dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

(b)(6)
DATE: NOV 0 5 2013 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
~!+-Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in athletics, pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A). 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. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement of a 
major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines 
ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner must 
submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish 
the basic eligibility requirements. 
The petitioner's priority date established by the petition filing date is December 3, 2012. On January 
14, 2013, the director served the petitioner with a request for evidence (RFE). After receiving the 
petitioner's response to the RFE, the director issued his decision on April 25, 2013. On appeal, the 
petitioner submits a brief with no additional documentary evidence. For the reasons discussed below, 
the record supports the director's ultimate determination that the petitioner has not established his 
eligibility for the classification sought. 
I. LAW 
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 this 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 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to 
those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. Id.; 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award) or 
through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a petition 
filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the court 
upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation of 
evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion. 1 With respect to the criteria at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns 
about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have 
been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Id. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner 
failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at 1122 (citing to 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits determination. In this matter, the AAO will review the evidence under 
the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not submit qualifying 
evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. I d. 
1 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page4 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Previously approved 0-1 Petition 
While U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant 
visa petition filed on behalf of the petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude users from denying 
an immigrant visa petition based on a different, if similarly phrased, standard. Many I-140 immigrant 
petitions are denied after USCIS approves prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, 
Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 
(D.D.e. 1999); Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). Because USers 
spends less time reviewing I -129 nonimmigrant petitions than I -140 immigrant petitions, some 
nonimmigrant petitions are simply approved in error. Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 
at 29-30; see also Texas A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556, 2004 WL 1240482 (5th eir. 
2004) (finding that prior approvals do not preclude users from denying an extension of the original 
visa based on a reassessment of petitioner's qualifications). 
The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been 
demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g., Matter of 
Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (eomm'r 1988). users need not treat 
acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th 
Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore, the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a 
court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had approved the nonimmigrant 
petitions on behalf of the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision 
of a service center as the law is clear that an agency is not bound to follow an earlier determination as to 
a visa applicant where that initial determination was based on a misapplication of the law. Glara 
Fashion, Inc. v. Holder, 11 CIV. 889 PAE, 2012 WL 352309 *7 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2012); Royal Siam v. 
Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 148 (1st eir.2007); Tapis Int'l v. INS, 94 F.Supp.2d 172, 177 (D.Mass.2000)) 
(Dkt.lO); Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 44 F.Supp.2d 800, 803 (E.D.La.l999), ajfd, 248 
F.3d 1139 (5th eir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 819 (2001). 
B. Standard of Proof 
Within the appellate brief, counsel references the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof. The 
most recent precedent decision related to the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof is Matter 
of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010). The preponderance of the evidence standard does not 
preclude USCIS from evaluating the evidence. The final determination of whether the evidence meets 
the plain language requirements of a regulation lies with USCIS. See Matter of Caron International, 
19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (eomm'r 1988). Ultimately, users determines the truth not by the quantity of 
evidence alone but by its quality. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376 (citing Matter of E-M-
20 I&N Dec. 77, 80 (Cornm'r 1989)). /d. As the director concluded that the petitioner had not 
submitted relevant and probative evidence satisfying the regulatory requirements, the director did not 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
PageS 
violate the appropriate standard of proof. The standard of proof issue is separate and distinct from 
counsel's assertion that the director may have gone beyond the regulatory requirements, which the 
AAO will address below. The record supports the director's ultimate conclusion that the petitioner did 
not submit probative evidence to establish her eligibility. 
C. Comparable Evidence 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(4) allows an alien to submit comparable evidence if the individual 
is able to demonstrate that he or she is unable to qualify for this classification because the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to the individual's occupation. Counsel 
relies on Immediate Bus. Sys. v. Richard, 645 F. Supp. 355, 359 (N.D. Ga. 1986) for the proposition that 
the director's decision to consider the reference letters under contributions rather than as comparable 
evidence is erroneous because it is not based on "substantial evidence." This district court decision, 
however, involved an affirmative conclusion regarding specific job requirements without any support in 
the record. The decision does not suggest that USCIS must identify substantial evidence to support a 
conclusion that the petitioner has not met her burden. It is the petitioner's burden to explain why the 
regulatory criteria do not readily apply to her occupation and how the evidence submitted is 
"comparable" to the objective evidence required at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Counsel states the following within the appellate brief: 
International Swimming athletes: are not sought 
out to judge the competitions of others, 
other than youth leagues or other recreational events, 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv); do not 
author scholarly articles, 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi); do not display 
their work at artistic 
exhibitions, 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii); do not command a high salary, 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix); and , do not have commercial success in the performing arts, 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(x). The criterion of 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) appears to most readily 
relate to petitions based upon scientific, business or other research, whereby a 
publication, patent or development would be cited in the field. 
Where an alien is simply unable to meet or submit sufficient documentary evidence of at least three of 
these criteria, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(4) does not allow for the 
submission of comparable evidence. Counsel claims that five of the ten eligibility criteria above do not 
readily apply to the petitioner's occupation, and implies that the contributions of major significance 
criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) may not readily apply to the petitioner's occupation. The 
unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 
534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez­
Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). Counsel also does not sufficiently explain why the 
regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), which expressly includes athletic contributions, does not readily 
apply to the petitioner's occupation. With the initial filing, the petitioner claimed that three of the 
criteria readily applied to her occupation and provided evidence for the record. In addition to not 
establishing that the standards at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) do not readily apply to the petitioner's 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
occupation, the petitioner has also failed to explain how the reference letters are comparable to the 
evidence of specific achievements required under 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
As the petitioner has not provided a sufficiently detailed explanation to demonstrate that the standards at 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to her occupation or how the letters are comparable to 
those standards, she may not rely on comparable evidence to qualify for this immigrant classification. 
D. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The director determined the petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. The petitioner has 
submitted sufficient evidence to establish that she meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The director determined the petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. The petitioner has 
submitted sufficient evidence to establish that she meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien 's work in the field for which classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner failed to 
establish her eligibility. On appeal, neither counsel nor the petitioner contests the director's findings for 
this criterion or offers additional 
arguments. Therefore, the petitioner has abandoned her claims under 
this criterion. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 P.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, 
No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, 9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the court found the 
plaintiff's claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field . 
The director determined that the petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion. The 
petitioner requested the expert letters be considered as comparable . evidence under 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(4), but the director indicated within the RFE that such letters "are generally considered under 
2 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence not 
discussed in this decision. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
the criterion of Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field." Within the RFE response, the petitioner requested the 
expert letters also be considered as comparable evidence. This decision has discussed why the 
petitioner has not established that she may rely on comparable evidence to qualify for this immigrant 
classification. 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion contains multiple evidentiary elements that the petitioner 
must satisfy. The first is evidence of the petitioner's contributions (in the plural) in her field. These 
contributions must have already been realized rather than being potential, future contributions. The 
petitioner must also demonstrate that her contributions are original. The evidence must establish that 
the contributions are scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related in nature. The final 
requirement is that the contributions rise to the level of major significance in the field as a whole, rather 
than to a project or to an organization. The petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of these 
elements to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
Counsel asserts the director erred by dismissing the weight and importance of the petitioner's letters 
from top experts in the field. Counsel's appellate brief asserts that "This criterion alludes to 
advancement, an improvement, or addition that others in the field rely and build upon ... Olympic 
swimmers contribute tremendously to the field by their prowess and sustained training, competing and 
success. A[n] Olympic swimmer's sustained excellence at the top of the field itself has a direct impact 
on the sport and his or her fellow elite competitors. Other than records, however, a tangible or 
developmental contribution is not 'made' in the field of swimming." The unsupported assertions of 
counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena , 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); 
Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 
506 (BIA 1980). 
The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. Silverman v. 
Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1995) quoted in APWU v. Potter, 343 
F.3d 619, 626 (2"d Cir. Sep 15, 2003). Contributions of major significance connotes that the petitioner' s 
work has significantly impacted the field. For example, the petitioner might contribute to the field 
through training methods that differ from traditional methods, that are proven to increase a swimmer' s 
performance, and that other prominent individuals in the field have adopted. The record does not 
contain evidence establishing that the petitioner has impacted her field through contributions that are of 
major significance. Regarding the contributions counsel lists within the appellate brief, he did not 
identify evidence demonstrating how the petitioner's "prowess and sustained training, competing and 
success" impacted the petitioner's field in a significant manner. The record does not support counsel's 
contention that the petitioner's contributions in her field are of major significance. 
Counsel quotes from several expert letters within the appellate brief asserting that the quotes provide 
examples of the petitioner's eligibility under this criterion. The quotes primarily focus on the following 
relating to the petitioner: her achievements, that she has risen to the top the field, she is among the best 
swimmers in the world, she is part of a small circle of elite international swimmers. Talent and success 
in one's field are not necessarily indicative of original athletic contributions of major significance. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
Counsel's referenced examples are more relevant to a final merits analysis rather than to contributions 
of major significance in the petitioner's field. A final merits determination, however, is only necessary 
where the petitioner first submits evidence that meets the plain language requirements of at least three 
criteria. The petitioner has not submitted such evidence in this matter. 
The reference letters do not provide specific examples of how the petitioner's work has significantly 
impacted the field at large or otherwise constitutes original contributions of major significance. The 
record, including all of the reference letters, does not contain sufficient probative evidence of 
contributions the petitioner has made in her field that are of major significance. When USCIS provides 
a reasoned consideration to the petition, and has made adequate findings, it is not required to 
specifically address each claim the petitioner makes, nor is it necessary for it to address every piece of 
evidence the petitioner presents. Martinez v. INS, 970 F.2d 973, 976 (1st Cir.1992); affd Morales v. 
INS, 208 F.3d 323, 328 (1st Cir. 2000); see also Pakasi v. Holder, 577 F.3d 44, 48 (1st Cir. 2009); 
Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2009). 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has stated that testimony should not be disregarded simply 
because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) (citing 
Matter of M-D-, 21 I&N Dec. 1180 (BIA 1998); Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998); Matter 
of Dass, 20 I&N Dec. 120 (BIA 1989); see also Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211, 218 (BIA 1985)). 
The Board clarified, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction of corroborative 
testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. at 1332. If 
testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to 
submit corroborative evidence. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. at 1136. 
Solicited letters from local colleagues that do not specifically identify contributions or provide specific 
examples of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 
1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009) aff'd in part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). In 2010, the Kazarian court 
reiterated that the AAO's conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting to [the alien's] 
contributions in the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 
596 F.3d at 1122. The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered 
above. While such letters can provide important details about the petitioner's skills, they cannot form 
the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary ability claim. In fact, the letters on record do not establish 
that the petitioner has made contributions in her field that are qualifying under this criterion. USCIS 
may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of 
Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately 
responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. 
The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; 
USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See 
id. at 795; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion 
testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion 
that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. Id. at 795; see 
also Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
at 190). Thus, the content of the writers' statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's 
reputation are important considerations. 
In view of the foregoing, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. 
E. Summary 
The petitioner has not satisfied the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the[ir] field of endeavor" and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While the AAO concludes that the 
evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small percentage at the very top of 
the field or sustained national or international acclaim, the AAO need not explain that conclusion in a 
final merits determination . 3 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. !d. at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and the petition 
may not be approved. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of 
Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOJ , 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d 
Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination 
as the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). See also section 103(a)(1) of 
the Act; section 204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 
(2003); 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that 
legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).