dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S.Department of I lumelandSecurity
identifyingdatadeletedto
ent clearly unwarranted 20 MassachusensAve.. N.W., Ms 209HpreV
invasionofpersonalprivacy U.S.Citizenship
PUl3LIC COPY and ImmigratiOn
Services
DATE: Office: TEXAS SERVICECENTER FILE:
AUG092012
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien WorkerasanAlien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto Section
203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
SELF-REPRESENTED
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents
relatedto this matterhavebeenreturnedto the office that originally decidedyour case. Pleasebeadvisedthal
anyfurtherinquiry thatyou mighthaveconcerningyour casemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional
information that you wish to have considered,you may file a motion to reconsideror a motion to reopenin
accordancewith the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The
specific requirementsfor filing sucha motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion
directly with theAAO. Pleasebeawarethat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresanymotionto befiledwithin
30 daysof the decisionthat the motion seeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thank you,
Perry Rhew
Chief. Administrative Appeals Office
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: The Director,TexasServiceCenter,deniedthe employment-basedimmigrantvisa
petition,whichis nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO) onappeal.Theappealwill be
dismissed.
The petitionerseeksclassificationas an "alien of extraordinaryability" in athleticsas a Wushu
competitor,pursuantto section203(b)(1)(A)of the Immigrationand Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1153(b)(1)(A).Thedirectordeterminedthepetitionerhadnot establishedthesustainednationalor
internationalacclaimnecessarytoqualifyfor classificationasanalienof extraordinaryability.
Congressseta veryhighbenchmarkfor aliensof extraordinaryability by requiringthroughthestatute
that the petitionerdemonstratethe alien's"sustainednationalor internationalacclaim"and present
"extensivedocumentation"of the alien's achievements.Seesection203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act and
8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).Theimplementingregulationat 8C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)statesthatanaliencan
establishsustainednationalor internationalacclaimthroughevidenceof a one-timeachievementof a
major, internationallyrecognizedaward. Absentthe receiptof suchan award,the regulationoutlines
tencategoriesof specificobjectiveevidence.8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)through(x). Thepetitionermust
submitqualifyingevidenceunderatleastthreeof thetenregulatorycategoriesof evidencetoestablish
thebasiceligibilityrequirements.
Thepetitioner'spriority dateestablishedby thepetitionfiling dateis August4, 2010. On March8,
2011, the director served the petitioner with a requestfor evidence(RFE). After receiving the
petitioner'sresponseto the RFE,the directorissuedher decisionon June23, 2011. On appeal,the
petitionersubmitsa briefwith newdocumentaryevidence.Forthereasonsdiscussedbelow,theAAO
upholdsthedirector'sultimatedeterminationthatthepetitionerhasnotestablishedhereligibility for the
classificationsought.
I. LAW
Section203(b)of theAct states,in pertinentpart,that:
(1) Priorityworkers.-- Visasshallfirst bemadeavailable. . . to qualifiedimmigrantswho
arealiensdescribedin anyof thefollowingsubparagraphs(A) through(C):
(A) Alienswith extraordinaryability.-- An alienisdescribedin thissubparagraphif --
(i) thealienhasextraordinaryability in thesciences,arts,education,business,or
athleticswhich has been demonstratedby sustainednational or international
acclaim and whose achievementshave been recognizedin the field through
extensivedocumentation,
(ii) the alien seeksto enterthe United Statesto continuework in the areaof
extraordinaryability, and
Page3
(iii) thealien'sentryinto theUnitedStateswill substantiallybenefitprospectively
theUnitedStates.
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS)andlegacyImmigrationandNaturalizationService
(INS) haveconsistentlyrecognizedthatCongressintendedto seta very high standardfor individuals
seekingimmigrant visas as aliens of extraordinaryability. SeeH.R. 723 101stCong., 2d Sess.59
(1990);56 Fed.Reg.60897,60898-99(Nov.29. 1991).Theterm"extraordinaryability" refersonlyto
thoseindividualsin thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento theverytopof thefield of endeavor.Id.;
8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(2).
The regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)requiresthat the petitionerdemonstratethe alien's sustained
acclaimandtherecognitionof hisor herachievementsin thefield. Suchacclaimmustbeestablished
eitherthroughevidenceof a one-timeachievement(that is, a major,internationalrecognizedaward)or
throughthe submissionof qualifyingevidenceunderat leastthreeof the ten categoriesof evidence
listedat8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x).
In 2010,theU.S.Courtof Appealsfor theNinthCircuit(NinthCircuit)reviewedthedenialof apetition
filed underthisclassification.Kazarianv. USCIS,596 F.3d1115(9thCir. 2010). Althoughthecourt
upheldthe AAO's decisionto denythe petition,the courttook issuewith the AAO's evaluationof
evidencesubmittedto meeta givenevidentiarycriterion.1 With respectto the criteriaat 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and(vi), thecourtconcludedthatwhile USCISmayhaveraisedlegitimateconcerns
aboutthesignificanceof theevidencesubmittedto meetthosetwo criteria,thoseconcernsshouldhave
beenraisedin a subsequent"final meritsdetermination."Id. at 1121-22.
The court statedthat the AAO's evaluationrestedon an improper understandingof the regulations.
Insteadof parsingthe significanceof evidenceas part of the initial inquiry, the court statedthat ''the
properprocedureisto countthetypesof evidenceprovided(whichtheAAO did)," andif thepetitioner
failedto submitsufScientevidence,"theproperconclusionis thattheapplicanthasfailedto satisfythe
regulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence(asthe AAO concluded)."/d. at 1122(citing to
8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)).
Thus,Kazariansetsfortha two-partapproachwheretheevidenceis first countedandthenconsidered
in thecontextof a final meritsdetermination.In thismatter,theAAO will reviewtheevidenceunder
theplainlanguagerequirementsof eachcriterionclaimed. As thepetitionerdid notsubmitqualifying
evidenceunderat leastthreecriteria,theproperconclusionis thatthepetitionerhasfailed to satisfythe
regulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.Id.
Specifically,the court statedthat the AAO had unilaterallyimposednovel substantiveor evidentiary
requirementsbeyond those set forth in the regulationsat 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3)(iv)and 8C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Page4
ll. ANALYSIS
A. OneTimeAchievement
Withintheappellatestatement,thepetitionerassertsthatjust oneof thefive awardsshereceivedatthe
4* Hong Kong InternationalWushuFestival, constitutesthe receiptof "a one-timeachievement(that
is, a major, internationallyrecognizedaward)"pursuantto 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3). On appeal,the
petitioneralsostatesthatthe4thHongKongInternationalWushuFestivalis equivalentto themartial
artscompetitionsin theOlympicGames,sinceWushuis not a form of the martialartscompetitions
within theOlympics. As evidenceof thatthe4thHongKongInternationalWushuFestivalis on par
with the Olympicsthepetitioneridentifieda previouslysubmittedform of evidence,theHongKong
international Wr/shuReview. This document'stranslationinto English indicatedthat the goal of the
festivalis to promoteWushuinternationallytherebybenefittingmorepeoplearoundtheworld. This
evidencealsoindicatedthatfor the first time,the festivalwould be issuinga first prizeawardof an
amountof Chinesecurrencyequaltoapproximately$30,000U.S.dollars.
Withintheappellatestatementis thefirst instancethatthepetitionerarticulatedhereligibility underthis
regulatoryprovision. The methodsvary by which a petitioner can be notified of evidentiary
requirements. For example,a petitioner is consideredto be on notice through the specific
requirementsoutlined within the regulations, or through various forms of communication from
USCIS to a petitioner or applicant noting an evidentiary deficiency or requestingmore evidence.
SeeMatter of Soriano,19l&N Dec.764,766(BIA 1988). Theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)
notified the petitioner of the specific filing requirementsto demonstrateeligibility under the
extraordinaryability classification.In addition,theinstructionsto theFormI-140petitionstatethat
the petitioner"must attachevidencewith [the] petition showingthat the alien hassustainednational
or international acclaim" and then lists the ten regulatory criteria. Finallv. the director issueda
requestfor evidencelisting all of theregulatorycriteria. Therefore,thepetitionermustclaimevery
criterionthat the petitionerwould like to be consideredbeforethedirector. In instanceswhenthe
petitionerwasnotifiedof thetypesof evidencethatarerequiredto demonstrateeligibility andwas
affordedthe opportunityto providethe evidenceprior to the issuanceof an adversedecision,new
eligibility claimswill notbeconsideredonappeal.SeeMatterofSoriano, 19I&N Dec.at 766.
If thepetitionerwould like for USCISto considerclaimsto additionaleligibility criteria,this must
be accomplishedthroughthefiling of a new petition. Seeid. at 766. Cf Matter ofJimenez,21 I&N
Dec.567,570 n.2(BIA 1996)(finding thatclaimsof eligibility for a waiver presentedfor thefirst
time on appealarenot properly beforethe Boardof Immigration Appealsandthatthe Boardwill not
issue a determinationon the matter.) Although the AAO maintainsde novo review of appellate
casesanda petitionermaysupplementtherecordin regardsto previousclaims,a petitionermaynot
raisea previouslyunclaimedeligibility criterionon appeal.MatterofSoriano, 19l&N Dec.at 766.
Furthermore,the directorconsideredthe five awardsin questionunderthe lesserprizesor awards
criterion,whichthepetitionerreliedupontosatisfythecriterionat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i).
Page5
B. EvidentiaryCriteria2
Documentationof the alien's receipt of lessernationally or internationally recogni=edprizes or
awardsfor excellencein thefield of endeavor.
Thedirectordeterminedthatthepetitionermettherequirementsof this criterion. The AAO concurs
with thedirector'sdeterminationasit relatesto thiscriterion.
Documentationof the alien's membershipm associanonsin thefield for which classificationis
sought,whichrequireoutstandingachievementsof their members,asjudgedby recognizednational
or internationalexpertsin their disciplinesorfields.
Thedirectordiscussedtheevidencesubmittedfor this criterionandfoundthatthepetitionerfailedto
establishher eligibility. On appeal,the petitionerdoesnot contestthe director'sfindings for this
criterionor offer additionalarguments.TheAAO hasreviewedthedirector'sanalysisof the relevant
associationsandcommittees(a committeemembershipis not coveredby the plain languageof the
regulationat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(ii)andaffirmsthedirector'sanalysisandconclusion.Accordingly,
thepetitionerhasnotsubmittedqualifyingevidenceunderthiscriterion.
Publishedmaterial about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major
media.relating to the alien's work in the field for which classificationis sought Suchevidence
shall includethetitle, date,andauthorof thematerial,andanynecessarytranslation.
Thedirectordiscussedtheevidencesubmittedpursuant8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iii)andfoundthatthe
petitionerfailedto establishhereligibility. On appeal,thepetitionermakesonly passingreferenceto
this issue,offeringadditionaldeficientevidencethatwaseithernot accompaniedby translationsthat
werein compliancewith the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(3),or thatthe petitionerdid not assert
underwhich publicationtypethe evidencequalified,i.e., professionalor major tradepublicationsor
othermajormedia. Additionally,the petitionerfailed to identify an incorrectapplicationof law or
statementof fact underlyingthe director's findings that the previouslysubmittedevidencewas
insufficient.TheAAO hasreviewedthedirector'sanalysisof thematerialin regionalpublicationsand
affirmsthedirector'sanalysisandconclusion.Accordingly,thepetitionerhasnotsubmittedqualifying
evidenceunderthiscriterion.
Evidenceof thealien'sparticipation,eitherindividuallyor on a panel,asa judge of the workof'
othersin thesameor an alliedfield of specificationfor whichclassificationis sought.
The directordeterminedthat the petitionermet the requirementsof this criterion. The AAO concurs
with thedirector'sdeterminationasit relatesto thiscriterion.
The petitioner doesnot claim to meetor submit evidencerelating to the regulatorycategoriesof evidencenot
discussedin thisdecision.
Page6
Evidence of the alien's original scientific. scholarly. artistic. athletic. or hminess-related
contributionsof major significancein thefield.
Thedirectordiscussedtheevidencesubmittedfor this criterionandfoundthatthepetitionerfailedto
establishher eligibility. On appeahthe petitionerdoesnot contestthe director's lindings for this
criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO has reviewed the director's concernsthat the
unsupportedreferencelettersare insufficientto demonstratethe petitioner'simpactin the field and
affirmsthedirector'sanalysisandconclusion.Vague,solicitedlettersfrom local colleaguesthatdo
not specifically identify contributionsor provide specific examplesof how thosecontributions
influencedthefield areinsufficient. Kazarianv. USCIS,580F.3d1030,1036(9* Cir. 2009)alf'd in
part 596F.3d 1115(9th Cir. 2010).3 Accordingly,the petitionerhasfailed to submitqualifying
evidenceunderthiscriterion.
Evidenceof thedisplayof thealien's work in thefield at artistic exhibitionsor showcases.
This criterion containsmultiple evidentiaryelementsthe petitionermust satisfy. The plain language
requirementsof this criterion requiresthat the work in the field is directly attributableto the alien.
Additionally, the interpretationthat 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3)(vii) is limited to the visual arts is
longstandingandhasbeenupheldby afederaldistrictcourt. SeeNegro-Plumpev.Okin,2:07-CV-820-
ECR-RJJat *7 (D. Nev.Sept.8, 2008)(upholdinganinterpretationthatperformancesby a performing
artistdo notfall under8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(vii)).Thealien'swork alsomusthavebeendisplayedat
anartisticexhibitionsor showcases(in theplural). While neithertheregulationnorexistingprecedent
speakto what constitutesan exhibition or a showcase,Merriam-Webster'sonline dictionary defines
exhibitionas."a public showing(asof works of art).* Merriam-Webster'sonlinedictionaryalso
definesshowcaseas,"a setting,occasion,or mediumfor exhibitingsomethingor someoneespeciallyin
an attractiveor favorableaspect? Dictionariesare not of themselvesevidence.but they may be
referredto asaidsto thememoryandunderstandingof thecourt. Nix v.Hedden,149U.S.304,306
(1893). Therefore,it is thepetitioner'sburdento demonstratethatthedisplayof herwork in thefield
claimedunderthiscriterionoccurredatartisticexhibitionsor atartisticshowcases.Thepetitionermust
satisfyall of theseelementsto meettheplainlanguagerequirementsof thiscriterion.
Martial arts exhibitionsare athletic in natureand are not artistic exhibitionsor showcasesas
contemplatedundertheregulation.As thepetitioneris not a visualartistandhasnotcreatedtangible
piecesof artthatwereondisplayatexhibitionsor showcases,shehasnotsubmittedqualifyingevidence
that meets the plain language requirementsof the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii).
Consequently,theAAO withdrawsthedirector'sdeterminationasit relatesto thiscriterion.
In 2010,theKazariancourtreiteratedthattheAAO's conclusionthat"lettersfromphysicsprofessorsattesting
to [thealien^slcontributionsin thetield" wereinsufficient was"consistentwith the relevantregulatorylanguage.
596F.3dat 1122.
4Seeht_tp_;l/www.merriam-webster.con1/dictionaryjexhibition, [accessedon July 3, 2012,acopyof which is
incorporatedinto therecordof proceeding.]
Seehttp;/www merrijumwebstersom/dictionary/showcase,[accessedonJuly 3, 2012,acopyof which is
incorporatedintotherecordof proceeding.)
Page7
Evidencethat thealien hascommandeda high salary or other significantlyhigh remunerationfor
services,in relation to othersin thefield.
Within the appeHatebrief is the first instancethatthe petitionerarticulatedhereligibihty underthis
criterion. As discussedabove,the petitionerwason noticeof this criterion from the regulationat
8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix),theinstructionsto the FormI-140andthedirector'sRÆ SeeMatterof
Soriano,19I&N Dec.at766. AlthoughtheAAO maintainsdenovoreviewof appellatecasesanda
petitionermay supplementthe recordin regardsto previousclaims,a petitionermay not raisea
previously unclaimedeligibility criterion on appeal. Seeid.; cf Matter of Jimenez,21 I&N Dec. at
570n.2. Thus,theAAO will notconsiderthisclaim,raisedfor thefirst timeon appeal.
C. Summary
The petitioner has not submitted relevant,probative evidenceto satisfy the antecedentregulatory
requirementof threetypesof evidence.
Ill. FINAL MERITSDETERMINATION
Althoughthe petitionerfailed to satisfyat leastthreeof the evidentiarycriteria anda final merits
determinationis not required,the directorperformedthis analysisand the AAO concurswith the
director'sdetermination.In accordancewith the Kazarianopinion,the next stepis a final merits
determinationthat considersall of the evidencein the context of whetheror not the petitioner has
demonstrated:(1) a "level of expertiseindicatingthattheindividual is oneof thatsmallpercentagewho
haverisento theverytop of the[irj field of endeavor,"8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(2);and(2) "that thealienhas
sustainednationalor internationalacclaimandthathis or herachievementshavebeenrecognizedin the
fieldof expertise 8C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3).SeeKazarian,596F.3dat 1119-20.
The receiptof threeindividualandtwo groupawardsat an eventattendedby representativesfrom
severalnationsis notonparwith theOlympicGamesasthepetitionerassertson appeal.Noevidence
is on recordto establishthatthis2006eventutilizesa similarselectionprocessusedby theOlympics
wherebya nationalauthorityselectsthosecompeting.who representtheir respectivenation. This
processutilizedwithin theOlympicGamesattemptsto ensurethatonly thosewhoperformat thetop
level from each nation competeat this internationallevel. Additionally, "popularization" awards,
outstandingcontributioncertificatesanda 1985championshipfrom an eventthat lacksnationalor
internationalacknowledgement(the Worker Sport Meeting) are not demonstrativeof the petitioner
being among that small percentagewho have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.
Additionally,the statuteand regulationsrequirethe petitionerto demonstratethat her nationalor
internationalacclaim has been sustained. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C.
§ ll53(b)(1)(A)(i), and 8C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3). The documentationsubmittedfor the criterion at
8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)is notcommensuratewith sustainednationalor internationalacclaimasof the
petition'sfiling date.
Page8
Therecordreflectsthatthepetitionerwasinvitedto serveasajudgein 1997andthatsheservedasa
judge in 2010. The natureof the petitioner'sjudging experienceis a relevantconsiderationas to
whethertheevidenceis indicativeof thebeneficiary'snationalor internationalacclaim.SeeKazarian,
596F.3dat 1122. However,thepetitionerfailed to documentanyprestigeassociatedwith the2010
judgingopportunity.Additionally,theportionof the1997invitationnamingtherecipientis in aforeign
languageandis not accompaniedby a translation.A singleoccurrenceof judging in a competitive
careerspanningnearlyfour decadesdoesnot demonstratethat the petitionerhasattainedsustained
nationalor internationalacclaimnor doesit demonstratethat sheis onewho is amongthat small
percentagewhohaverisentotheverytopof herfieldof endeavor.
Regardingtheremainingeligibilitycriteriapreviouslyclaimed,theAAO affirmsthedirector'sfindings.
Regardingthenewcriteriathepetitionerclaimson appeal,theAAO will not considerclaims raisedfor
the first time on appeal SeeMatter ofSoriano, 19 I&N Dec. at 766; cf: Matter of'Jimenez,21 l&N
Dec.at570n.2.
In this matter,the petitionerhasnot establishedthat her achievementsat the time of filing were
commensuratewith sustainednationalor internationalacclaimasa martialartscompetitor,or being
amongthatsmallpercentageat thevery top of thefield of endeavor.Thesubmittedevidenceis not
indicativeof a "careerof acclaimedwork in the field" ascontemplatedby Congress.11R. Rep.No.
101-723,59 (Sept.19,1990). TheconclusiontheAAO reachesby consideringtheevidenceto meet
eachcategoryof evidenceat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)separatelyis consistentwith a reviewof the
evidencein theaggregate.Ultimately,theevidencein theaggregatedoesnotdistinguishthepetitioner
as one of the small percentagewho hasrisento the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(2).While thepetitionerneednotdemonstratethatthereis noonemoreaccomplishedthan
herselftoqualifyfor theclassificationsought,it appearsthattheverytopof herfield of endeavoris far
abovethelevelshehasattained.
IV. JOBOFFER
Theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(5)provides:
Noofferof employmentrequired. Neitheranofferfor employmentin theUnitedStates
nora laborcertificationis requiredfor thisclassification;however,thepetitionmustbe
accompaniedby clearevidencethat thealien is comingto theUnited Statesto continue
work in theareaof expertise.Suchevidencemay includeletter(s)from prospective
employcr(s),evidenceof prearrangedcommitmentssuchascontracts,or a statement
from thebeneficiarydetailingplanson how heor sheintendsto continuehisor herwork
in theUnitedStates.
Within theinitial filing brief, petitioner'scounselat thetime simply indicatedthatsheintendedto work
in herfield uponthereceiptof heradjustmentof status.Thedirectorconcludedin herdecisionthatthis
wasinsufficientto meettheregulatoryrequirements.Onappeal,thepetitionerindicatesthatshecame
to theUnitedStatesintendingto openherown KungFu school. Shealsoindicatesthatwhileshehas
Page9
not takenthestepsto openthisbusinessprior to beinggrantedpermanentresidentstatus,thatshehas
beenin discussionwith two different individualsregardingher venture. The appellatestatement
indicatesthatthepetitionerisprovidingtwoformsof evidencein theformof notarizedletters;however,
suchevidenceis not part of the record. Basedon the aboveinformation,the petitionerhasnot
establishedsheis comingto theUnitedStatesto continuetoworkin herareaof expertisein themartial
arts.
V. CONCLUSION
Thedocumentationsubmittedin supportof a claimof extraordinaryability mustclearlydemonstrate
thatthealienhasachievedsustainednationalor internationalacclaimandisoneof thesmallpercentage
whohasrisentotheverytopof thefieldof endeavor.
Reviewof the record,however,doesnot establishthatthepetitionerhasdistinguishedherselfasa
martialartscompetitorto suchanextentthatshemaybe saidto haveachievedsustainednationalor
internationalacclaimor to be within thesmallpercentageat the very top of herfield. Theevidence
indicatesthat the petitionershowstalent in her field, but is not persuasivethat the petitioner's
achievementssethersignificantlyabovealmostall othersin herfield. Therefore,thepetitionerhasnot
establishedeligibility pursuantto section203(b)(1)(A)of theAct andthepetitionmaynotbeapproved.
An applicationor petitionthatfailstocomplywith thetechnicalrequirementsof thelawmaybedenied
by the AAO evenif the ServiceCenterdoesnot identify all of the groundsfor denialin the initial
decision.SeeSpencerEnterprises,Inc.v. UnitedStates,229F.Supp.2dat1043,affd, 345F.3dat683;
seealsoSoltanev.DOJ, 381 F.3dat 145(notingthattheAAO conductsappellatereviewon a denovo
basis).
Theburdenof proofin visapetitionproceedingsremainsentirelywiththepetitioner.Section291of the
Act, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361;MatterofSoriano,19I&N Dec.at766(citingMatterofBrantigan,11I&N Dec.
493(BIA 1966)). Here,thepetitionerhasnot sustainedthatburden.Accordingly,theappealwill be
dismissed.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.