dismissed EB-1A Case: Education

(b)(6)
Date: 
JUN 2 0 2014 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immi gration Services 
Offi ce of Admin istra tive App eals 
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: //www.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, 
J1 !J.fj)_{/ ndv 
(IRon Rosenberg 
V Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.usds.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition and the 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in education. The director determined that the petitioner had not met the 
requisite criteria for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence. In the brief, the petitioner asserts 
that she meets the categories of evidence at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (iv), and (viii). 
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 
(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. 723 101
51 
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.P.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, international recognized award) or 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.F.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. 2010). Although the court 
upheld our decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with our evaluation of 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." /d. 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 we 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 we concluded)." /d. 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 matter, we 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. /d. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this regulatory criterion and found that the 
petitioner failed to establish her eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's 
findings for this criterion or offer additional arguments. When .an appellant fails to offer argument 
on an issue, that issue is abandoned. Sepulveda v. U.S. 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) (plaintiff's claims abandoned when not raised on appeal). Accordingly , the petitioner has 
not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
1 Specifically, the court stated that we had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirem ents beyond 
those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
2 On appeal, the petitioner does not claim to meet any of the regulatory categories of evidenc e not discussed in this 
decision . Therefore, no determination has been made regarding whether the petitioner meets the remaining categories of 
evidenc e. 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Documentation of the alien's membership in assocwtwn s 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 director determined that the petitioner did not establish eligibility for this criterion. The plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires "[d]ocumentation of the alien's 
membership in associations in the field for which is classification is sought, which require 
outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines or fields." In order to demonstrate that membership in an association 
meets this criterion, a petitioner must show that the association requires outstanding achievement as 
an essential condition for admission to membership. Membership requirements based on 
employment or activity in a given field, minimum education or experience, standardized test scores, 
grade point average, recommendations by colleagues or current members, or payment of dues do not 
satisfy this criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the 
overall prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is membership 
requirements rather than the association's overall reputation. 
In the appeal brief, the petitioner asserts that she meets the requirements of this criterion through her 
appointment as director of the The petitioner points 
to the .Tune 26. 2013 lette of suooort from Deoutv Chief of 
Beijing, China, that stated: 
I oversee more than 400 [ s] in 110 countries including the 93 
in the United States. 
* * * 
[The petitionerl has surpassed many of her peers by the quality and quantity of her work 
leading the at the 
* * * 
[A]ll directors of including [the petitioner], are nominated and 
recommended by their home institution and approved by the board of directors consisted of 
senior academic or business leaders in the host institutions and their partner institutions in 
China. directorship indicates an elite status of the appointed individuals. 
[The petitioner] is appointed to be the founding director for her expertise knowledge [sic] of 
Chinese and American education and culture and her extraordinary ability in leading 
international education where she skillfully blends critical components together. 
Although asserts that the petitioner was "appointed to be the founding director for her 
expertise knowledge [sic] of Chinese and American education and culture and her extraordinary 
ability in leading international education ," the personal qualifications of the petitioner are not 
relevant to this criterion. Instead, the petitioner must show that the requires 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts 
in their disciplines or fields. Moreover, the petitioner has not established that possessing an expert 
knowledge of Chinese and American education and culture, and demonstrating the ability to lead a 
multi-component foreign education program constitute outstanding achievements . 
's assertions are unsupported by primary evidence of the s specific 
membership requirements from a reliable source such as the organization's bylaws or constitution . 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting 
the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (eomm'r 1998) 
(citing Matter ofTreasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l eomm'r 1972)). Further, if 
testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner 
to submit corroborative evidence. Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BrA 1998). Moreover, 
users may, in its discretion , use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. 
See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (eomm'r. 1988). However, users is 
ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the 
benefit sought. !d. The submission of reference letters supporting the petition is not presumptive 
evidence of eligibility; users may evaluate the content of those letters as to . whether they support 
the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796; see also Matter ofV-K-, 24 r&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BrA 2008) 
(noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as ·to "fact"). Absent 
documentation that primary and secondary evidence of the institution's specific membership 
requirements are either not available or nonexistent, s letter cannot be relied upon as 
evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2). 
Furthermore, the petitioner has not established that serving as a director at an institution that hosts a 
Confucius Institute constitutes membership in an association. Submitting documentary evidence 
reflecting the petitioner's managerial role with a particular organization without evidence reflecting 
that the petitioner is a member of an association that requires outstanding achievements of its 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts, is insufficient to meet the plain 
language of the regulation. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) 
requires the petitioner to show "membership in associations in the field" rather than the petitioner's 
role as Director of the The regulations contain a 
separate criterion for performing in a lea ing or critical role tor orgamzatwns or establishments with a 
distinguished re utation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). The petitioner's role as Director of the 
appears more relevant to the category of evidence at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) and willbe further addressed there. 
Finally, the plain language of the regulation requires "membership in associations" in the plural. The 
use of the plural is consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive evidence. Section 
203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. Significantly, not all of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are worded 
in the plural. Specifically, the regulations at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (ix) only require service 
on a single judging panel or a single high salary. When a regulatory criterion wishes to include the 
singular within the plural, it expressly does so as when it states at 8 e.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) that 
evidence of experience must be in the form of "letter(s)." Thus, the plural in the remaining 
regulatory criteria has meaning. In a different context, federal courts have upheld USers ' ability to 
interpret significance from whether the singular or plural is used in a regulation. Cf Maramjaya v. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158, 2008 WL 9398947, *1, *6 (D.D.C. Mar. 2008); Snapnames.com inc . 
v. Chertojf, No. CV06-65, 2006 WL 3491005, at *1, *10 (D. Or. Nov. 2006) (upholding an 
interpretation that the regulatory requirement for "a" bachelor's degree or "a" foreign equivalent 
degree at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(1)(2) requires a single degree rather than a combination of academic 
credentials). Therefore, even if the petitioner had established that her leadership role for the 
meets the elements of this regulatory criterion, the plain language requires 
evidence of the petitioner's membership in more than one association requiring outstanding 
achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory 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. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner failed to 
establish her eligibility . On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's findings for this 
criterion or offer additional arguments. The issue, therefore, is considered abandoned. Sepulveda, 
401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885, at *9. Accordingly, the petitioner has not 
established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge ofthe 
work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is 
sought. 
The director determined that the petitioner did not establish eligibility for this criterion. 
The petitioner's appeal brief points to the June 21, 2013 letter written to her from 
Interim Dean and Professor of Finance, 
stated: 
Ohio, that 
I'm writing to once again thank you for your excellent work as an external reviewer of the 
As part our university requirement for all programs 
and in keeping with our signed agreements with and 
we conducted a 5 year program review with input from experts f'~ro-:-m~t~n~s ~tde and outstde of the 
university. The program review in which you participated last year played an important role 
in our decision to continue our co-sponsorship of the Institute as well as a motivation for 
making several significant changes in the direction of the Institute. 
In my former role of Associate Provost and Associate Vice-President for Academic Affairs, I 
was charged with organizing the program review including the selection of the internal and 
external reviewers. I made the selection of external reviewers after considering dozens of 
possibilities and selected from a roster of the directors of the very best run 
in the U.S. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
is of the one top ranked universities in the country in its level of 
participation by its students in international programs. We value the as 
an important part of our strategy of having a comprehensive approach to the 
internationalization of our students. The program review process and your role in it are 
essential components for the assurance of our successful implementation of this strategy. 
In deciding the next best steps for the Institute, we relied heavily on the high quality report 
that you and the other external reviewer, Dr. from the 
produced. It's clear that you used the day-long visit interviewing faculty, staff and 
administrators to excellent advantage. Your recommendations were both circumspect and 
judicious. It was especially fortuitous that you were able to incorporate a meeting with 
representatives from our partner school, as 
part of the program review process. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted a May 1-2, 2012" Program Review External 
Reviewers' Schedule" that documented the petitioner's participation. The petitioner also submitted 
an April 12, 2012 e-mail from Mr. requesting the petitioner's participation as an external 
reviewer. The preceding evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner meets the plain 
language requirements of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Accordingly, the petitioner 
has established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The director determined that the petitioner did not establish eligibility for this criterion. 
The petitioner's "Self-Statement for EB 1 Appeal" asserts that the director's determination regarding 
her published articles was inaccurate. The {Jetitioner points to her 2007 article in 
entitled ' ts Published in 
and her March 2013 article in 
entitled Although we agree 
with the petitioner that the preceding evidence constitutes scholarly articles in professional 
publications, the March 2013 article was published subsequent to the petition's October 11, 2012 
filing date. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b )(1), (12); Matter 
of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). A petition cailnot be approved at a future 
date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 
169, 175 (Comm'r 1998). That decision further provides, citing Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 
114 (BIA 1981), that USCIS cannot "consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the 
filing of a petition." !d. at 176. Accordingly, the petitioner's March 2013 article in 
cannot be considered as evidence to establish her eligibility at the time of 
filing. 
Further, the plain language of this criterion requires the petitioner's "authorship of scholarly articles 
in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media" in the plural. As the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
submitted evidence shows that the petitioner had authored only one scholarly article in a single 
professional publication at the time of filing, the petitioner has not established that she meets the 
plain language requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Cf Maramjaya v. 
USCIS, 2008 WL 9398947 at *12; Snapnames.com Inc. v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 at *10. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The director determined that the petitioner established eligibility for this criterion. The plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires "[ e ]vidence that the alien has 
performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished 
reputation." A review of the record of proceeding, however, does not reflect that the petitioner 
submitted sufficient documentary evidence establishing that she meets the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) for the reasons outlined below. 
The petitioner submitted an October 8, 2012 letter from Dr. Senior Vice Provost 
and Dean of Academic Administration, statmg that he petitioner served as 
Director of the. The petitioner's appellate submission 
includes documentation that provides additional information regarding her role as Director of the 
For instance, the petitioner submitted documents indicating that she prepared the 
institute's 2012-2016 strategic plan, compiled the institute's Chinese Language and Culture Curriculum, 
selected teachers, prepared institute reports, planned events, and offered guidance to students (such as 
who received a Accordingly_, the submitted evidence 
shows that the petitioner performed in a leading role for the 
In addition, the petitioner submitted an October 5, 2012letter from Dr. Emeritus Professor, 
stating that the petitioner served as Associate Director of the 
Dr. s letter, however, does not identify the specific duties 
performed by the petitioner as Associate Director or her responsibilities, or explain how the 
petitioner's position fit within the overall hierarchy of the office. The "Associate Director" job title 
alone does not establish the nature of the petitioner's role as either leading or critical. Dr. 's 
letter falls short of specifying how the petitioner contributed to the in a 
way that was significant to the office's outcome or what role she performed in the office's activities. 
Again, if testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the 
petitioner to submit corroborative evidence. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
Furthermore, the petitioner has not submitted sufficient documentary evidence showing that 
and have a distinguished reputation. The 
petitioner submitted an October 7, 2012 letter from Dr. Chinese Language Supervisor of the 
stating: 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
rThe petitioner] was first introduced to me by the educational consul in 
in New York. I met [the petitioner] when she was invited to attend 
in the United Nations in April2011. 
Under [the petitioner 's] leadership, the ·s one of 
best in North America and the world. The creative endeavors [the petitioner] engages in are 
exciting and highly productive. 
Dr. asserts that "the is one of best in North 
America and the world," but does not point to any specific evidence to support his claim. users need 
not accept primarily conclusory assertions. See 1756, Inc. v. U.S. Att 'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 
(D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits 
adjudications). In addition, going on record without supporting document ary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Soffici , 22 I&N Dec. at 
165. 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from Wire Editor, stating: 
[The petitioner] and I have discussed her interest in writing a column for the newspaper 
where I work - a reflection of how she seeks to bolster cultural understanding in the 
community. 
[The petitioner] is the only director the _ has ever 
known. During her nearly 4 years in that capacity, the institute has established Chinese 
language/culture education programs in seven area schools and provided 10 teachers from 
China. She also has coordinated visits from about 20 international delegation s in the last six 
years, more than half from China. 
* * * 
On a personal note, I have attended some local activities associated with the 
Thousands of people turn out each year for the Dragon Boat races - a very 
successful fund-raiser for general education. Public speakers and music al perform ances 
arranged by the institute and [the petitioner] have been popular as well. 
Mr comments briefly on the activities of the but 
the information provided is not sufficient to demonstrate that the institution has a distinguished 
reputation relative to other academic institutions' foreign language and cultural education programs. 
Additionally, the letters from Mr. and Mr. are insufficient to establish that the institute has 
a distinguished reputation beyond those writers, who both had direct professional interactions with the 
beneficiary. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted an October 10, 2012 letter with the Form I -140, Immigrant 
Petition for Alien Worker, that listed internet links for news stories posted on the website s of the 
(the student-run newspaper for The 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
, and the The petitioner, however, failed to submit copies of the news stories. 
Again, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. Furthermore, the 
self-serving nature of the news stories originating from the and its student 
newspaper is not sufficient to demonstrate that the university's and 
have a distinguished re utation. There is no objective documentary evidence 
showing that the and have a 
distinguished reputation. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
B. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three categories of 
evidence. 
IV. 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. 
Even if the petitioner had 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[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 also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Although 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, we need not explain that conclusion in a final 
merits determination. 3 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
antecedent regulatory requirement of three categories of evidence. !d. at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act and the petition 
may not be approved. 
3 The AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis. See Siddiqui v. Holder , 670 F.3d 736, 741 (7th Cir. 2012); 
Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004); Dar v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989). In any future 
proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination as the office that made the last 
decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). See also section 103(a)(1) of the Act; section 204(b) of the Act; DHS 
Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(t)(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 
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 of Otiende , 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.