dismissed EB-1A Case: China Legal Research

(b)(6)
DATE: 
MAY 2 6 2015 
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 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Imrnigr�tion and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
NO REPRESENTATIVE OF RECORD 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. 
If you believe we incorrectly decided your case, you may file a motion requesting us to reconsider our 
decision and/or reopen the proceeding. The requirements for motions are located at 8 C.P.R. § 103.5. 
Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this 
decision. The Form I-290B web page (www.uscis.gov/i-290b) contains the latest information on fee, filing 
location, and other requirements. Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO. 
;;z·� t--­
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
REV 3/2015 
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 the "China legal research 
field," pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(A), which makes visas available to petitioners who can demonstrate their extraordinary 
ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been 
recognized in their field through extensive documentation. Section 203(b )(1 )(A){i) of the Act limits 
this classification to petitioners with extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, 
or athletics. The director determined that the petitioner had not satisfied the initial evidence 
requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3), which requires documentation of a one-time 
achievement or evidence that meets at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that he meets the criteria under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), (v) and (vi)., For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the director that the 
petitioner has not established his eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. Specifically, the 
petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence of a one-time achievement pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3), or evidence that satisfies 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 is at the very top in the field of endeavor, and that he has sustained 
national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3). Accordingly, we will dismiss the 
petitioner's appeal. 
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. /d.; 8 C.F. R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can 
demonstrate his sustained acclaim and the recognition of his achievements in the field through 
evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If the 
petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he must submit sufficient qualifying evidence that 
meets at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The submission of evidence relating to at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for this classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
(discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying the required 
number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also Rijal v. 
USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 20 11 ) (affirming USCIS' proper application of 
Kazarian), aff'd, 683 F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 
(D.D.C. 20 13) (finding that USCIS appropriately applied the two-step review); Matter of Chawathe, 
25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of 
evidence alone but by its quality" and that USCIS examines "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"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria1 
Under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the petitioner, as initial evidence, 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, as initial 
evidence, the petitioner must present at least three of the ten types of evidence under the regulations 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) to meet the basic eligibility requirements. 
1 We have reviewed all of the evidence the petitioner has submitted and will address those criteria the petitioner claims 
to meet or for which the petitioner has submitted relevant and probative evidence. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion because he received the 
Graduate Scholarship, which according to the petitioner is "a very competitive, 
highly selective renowned award for excellence in the field, especially on 
relevant social science studies." The petitioner states that "faculties in top universities" could 
apply for the scholarship and that the selection criteria included an applicant's "potentials" and 
"proved academic contributions." The petitioner further states that in 2002, he was one of a few 
candidates worldwide who received the scholarship. The petitioner has not submitted evidence in 
support of the above assertions. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for the purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 
22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
The evidence in the record establishes the petitioner's receipt of the scholarship, but does not 
establish that the scholarship was offered to him in recognition for his excellence in the field, or that 
the scholarship constitutes a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award. According to a 
March 2012 letter, the Graduate Scholarship Committee of the offered 
the petitioner a grant to support him as a doctoral scholar. According to an online printout of 
the institute is "dedicated to advancing higher education 
In response 
to the director's request for evidence (RFE), the petitioner submitted additional online printouts 
about the institute, noting that the institute's "core activity has been to offer fellowship for 
... To date over 1000 faculty 
from Asia have received fellowships and over 300 doctoral students have received their 
degrees with support." The record does not include evidence relating to the selection 
criteria for the scholarship or that the selection criteria included a showing of the recipient's 
excellence in the field. Even if we accept the petitioner's personal statements regarding the 
requirements, potential and academic achievements are not excellence in the field. The record also 
does not included evidence showing that the reputation or prestige of this scholarship is recognized 
on a national or international level. Indeed, there is no evidence in the record showing that anyone 
not associated with the institute is familiar with the scholarship. 
Furthermore, as noted on the online printout, the scholarship is offered to "younger doctoral and 
post-doctoral scholars," which indicates that experienced and well-established scholars in the field 
are ineligible for the scholarship. Although the petitioner asserts on appeal that the "award does not 
exclude established professionals who have already achieved excellence in the field," the petitioner 
has not submitted any evidence in support of his assertion. As noted, going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for the purposes of meeting the burden of proof in 
these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. Ultimately, the petitioner has not shown 
that being a recipient of a scholarship that is open only to an applicant pool limited to "younger 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
doctoral and post-doctoral scholars" constitutes evidence of his receipt of a nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field as a whole. 
Finally, the petitioner asserted that his receipt of a grant from the 
constituted his receipt of the Scholarship Award. The director disagreed. The 
director found that the. evidence in the record did not demonstrate that the award is a nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field. On appeal, the petitioner has 
not specifically challenged this aspect of the director's finding. As such, the petitioner has 
abandoned this issue, as he did not timely raise it on appeal. Sepulveda v. United States Att 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 plaintiffs 
claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal). 
In the alternative, although the petitioner has submitted an online printout relating to stating 
that it offers financial assistance to , the petitioner has not 
submitted any evidence from demonstrating he actually received financial assistance from 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for the purposes 
of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
Moreover, the petitioner has not shown that financial assistance constitutes an award or prize 
for excellence in the field. The online printout makes no mention of the financial assistance as an 
award or prize for excellence in the field. Furthermore, although the online printout provides 
information relating to the nature and purpose of the financial assistance, it does not establish that 
the grant of financial assistance is in recognition of a recipient's excellence in the field, or that the 
recognition is national or internationally recognized. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted documentation of his receipt of lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. The petitioner 
has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
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 allied field of specification for which classification is sought. 8 C.F. R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The petitioner has never asserted that he meets this criterion. Nevertheless, initially, the petitioner 
submitted a list of his publications that included his role as chief editor of the book 
' published by the Publishing Company. On appeal, the 
petitioner reiterates that he has served as the chief editor for a book on 
The record, however, does not include any evidence in support of this assertion. 2 Going on 
2 The exhibit list for the initial submission does not list a copy of pages from this book and while the submission 
included some foreign language materials, the petitioner did not submit a translation of those materials. The regulation 
at 8 C.F.R § 103.2(b )(3) requires that the petitioner submit a complete certified translation for every foreign language 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page6 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for the purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not submitted evidence of his participation, either individually or on a panel, as a 
judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is 
sought. The petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion because according to 
his articles have garnered a number of search queries and downloads, and because other scholars 
have cited his work. In addition, he asserts that because his articles were published in "leading 
journals in the [United States], China and internationally," the articles constitute his original 
contributions of major significance in the field." The petitioner also indicates that he has finished 
the manuscripts for two books and two articles that are not yet published. The petitioner also states 
that he has been invited to present topics related to Chinese law in international conferences. 
To meet this criterion, the petitioner must demonstrate that his contributions are both original and of 
major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). The term "original" and the phrase 
"major significance" are not superfluous and, thus, they have some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich 
Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3d Cir. 1995) (quoted in APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 
619, 626 (2d Cir. 2003)). In other words, the petitioner must show that his contributions are original, 
such that he is the first person or one of the first people to have done the research or work in the 
field, and that his contributions are of major significance in the field, such that his research or work 
fundamentally changed or significantly advance the field as a whole. In addition, contributions of 
major significance connotes that his work has already significantly impacted the field. See 
Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-36. 
In this case, the record does not support a finding that the petitioner has made original contributions 
of major significance in the field. First, authorship of scholarly articles and academic books alone, 
without a showing of his work's impact in the field, does not establish that the petitioner has met this 
criterion. The regulations contain a separate criterion regarding the authorship of published articles, 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), which we discuss below. Accordingly, the regulation views contributions 
as a separate evidentiary requirement from scholarly articles. Publication and presentations, which 
are evidence of the dissemination of the petitioner's work, are not sufficient evidence under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they are of "major significance" in the field. Kazarian v. 
USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), aff'd in part, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). In 
Kazarian, the court reaffirmed its holding that our adverse finding under this criterion was not an 
abuse of discretion. 596 F.3d at 1122. Typically, in considering whether a published study is a 
contribution of major significance, we look at the impact an article has after publication. 
document. Without a translation, these foreign language documents have no probative value. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
The record lacks sufficient evidence showing that the impact of the petitioner's work is at a level 
consistent with contributions of major significance in the field. The petitioner has submitted 
evidence showing that his articles were published in the 
The petitioner has also 
submitted evidence showing that his article has 
been cited in a 2013 
_ 
article, which cites the petitioner's article 
in two footnotes among its approximately 150 footnotes. The petitioner has not shown that an article 
that has garnered one citation since its publication constitutes a contribution of major significance in 
the field. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that two professors have cited his 
article in their articles. The petitioner, however, has not submitted the two 
professors' articles in support of his assertion. Moreover, assuming the two professors did cite the 
petitioner's article, the petitioner has not shown that this minimum level of citation is indicative of 
contribution of major significance in the field. Although the record includes an online printout from 
_ 
noting that the petitioner's work has garnered 133 search queries and 245 
downloads, the petitioner has not submitted evidence relating to 
_ 
that shows that 
the information is either reliable or accurate. Regardless, the number of downloads is not probative 
of the qualifications of those who have searched for and/or downloaded his work; specifically, if 
they are people in the same field, allied or different fields than the petitioner's field, or if they are 
laypeople. In addition, the petitioner has not shown that each download represents a unique user. 
Finally, a decision to download the article does not establish that the individual ultimately found the 
petitioner's work useful and relied upon it as might be indicated by a citation. In summary, neither 
the citation level nor the printout from establishes that the impact of the 
petitioner's work is indicative of a contribution of major significance in the field. 
Second, the petitioner has submitted a number of foreign language documents that he asserts to be 
his articles published in China. The petitioner has not submitted complete English translations for 
the relevant portions of these foreign language documents. See 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(3). 3 As such, 
these foreign language documents do not have any evidentiary weight. In addition, although the 
petitioner asserts that the 
published his articles, he has submitted insufficient evidence, in English or with 
certified translations, that identifies these two publications as the publications that published his 
articles. The document entitled "[the Petitioner's] Selected List of Publications" does not constitute 
evidence. Rather, it constitutes the petitioner's assertion, which the evidence in the record has not 
substantiated. Moreover, assuming arguendo that these two publications did publish his articles, as 
3 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) states: "Any document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS shall 
be accompanied by a full English language translation which the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by 
the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English." In this case, 
the record lacks complete translations of the foreign language documents and a translation certificate that affirms that the 
translations are "complete and accurate." 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
discussed above, evidence of publication alone is not sufficient to show that the petitioner meets this 
criterion absent evidence that his articles became contributions of major significance in the field 
after publication. The petitioner has submitted evidence on these publications' 
This evidence relates to the impact of a publication as a whole, not the impact of 
each article that appeared in the publication. As such, even if the 
establishes the impact of the publication in the field, it does not establish the impact of the 
petitioner's articles in the field. In addition, the petitioner has submitted a number of foreign 
language documents, without English translations that meet the regulatory requirements under 
8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b )(3), that he asserts on appeal establish one of his articles "has been cited widely 
and frequently by other articles or books among Chinese academic .... " As these foreign language 
documents have not been translated according to the regulatory requirements, they do not have any 
evidentiary weight, and they do not demonstrate the impact of the petitioner's article. 
Similarly, the evidence shows that the 
published the petitioner's Doctor of Juridical Science (S.J.D.) thesis, entitled' 
The petitioner has 
not, however, submitted evidence showing the impact of this work after publication. The petitioner 
has not shown that anyone else in the field has either cited to or relied on his S.J.D. thesis in their 
own work. 
Third, the petitioner's participation in a 2004 symposium does not establish that he meets this 
criterion. The petitioner has submitted an online printout listing him as one of the participants at the 
Symposium held in China. 
He has also submitted a document from the symposium, indicating that he submitted an abstract 
entitled ' in China." Participation in symposia and 
conferences, similar to the publication of articles, constitutes evidence of the dissemination of the 
petitioner's work. To meet this criterion, the petitioner must show that after dissemination, the 
impact of his work is at a level consistent with contributions of major significance in the field. The 
petitioner has not submitted evidence showing what impact, if any, his participation at the 
symposium has had in the field. Similarly, the petitioner has also submitted evidence showing that 
in 2012, the 
accepted his paper proposal. The record, however, does not include evidence showing the 
impact of the petitioner's paper after the conference. 
Finally, the petitioner's assertion that he has finished a number of manuscripts that are not yet 
published does not establish that he meets this criterion. It is well established that the petitioner 
must demonstrate eligibility for the visa petition at the time of filing. See 8 C.F. R. § 103.2(b)(1), 
(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). In other words, the petitioner 
cannot secure a priority date based on the anticipation of future impact of his work at a level 
consistent with contributions of major significance. See Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 
158, 160 (Reg'l Comm'r 1977); Matter of/zummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175-76 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) 
(adopting Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981) for the proposition that USCIS cannot 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
"consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition.") Without evidence 
of actual publication, the petitioner has not shown that his work has been disseminated in the field. 
More significantly, the petitioner has not shown that his unpublished work has had an impact in the 
field that is consistent with contributions of major significance, as required under the plain language 
of the criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented evidence of his original scientific, scholarly, artistic, 
athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field. The petitioner has not 
met this criterion. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The director concluded in his decision that the petitioner met this criterion. The evidence in the 
record supports this conclusion. Specifically, the petitioner has submitted evidence showing that he 
authored scholarly articles, including: (1) a 2011 article entitled 
published in the 
and (2) a 2012 article entitled,. 
published in the 
Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted evidence 
of his authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media. The petitioner has met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
B. Summary 
The evidence shows that the petitioner has received his Master of Laws (LL.M.) degree and Doctor 
of the Science of Law (J.S.D.) degree at University, and his Doctor of 
Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree at The petitioner has also 
submitted evidence showing that he had been an association professor of law in China and have 
published a number of scholarly materials. Notwithstanding the above accomplishments, for the 
reasons discussed above, we agree with the director that the petitioner has not submitted the requisite 
initial evidence that satisfies three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the petitioner has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of his or her 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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
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.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) and "(3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. As the petitioner has not done so, the 
proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of 
presenting evidence that satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3) 
and (4). Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. Nevertheless, although we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, a review of the evidence on which the petitioner relies 
on appeal in the aggregate supports a finding that the petitioner has not demonstrated, through the 
submission of extensive evidence, the level of expertise required for the classification sought.4 
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. 
4 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).