dismissed EB-1A Case: Chess

(b)(6)
DATE: 
AUG 2 6 2014 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administr ative 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:Uwww.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, 
~~ rJ-
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.usds.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant 
visa petition on February 4, 2014. The petitioner, who is also the beneficiary, appealed the decision 
to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on March 4, 2014. The appeal will be dismissed. 
According to the petition and the initial filing, the petitioner seeks classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability in athletics, as a chess player, pursuant to section 203(b )(1)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A). The director determined that 
the petitioner did not establish 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; 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an 
alien, as initial evidence, can present 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.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The petitioner must submit qualifying 
evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish the basic 
eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, the petitioner files a brief and additional supporting documents. The petitioner asserts 
that he meets the criteria under the regulations at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), (iii) and (viii). For 
the reasons discussed below, the petitioner has not established his eligibility for the exclusive 
classification sought. Specifically, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under at 
least three of the ten regulatory criteria set forth in the regulations at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
As such, the petitioner has not demonstrated that he is one of the small percentage who are at the 
very top in the field of endeavor, and that he has sustained national or international acclaim. 
See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3). Accordingly, we will dismiss the petitioner's appeal. 
I. THE 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, 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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. 
United States 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 ofthe field of endeavor. 8 C.F.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, internationally 
recognized award, or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten 
categories of evidence listed under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 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 
our decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with our evaluation of the evidence submitted 
to meet a given evidentiary criterion.1 With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.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." Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1121-22. 
The court stated that our 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). " Kazarian , 596 F.3d 
at 1122 (citing to 8 C.F.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 case, the evidence in the record 
supports the director's finding that the petitioner has not satisfied the antecedent regulatory 
requirement of presenting at least three types of evidence under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), and has not demonstrated that he is one of the small percentage who are at the 
1 
Specifically , the court stated that we 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 (vi). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
very top m the field of endeavor, or has achieved sustained national or international acclaim. 
See 8 C.P.R. §§ 204.5(h) (2), (3). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Under the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3), as initial evidence, the petitioner may present 
evidence of a one-time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award. In this case, 
the petitioner has not asserted or shown through his evidence that he is the recipient of a major, 
internationally recognized award at a level similar to that of the Nobel Prize. As such, the petitioner 
must present at least three of the 
ten types of evidence under the regulations at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) to meet the basic eligibility requirements. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The director concluded that the petitioner meets this criterion. The evidence shows that in 2008, the 
petitioner won the The evidence also shows that in 2012, the petitioner 
won a tournament organized by the 
The evidence in the record, including the petitioner's _ and his national, 
regional and world rankings, supports the director's conclusion that the petitioner's awards at 
various competitions are qualifying. Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted documentation of his 
receipt of lesser nationally or interpationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field 
of endeavor. The petitioner has met this criterion. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
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. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion because he is a _ The petitioner's 
attainment of this title has probative value in this proceeding, and we have considered his title above 
as evidence relating to the qualifying nature of the petitioner's awards. At issue, however, is whether it 
also constitutes qualifying evidence under this criterion. 
The petitioner asserts that he received the 'after submitting a title application based 
on norms with a sufficient number of games per _ J" and 
that ' _ ~ states that can [] be gained by 
achieving norms in internationally rated tournaments played according to ' He 
further asserts that his title application was approved by "members on the Qualifications Committee 
2 
The petitioner does not claim that he meets the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in this decision. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
and the Chairperson," who are of "national and international reputation." The petitioner has not 
shown he meets this criterion. 
First, as supporting evidence the petitioner submits an online copy of the ' 
Effective from 1 July 2013." As the petitioner became , the petitioner has not 
shown that the submitted Regulations applied to his title application. Indeed, the submitted 
Regulations indicate that there have been amendments between 1984 and 2012. Regardless, the 
2013 Regulations provide that the ::ould be awarded either through "Title norm," 
which is "a title performance fulfilling [certain] requirements," or "Direct title (automatic title)," 
which is "a title gained by achieving a certain place or results in a tournament." The regulations 
further provide that for the "to achieve a norm, a player must perform at a 
. . . 
Minimum level prior to rounding _ - -_ The petitioner has not shown that these requirements, which 
amount to a player's competitive results, constitute "outstanding achievements ... as judged by 
recognized national or international experts." 
The 2013 Regulations also provide that "[t]hese titles shall be awarded by the General Assembly on 
recommendation by the QC [Qualification Commission] that the candidate meets the requirements. 
The Presidential Board or Executive Board may award titles in clear cases only, after consultation 
with the QC." (Emphasis added.) This information is insufficient to show that "recognized national 
or international experts" have judged a applicant's achievements. Rather, this 
indicates that the QC, and the Presidential Board or Executive Board, which may include chess 
experts, must confirm the applicant's competition results before granting him the o---------- --­
Confirmation of one's competition results is not judging the applicant's achievements. 
Second, the petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence showing that the 
is a membership in an association, especially as is an association that admits members. The 
tncludes a chapter on how an individual becomes a member and it does not 
suggest that someone with a is also considered a member. According to the 
Handbook, individual members are: 
a. Honorary members and Honorary Presidents of who are nominated as such 
because of their special contribution to world-wide chess. 
b. Life members and Friends of are persons who have made a financial 
contribution to as then decided by the General Assembly. 
The General Assembly decides on individual members. Individual members have a 
right to attend the Annual Congress as observers but with no voting rights. 
Only former Presidents o can be nominated as Honorary Presidents. Only one 
Honorary President may serve on the Presidential Board at any time. When a new 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Honorary President is named by the General Assembly, the previous holder will 
retain the title but no longer serve on the Presidential Board.3 
Third, even if the petitioner had demonstrated that he is a member or that his 
is a qualifying membership, and he has not, he has not shown that he is a member of a second 
qualifying association. The plain language of the criterion requires evidence of membership in 
associations, in the plural, which require outstanding achievements of their members. See 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(ii). This is consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive documentation. See 
section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act. The record lacks evidence that the petitioner is a member of a 
second qualifying association. 
Finally, although the petitioner has presented evidence of his involvement with other chess 
organizations, on appeal, he has not specifically asserted that his involvement meets this criterion. 
As such, the petitioner has abandoned this issue, as he did not timely raise it on appeal. Sepulveda v. 
United States At(y Gen., 401 F.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 United States District Court 
found the plaintiff's 
claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal). 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted documentation of his 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 
petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
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. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion based on articles published in an 
official publication of and on s website. The evidence in the record does not establish 
that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
First, while the petitioner submitted evidence that is the highest circulation chess 
magazine in the world, the articles in that publication are not about the petitioner. While the 
petitioner asserts on appeal that the articles relate to the petitioner's work, the regulation requires 
that the material be "about the alien ... relating to the alien's work," and not simply that the material 
relate to his work. The article " references 
the petitioner and includes the petitioner's team coach annotation of the petitioner's 
Handbook," Chapter 2 - Membership, Section B - Organisations and Individuals, Subsection 2.9, available at 
http://www ~'accessed on August 12, 2014 and incorporated into the 
record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
game against another chess player. The article also references other chess players and discusses 
their participation in the competition. The petitioner has not shown that 
the article is about him, as required by the plain language of the criterion. Rather, as its title 
suggests, this article is about the competition, in which the petitioner 
participated. See generally Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at 7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) 
(upholding a finding that articles about a show are not about the actor). 
Second, the petitioner has provided an online printout listin~ articles, published on 
_ website, that mention the petitioner's name. The petitioner has not shown 
that by referencing his name, these articles are about him. Rather, as most of their titles suggest, the 
articles are about competitions in which the petitioner participated. Indeed, 
mentions the petitioner's name once, stating that he will lead a team from 
competition. 
mentions the petitioner's name once, stating that he won the _ L 
· mentions the petitioner's name 
twice, stating that he finished the competition in fifth place. published a photograph of 
the petitioner under its section The petitioner and 
a fellow chess player provided annotation of a chess game at the _____ -~ _ _ L The petitioner 
has not shown that has published any article about him. Rather, it has published articles 
about competitions that the petitioner has entered and references the petitioner as one of the 
competitors. 
Third, the petitioner has not established that material published on website constitutes 
material published in a professional or major trade publication or other major media. On appeal, the 
petitioner asserts that "the online website is a major trade publication of media in the field of 
Chess." Unlike the petitioner has not submitted any information relating tc having an 
official publication. The petitioner has not shown that a website for an organization constitutes a 
major trade publication. In addition. the petitioner has not shown that the published material is about 
him as relating to his work. ' 
published on , provides details about the competition and mentions the petitioner's name 
once, stating that he won the competition. The petitioner has not shown that the published material 
is about him. Rather, it is about a competition in which the petitioner came in first place. Moreover, 
although the petitioner has submitted a list of published material on that mentions the 
petitioner's name, the petitioner has not submitted the actual published material. As such, the 
petitioner has not submitted the required primary evidence of these articles pursuant to the regulation 
at 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b )(2) and established that the published material is about the petitioner as 
relating to his work in the field, as required by the plain language of the criterion. 
Finally, the record includes articles published online, including those published on 
On appeal, 
the petitioner has not specifically asserted that these online materials meet this criterion. As such, 
the petitioner has abandoned this issue, as he did not timely raise it on appeal. Sepulveda, 401 F.3d 
at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885 at *9. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented published material about him in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media, relating to his work in the field for which classification is 
sought. The petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion throu2:h "his leading and critical role as a member 
of the ' The evidence shows that the 
team coach Ms. of the -petitioner to join her chess team, which was located at 
recruited the 
at the time. The 
team won the 
and the _ According to the letter from Ms. 
she relocated 
letter, Ms. 
with her from 
and the petitioner "decided to move with us." In her 
confirms that the petitioner was a member of a single chess team, which moved 
The April 3, 2012 article ' 
submitted, confirms that Ms. 
4 
The 
posted on 
moved from 
~ebsite and which the petitioner 
to 
team went on to win the 
The evidence shows that the petitioner has performed a critical role for the team that has won the 
_ According to the article ' 
' published on at the 
competition, the petitioner "fl ough ]t it out" even though his position was not favorable, 
because he knew that the chess team could only defend its title as the 
if his game resulted in a win or draw. According to Ms. 
petitioner's "strong performance helped r the team 1 win the 
L - -
March 12, 2013 letter, the 
md 
the ' Similarly, President of 
states in her April 12, 2013 letter that the petitioner's victory at the led to the 
team's qualification for the competition and the team winning the 
Although the petitioner's involvement with the number one collegiate chess team constitutes his 
performance of a critical role for an organization or establishment that has a distinguished 
reputation, the evidence does not show that the petitioner has performed either a leading or a critical 
4 
See also' 
2014, and incorporated into the record of proceeding; 
February 14, 2013, available 
record of proceeding. 
April 5, 2012, available at http:, 
accessed on August 12, 
- -
accessed on August 12, 2014, and incorporated into the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
role for a second qualifying organization or establishment. The plain language of the criterion 
requires evidence of the petitioner performing a leading or critical role for organizations and 
establishments, in the plural, that have a distinguished reputation. This is consistent with the 
statutory requirement for extensive documentation. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. While 
the petitioner 's involvement in the number one colligate chess team constitutes an example of his 
critical role for a qualifying organization , the record lacks evidence of him performing a similar role 
in a second qualifying organization or establishment. 
The petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence showing that he has performed a leading or 
critical role for either the , _ . Rather, the evidence shows 
that he was involved in a collegiate chess team, coached by Ms. and associated with 
which relocated from Indeed , the appellate brief 
states that the petitioner "has been a member of the number one 
The evidence , thus, is insufficient to 
show he has performed either a leading or critical role for at least two qualifying organizations or 
establishments. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented evidence that he has performed in a leading or critical 
role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. The petitioner has not 
met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
B. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to submit sufficient relevant, probative evidence to satisfy the regulatory 
requirement of three types of evidence. 
Moreover, the petitioner's acquisition of _ is akin to an athlete performing at the 
major league level, which USCIS has long held does not automatically meet the statutory standards 
for immigrant classification as an alien of "extraordinary ability." Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 
953, 954 (Assoc. Comm 'r 1994) (citing 56 Fed. Reg. at 60899). In Racine v. INS, No. 94 C 2548, 
1995 WL 153319 at *1, *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 1995), the court stated: 
[I]t is true that there are probably hundreds of thousands of hockey players in various 
levels of play at the amateur, collegiate, and professional level of play throughout the 
world, there are only 24 teams in the National Hockey League [NHL]. Each team 
maintains a regular season roster of 24 players for a total of 576 hockey players in the 
NHL. [The petitioner] contends that this factor alone demonstrates that he has risen 
to that small percentage at the very top of his field. Certainly, if one were to look at 
the number of players in the NHL in comparison with the number of players at 
various lower levels of play, it is reasonable to assert that the mere fact of being 
chosen to play in the NHL is sufficient to separate an NHL hockey player from the 
myriad of other players in the sport internationally. Yet, the plain reading of the 
statute suggests that the appropriate field of comparison is not a comparison of [the 
(b)(6)
Page 10 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
petitioner's] ability with that of all of the hockey players at all levels of play; but 
rather, [the petitioner's] ability as a professional hockey player within the NHL. This 
interpretation is consistent with at least one other court in this district, Grimson v. 
INS, No. 93 C 3354 (N.D. Ill. September 9, 1993), and the definition of the term 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and the discussion set forth in the preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 
60898-99. 
The court's reasoning supports our conclusion that the petitioner's grandmaster title is insufficient to 
show he is an alien of extraordinary ability in chess. 
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 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. We conclude 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. Compare Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953 (Act. Assoc. 
Comm' r 1994) (affirming the approval of golfer with an all-around ranking of lOth on the PGA Tour 
and rankings of 26th and 7th in earnings for two PGA Tours in which over 600 professionals 
competed). See also Noroozi v. Napolitano, 905 F.Supp.2d 535, 545 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (upholding a 
final merits determination that a table tennis player with a world rank of 284 was not within the 
small percentage at the very top of the field).5 Nevertheless, we need not further explain that 
conclusion in a final merits determination.6 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has 
failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of presenting three types of evidence. 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. 
5 According to 'the petitioner submitted on appeal, the petitioner's world rank among active chess 
players is _ 
6 We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. United States Dep 't of Justice, 381 P.3d 
143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, we maintain the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination as 
the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii); see also INA§§ 103(a)(1), 204(b); DHS 
Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.P.R.§ 2.1 (2003); 8 C.P.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). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
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 ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.