dismissed EB-1A Case: Botany

identifjling data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarrantef 
lavdoo of persoad privac~ 
U.S. Departn~ent of £lomeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdmznistrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: OCT 0 6 2009 
LIN 08 152 51627 
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. fj 1153(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. fj 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. fj 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
PD c,L, 
Peny R ew 
\" Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska 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 the sciences, pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. fj 1153(b)(l)(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. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and additional evidence. For the reasons discussed below, while we 
find that the petitioner meets the scholarly articles criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3)(vi) (not 
addressed by the director), we uphold the director's overall conclusion that the petitioner has not 
established his eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. 
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 
(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 56 Fed. Reg. 60897,60898-9 (Nov. 29, 
1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means 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. 3 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that 
an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise 
are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. 
It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that he has sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition seeks to classifjr the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a researcher. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 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, international 
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. The petitioner has submitted evidence that, he claims, meets the 
following criteria under 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3).' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in thejield of endeavor. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, counsel asserted that the petitioner meets 
this criterion based on his scholastic awards and "several professional awards," most notably his 
designation as a principal investigator on a research grant. 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 record contains no award or prizes and, thus, the director did not address this criterion. 
Counsel does not challenge this conclusion on appeal. 
As stated above, the record contains no awards or prizes. Regardless, academic awards for which the 
most experienced and renowned members of the field do not compete cannot be considered nationally 
or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field. Moreover, research grants 
simply fund a scientist's work. Every successful scientist engaged in research, of which there are 
hundreds of thousands, receives funding from somewhere. Obviously the past achievements of the 
principal investigator are a factor in grant proposals. The funding institution has to be assured that the 
investigator is capable of performing the proposed research. Nevertheless, a research grant is 
principally designed to fund future research, and not to honor or recognize past achievement. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the jield for which cIassiJication is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines orjields. 
The petitioner initially submitted evidence that he is a professional member of the Botanical Society of 
America (BSA) and information apparently downloaded from the BSA7s website indicating that 
membership is open to "any person who is interested in plant biology and who is not eligible for, or 
does not desire inclusion in, the categories that follow," including student membership, emeritus 
I 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
membership, family membership, K-12 & Community College Classroom Teacher membership, 
affiliated membership, amateur botanist and associate membership. 
The petitioner also documented his membership in the Society for Conservation Biology (SCB). While 
the materials about SCB submitted do not provide the actual membership requirements, they strongly 
suggest that payment of the membership fee is the sole or primary requirement. (Individuals residing in 
developing countries may qualify for a sponsored membership, which appears to be a free membership 
funded by the Nature Conservancy.) The petitioner further submitted evidence that he is a member of 
the Indian Society for Plantation Crops (ISPC). The general information about the society provided 
does not address the society's membership requirements. The petitioner also submitted evidence of his 
membership in the National Geographic Society but provided no evidence regarding the membership 
requirements for this society. 
More significantly, the petitioner provided evidence that the petitioner is an elected fellow of the Indian 
Society of Genetics and Plant Breeding. The petitioner, however, provided no information about this 
society, including the requirements for election to fellow status. 
On December 10,2008, the director requested evidence of the membership requirements of the relevant 
societies. In response, counsel reiterated the memberships listed above and asserted that they "impose 
on their members rigid entrance requirements, including a demonstrated record of experience and 
original contributions to the field." The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. 
Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 534 n.2; Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 3 n.2; Matter of 
Ramirez-Sanchez, 1 7 I&N Dec. at 506. 
not submit the requested evidence. Rather, the petitioner submitted a letter from 
a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC). While letter 
includes a heading relating to this criterion, the discussion that follows discusses the petitioner's 
conference presentations, which fall under the scholarly articles criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(vi) and discussed below. does not discuss the membership criteria for the 
above societies. Regardless, primary evidence of the membership requirements would include the 
official bylaws of the society or other official information published by the society. Affidavits in lieu of 
primary evidence are not acceptable unless the petitioner demonstrates that both primary and secondary 
evidence are either unavailable or do not exist and the affiant attests to direct personal knowledge of the 
information provided. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(2). 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated that the societies of which he is a 
member limit membership to those with outstanding achievements. On appeal, the petitioner does not 
address the previously documented memberships or provide evidence of their membership 
requirements. Notably, the record is still absent the requirements for fellowship in the Indian Society of 
Genetics and Plant Breeding. Rather, the petitioner submits evidence of his full membership in Sigma 
Xi and evidence that Sigma Xi membership is limited to those who have demonstrated a "noteworthy 
achievement." A "noteworthy" achievement, however, may be demonstrated by first authorship on two 
articles, patents, written reports or a thesis dissertation, none of which are outstanding achievements in 
the petitioner's field. Regardless, the petitioner was elected to membership in Sigma Xi in 2009, after 
the petition was filed. Thus, this new membership cannot serve to establish the petitioner's eligibility 
as of that date. See 8 C.F.R. fj 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 4 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg71. 
Comrn'r. 1971). 
It is the petitioner's burden to submit evidence relating to each factor of the criterion set forth at 
8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3)(ii). While counsel is correct that the burden of proof in these proceedings is 
only a preponderance of the evidence, we will not presume that a given society requires outstanding 
achievements of its members. From the evidence submitted, BSA and SCB clearly do not require 
outstanding achievements of their members. The record is silent as to the membership requirements for 
the National Geographic Society, which the petitioner has not established is anything other than a 
magazine subscription, or ISPC. While we acknowledge that the petitioner is a fellow of the Indian 
Society of Genetics and Plant Breeding, the petitioner has submitted no information about this society 
at all. The petitioner's membership in Sigma Xi postdates the filing of the petition and, for the reasons 
discussed above, cannot be considered. Thus, in light of the above, the petitioner has not established 
that he 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. 
Counsel initially asserted that four letters, three of which are from within the State of Kerala in India 
where the petitioner was employed, requesting reprints of the petitioner's articles serve to meet this 
criterion. Counsel does not explain how these requests, which are not published and do not appear in 
professional or major trade journals or other major media, are covered under the published materials 
criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii). The director's request for additional evidence asserts 
that the petitioner had initially submitted citations of his work, but the record does not support this 
statement. The director, however, noted that footnoted references to the petitioner's work cannot serve 
to meet this criterion. 
In response, counsel asserted for the first time that the petitioner's work has been "widely" cited and 
that the citations serve to meet this criterion. Counsel opined that citations should serve to meet this 
criterion because in the petitioner's "selective, specialized field," review articles and monographs rarely 
contain an evaluation of the work cited. The petitioner submitted IS1 Web of Knowledge results for 
three of the petitioner's articles reflecting no citations of these articles. A fourth result reflects an 
article coauthored by the petitioner which has been cited six times. Counsel does not explain how six 
citations amount to widespread citation. 
The director did not specifically address this criterion in the final decision. On appeal, counsel no 
longer asserts that the petitioner meets this criterion. The plain language of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
fj 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires evidence of published material "about" the petitioner relating to his work. 
Page 6 
Articles that merely cite the petitioner are about the authors' own work or, in the case of review articles, 
about recent trends in the field. As such, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedfield of speciJication for which classlJication is sought. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted a letter from contiming that the petitioner 
served as a member of the Editorial Committee of the Rubber Research Institute of India's "Annual 
Report" from 1996 through 2004. Counsel explicitly stated that this evidence was submitted to meet 
this criterion. The petitioner also submitted a laboratory manual co-edited by the petitioner. This 
manual was published by the Rubber Research Institute of India in preparation for a course in 2005. 
Despite this evidence, the director's request for additional evidence stated that no evidence was 
submitted relating to this criterion. In response, counsel reiterates the petitioner's position as a report 
editor and asserts that the petitioner has also supervised student work. 
asserts that at UIC, the petitioner serves as a "research mentor," supervising and evaluating 
student research. mher asserts that the petitioner has supervised student work at Mahatma 
Gandhi University, but does not explain how she has first hand direct knowledge of this supervision. 
The director acknowledged the petitioner's service on the editorial committee but concluded that the 
record lacked the selection criterion for this committee. The director then implied that service in an 
editorial position would carry more weight than the evidence submitted without explaining why the 
petitioner's membership on the editorial committee is not an editorial position. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits several annual reports which list him as one of a small number of 
- - 
editors and noting India's rank as first in productivh of rubber. The petitioner also submitted a new 
letter from asserting that thipeer review of the report requires an extraordinary grasp of 
the field and "attests to [the petitioner's] standing as an influential member of the scientific community 
- - 
whose achievements have extended his reputation beyond his immediate circle of peers." 
The evidence submitted to meet this criterion, or any criterion, must be indicative of or consistent with 
sustained national or international a~claim.~ Internal review of student work is not indicative of or 
consistent with national or international acclaim and, thus, cannot serve to meet this criterion. 
Kazarian v. USCIS, 2009 WL 2836453, "5 (9th Cir. 2009). As such, the petitioner's review of student 
work at UIC cannot serve to meet this criterion. The record contains no first-hand evidence 
documenting the petitioner's exact role at Mahatma Gandhi University or even when it occurred. We 
cannot ignore that the petitioner is a graduate of this institution and was a long time resident of Kerala 
State. Thus, any role as a reviewer at this institution is not indicative of or consistent with recognition 
outside of his alma mater or, at best, Kerala State. Finally, while the petitioner did serve on the 
editorial committee for several annual reports and edited a course laboratory manual, we cannot ignore 
' Accord Yasar v. DHS, 2006 WL 778623 "9 (S.D. Tex. March 24,2006); All Pro Cleaning Services v. DOL 
et al., 2005 WL 4045866 "1 1 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 26,2005). 
that he was an employee of the Rubber Research Institute of India, the institute issuing the reports and 
sponsoring the course, during this time. Thus, these duties do not establish his recognition beyond his 
own employer. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientflc, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signiJicance in thejeld. 
The petitioner has submitted evidence of his publications, a small number of citations of a single 
article for which he is listed as the sixth author and letters primarily from his colleagues and other 
scientists in the State of Kerala in India. 
The petitioner's field, like most science, is research-driven, and there would be little point in 
publishing research that did not add to the general pool of knowledge in the field. According to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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. To be considered a contribution of major significance in the field of 
science, it can be expected that the results would have already been reproduced and confirmed by 
other experts and applied in their work. Otherwise, it is difficult to gauge the impact of the 
petitioner7 s work. 
The regulations contain a separate criterion regarding the authorship of published articles. 8 C.F.R. 
(j 204.5(h)(3)(vi). We will not presume that evidence relating to or even meeting the scholarly articles 
criterion is presumptive evidence that the petitioner also meets this criterion. To hold otherwise would 
render meaningless the statutory requirement for extensive evidence or the regulatory requirement that 
a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. See also Kazarian v. USCIS, 2009 WL 2836453 at "6 
(publications and presentations are insufficient absent evidence that they constitute contributions of 
major significance). 
The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a 
successful claim of sustained national or international acclaim. 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. 
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 SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 
165 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l. 
Comm7r. 1972)). 
In evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of widespread 
acclaim and vague claims of contributions are less persuasive than letters that specifically identify 
contributions and provide specific examples of how those contributions have influenced the field. 
In addition, letters from independent references who were previously aware of the petitioner through 
his reputation and who have applied his work are the most persuasive. Ultimately, evidence in 
existence prior to the preparation of the petition carries greater weight than new materials prepared 
especially for submission with the petition. An individual with sustained national or international 
acclaim should be able to produce unsolicited materials reflecting that acclaim. Vague, solicited 
letters from local colleagues or letters that do not specifically identify contributions or how those 
contributions have influenced the field are insufficient. Kuzurian v. USCIS, 2009 WL 2836453 at "5. 
The petitioner received his Master of Science in Plant Breeding from Kerala Agricultural University, 
India, in 1988. The petitioner was employed as an agricultural officer at the Department of Agriculture, 
State of Kerala, from January 1989 through May 1990. From May 1990 to April 2006, the petitioner 
was a scientist in the Germplasm Division of the Rubber Research Institute of India, located in Kerala 
State. During this time, he obtained his Ph.D. in Botany from Mahatma Gandhi University in Kerala, 
India in 2001. He also spent two months as a Visiting Scientist at Cornell University in 2003. As of 
August 2006, the petitioner has been working as a visiting research specialist, postdoctoral associate at 
UIC. 
~nitiall~,, in whose laboratory the petitioner works at UIC, asserts that at UIC, the petitioner 
focused on the molecular population genetics of oaks, including a project "with profound significance." 
concedes, however, that this work had only been submitted for publication. As this work 
has yet to be disseminated or applied in the field beyond the petitioner's own institution, the petitioner 
cannot establish that this work constitutes a recognized contribution of major significance. 
In her second letter, 
 asserts that projects in the petitioner's field are long-term often 
spanning decades and requiring a sizable team to complete the project. Thus, according tom, 
researchers in this field should be judged "in large part through their performance as is indicated in 
such ublic forums as publications, conferences, influence, mentoring, reputation and other." 
d reaffirms that the petitioner contributed significantly to her project. While notes that 
one of the petitioner's conference presentations is to be published as a book, it had yet to be published 
in this format as of the date of filing. While we do not contest that some projects may be long term 
projects, it remains that it is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate that his work has impacted the field 
if it is his position that he meets this criterion. 
explains that the petitioner worked at the institute in 2003. During this time, according to 
the petitioner worked on a genetic mapping project that allowed publication of a reconciled 
-- -- ~ 
map of grain sorghum. concludes that the petitioner "made significant contributions" to 
the work being formed in that laboratory but does not explain how this work has impacted the field 
beyond Cornell University. 
a former researcher at IGD, asserts that she met the petitioner in 2003 at IGD 
where she served as his supervisor. She explains that his work at IGD "led to the publication of a key 
research paper that allowed for the first time, to link two maps (a combinationof different genetic 
maps) of sorghum." does not explain, however, the petitioner's specific contributions to this 
research, which was carried out by several researchers, or how it has impacted the field. While this 
article, which lists the petitioner as the sixth author, has been cited, it has only been minimally cited. 
also speculates as to the future applications of the petitioner's work with island oak, but does 
not provide examples of how it had already impacted the field. 
The petitioner also submitted two letters from colleagues at the Rubber Institute of India, - 
d. provides general praise but does not identify any specific 
contribution or explain its impact. does single out the petitioner's book on rubber 
germplasm, Descriptors of Rubber, as "impressive" and "prepared according to international 
guidelines" as well as his edit of a "very useful 'Laboratory Manual' on the application of molecular 
markers, both of which were published by the institute." The record does not resolve why it is unique 
for the book to be prepared according to international guidelines and does not establish the book's 
impact in the field. 
asserts that the "wide range of research problems handled by [the petitioner] has led to 
practical and original contributions that have been published in leading science journals." More 
specifically, asserts that the petitioner promoted several unique concepts in rubber tree 
germplasm, "including the evaluation of genetic divergence; morphological characterization using 
prescribed descriptors; screening for biotic and abiotic tresses in the tree population; [and] application 
of molecular markers to supplement conventional evaluation procedures." also mentions 
the petitioner's book and laboratory manual but does not explain how any of the petitioner's work has 
impacted the field. 
The petitioner also submitted letters from a colleague at Tamil Nadu Agricultural University who met 
him at Cornell and subsequently attended his workshop in India and another researcher at that 
university as well as other colleagues within the State of Kerala who attended his workshop. In general, 
these letters provide general praise of the petitioner, his publications and his workshop. While several 
references confirm that the petitioner has advanced the general pool of knowledge in the field, not every 
original finding that contributes to the general pool of knowledge is a contribution of ma'or 
si ni zcance. These letters do not explain the petitioner's impact in the field. For example, while 
A 
 h 
, a professor at Kerala Agricultural University, asserts that he has found several of the 
petitioner's publications very useful, he does not provide specific examples of the petitioner's impact in 
the field. Some of the references assert that they do not know the petitioner personally and then 
describe interactions with the petitioner at his workshop and in other situations. 
While the petitioner's research is no doubt of vaIue, it can be argued that any research must be 
shown to be original and present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention from the 
scientific community. 
 Any Ph.D. thesis or postdoctoral research, in order to be accepted for 
graduation, publication or funding, must offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. 
As stated above, it does not follow that every researcher who performs original research that adds to 
the general pool of knowledge has inherently made a contribution of major significance to the field 
as a whole. While the evidence demonstrates that the petitioner is a talented researcher with 
potential, it falls short of establishing that the petitioner had already made contributions of major 
significance. Thus, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the $el4 in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner has published numerous articles and several book chapters and has presented his work at 
several conferences. While the director noted on two occasions that the petitioner's publication record 
alone could not serve to establish that his contributions were of major significance, the director did not 
specifically address this criterion. On appeal, counsel submits more information detailing the libraries 
that carry the books containing chapters by the petitioner. Given the petitioner's publication record in 
the context of the remaining record of proceeding, including but not limited to the reach of his books, 
we are satisfied that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
Counsel has asserted and continues to assert that the petitioner has performed a leading or critical role 
on various research projects. We have considered the petitioner's contributions above. At issue for this 
criterion are the role the petitioner was selected to fill and the reputation of the entity that selected him 
for that role. In other words, the nature of the role should be such that selection for the role, in and of 
itself, is indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim. The petitioner has worked as 
a scientist and is currently a postdoctoral research association. The petitioner has not demonstrated that 
either of these roles is leading or critical for the institutions employing him other than the obvious need 
to employ competent scientists and postdoctoral research associates. 
Without organizational charts or other evidence demonstrating how the petitioner's role fits within the 
hierarchy of his employers, we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
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 has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a 
researcher to such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international 
acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence indicates that the 
petitioner demonstrates experience and talent as a researcher, but is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field. 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. fj 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.