dismissed EB-1A Case: Biomedical Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF D-R-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 29, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a researcher in the biomedical technology field, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who 
can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and 
whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for 
this classification, of which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief, asserting that he has provided 
evidence satisfying five of the ten criteria and has demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability 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. 
Matter of D-R-
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." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he or she must 
provide documentation that meets at least three of the ten categories listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain media, and 
scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably 
true." Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner met only two 
of the ten initial evidentiary criteria. The Director determined that the Petitioner has authored scholarly 
articles in his field under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), and the record supports this finding. For example, 
the record reflects that the Petitioner has co-authored peer reviewed articles in publications such as 
Analytical Chemistry, Journal of the American Chemical Society, and Langmuir. Further, the Director 
determined, and the evidence demonstrates, that the Petitioner has participated as a judge of the work 
of others in his field under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) by peer reviewing manuscripts submitted to the 
scientific journals Lab on a Chip and Langmuir, and by serving as an editor for the Journal of 
Biosensors, Biomarkers and Diagnostics. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he also submitted evidence demonstrating that he meets the 
published material criterion, that he has made original contributions of major significance in his field, 
and that he has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations that have a distinguished 
reputation. 
2 
Matter of D-R-
Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which class[fication is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
In addition to the two criteria granted by the Director, we find that the Petitioner has provided evidence 
that satisfies the published material criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). The Petitioner submitted 
an article titled'~---------------------~ published in a 2016 
issue of American Scientist, a publication of Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Honor Society. The 
publication interviewed the Petitioner about the work he and his team were performing at his then-
current employer,.__ _______ __, as part of a series titled "Meet Your Fellow Companion" 
which features a Sigma Xi member. 
The Petitioner also submitted an article titled •~------~' published in the .... I----~ 
2010 issue of Chemical & Engineering News, a publication of the American Chemical Society. The 
article discusses the student poster competition held at the 2010 I I conference, "which 
attracted 2000 hopeful chemistry students." The article names the Petitioner as one of the 43 winners 
of the competition and provides the title of his poster presentation. However, the article is not about 
the Petitioner and his work, it is about the poster competition. 
Subse uent to the initial submission the Petitioner rovided a 2018 article titled r--~-----------~-----~~---;_-~_~...,...,....... 
~---------~--------------~' published by the website 
"Healthline.com," which includes a quote from the Petitioner in response to research results published 
by another scientist. This article is about research published by others and is not about the Petitioner 
and his work in the field and it is not accompanied by evidence establishing that "Healthline.com" 
qualifies as major media. Finally, the Petitioner submitted evidence that that his current employer, 
I I distributed a press release regarding its upcoming 
presentation of research at the I 12018 I I Breast Cancer Symposium, which 
appeared on the websites of local network television affiliates, an AM radio station, and 
LaboratoryNetwork.com. The article mentions the Petitioner's name as the co-author of the 
presentation, but the press release is not about the Petitioner, nor is it accompanied by evidence that a 
press release circulated through these channels constitutes "major media." 
Because the Petitioner has demonstrated that he satisfies three criteria, we will evaluate the totality of 
the evidence in the context of the final merits determination below. 1 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner submitted the reqms1te initial evidence, we will evaluate whether he has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he has enjoyed sustained national or 
1 As noted, on appeal the Petitioner also references the criteria relating to original contributions of major significance and 
performing in a leading or critical role at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(v) and (viii). We will consider the evidence relating to 
these criteria in our final merits determination as we assess whether the Petitioner has sustained national or international 
acclaim and has risen to the very top of his field. 
3 
Matter of D-R-
international acclaim, 2 that he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, 
and that his achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a 
final merits determination, we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the 
evidence to determine if his successes are sufficient to demonstrate that he has extraordinary ability in 
the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. In this matter, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility. 
The Petitioner submitted documentary evidence reflecting his academic and em lo ent history. 
Specifically, the Petitioner received his bachelor's de ree in chemist from University in 
2000 and his master's degree in organic chemistry at.__ ___ __, ______ ......,;:U""'n=i-'-v..;;..;er;;_;;s"'"it;........;;i=n"""2C--'0;....;0""'3....;;..,. 
In 2011, he received his doctorate degree in chemistry from .__ ____________ ___. 
.__ ________ ___,,, where he also served as a raduate research fellow from 2005 until 2011. 
He has since worked as a senior scientist at from 2011 until December 2015, 
and as a lead scientist at.__ _________ __., from December 2015 until December 201 7. 3 
As mentioned above, the Petitioner established that he has authored scholarly articles and judged the 
work of others in his field, and he provided evidence of published material about him and his work in 
the field. The record, however, does not demonstrate that his achievements are reflective of a "career 
of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 
1990). 
As it pertains to the Petitioner's service as a judge of the work of others in the field, an evaluation of 
the significance of his experience is appropriate to determine if such evidence is indicative of the 
extraordinary ability required for this highly restrictive classification. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 
1121-22. 4 The Petitioner provided evidence showing that he acted as a peer reviewer for the journals 
Langmuir and Lab on a Chip, in 2013 and 2015, respectivelr 5 The Petitioner also provided evidence 
that he served on the 30-member editorial board for the_ I 
I I beginning in 2015, which is described as an "open access journal" published by 
I I a "self-supporting, freelance organization" not connected with any institution, university, 
or society. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted evidence that he had been selected to re resent Si ma Xi as a 
Special A ward Judge at the 201 7 He also 
submitted evidence that he was invited by the chair of the I I section of the~---~ 
I I to serve as a member of the committee that reviews 
applications fore=] Senior Member elevation. Finally, the Petitioner provided evidence that, 
2 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 14 (stating that such acclaim must be maintained and 
providing Black's Law Dictionmy 's definition of "sustain" as to support or maintain, especially over a long period of time, 
and to persist in making an effort over a long period of time). 
3 The Petitioner was not employed at the time of filing in February 2018, but the record reflects that he accepted a position 
as director of research and technology withl I in May 2018. 
4 See also USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 13 (stating that an individual's participation should be 
evaluated to determine whether it was indicative of being one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of 
the field of endeavor and enjoying sustained national or international acclaim). 
5 The Petitioner submitted letters from the journals' publishers confirming his services as a peer reviewer. At the time the 
letters were written in 2016, the Petitioner had reviewed one manuscript for each journal. 
4 
Matter of D-R-
subsequent to the filing of the petition, he was named as a guest editor for an issue of the journal 
Nanobiomedicine and was invited to review manuscripts for the journals Analytical and Bioanalytical 
Chemistry, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, Clinical Cancer Research, and 
Molecules. 
Here, the Petitioner did not establish how the judging experience he had accrued at the time of filing 
places him among the small percentage at the very top of his field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). He 
did not demonstrate, for example, how this judging experience compares to others in the field, or how 
either the quality or quantity of the reviews he conducted stands out from his peers. While his editorial 
board position is noted, the Petitioner did not submit evidence to establish that the Journal of 
Biosensors, Biomarkers and Diagnostics is considered a highly ranked, prestigious journal in his field, 
or that his service on the board is otherwise indicative of national or international acclaim. In addition, 
the record reflects that the Petitioner's review requests occurred between 2013 and 2018. The 
Petitioner did not establish that his judging experience over a five-year period contributes to a finding 
that he has a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 
101-723 at 59. 
In addition, while the~ is an internationally recognized science competition, its participants are 
high school students and the Petitioner did not establish how his selection as a special award judge for 
this event is indicative of his placement at the very top of his field, particularly as the evidence shows 
that judges were volunteers from Sigma Xi. Finally, concerning the Petitioner's invitation to join the 
member elevation committee for his local section of thd I we note that the record does not contain 
sufficient information regarding the criteria used to select committee members. The invitation letter 
addressed to the Petitioner suggests that the only criteria may be holding the grade of Senior Member 
himself For example, the letter states "[s]ince you are a Senior Member ofc=J ... you are invited 
to the committee." Serving on a judging committee or in the peer review process does not 
automatically demonstrate that an individual has extraordinary ability and sustained national or 
international acclaim. 
Likewise, publication of a petitioner's scientific research alone does not place one at the top of the 
field. Here, the Petitioner provided evidence that he authored seven peer reviewed articles that 
appeared in professional journals between 2004 and 2017. The Petitioner claims that four of his 
articles were published in journals with rankings in the top ten in their respective fields, including 
Journal of the American Chemical Society, Analytical Chemistry, Langmuir, and Journal of Materials 
Chemistry B. This claim appears to be based on data compiled by Thomson Reuters' Web of Science, 
Google Scholar and from "Impact Factor" data provided by the journals' own websites. The fact that 
a publication bears a high ranking or impact factor is reflective of the publication's overall citation 
rate and other data. It does not, however, demonstrate the influence of any particular article published 
in that journal or how a particular author's research has had an impact within the field. While 
publishing articles in these journals is noteworthy, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his overall 
publication record including these articles is tantamount to a career of acclaimed work or that it 
demonstrates the required sustained national or international acclaim for this highly restrictive 
classification. See H.R. Rep. No. at 59; section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
5 
Matter of D-R-
As authoring scholarly articles is often inherent to the work of scientists and researchers, the citation 
history or other evidence of the influence of an individual's articles can be an indicator to determine 
the impact and recognition that their work has had on the field and whether such influence has been 
sustained. For example, numerous independent citations for an article authored by the Petitioner may 
provide solid evidence that his work has been recognized and that other researchers have been 
influenced by his work. Such an analysis at the final merits determination stage is appropriate pursuant 
to Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner provided evidence 
of the number of citations to his published research. While the Petitioner's citations, both individually 
and collectively, show that the field has noticed his work, he did not establish that either the quantity 
or rate of citation to his papers are sufficient to demonstrate a level of interest in his field 
commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
The Petitioner submits several new reference letters on appeal which comment on his citation record. 
For example,~--------~ of the University ofD states that the Petitioner's citation 
history demonstrates "widespread international interest" in his findings, andl lofl I I I states that the Petitioner's receipt of more than 60 citations represents "a significant total 
that evinces the continued application of his findings." In addition,I I ofl I 
states that the Petitioner's published work "has been increasingly recognized in the international 
community" and expresses his belief that "citations to his work will undergo a drastic increase in the 
years to come." However, the record lacks evidence such as comparative data to support these 
assertions about the impact of the Petitioner's work, and speculation as to its future impact does not 
demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. 
The Petitioner Jrovided evidence that he was one of 43 winners for Outstanding Poster Presentation 
at j ' the International I l held in 2010. As 
noted, he provided evidence that Chemical & Engineering News provided coverage of the student 
poster competition, in which the Petitioner is named as one of the 43 winners. Although this evidence 
shows that notice of the competition and awards reached beyond that of the awarding event and 
recognized the research he performed during his graduate studies atl l the article did not 
single out the Petitioner for acclaim apart from the other 42 winners. In addition, we note that only 
university students were eligible to win an award in this competition, such that receipt of this award 
is not indicative of standing at the top of the field of biomedical technology. 
The Petitioner also provided evidence that he was named "Outstanding Scientist for 2017" by the 
Executive Committee of the for his work in the develo ment of 
biomedical technolo with a focus on 
The Chair of the~------------'._ _____ ___, states that the award "recognizes 
companies and researchers responsible for innovations, achievements, and novel technologies and 
products" and is chosen by a committee that reviews "significant research and achievements of various 
scientists/engineers in their disciplines." The evidence reflects that the fotential pool ofrecipients for 
this award was likely limited to I I members who belong to the_ I of the 
association and not a broader pool of scientists working in the Petitioner's field. While the Petitioner's 
two awards indicate that he has received notable recognition for his scientific research, they do not 
demonstrate his sustained national or international acclaim. 
6 
Matter of D-R-
We have also considered evidence demonstrating that the Petitioner has been a Senior Member of the 
c=]since 201 7. While the record indicates that only 10% of0 s members hold this membership 
grade, it also reveals that promotion to this status is based upon professional 
1
experi
1
ence, not upon 
notable achievements or acclaim. By contrast, the submitted materials from indicate that a 
higher grade, Fellow Member, "recognizes unusual distinction in the profession and is conferred only 
by the Board of Directors upon a person with an extraordinary record of accomplishments." While 
the Petitioner's status as a senior member inl lreflects his career progression and professional 
success as a scientist, the record does not demonstrate that this membership is indicative of his 
placement among the small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field. 
The Petitioner references his submission of letters from colleagues and other scientists and experts 
regarding his original contributions in his field. 6 The letters summarize the Petitioner's research and 
personal achievements and broadly discuss the potential impact of his research in the fields of 
biomedical diagnostics for diseases and in vitro fertilization. However, they do not establish that his 
original contributions are already recognized as majorly significant within these fields, nor do they 
sufficiently support assertions that he is considered among that small percentage at the very top of his 
field of endeavor or how he has garnered sustained national or international acclaim. 
For example,! I ofl lstates that the Petitioner's team at I t "have made 
significant advances in employing a completely novel a roach to usmg a 
combination of new surface chemistry I I and ' He indicates 
that the Petitioner has since worked on "developing a commercial application of this echnology, 
which, in m} professional opinion will have a major impact in.__ _______ __. and I I I _ I I also observed that the Petitioner's research published in Analytical 
Chemistry, demonstrated a methodology "proven to detect I lwith 
astonishing sensitivity" that "far surpasses competing technologies usin~ I" 
He opines that the Petitioner's work "stands to save lives and suffering" by allowing for earlier 
diagnosis of cancer and other diseases. However, the record does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner's research findings published in 2010, while original, are already recognized as a 
contribution of major significance in the field. 
The potential future impact of the Petitioner's research is noted in several of the submitted letters.D 
I lofl !University states that the Petitioner's methodology is "the most effective 
and viable I I option at this time" and notes that "it is sim 1 a matter of making 
this technology commercially available in an affordable packa e." Likewise of 
I IN ational Laboratory states that the Petitioner's '.__ _______ __.approach has great 
potential to detect a wide range of disease markers in the bloodstream" and "will lead to incredibly 
accurate and powerful diagnostic possibilities."~-------~ ofthd I 
at the University o:c=] notes that his research team has implemented the Petitioner's approach for 
the ~-----------~' and notes that the "with advances inl l the 
prospects for commercial a lications in are now more promising than ever 
before." In addition,~ ______ _, a vice president withl I, states that 
the Petitioner "has produced some of the most promising! I I I in recent years" and "holds tremendous potential for breakthrough scientific and 
6 Although we discuss a sampling of letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
7 
Matter of D-R-
commercial applications." I I stated that the Petitioner's work "stands to make 
a significant impact in several scientific fields including diagnostics and the biomedical industry." 
Overall, the letters recognize the originality, importance, and prospective benefit of the Petitioner's 
work, but do not contain detailed information showing the unusual influence or high impact the 
Petitioner's contributions have already had on the overall field. Further, while the letters summarize 
and praise the Petitioner's research and original contributions, they do not demonstrate that he is 
among that small percentage at the very top of his field of endeavor or that he has sustained national 
or international acclaim. Instead, some of the authors make general assertions repeating the statute 
and regulations. For instanceJ I of,__ _______ __, states that the Petitioner 
"is an extraordinary scientist ... with a demonstrated record of extraordinary achievement, skill and 
international recognition." Similarly,~-------~ a chief scientist at I I states that 
"there is extensive documentation of his sustained international acclaim and recognition" and that "he 
is among the small percentage ofresearchers who have arisen to the very top of this scientific field." 
Letters that repeat the regulatory language but do not sufficiently explain how an individual's 
contributions have already influenced the field significantly are insufficient. 7 Repeating the language 
of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. 
Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, 
Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
These and other letters not specifically mentioned, as well as other evidence in the record, show that 
the Petitioner's original work has added significant value to the pool of knowledge in his field and 
opened avenues for further I l research. The evidence, however, is insufficient to confirm 
that the level of attention he has received reflects widespread commentary and acceptance of his work, 
or that the field of biomedical diagnostics has regarded his research as authoritative. The letters do 
not provide sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include sufficient 
corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner is viewed by the overall field as being among that 
small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. While the Petitioner submitted evidence that 
he was interviewed by American Scientist regarding his work with 
while employed b~~-------~l this one published article d._o_e_s_n_o_t_r_e_fl_e-ct_o_f __ h-1-.s-s-ta_tu_s_a_s_a_n__. 
individual who has garnered "sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements 
have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation." See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Act. 
Further, we acknowledge that the Petitioner submitted sample articles that cite his research as evidence 
that he has made original contributions of major significance in the field. A review of the sample 
articles, though, does not show the significance of the Petitioner's research to the overall field beyond 
the authors who cited to his work. For instance, the Petitioner provided an article titled j I 
~----------------------'' (European Journal of NanoMedicine), in 
which the authors cited to his 2010 Analytical Chemistry article. 8 However, the article does not 
distinguish or highlight the Petitioner's written work from the other 85 cited papers. The Petitioner 
has not shown that citations to his published articles rises to a level of "major significance" consistent 
with the "original contributions of major significance criterion." Therefore, the submitted letters and 
7 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 14 
8 Although we discuss a sample article, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
8 
Matter of D-R-
citation evidence do not show that the Petitioner has received widespread recogmt10n for his 
achievements and is seen by the greater field as having a career of acclaimed work. See H.R. Rep. 
No. 101-723 at 59. 
Finally, the Petitioner has not shown that he has held leading or critical roles with organizations that 
have resulted in sustained national or international acclaim. I I the Petitioner's supervisor at 
I 
lstates that, as a result of the Petitioner's "critical role inl I 
~-___ _.lwas able to launch '--------=====,-----'based on his work" as a lead 
scientist. The Petitioner also offered letters froml I who su ervised the Petitioner's graduate 
research work at and served as CEO o notes that the Petitioner "was 
the ke scientist at to design and develop.__ ________________ __. 
" While the Petitioner was interviewed in American Scientist '------------.----.---------' regarding his work at.__ __ _. and his professional accomplishments there and elsewhere are notable, 
the record does not show how his successes with these employers resulted in widespread acclaim in 
the broader field of endeavor beyond these organizations. 
The record as a whole, including the evidence discussed above, does not establish the Petitioner's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended 
for individuals already at the top of their respective fields, rather than those progressing toward the 
top. USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically 
meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual of "extraordinary ability." Matter of 
Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the 
significance of his academic, scholarly, research, and professional accomplishments is indicative of 
the required sustained national or international acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of 
acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 
1990); see also section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown that he qualifies for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability 
under section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 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. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofD-R-, ID# 5169089 (AAO Oct. 29, 2019) 
9