dismissed EB-1A Case: Dance

DATE: 
NOV 0 3 2012 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. [}cpllrtmcnt of HOlm·land SCC'uril)' 
u.s. Citi/.cnship and Imlllig.ration Services 
Auministrativc ;\ppcals OITil·c (;\;\0) 
~() Massachllselt .... I\\·c .. N.W .. MS :::09(J 
Wa .... hlllgltlil. DC ~() . .;;2()-2()!)il 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Pclition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ahility Pursuallt to Section 
2m(h)( 1)(1\) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, t\ U.s.c. * 1153(h)( I)(A) 
ON I3EHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please rind the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All or Ihe documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must he made to that office. 
If you helieve the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you han; additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider Of a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form 1-29013, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fce of $b30. The 
specific requirements fm filing such a motion can he found at 8 C.F.R. * 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. PIcase he aware that 8 C.F.R. * 103.5(a)(1 )(i) requires any motion to he filed within 
30 days or the decision that thl: motion seeks to reconsidl:r or rl:opcn. 
Thank you, 
~15;z--
Pcrry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
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 c1assitication as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the aliS, pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. ~ 1153(b)(I)(A), specifically 
as a dancer and Dance Captain for Riverdance. The director determined the petitioner had not 
established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an 
alien of extraordinary ability. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate the alien' s "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 C.F.R. !\ 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3) statcs that all alien call 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement of a 
major, internationall y recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines 
ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner must 
suhmit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish 
the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that she submitted sufficient qualifying evidence under five of the tcn 
regulatory categories. In addition, the petitioner states in her appeal brief that other dancers in similar 
circumstances had been approved for the i-140 petition. Considering the evidence in the aggregate, the 
petitioner has not established eligibility for the benefit sought by a preponderance of the evidence. 
l. LAW 
Scction 203(b) of the Act states. in pertinent part, that: 
(I) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (e): 
(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 
Page J 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially bcnelit 
prospectivcly the United States. 
US 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 10 I" (ong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60H97, 60H98-99 (Nov. 29,1991). The ten11 "extraordinary ability" refers only to 
those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. Id.; 
H CF.R. § 204.5(h )(2). 
The regulation at 1-\ CF.R. § 2045(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his Or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award) or 
through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.s. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a petition 
filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2(10). Although the court 
upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition. the court took issue with the AAO';; evaluation of 
evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion. 
1 
With respect to the criteria at t; CF.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 "Iinal merits determination." Id. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did):' and if the petitioner 
failed to submit sutlicient evidence. "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has I~liled to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at 1122 (citing to 
ti CF.R. * 204.5(h)(3»). 
Thus. Kazariall sets forth a two-part approach wherc the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits determination. In this matter, the AAO will review the evidence under 
the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not submit qualifying 
evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. Id 
I Specifically. rhe court qated that the AAO haLl unilaterally imposed novel subslantlvc or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those sct forth in the regulations at R CF.R. * 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and H CF.R. 
~ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 4 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Approvals of Similar Petitions 
On appeal. counsel. on behalf of the petitioner asserts that the should be 
approved because previous similar petitions filed by __ 
have been approved. Counsel outlines that three former Lead Dancers and one Dance Captain havc 
received lavorable adjudications on their petitions. As an initial observation. Lead Dancer and Dance 
Captain are distinct positions with apparent, distinct titles. More importantly, the AAO reviews appeals 
on a case-by-case basis. The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where 
eligibility has not been demonstrated. merely because of prior approvals that may have been 
erroneous. See, e.g, Matter o( Chllrch Sci('nwlogv International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r. 
1988). It would be absurd to suggest that USCIS or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as 
binding precedent. Sllssex EnKg Ltd. v. MontKomer)" 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cerl. 
denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). Therefore, the AAO is not persuaded that the prior approvals 
mentioned in the appeal brief have any bearing on the review of the appeal that is now pending 
before the AAO and will determine the current appeal on whether or not the petitioner established 
eligibility as an alien of extraordinary abilities under the Act and implementing regulations. 
B. Evidentiary Criteria' 
Oocllmentatiol1 oj the a/ien·.1 receipt o{'lessel' nationally or internationa//y l'ecoKl1i~ed pl'i~f.\ 01' 
([wardsJor excellence in the field oIendmvor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The director determined that the petitioner failed to meet this criterion. The asserts that she 
received numerous awards and prizes, including the _ and The petitioner 
submitted photographs petitioner ",ilm,t(p'rl ",'(wle,. that briefly 
mention or describe the as well as an article that mentions the 
petitioner as a winner of those awards, and a letter from an Irish dance studio.' 
As an initial matter, the petitioner has failed to establish that she has received the awards that she 
mentions pursuant to the requirements of 8 F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(i). While one of the submitted photos 
legibly shows that the awards pictured it cannot be determined from the submitted photos 
whether any of the pictured awards are of the The pictured awards neither bear the 
petitioner's name nor has she submitted evidence issuing organizations indicating that the 
petitioner is the recipient of the claimed awards. 
The petitioner ooes 1101 claim to meet Of submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence 
not discussed in this decision. 
-' The record also contains a certificate in a foreign language with no accompanying translation. Neither 
counsel nor the petitioner discusses this document. Without a full certified translation pursuant t() H C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(h)(3), this document has nil prohative value. 
Pag<.: 5 
As for the 
letter from 
-
eOlmJ:let(~d to Level and also in the 
Dancing Championship over many years." Signitieantly._ 
merely st~r has competed at the_ and does not indicate that she actually 
won the ___ The Board of Immigration Appeals has stated that where testimonial 
evidence lacks specificity. detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit 
corroborating evidence. See Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N 
. evidence consists of an internet article 
and the petitioner's . on the 
that the petitioner won the _ and These webpages, however, are not 
contemporaneous articles reporting the results of the competition. The AAO observes that given the 
trequency and ease of Internet publishing in today's world, not every website could be considered a 
reliable, credible source of information. Moreover, the copy of the submitted article fails to show the 
name of the originating website or online journal. 
Furthermore, the documentary evidence submitted with respect to this criterion fails to establish either 
the national or international recognition of the claimed prizes. Any rclerences to the scope of 
recognition of the petitioner's awards arc made in passing Or are vague. See klalia oI Clwwathe, 
25 I&N Dec. 3(,9, 376 (AAO 2(10) (stating that the truth is to be determined not by the quantity of 
evidence but by its quality) citing Matta oIL-M-. 20 I&N Dec. 77, 80 (Comm'r 1989). The petitioner 
on appeal maintains that cumulatively, the submitted documentation is sufficient to prove that the 
petitioner's awards and prizes are lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards f()]· excellence 
in the field of endeavor. However, there is nothing in the plain language of the regulation to suggest 
that the requirements can be met by a "cumulative" etIect of documentation that indepcndently fails to 
satisfy the criterion. 
Consequently, the AAO concludes that the petitioner failed to establish this criterion and affirms the 
director's determination. 
Pllhlished material aboltt the alien ill professional or major trade publicatiolls or other major media, 
relatinf!. to Ihe alien's work in the Iield F" which classification is sOllght. Such el'idencf' shall 
include Ilze title, date, and awhor of the material, and allY Ilecessarv trallSlalio/l. 8 crR. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
This criterion contains three evidentiary requirements the petitioner must satisfy. First, the published 
material must be ahout the petitioner and the contents must relate to the petitioner'S work in the tield 
under which she seeks classification as an immigrant. The published material must also appear in 
professional or major tradc publications or other major media (in the plural). Professional or major 
trade publications arc intended for experts in the field or in the industry. To qualify as major media, the 
publication should have significant national or international distribution and he published in a 
predominant national language. The final requirement is that the petitioner provide each published 
item's title. date, and author and if the published item is in a foreign language, the petitioner must 
Page 0 
provide a translation that complies with the requirements found at 8 C.F.R. § Im.2(b)(3). The 
petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements 
of this criterion. 
The director, after considering the various forms of evidence that the petitioner submitted in support of 
this criterion. determined that the petitioner failed to meet the requirements of this criterion. The 
petitioner submitted: 
1. An article from Deseret News 
2. An article from Da\'is 
3. An article from Da\'is Ufe 
4. An article from The Arrow 
S. An article from Charleston Gazette 
O. An article from Watcljimf News & Star 
7. An online interview from AltDai/y 
8. An article from Irish Dancinl( and Cllltllre Magazine 
9. Emails relating to petitioner's radio/TV interviews 
The AAO initially observes that not all of the offered articles are actually about the petitioner. Many of 
the articles focus on Riverdance and they mention the petitioner tangentially or as the source of a quote 
for the piece. Some of the articles, however, do focus on the petitioner and therefore qualify as 
published material about the petitioner. Regardless, they fail to meet the requirements of the regulation 
on other grounds. For instance, Irish Daneinl( and Cllltllre Mal(azine appears to be a professional or 
major trade publication and the article in that publication is about the petitioner. However, that article 
discusses lMD. the petitioner's Irish dance make-up business and therefore, is unrelated to the 
petitioner's work as a dancer or Dance Captain, the field for which classification was sought. 
As for items number 1-7 in the above list, the AAO agrees with the director that the publications are not 
professional or trade publications and are not other "major media:" pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.S(h)(3)(iii). The interview in All [)ailv is about the petitioner. But there is no evidence of its 
readership in thc record and the online publication"s focus is on events and news occurring in and 
around Norfolk, Virginia. Counsel, on behalf of the petitioner, claims on appeal that Desert News has 
the largest daily circulation in the state of Utah and further states that "'Ii]n our opinion it is a "major"' 
media. because it eo\'ers the whole state." Similarly, counsel states that The Charleston Gazelle has a 
circulation of' 57.749 on weekdays and 67.165 on Sundays and further notes that "[i)t is a very old 
newspaper and it covers a big tenitory,'" As for the Waterford News & Star, an Irish newspaper, 
counsel states that the city of Waterford is the Slh largest by population and that. "I i In a small country" 
like lrcland, the newspaper that serves the finh largest city in the country is "major" publication." 
Counsel has submitted evidence of circulation for the some of the above publications. Nonetheless. the 
circulation numbers for The Charlestoll Gazette, statewide readership of Desert News, and the focus on 
one city for A/tDaily and WaterjiJrd, indicate that these publications are local or, at best, regional in 
scope. The AAO is not persuaded that these publications that have a local or regional scope constitute 
"major media" as contemplated by thc regulation. 
Page 7 
Finally, petitioner submitted emails showing that she was contacted for various radio or television 
interviews. On appeal, counsel. on behalf of petitioner, asserts that the em ails are "comparable 
evidence" as allowed by the USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, dated December 22,2010. 
Counsci"s assertion is a mischaracterization. The referenced memorandum merely reiterates the legal 
standard as set i()rth in 8 CF.R. ~ 204.5(h)(4) which states: "Irthe standards do not readily apply to the 
beneticiary"s occupation. the petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish the beneticiary's 
eligibility." The petitioncr in this instance has tailed to explain why the standards outlined in 
subsections (i)-(x) of 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3) would not readily apply to her occupation. The regulations 
do not allow "'comparable evidence"' simply to supplement a visa petition that otherwise fails to 
establish eligibility with substantial documentation. Moreover, a close review of the emails shows that 
the various interviews are broadcast on local TV and radio stations. The local or regional scope 
disqualifies the interviews as "'major media." Nonetheless, the AAO will consider the emails below as 
evidence of the petitioner's leading or critical role with Rivcrdance. 
For all the rcasons discussed above. the AAO allirms the director's tinding and concludes that the 
petitioner failed to satisfy the regulatory language for this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien '.1' participation. either individually or on a panel. as a judge oj" the work oj 
others ill the same or llll alliE'd field oj" specificatioll jiJr which classificatio/l is sought. X C.F.R . 
. 1\ 204.5(1z)(3)(iv). 
The petitioner submitted two 
The documents are both letters from 
and arc virtually identical. The first letter is dated March 30, 2010, and was submitted along with the 
~140 application, which was filed on December 22, 2011. In that letter. in relevant part, 
_wntes: 
To be a Dance Captain is not an easy task as one has not only to lead by example but 
one also has to be prepared to make tough calls in terms of casting and in matters of 
discipline. and of course all of this is amongst one's peers and Ii"icnds. 
The second, nearly identical leiter is dated January 23, 2012, and shows minor alterations to the above 
quoted paragraph. That letter was submitted along with the response to the director's request for 
evidence. In the corresponding paragraph in the January 23, 2012 letter, writes: 
To be a Dance Captain is not an easy task as one has not only to lead by example but 
one also has to be prepared to make tough calls in terms of casting and in matters of 
discipline. and of course all of this is amongst one's peers and friends. As producer of 
Riverdance I rely heavily on [the petitioner], not just for the daily maintenance of the 
show but also for running ongoing auditions for new dancers. I trust [the J1ctitionerfs 
judg[]ment completely and she has been crucial in ensuring that Riverdance only 
engages dancers of the highest quality. 
Page H 
The petitioner did not claim that she was a judge of others in the original statement submitted along 
with her 1-140 Form. The respondent subsequently makes the claim that she is ajudgc for the first time 
in the RFE response. dated March 6. 2012. and the relevant substantive adjustments highlighted above 
provides minimal supporting evidence to base the new claim. 
Furthennore, the fact that the petitioner engaged in "running ongoing auditions for dancers" is 
insufficient to show that the petitioner actually participated in judging other dancers. Running auditions 
could merely involve assisting with logistical processes. The regulation at 8 CF.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
requires evidence that the beneficiary has served as "a judge" of the work of others. The phrase "a 
judge" implies a formal designation in a judging capacity. either on a panel or individually as 
specified at X CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The regulation cannot be read to include every informal 
instance of colleagues requesting input on decisions for which they bear responsibility. The Julian 
Erskine letter, the only document submitted to evince the petitioner's satisliletion of the regulatory 
requirements under X C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), is too ambiguous to serve as probative evidence that the 
petitioner functioned as ajudge in her role as Dance Captain for Riverdance. 
As the petitioner has not established that she served as "a" judge, the AAO concludes that the 
petitioncr failed to satisfy this criterion. 
I'\'idence ojthe di.lplay ojlhe alien's \fork in thefield at artistic fxhihition.l or ShIllIH/.I·e.\ 8 C.F.R . 
. 1'2IJ4.5(h)(3){vii). 
The director found that the petitioner failed to establish this criterion. The interpretation that 8 CF.R. 
~ 204.5(h)(3)(vii) is limited to the visual arts is longstanding and has been upheld by a federal district 
court. See Ne[;ro-Plllmpc. 2:07-CY-X20-ECR-RJJ at *7 (upholding an interpretation that performances 
by a performing artist do not lall under 8 c'F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(vii)). The alien's work also must have 
been displayed at an artistic exhibitions or showcases (in the plural). 
As the petitioner is not it visual artist and has not created tangible pieces of art that were on display at 
exhibitions or showcases, and is instead a perfonner, specifically a dance captain, the pctitioner has not 
submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain language requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
~ 204.S(h)(3)(vii). Consequently, the AAO finds that the petitioner failed to satisfy this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed i/1 a leadill[; or critical role jiJr or[;1II1izatio/lS or 
estahlis/zments tizat have a distill[;llis/zed replllatioll. 8 C.F.R . .Ii 204.5(/z)(3)(viii). 
The director determined that the petitioner failed to establish that she performed in a leading or critical 
role for that have a distinguished reputation. On appeal, counsel, on behalf of the 
is an organization with a distinguished reputation and that as the 
the petitioner performed in a leading or critical role. The AAO. as an 
initial matter, agrees that there is sufficient documentation to establish that _ is an 
organization with a distinguished reputation. 
In de~titioner's capacity and effectiveness as the Dance Captain. in the March 30. 2010 
Icttcr_ writes: 
To be a Dance Captain is not an easy task as one has not only to lead by example but 
one also has to be prepared to make tough calls in terms of casting and in matters of 
discipline. and of course all of this is amongst one's peers and friends. 
[The petitioner] has shown herself to be mature and extremely professional in carrying 
out her duties as Dance Captain and has earned the respect of the dancers and of her 
managers equally. and no more so than earlier this month when she had to have the 
show ready for presentation in the world famous Radio City Music Hall in New York 
City. 
Production Stage Manager of Riverdance, provides additional details regarding the 
Lal''':'.'..'..':. which aid in establishing that a Dance Captain serves in a leading or critical role 
writes: 
I The petitioner's] duties as [D Jance [ejaptain are to maintain the technical and attistic 
integrity of the Irish dance elements in the show. [The petitioner] maintains the original 
choreography of the show, giving notes on a daily basis. Her teaching skills are often 
called upon when a new performer joins the company, having to train and successfully 
integrate them into the show. She has taught the Principal Female Dancer role to many 
of our dancers .... We recently celebrated our 151h Anniversary with performances at 
Radio City Music Hall in New York. [The petitioner] was integral to the success of 
these performances as she was entrusted to rework each dance to accommodate more 
dancers and a larger performing space. 
The above letters demonstrate that the petitioner's role as Dance Captain is a leading or critical role. 
The emails showing ies on the petitioner to promotc Rivcrdance on local TV and 
radio stations further importance of the petitioner's role. Based Oil all of the above 
discussion, the AAO finds that the petitioner served in a leading or critical role t(lr Riverdance, an 
organization with a distinguished reputation. 
Regardless, the AAO further detennines that the petitioner has failed to fully meet the requirements 
under the regulation. The plain language of the regulation at 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires 
evidence of "'organizations"' or "'establishments" in the plural, which is consistent with the statutory 
requirement for extensive evidence. Significantly, not all of the criteria at 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are 
worded in the AAO can infer that the plural in the remaining regulatory criteria has 
mcamng. Rhythm of the Dance Producer for the National Dance Company of 
Ireland. and President of Kerry Records, provided letters attesting to the 
petitioner's respective organizations, both letters usc conclusory language and fail 
to specify how the petitioner served in a critical or leading role. See 1756, Inc. v. The Attornev General 
Page 10 
of the Unilf'i/ SUlIes, 745 F. Supp. lJ, 15 (D.C. Dest. IlJlJO) (noting that USCIS need not accept primarily 
conclusory assertions). Moreover, there is insufficient evidence to establish that either of the 
organizations that are associated with the two letters is an organization that has a distinguished 
reputation. 
Threfore. the AAO must conclude that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the plain language 
requirements of S C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
C. Summary 
The petitioner hw; failed to submit sufficient relevant, probative evidence to satisfy the regulatory 
requirement of three types of evidence. 
Ill. 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 has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Had the petitioner submilled 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: (I) a 
'"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the[ir] field of endeavor'" and (2) '"that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. 
~~ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see a/so Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 111lJ-20. While the AAO concludes that the 
evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small percentage at the very top of 
the field or sustained national or international acclaim, the AAO need not explain that conclusion in a 
final merits determination.' Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
regUlatory requirement of three types of evidence. lei. at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)( I )(A) of the Act and the petition 
may not be approved. 
'The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of rilct and law. Sec So/tallc v. DO!, JSI F.3d 143, 145 
(3d Cir. 20(4). in any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisuictiPIl to C(lIlUuct a final merits 
determination as the olliee Ihat made the last decision in this mailer. S C.F.R. ~ 103.5(a)( I)(ii). See also section 
103(a)(I) 01 the ACI: seclion 204(h) 01 the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (eflective March I. 20m); 
H C.F.R. § 2.1 (20m); ~ C.F.R. § Im.l(f)(3)(iii) (20m): Matter ofAllrelio, IY I~&-No Dec. 45K, 460 (l3lA 
I <JX7) (holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is Ihe soie authmity wilh the jurisdiclion to decide visa 
petitions). 
Pag~ II 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly. the appeal will 
be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.