
World Martial Arts Reality Combat Championship, flyers for performance events, seven letters of 
recommendation, information about the 1997 Canadian Dance Masters competition, a list of dance awards 
won. receipt of scholarship award, and her employment contract. 
In her original submission, the petitioner relied heavily upon the approval of her 0-1 nonimmigrant visa 
petition as the reason her immigrant petition for extraordinary ability in the arts should be granted. An 
approval of an 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petition does not mandate the approval of a similar immigrant visa 
petition. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 2 14.2 (0)(3)(iv), relating to nonimmigrant aliens of extraordinary ability in 
the arts, provides different eligbility criteria than those for the immigrant classification discussed below. Section 
101(a)(46) of the Act proscribes: "The term 'extraordinary ability' means, for purposes of subsection 
(a)(l5)(0)(i) of thls section, in the case of the arts, distinction." 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(0)(3)(ii) defines "distinction" as 
follows: 
Distinction means a high level of achievement in the field of arts evidenced by a degree of slull 
and recognition substantially above that ordinarily encountered to the extent that a person 
described as prominent is renowned, leading, or well-known in the field of arts. 
The regulation relating to the inmigrant classification, 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(2), however, defines elctraordinary 
ability in any field as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." While the tm immigrant criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5@)(3) 
appear in the nonimmigrant regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 2!4.2(0)(3)(iii), those criteria apply only to aliens who seek 
extraordinary ability in the fields of science, education, business or athletics. Separate criteria for nonimmigrant 
aliens of extraordinary ability in the arts are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(0)(3)(iv). The 
distinction between these fields and the arts, which appears in 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0) does not appear in 8 C.F.R. 
9 204.5(h). As such, the petitioner's approval for a non-immigrant visa classification under the lesser standard of 
"distinction" is not evidence of her eligbility for the similarly titled immigrant classification. Each petition must 
be adjudicated on its own merits under the statutory provisions and regulations which apply to the classification 
sought. Thus, the petitioner's eligbility will be evaluated under the ten regulatory criteria relating to the 
immigrant classification. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized 
award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of 
which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this classification merely by 
submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3). In determining 
whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself must be evaluated in terms of whether it is 
indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard 
would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise 
indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor." 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria. 
The petitioner does not claim to meet any of the criteria not discussed below. 
Page 4 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationully recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted a list of dance awards that she won between 1993 and 1997, a PepsiCo scholarship 
award to be used at a university of her choice, and evidence of being crowned Miss Dance of Canada in 1997. 
We note that the last award was given almost a decade prior to the filing of this petition and does not 
demonstrate sustained acclaim. The petitioner provided no evidence outside of her self-generated list that she 
won the 1993 to 1997 dance competitions that she listed. The petitioner submitted photographs of medals and 
plaques, however, the photographs submitted are too dark to allow us to read their faces or ascertain for what 
they were awarded. The petitioner did submit evidence of her 1997 Miss Dance of Canada award, however, 
she failed to submit any evidence that this award or any other of her dance awards are nationally or 
internationally recognized. The plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
specifically requires that the petitioner's awards be nationally or internationally recognized in the field of 
endeavor and it is her burden to establish every element of ths criterion. In addition, the evidence submitted 
regarding the Miss Dance of Canada competition indicates that it is a "scholarship pageant competition" and the 
competition is a "'showcase' for talented young dancers" which indicates that the competition was not open to 
professional dancers or acrobats but was instead restricted to students or those below a particular age. The 
petitioner presented no evidence to show either who was eligble for the competition or how, if the competition 
was restricted to students or dancers of a particular age, how the award would constitute an award for excellence 
in the field if it did not allow those working in the field, i.e. professional dancers, to participate. 
The PepsiCo scholarsh~p award represents financial assistance for the petitioner's university study rather than 
her receipt of a lesser nationally or ~nternationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field of 
endeavor. University study is not a field of endeavor, but rather training for future employment in a field of 
endeavor. The petitioner's receipt of educational funding offers no meaningful comparison between her and 
experienced professionals in the field who have long since completed their academic studies. 
The petitioner also claims that the award of Miss 105.3 constitutes a lesser prize, however, she provided no 
evidence that this award was bestowed upon her. The evidence she offered in support of this claim are a 
series of four photographs, none of which show any type of award such as a certificate, for example, and none 
of which give any information about the sponsoring agency or the type of contest involved. The petitioner 
states that the award was sponsored by CBS Radio and provides information about that organization, 
however, she provides no evidence to support her claim. 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. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I. & N. Dec. 190 
(Reg. Comm. 1972)). In addition, the petitioner provided no information regarding the acclaim due to the 
recipient of any such award or any recognition afforded nor did the petitioner provide any information about 
the contest itself such as the number of participants, the qualification of the judges, the eligibility 
requirements for entry in the contest, or how the participants would be judged. 
In counsel's brief on appeal, he argues that the petitioner is highly accomplished and was rewarded for her 
accomplishments by being chosen to be a choreographer and coach of two Canadian Olympic gymnasts. The 
letter submitted by director of Kindernastic Kids and Choreography Plus, states that the 
petitioner was chosen for this position at age 16 and coached large groups of gymnasts and acrobats to 
perform at halftime shows during professional sporting events. Although this position may have been 
awarded to the petitioner, it does not constitute an award as such nor does the petitioner present any evidence 
that this position garnered national or international recognition. 
The petitioner submitted a picture of a Nashville Nightlife Award for Best Performance Artist, however, this 
award seems to be regional in nature and the petitioner has not submitted any evidence that the award is 
instead nationally or internationally recognized. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
(iii) Published material about the alien in profissional or major trade publications or other major media, 
relating to the alien's work in the field for which classifcation is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author ofthe material, and any necessary translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet ths criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner and, as 
stated in the regulation, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. To qualify as 
major media, the publication should have significant national or international distribution. An alien would not 
earn acclaim at the national level from a local publication. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, 
nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national distribution, 
unlike small local community papers.' 
h her response to the RFE, the petitioner cited four documents that she felt demonshated her eligbility under thls 
criterion. The first document is a Bud Light advertisement, which the petitioner states appeared in the June 2006 
issue of MAXIM. The advertisement states in the text that readers should attend the MAXIM Exposure Party, 
but bears no other indication of the magazine in which it was published or the date of publication or the author of 
the material. In addition, the advertisement is not about the petitioner or relating to her work as required by the 
regulation since the advertisement says nothing about the petitioner and does not include anythng except her 
picture, including her name. 
The next document, a piece by Allison Smith does not identify the publication in which the piece appears. 
According to the petitioner's response to the RFE, the piece is a ''draft copy" and she submits no evidence that the 
piece was ever published. 
The third document, a September 2007 picture of the petitioner with a one line caption, is not about the petitioner 
as it consists of only one picture of four and contains little information about the petitioner or her work. In 
addition, the petitioner states that the picture appeared in "Nashville's entertainment newspaper, 'The Rage"' and 
does not state how "The Rage" would qualify as major media as opposed to a local publication. Similarly, the 
petitioner failed to show how the last document submitted, a 2006 press release by the Durham College and 
University of Ontario, would qualify as major media as opposed to a local publication. The petitioner submitted 
1 
 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For 
example, an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distnbuted only in Fairfax 
County, Virginia, for instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
no evidence (such as circulation statistics) showing that the preceding articles were printed in professional or 
major trade publications or some other form of major media. 
The petitioner submitted several webpages filled with search results on such websites as google and youtube. 
Although there appear to be numerous mentions of the petitioner on webpages, the petitioner did not submit 
these individual articles. An internet search of an alien's name does not amount to published material about 
the alien as it does not include the information required by the regulations including the title of the piece, the 
author's name, information about the publication so as to qualify it as a professional or major trade 
publication or other form of major media, or the date that it was published. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientijic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in thefield. 
The petitioner claims that the award of the Miss Dance of Canada amounted to an original contribution of 
major significance in the field. First, as stated above under criterion (i), Miss Dance of Canada is a 
scholarship competition. Even if an award could be considered a contribution to the field, each criterion 
under 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3) are separate and distinct. The petitioner's argument that she made a significant 
contribution to the field by winning an award means that the awards considered under criterion (i) would also 
qualify as major achievements within the field under criterion (v). If evidence sufficient to meet one criteriou 
mandated a finding that an alien met another criterion, the requirement that an alien meet at least three criteria 
would be meaningless. In the response to the WE, the petitioner presented no argument as to how her receipt 
of this title impacted the field and instead described the award and its requirements of her as the reigning 
champion. Similarly, the petitioner failed to show how her [raining awards for dance amount to an original 
contribution of major significance to the field. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only original but 
of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, 
that it has some meaning. While the petitioner's artistic talent is admired for its uniqueness by those offering 
letters of support, there is no evidence demonstrating that her work has had major significance in the field. 
For example, the record does not indicate the extent of the petitioner's influence on other performers 
nationally or internationally, nor does it show that the field has somehow changed as a result of her work. 
The petitioner identified seven letters in the record purportedly supportive of her claim of eligibility under this 
criterion. While letters such as these provide relevant information about. an alien's experience and 
accomplishments, they cannot by themselves establish the alien's eligibility under this criterion because they 
do not demonstrate that the alien's work is of major significance in her field beyond the limited number of 
individuals with whom she has worked directly. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited 
by an alien in support of an immigration petition carry less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of 
major contributions that one would expect of an alien who has achieved sustained national or international 
acclaim. Accordingly, we review the letters as they relate to other evidence of the petitioner's contributions. 
national administrator of the Canadian Royal Academy of Dance, wrote that the petitioner 
"achieved a high level of professional dance training" and achieved different levels of trainin in classical 
ballet that have "allowed her to move on to her chosen field." Similarly, the letters from h 
national executive secretary of Dance Masters of America, and Tammy Roberts, president and artistic director 
of Durham Dance Center, state that the petitioner received a great deal of training and excelled in the field of 
dance. These letters make no representation that the petitioner made a contribution of major significance to 
the field of dance, but instead relay the training that the petitioner received. 
The letter from , Director of entertainment and cruise programs for Celebrity Cruises, states 
that the petitioner "was one of the finest dancers ever to grace a Celebrity Cruises stage" and commended the 
petitioner's dancing abilities, b~it did not state that the petitioner made an original contribution to dance. 'fie 
manager of entertainment operations for Celebrity Cruises, echoed sentiments 
regarding the petitioner's dance abilities, but also did not state that the petitioner made an original 
contribution. We note that letter was written in support of the petitioner's 0-1 non-immigrant 
visa petition. , president and founder of Randolph Academy for the Performing Arts, stated 
that the petitioner was "one of the most versatile and talented students in dance" and that she "successfully 
achieved both an academic and very practical studio oriented dance, theatre 1 film training." Although Mr. 
has nothing but high praise for the petitioner's abilities, he did not state that she made an original 
contribution of major significance to the field of dance. 
In both her rer-ponse to the RFE and in counsel's brief' on appeal, the petitioner cites praise given to her by a 
"star performer" of the Port Perry Dance Academy, however, no evidence appears to support the petitioner's 
assertion that such praise was given. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter ofSoffici, 22 i. & N. Dec. 
158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I. & N. Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 
1972)). Even if the praise had been supported, the praise given that the performer learned new tricks from the 
petitioner and enjoyed herself does not amount to a statement that the petitioner made an original contribution 
to acrobatics or to dance. Similarly, the invitation issued by the head of the Academy to teach in two week- 
long seminars alone does not amount to recognition of an original contribution to the field. 
Even though the petitioner does seem to enjoy fan support from various countries around the world as 
evidenced by the fan mail she submined, such fan support does not mean that the petitioner has made an 
original contribution of major significance to the field. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in thefield at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
Although the petitioner does not specifically claim eligibility under this criterion, she presents evidence that 
she participated in artistic exhibitions or showcases. The petitioner submitted evidence of various 
performances made in conjunction with her work for Big Shoulders Digital Video Productions, Psychotrance 
Entertainment, and also with various independent venues and artists. Frequent performances are intrinsic to 
the acrobatic and dance professions. Duties or activities which nominally fall within a given criterion at 8 
C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3) do not demonstrate national or international acclaim if they are inherent to the 
Page 8 
occupation itself. 
 The petitioner submitted information regarding the venues in which she performed, 
however, a dancer or acrobat would be expected to appear in exhibitions in venues such as these and the 
petitioner presented no evidence that her performance was highlighted by any of these venues. In addition, 
the petitioner failed to show that she was either the main attraction at any of the exhibitions or showcases or 
her participation was otherwise indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. The petitioner's role 
with these organizations is also considered under criterion (viii). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has pe$ormed in a leading or critical role for organizutio?zs or establishments 
that have a distinguished reputation. 
In order to establish that he performed a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment with a 
distinguished reputation, the petitioner must establish the nature of her role within the entire organization or 
establishment and the reputation of the organization or establishment. The petitioner claimed eligibility under 
this criterion based on her work with Big Shoulders Digital Video Productions. No evidence was included 
regarding Big Shoulders' background, standing in the petitioner's field, or any other aspect of its reputation. 
Even if Big Shoulders' reputation had been established, the petitioner submits no evidence showing that she 
performs in a leading or critical role for that organization. An October 12, 2007 letter submitted from Frank 
Hanes, president of Big Shoulders, states that "there are no comparable contortionists currently available who are 
U.S. Citizens" and that the wtitioner is "an attraction and star of (the1 national show." An October 26.2005 letter 
a. > 
from 
 states that "no one else has the same drawing power or name recognitioi~ . . . [the petitioner) ir 
truly the preeminent aenal contortionist." Neither letter states that the petitioner performs in a leading or critical 
role for the organization, however. Nor is there evidence demonstrating how the petitioner's role differentiated 
her fi-om other types of performers employed Dy 3ig Shoulders, let alone its artistic management. 'The 
petitioner submitted no evidence to show that she was responsible for Big Shoulders' success or standing to a 
degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical role" and indicative of sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top of her field. 
Although employed by Big Shoulders, the petitioner claims that her work for one of Big Shoulders' clients, 
Anheuser-Busch, also qualifies her under this criterion. The petitioner fails to show how an aerial contortionist 
perfom~s in a leading or critical role for a beer manufacturer. Even assuming that the Bud Bowls that the 
petitioner parhcipated in constitute an integral part of Anheuser-Busch's business, the petitioner fails to show how 
she performed in a leading or critical role at the Bud Bowl when the press release that she submitted about the 
event fails to mention her participation and states that "one of the highlights of Bud Bowl is the appearance of the 
eight-horse Clydesdale hitch" and that "football is undoubtedly the focus of the week." Similarly, the petitioner 
submitted no evidence to show how her role in the opening event for the reality combat championship constituted 
a leading or critical role for the World Martial Arts association. 
The petitioner states that she meets ths criterion through her performance in association with other artists 
including Cowboy 'Troy, Snoop Dogg, Staind, Jimmy Buffet, and Paul Oakenfold. None of these artists can be 
defined as an organization or establishment as required under the regulation nor did the petitioner provide any 
information as to how her role in their live shows or music videos constituted a leading or critical role for these 
Page 9 
musical performers. The petitioner presented information about the venues in which these performers appeared, 
and the petitioner's name does not appear in any of the submitted advertisements for these artists. 
The petitioner cites her selection as a finalist in the 2007 WWE Diva Search as evidence that she performed 
in a leading or critical role. The competition operated somewhat as an extended job interview in that it was 
designed to lead to employment~with the WWE for the winner of the Diva Search. The petitioner did not 
submit any evidence that she was chosen to participate as a WWE Diva or is affiliated with the organization. 
She did not submit any evidence that her participation in a contest constituted a leading or critical role for the 
WWE. 
The petitioner submitted information about her employ as a dancer with Celebrity Cruises, however, she 
~rovided no information about how a dancer. dance ca~tain. or acrobat could ~erform in a leading or critical 
" 
role for a cruise ship. Similarly, the 
 a letter from stating that the 
petitioner organized and performed in half time shows for sporting events in Toronto, Canada. The petitioner 
provided no information about how a role in a halftime show would be a leading or critical role for those 
sports teams competing or their sponsoring organizations. 
The petitioner also states that she qualifies under this criterion by virtue of her standing as Miss 105.3. As 
discussed imder criterion (i), the petitioner presents no evidence that she received this award. Going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof 
in these proceedings. Matter ofSofJici, 22 I. & N. Dec. at 165. In addition, she failed to present any evidence 
that a person who participates in a large media outlet for one year perfonns in a leading or critical role for the 
organization as a whole. Similarly, evidence of the petitioner's performances with TABU fail to show how 
she performed in a leading or critical role for the organization where she did not perform as a headliner and 
when: no evidence was presented to establish TAl3U's reputation. Similarly, the flyer for w event sponsored 
by Psychonance Entertainment and publicity information for "Decadence" with which the petitioner 
participated did not e.ven list her name as a participant (although a small picture of her appears on the 
Psychotrance Entertainment flyer) nor was any evidence submitted regarding the organizations' reputations. 
The only evidence presented regarding the petitioner's participation at the Mod Club Theater is four out-of- 
focus pictures that do not evidence either the organization's reputation or the petitioner's role within it. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
In this case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or 
that she meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3). Review of the record does not 
establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself to such an extent that she may be said to have achieved 
sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of her field. 
The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set her significantly above almost all others 
in her field at a national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility 
pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 
 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
Page 10 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.