dismissed EB-1A Case: Film Production

;htifyng data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
mrra~ion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of IIomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
JAN 1 4 2009 
IN RE: 
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. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
/3,/4*#- -- -,#? -.e> 
d f 
,fip John F. ~rlssomF~ctln~ Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office 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. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in the 
arts. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim requisite to classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(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. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) have 
consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals seeking immigrant 
visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). As used in this 
section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that 
small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). The specific 
requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or international acclaim 
and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The 
relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that she 
has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on June 6, 2006, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a 
film producer. The petitioner submitted supporting evidence both with his initial application and in response to 
a Request for Evidence ("RFE") dated March 9, 2007 including letters of recommendation, news articles, and 
tax documents. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or international 
acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). 
Congress' example of a one-time achievement is a Nobel Prize. H.R. Rpt. 10 1-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). Given 
that the House Report specifically cited to the Nobel Prize as an example of a one-time achievement, examples 
Page 3 
of one-time awards which enjoy major, international recognition may include the Pulitzer Prize, the Academy 
Award (most relevant for film makers), and an Olympic Medal. The regulation is consistent with this legislative 
history, stating that a one-time achievement must be a major, internationally recognized award. 8 C.F.R. 
$ 204.5(h)(3). Significantly, even a lesser internationally recognized award could serve to meet only one of the 
ten regulatory criteria, of which an alien must meet at least three. 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3)(i). The selection of 
Nobel Laureates, the example provided by Congress, is reported in the top media internationally regardless of 
the nationality of the awardees, is a familiar name to the public at large, and includes a $1 million cash prize. 
While an internationally recognized award could constitute a one-time achievement without meeting all of those 
elements, it is clear from the example provided by Congress that the award must be internationally recognized in 
the alien's field as one of the top awards in that field. 
Initially, the petitioner asserted that the eight awards received by the film he produced, , evidence 
his receipt of major internationally recognized awards. First, we note that the record contains only secondary 
evidence of the awards as evidence of the prizes comes from letters written by the festival organizers, mentions 
in newspaper articles, and a list submitted for the first time on appeal appearing on the website, the Internet 
Movie Database ("IMDB") instead of submission of the awards themselves (or photographs of those awards). 
In addition, all but one of the awards were not for the overall winning film of the festival: won the 
Audience Award at the Boston Jewish Film Festival, the Palm Springs International Film Festival, the Paris 
International Cinema Meeting, the San Diego Jewish Film Festival and the Washington Jewish Film Festival. 
The film won the award for best Israeli film at the Berlin Jewish Film Festival, the award for best 
cinematography at the Jerusalem Film Festival, and an Honorable mention at the Viennale. Only the prize from 
the Kiev Contact- International Documentary Film Festival was the Grand Prize of the Festival. 
Secondly, while these awards may result from nationally or internationally recognized festivals, they do not 
amount to awards from a major, internationally recognized film festival. There is no evidence establishing the 
international significance and magnitude of these competitions. For example, the petitioner submitted no 
evidence to show that the winner of these festivals received international media attention in the general or film 
media of multiple countries worldwide or other indicia of major, international recognition. We cannot ignore 
that the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3) qualifies the phrase "international recognized 
award" with the limitation "major." Without evidence distinguishing the level of acclaim associated with 
earning a prize from the above mentioned film festivals from that of other international film festivals, we cannot 
conclude the petitioner has established his eligibility through a one-time achievement. Nonetheless, the 
petitioner's receipt of awards for his film Watermarks is relevant to the first criterion at 8 C.F.R. $204,5(h)(3)(i) 
and will be further discussed below. 
On appeal, the petitioner stated that his selection as a judge for the 2007 News & Documentary Emmy Awards 
constituted a major, internationally recognized award. First, the selection of the petitioner as a judge was made 
after the filing of his petition (the letter asking the petitioner to be a judge is undated, counsel in his letter on 
appeal states that the petitioner was invited to serve as a judge on August 13,2007; the petition was filed June 6, 
2006). A petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future 
date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Katigbak, 14 I. & N. Dec. 45,49 
(Comm. 1971). Second, even if it occurred prior to filing, the selection of the petitioner as a judge for the News 
& Documentary Emmy Awards does not constitute a major, internationally recognized award. Although the 
receipt of an Emmy may qualify as a major, internationally recognized award, no evidence appears in the record 
that the judging of the Emmy awards carries with it the same esteem as actually winning the award. The only 
evidence appearing in the record, the selection letter, does not state how judges are chosen so as to catapult the 
Page 4 
selection of a judge to the same level as the selection for an award. The selection of the petitioner as a judge of 
the News & Documentary Emmy Awards properly falls under criterion (iv) below and will be addressed further 
in that context. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he received a major, internationally recognized 
award. While the prizes awarded to the petitioner's film are evidence of recognition of his film, the petitioner 
has not established that the prizes from these film festivals are evidence of major, international recognition as 
required by the regulation. Nor did the petitioner establish that the selection as a judge for the News & 
Documentary Emmy Awards constitutes a major, internationally recognized award in and of itself. 
Barring the alien's receipt of a major internationally recognized award, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) 
outlines ten criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim 
necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. A petitioner, however, cannot establish an alien's 
eligibility for this classification merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 
C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself must 
be evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. 
A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as 
"a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(2). We address the evidence submitted in the following 
discussion of the regulatory criteria relevant to the petitioner's case. The petitioner does not claim eligibility 
under any criteria not addressed below. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that the documentary film he produced, Watermarks, won various awards 
(listed above). While we recognize that an award for best picture in part recognizes the producer of a film, in 
this case, the record does not include evidence showing the significance and scope of the prizes awarded to the 
film. Nor is there general information about the competitions (such as the number of entrants or the percentage 
of entrants who earned some type of recognition). From their names, some of the film festivals appear to be 
regional in nature instead of nationally or internationally recognized; for example, the Boston Jewish Film 
Festival and the San Diego Jewish Film Festival. In addition, the award for best cinematography at the 
Jerusalem Film Festival is not attributable to the petitioner as a producer. 
In any case, the petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence that any of the honors awarded to Watermarks at 
the nine film festivals were nationally or internationally recognized. For example, no supporting evidence 
-. 
appears in the record showing that the recipients of the awards were announced in major media or in some other 
manner consistent with national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. The petitioner submits a 
news article documenting his receipt of the Kiev International Film Festival award (which is referred to in the 
article as the Ukrainian International Documentary Film Festival), which seems to have appeared on the website 
of Swiss Film News. The petitioner submitted no evidence that the Swiss Film News is, for example, a form of 
major media or is consulted by the film industry as a trad 
 ublication. Similarly, the petitioner provides an 
article appearing in the Boston Globe mentioning that m won the audience award at the Boston Jewish 
Film Festival, however, the Boston Globe would seem to be a local publication, appearance in which would not 
- - 
be consistent with national or international acclaim. The plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
3 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that the petitioner's awards be nationally or internationally recognized in 
the field of endeavor and it is his burden to establish every element of this criterion. Accordingly, the petitioner 
does not meet this criterion. 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classijkation is sought, 
which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The petitioner did not initially claim eligibility under this criterion, however on appeal, counsel claims that the 
criterion is met by the petitioner's selection as a judge for the News & Documentary Emmy Awards. As stated 
above, evidence in the record indicates that this selection was made after the filing of the petition so that it 
cannot be considered. Matter of Katigbak, 14 I. & N. Dec. at 49. We emphasize here that the ten regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.R.F. § 204.5(h)(3) are separate and distinct from one another. Because separate criteria exist for 
membership in associations (criterion (ii)) and participation as a judge (criterion (iv)), USCIS clearly does not 
view the two criteria as being interchangeable. If evidence sufficient to meet one criterion mandated a finding 
that an alien met another criterion, the requirement that an alien meet at least three criteria would be 
meaningless. Even if the invitation had been issued prior to the filing of the petition, the plain language of this 
criterion requires that a petitioner show membership in an association; the petitioner submitted no evidence that 
an association exists of Emmy judges or that any such association has membership requirements that include 
outstanding achievements of the members. The only evidence submitted by the petitioner regarding his Emmy 
judging comes in the form of two letters: one an invitation and one a thank you for his service dated August 13, 
2007. Both letters speak of the commitment as "a day or two', of the judge's time, do not discuss the selection 
criteria or the requirements for judges, and do not state or insinuate, for example, that any other sort of ongoing 
commitment or organization results from judging the one set of awards. Accordingly, the petitioner does not 
meet this criterion. 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, 
relating to the alien S work in the Jield for which classlJication is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner and, as 
stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. To qualify 
as major media, the publication should have significant national or international distribution. An alien would 
not earn acclaim at the national level from a local publication. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, 
nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national 
distribution, unlike small local community papers.' 
The petitioner submitted only two news items that are either about him or contain more information about him 
than his name as produ out from the Internet Movie Database (IMDB) website with his production 
and writing credits for and an article from the Jewish Week that focuses on the movie and the 
concept as developed by the film's director. The IMDB material does not indicate the requisite acclaim as the 
petitioner's webpage contains no information save his role in 
 We note that the IMDB's stated 
1 
 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. 
For example, an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax 
County, Virginia, for instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page 6 
purpose is to list everyone involved with every film made so that appearance on the website does not indicate 
any sort of prestige. The Jewish Week article is not primarily about the petitioner as it contains no information 
about him and instead uses quotes by the petitioner to further its discussion of the movie and the director. 
The petitioner also submitted numerous articles that discuss his film, 
 but these articles are not 
about the petitioner himself. Reviews of the film submitted by the petitioner include articles in the Boston 
Globe, Swiss Film News, New York Times, Jerusalem Post, the Desert Sun, Forward, Screen Daily, New York 
Post, TV Guide online, Reuters, Yahoo news, the Miami Herald, the Palm Beach Post, the Ventura County Star, 
and Time Out New York. Most of these articles do not contain the petitioner's name at all; the few that do 
mention the petitioner's name only do so in listing credits for the movie. Even those articles that contain more 
than a review of the movie focus on the director of the film's role. For example, an article submitted from 
SouthFlorida.com refers to the film as "[the director, and an article from The 
Nation speaks of " beautiful and hu ' neither article mentions 
the petitioner's name in discussing the film. In his appellate brief, counsel argued that the discussion of the film 
equated to a discussion of the petitioner in these news articles. However, the regulation requires that the 
published material be "about the alien . . . relating to the alien's work," not a discussion solely about the 
collaborative project in which the alien was involved without also mentioning the alien and his specific work on 
A - - 
the project. None of the submitted articles discusses the petitioner by way of, for example, his background or 
his role in the production of the film, but instead discusses the film itself. Counsel also argues that the mention 
of s name in the material does not diminish the impact of the acclaim due to the petitioner. 
Although we agree that multiple people may take credit for a single film, the focus on in this 
material further demonstrates that the material is not primarily about the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner 
does not meet this criterion. 
(iv) Evidence of the alien 3 participation, either individually or on apanel, as a judge of the work of others 
in the same or an alliedfield of specrfication for which class2fication is sought. 
The petitioner did not initially claim to meet this criterion. In his RFE response, counsel claims the petitioner 
meets this criterion because he was invited to judge the News & Documentary Emmy Awards. As stated above, 
this invitation was issued after the petition was filed and consequently cannot be considered. See Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 1. & N. Dec. at 49. In addition, the material submitted with his appellate brief indicates that the 
petitioner did not actually serve as a judge until after the petition was denied (the letter from the Director of 
the News & Documentary Emmy Awards is dated August 13, 2007 while the petition was denied on July 19, 
2007). Even if the petitioner served as a judge prior to the filing of his petition, he provides no evidence that 
such service demonstrates national or international acclaim, such as, for exam le, the selection criteria used in 
inviting individuals to become judges. The August 13, 2007 letter from indicates that the Emmy 
awards use "broadcast journalism professionals" who "evaluat[e] the work of [their] colleagues." The letter 
contains no indication that the judges are more experienced or more renowned within the field than any other 
broadcast journalism professional. Nor did the petitioner submit any evidence that service as a judge is 
generally considered to be reserved for those individuals with higher acclaim within the industry as opposed to 
any professional who volunteers. Consequently, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientijic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major signlfcance in the field. 
Page 7 
The petitioner claims eligibility under this criterion by stating that his "ability in the international production 
field have consistently recognized as extraordinary by the most noted experts of the United States,' Europe's 
foremost film entities." (errors in original). On appeal, counsel claimed that the petitioner met this criterion by 
producing his "award-winning film 
 with international acclaim." As stated above, each criterion 
under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) are separate and distinct. The petitioner's argument that he made a significant 
contribution to the field by producing an award-winning film means that the awards considered under criterion 
(i) would also qualify as major achievements within the field under criterion (v). If evidence sufficient to meet 
one criterion mandated a finding that an alien met another criterion, the requirement that an alien meet at least 
three criteria would be meaningless. Neither the petitioner nor his counsel provide an argument as to how the 
petitioner or the film 
 made a contribution of major significance to his field outside of the receipt of 
film festival awards. 
The petitioner did submit support letters from television and film industry professionals who have worked with 
him. While testimonials such as these provide relevant information about an alien's experience and 
accomplishments, they cannot by themselves establish the alien's eligibility under this criterion because they do 
not demonstrate that the alien's work is of major significance in his field beyond the limited number of 
individuals with whom he has worked directly. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by 
an alien in support of an immigration petition carry less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of major 
contributions that one would expect of an alien who has sustained national or international acclaim. 
Accordingly, we review the letters as they relate to other evidence of the petitioner's contributions. 
A March 23, 2006 letter from the director of i, states that the petitioner has had a 
"long and distinguished career as a producer [that] has earned him the respect and admiration of his colleagues 
throughout the international film production industry." In addition to, the letter states that the 
petitioner produced two other films that "were screened at major festivals, including Cannes Film Festival, 
Berlin Film Festival, and FIPA (Biarritz, France), and honored with citations and awards . . ." No other 
evidence appears in the record about these other films such as, for example, press recognition of the awards or 
copies of the awards themselves. 
 A March 24, 2005 letter from 
 manager of documentary 
acquisitions at HBO, stated that HI30 believes that "was one of the best documentaries of recent 
years" and that HBO hoped to collaborate with the petitioner in the future. A letter from m 
managing director of Zadig Productions, stated that the petitioner is "one of the brightest professional in the 
field to day." (errors in original). Neither letter contained information about the petitioner's impact upon his 
field, if any. 
The preceding letters of recommendation discuss the petitioner's talent as a film director, but they fail to include 
any substantive discussion as to how or the other films the petitioner has worked on rise to the level 
of original contributions of major significance in the field. According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
tj 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only original but of major significance. We must presume 
that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. While the 
petitioner's work is admired by those offering letters of support, there is no evidence demonstrating that his 
work has had major significance in the field. For example, the record does not indicate the extent of the 
petitioner's films' influence on other film professionals nationally or internationally, nor does it show that the 
field has somehow changed as a result of the petitioner's work. 
Page 8 
Three of the letters submitted s~eak of the petitioner's autitude at film making in the context of future 
- - 
endeavors. A March 1, 2005 letter written by '-. ;resident of, states 
that the petitioner "is a very focused and demanding young producer . . . [and] is only at the beginning of an 
exciting and rich career." A February 17, 2005 letter from b-1 stated that the etitioner is "a 
major talent" who "will make enormous contributions to the field." A May 1,2007 letter from P 
stated that the petitioner "will contribute greatly to the field of filmmaking in the years to come." However, a 
visa petition may not be approved based on speculation of future eligibility or after the petitioner or beneficiary 
becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I. & N. Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm. 
1978); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I. & N. Dec. 45,49 (Comm. 197 1). 
The petitioner also submitted a copy of a June 9, 2005 letter from, writing for the Alliance of 
Motion Picture & Television Producers, submitted in support of his 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petition. Although 
the words "extraordinary ability" are used in the Act for both the nonimmigrant 0-1 classification and the first 
preference employment-based immigrant classification, the applicable regulations define the terms differently 
for each classification. The 0-1 regulation explicitly states that "[e]xtraordinary ability in the field of arts means 
distinction." 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(ii). "Distinction" is a lower standard than that required for the immigrant 
classification, which defines extraordinary ability as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). The 
evidentiary criteria for these two classifications also differ in several respects. Given the clear regulatory 
distinction between these two classifications, the beneficiary's prior receipt of 0-1 nonimmigrant classification 
is not evidence of his eligibility for immigrant classification as an alien with extraordinary ability. 
The record contains no other evidence that the petitioner has made original and major contributions to his field. 
The media articles discussed above under the third criterion indicate that the petitioner has received recognition 
for Watermarks, but not that he or the film made a significant impact in his field consistent with sustained 
national or international acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien S work in theJield at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
This criterion generally applies to the visual, not performing, arts. However, because counsel claimed that the 
showing of Watermarks at various film festivals falls under this criterion, we have considered the relevant 
materials as comparable evidence of the petitioner's eligibility pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204,5(h)(4). We note again that each criterion under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) are separate and distinct. 
Showings of Watermarks at the various film festivals resulting in awards as applied under criterion (i) cannot be 
used under criterion (vii) for the display or showing of the film itself at these same festivals. In addition, the 
petitioner did not submit any evidence that any of these film festivals are prominent and notable or are critically 
acclaimed festivals that enjoy prominence throughout their individual nations or internationally such that the 
film's participation would reflect national or international acclaim. The petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments 
that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner claims to meet this criterion by virtue of the invitation to judge the News & Documentary Emmy 
Awards. As discussed above, the invitation and actual participation occurred after the filing of this petition so 
that the petitioner did not demonstrate eligibility at the time of filing. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I. & N. Dec. 
at 49. In addition, even if properly under consideration, the petitioner failed to show how the limited role of 
Page 9 
acting as a judge at the 2007 News & Documentary Emmy Awards would amount to his performance of a 
leading or critical role for the organization overall. The Emmy Awards occur every year and involve 
numerous judges. The petitioner has not shown how one judge's participation for "a day or two" in one 
year's award show amounts to a leading or critical role for the organization. Accordingly, the petitioner does 
not meet this criterion. 
An immigrant visa will be granted to an alien under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1153(b)(l)(A), 
only if the alien can establish extraordinary ability through extensive documentation of sustained national or 
international acclaim demonstrating that the alien has risen to the very top of his or her field. The evidence in 
this case indicates that the petitioner made one successful film, Watermarks, which gained recognition in some 
film festivals. However, the record does not establish that the petitioner had achieved sustained national or 
international acclaim placing him at the very top of his field at the time of filing. He is thus ineligible for 
classification as an alien with extraordinary ability pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
9 1 153(b)(l)(A), and his petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 29 1 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. fj 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
This decision is rendered without prejudice to the filing of a new petition under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Act with the requisite supporting evidence. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.