dismissed EB-1A Case: Mathematics

idmti@ing data deleted to 
prevent CICJ:'I; unvaaranted 
invasion o:'per,o.;iii privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
B?, 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: FEB 2 1 a7 
SRC 02 273 53438 
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 1 153(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. 
Ot~obert P. ~iemaz, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was initially approved by the Director, Texas 
Service Center. On hrther review of the record, the director determined that the petitioner was not eligible for 
the benefit sought. Accordingly, the director served the petitioner with notice of intent to revoke the approval 
of the immigrant visa petition, and the reasons therefore, and ultimately revoked the approval of the petition 
on October 19, 2005. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The 
appeal will be dismissed. 
The Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, was filed on September 23, 2002. 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. The director 
determined the petitioner had not established that he qualifies for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner meets the required criteria for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 
Section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1155, states: "The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for 
what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under 
section 204." 
Regarding the revocation on notice of an immigrant petition under section 205 of the Act, the Board of 
Immigration Appeals has stated: 
In Matter of Estime, . . . this Board stated that a notice of intention to revoke a visa petition is 
properly issued for "good and sufficient cause" where the evidence of record at the time the notice is 
issued, if unexplained and unrebutted, would warrant a denial of the visa petition based upon the 
petitioner's failure to meet his burden of proof. The decision to revoke will be sustained where the 
evidence of record at the time the decision is rendered, including any evidence or explanation 
submitted by the petitioner in rebuttal to the notice of intention to revoke, would warrant such denial. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 590 (BIA 1988) (citing Matter of Estime, 19 I&N 450 (BIA 1987)). 
By itself, the director's realization that a petition was incorrectly approved is good and sufficient cause for the 
issuance of a notice of intent to revoke an immigrant petition. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 582, 590. The 
approval of a visa petition vests no rights in the beneficiary of the petition, as approval of a visa petition is but 
a preliminary step in the visa application process. The beneficiary is not, by mere approval of the petition, 
entitled to an immigrant visa. Id. at 582. 
The Form 1-140 petition was initially approved on December 10, 2003. According to a June 14, 2005 
memorandum from the United States Embassy in Moscow, Russia, subsequent to the petition's approval, the 
petitioner appeared before a consular officer fir his immigrant visa interview. At that time, it was determined 
that the petitioner did not meet the criteria for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability and that his 
petition had been approved in error. The petition was then forwarded to the Texas Service Center for 
revocation of the approval of the petition. 
Page 3 
On August 16,2005, the director of the Texas Service Center issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke the approval 
of the petition. The notice of intent to revoke informed the petitioner that the evidence presented did not 
satisfy at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
On September 15, 2005, the Texas Service Center received the petitioner's response to the Notice of Intent to 
Revoke and it was incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
On October 19, 2005, the director of the Texas Service Center properly revoked the approval of the petition. 
In Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 582, 590, the Board found that, pursuant to section 205 of the Act, CIS may 
revoke the approval of a petition "at any time for good cause shown." For reasons to be addressed below, we find 
that the petition was initially approved in error and that Matter of Ho supports the director's October 19, 2005 
decision revoking the approval. 
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 to 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, 60898-9 (November 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 he has earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a professor and teacher of 
mathematics. At the time of filing, the petitioner was working as an Associate Professor at the Moscow 
Aviation Institute and as a mathematics teacher at Moscow Secondary School #879. 
- 
Page 4 
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, international recognized 
award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation 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. The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognizedprizes or 
awards for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted a September 2000 diploma issued by the "Government of Moscow, Moscow 
Committee of Education" stating that he was "the winner of Competition of the International Soros Science 
Education Program (ISSEP) in Moscow City." The petitioner also submitted listings appearing in the Soros 
Education Journal identifying him among hundreds of recipients for this award in 1998, 1999, and 2000 in 
Moscow. We find that this award reflects local recognition rather than national or international recognition. 
The petitioner submitted two certificates stating: 
International Soros Science 
Education Program 
In . . . appreciation of outstanding contributions to science education at the high school level, 
[The petitioner] 
is selected and named as a 
SOROS HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER 
Along with the preceding Soros High School Teacher certificates, the petitioner submitted information 
accessed at http://www.issep.rssi.n1/~rants/teacher/indexhtm#header9 which states: 
There was carried out mass interrogation of students, who were first three years in the Universities. 
Each student was offered to name the best teacher, by their opinion, known for him from 
mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology - one by each subject (students named two teachers on 
average). 
Students have named 196,687 teachers during four years. 
Selection of winners was carried out on number of mentions of the teacher by students. 
*** 
Page 5 
Interrogation of students was carried out in February - April 2000. Interrogation passed in 83 cities 
and in 268 Institutes and Universities. There was brought 87,483 students' questionnaires in a 
database. Totally, students have named 226,208 teachers. 
According the documentation submitted by the petitioner, multiple teachers from multiple localities have 
received Soros High School Teacher awards. Awards regularly bestowed upon a large number of recipients 
are of minimal evidentiary weight. We note that the petitioner received this award based on a tally of votes 
from former high school students at Moscow Secondary School #879. While the petitioner's receipt of a 
Soros High School Teacher award reflects that he was admired by his former pupils at the local level, there is 
no evidence showing that this award sets him significantly above almost all others in his field at the national or 
international level. We cannot ignore that the petitioner's award resulted from a local selection process by his 
former high school students rather than a national evaluation process by his peers. Further, we do not find 
that making "contributions to science education at the high school level" is an indication that the petitioner "is 
one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top" of the mathematics field. See 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(2). We find that the preceding factors diminish the significance of the petitioner's Soros High 
School Teacher awards. 
The petitioner submitted a Certificate of Honor issued by the Moscow Aviation Institute stating: "Winner of 
competition on a rank "The Best Lecturer" 1986-1987 academic year, [the petitioner], Senior Lecturer 
(Associate Professor) of faculty 703 for fruitful pedagogical work." We find that this award from the 
petitioner's immediate employer reflects institutional recognition rather than national or international 
recognition. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted evidence of his receipt of two 
"Grant of 'MOSCOW" awards presented to him by the municipal government of the city of Moscow and the 
Department of Education of the city of Moscow in October 2002 and October 2003. These awards were 
presented to the petitioner subsequent to the petition's filing date. A petitioner, however, must establish 
eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12); see Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45 (Comm. 
1971). Accordingly, the AAO will not consider these awards in this proceeding. Nevertheless, we find that 
these awards reflect local recognition rather than national or international recognition 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in thejeld for which classiJication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
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 or international level from a local publication or from a publication in a language 
that most of the population cannot comprehend. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally 
Page 6 
serve a particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national distribution, unlike 
small local community papers.' 
, 
 Initially, the petitioner did not claim eligibility under this criterion. In response to the director's notice of 
intent to revoke, counsel submitted a ,September 6,2005 letter stating: 
The book entitled Moscow Aviation Institute from A to Z is a professional publication. We submitted 
evidence to the TSC [Texas Service Center] .indicating that Moscow Aviation Institute (MAT) 
publications are sold worldwide as indicated by the website called: www.worldretailstore.com. 
Textbooks are professional publications . . . . 
The record, however, includes no evidence showing that material appearing in Moscow Aviation Institute from A 
to Z is about the petitioner. The petitioner's authorship of a textbook is not relevant to the "published materials 
about the alien" criterion at 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and will be addressed later under the "authorship of 
scholarly articles in the field" criterion at 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The petitioner has not established that he 
meets this criterion. , 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
cqntributions of major significance in the feld. 
The petitioner submitted evidence showing that he is the co-inventor of a U.S.S.R. "Copyright Certificate 
(Patent)" filed in 1976. The title of the petitioner's invention, however, is not identified. There is no 
evidence showing that this invention qualifies as a contribution of "major significance" in the petitioner's 
field. For example, there is no evidence showing substantial commercial interest in this invention or evidence 
of its widespread utilization. The granting of a patent demonstrates only that an invention is original. It does 
not necessarily follow that an approved patent represents a contribution of major significance in one's field. 
For purposes of this criterion, far more important than the existence of an approved patent is the significance 
of that invention to the greater field. In this case, there is no evidence that the petitioner's patented invention 
has attracted a substantial level of interest beyond the petitioner's employer. Without evidence of its 
substantial national or international impact, we cannot conclude that the petitioner's patented invention meets 
this criterion. 
The petitioner also submitted three letters of support fiom his superiors at the Moscow Aviation Institute and 
Moscow Secondary School #879. 
According to a translated letter, Professor Vitali Polkovnikov, Dean of Faculty for Robotic and Intelligent 
Systems, Moscow Aviation Institute, states: 
 ' . 
[The petitioner] is one of the leading teacher of the faculty which I'm supervising. 
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, cannot 
serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
- 
Page 7 
*** 
When [the petitioner] was hired as Senior Lecturer (Associate Professor), and he began read two 
major courses of dean to students, he has perfectly performed the new task and became the winner of 
institute competition on a rank "The Best Lecturer 1987 by results of interrogation .of the students. 
At the same year, he wrote and published first student academic manual "Operations Research", and 
in 1989 he was awarded Academic Rank of Senior Lecturer (Associate Professor). For fruitful 
pedagogical work by the order of the rector, the gratitude on institute repeatedly appeared to Senior 
Lecturer [the petitioner]. 
However, pedagogical talent of [the petitioner] was showed especially clearly during last years. He 
had been working in combination as the mathematics teacher in high school, and quickly achieved 
level of leading teacher. He became the Winner of competition International Soros Program of 
Education in the field of the exact sciences (ISSEP) three times - in 1998, 1999 and 2000, received 
thus a rank "Soros Teacher of the High School." In my professional opinion, it testifies about 
achievement of [the petitioner] high quality teaching of mathematics and a skill level which placing 
him in small percentage of the best matheinatics teachers of high school. 
While the petitioner's employment as a Senior Lecturer and high school teacher may have benefited the 
students under his tutelage, there is no evidence showing that this work rises to the level of a contribution of 
major significance in the inathematics field. The petitioner has not shown how the academic or matheniatics 
field has changed as a result of his work. 
Professor , Honored Scientific and Technical Research 'Worker, Moscow Aviation Institute, 
states: 
I knew [the petitioner] since he was student. I was academic supervisor of his degree project at that 
period. He was one of the best students of our academic faculty, had excellent defense of the degree's 
project and received an honors diploma. He became an employee on our academic faculty 
"Efficiency of onboard systems on jet aircraft," after he successfully graduated fi-om the institute, and 
where he worked up until now. His researches in the field of synthesis of optimum control of the jet 
aircrafts, and his evaluation of efficiency of onboard complexes of equipment of the aircrafts, always 
had a novelty. 
The copyright certificate on the invention in 1976 and successfully completed Master's Thesis for 
receiving Ph.D. in 1982 - worthy end of the first phase of his fruitful work. After receiving Ph.D., he 
had new actual tasks in the field of the analysis and synthesis of complex systems and ended up with 
the same, brilliant results! 
* * * 
When in 1985 [the petitioner] was hired for position as Senior Lecturer and his duty was to read two 
major subjects of faculty to students, he has carried out this new task excellently, as always, and 
according to student elections, became the Winner of the competition and has received honorable 
Page 8 
name - "The Best Lecturer of year 1987." The same year, he wrote and published the first methodical 
manual for course "Operations Research," and, as a result, deserved the academic rank of Senior 
Lecturer in 1989. However, great pedagogical talent of [the petitioner] especially clearly has been 
shown during last several years. Working as mathematics teacher in high school, in combination with 
the lecturing in our Institute, he quickly became the leading expert. And was elected and named 
"Soros High School Teacher " three times, as a Winner of competition International Soros Science 
Education Program in the field of the exact sciences (ISSEP) in years 1998, 1999 and 2000. 
Professor Grishin mentions the petitioner's research regarding the "synthesis of optimum control of the jet 
aircrafts" and "his evaluation of efficiency of onboard complexes of equipment of the aircrafts" and states that 
the petitioner's findings "always had a novelty." While the petitioner's research is no doubt of value, it can 
be argued that any research must be shown to be original and present some benefit if it is to receive funding 
and attention from the academic community. Any Ph.D. thesis or published research, in order to be accepted 
for graduation, publication or funding, must offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. It 
does not follow that every researcher who performs original research that adds to the general pool of 
knowledge or who studies the efficiency of systems designed by others has inherently made a contribution of 
major significance to the field as a whole. In this instance, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's 
work attracted a significant level of attention beyond the Moscow Aviation Institute. 
Principal Moscow Secondary School # 879, states: 
[The petitioner's] pedagogical skills, creativity, innovation in teaching and responsibility have always 
resulted in his pupils' constant successes in passing final exams in mathematics advanced course at 
school and entrance exams in the main higher educational institutions of Moscow, such as Moscow 
State University, Moscow State Technical University, Moscow Engineering Physics 
Institute, Moscow Aviation Institute and some other technical institutes and colleges. 
[The petitioner] has achieved splendid results in teaching, and this fact can be accounted for his wide 
outlook, constant willingness to work creatively and make research work, and the profound 
thoughtful approach to selecting forms and methods of teaching mathematics at school, constant 
aspiration for encouraging school students and making learning more effective. Besides being 
efficient and professional he is pedagogically sensitive and gives learners confidence in their ability 
to learn, revealing and developing their individual talents and taking into consideration the/ir personal 
merits. 
We accept that the petitioner is a talented mathematics teacher who is admired by his colleagues and students, 
but there is no evidence establishing that his accomplishments rise to the level of a contribution of major 
significance in his field. With regard to the personal recommendation of individuals from institutions where 
the petitioner has worked, the source of the recommendations is a highly relevant consideration. These letters 
are not first-hand evidence that the petitioner has earned sustained acclaim outside of his affiliated 
institutions. If the petitioner's reputation is mostly limited to those institutions, then he has not achieved 
national or international acclaim. Without extensive documentation showing that the petitioner's work has 
Page 9 
been unusually influential or highly acclaimed throughout the greater field, we cannot conclude that his work 
rises to the level of a contribution of major significance. 
In a September 16, 2002 letter accompanying the petition, counsel asserts that the petitioner's ISSEP awards 
and Moscow Aviation Institute Certificate of Honor meet this criterion. The petitioner's awards, however, 
have previously been addressed under the awards criterion at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(3)(i). In a December 3, 
2003 letter responding to the director's request for evidence, counsel argues that published materials authored 
by the petitioner (a 2003 textbook entitled Numerical methods of nonlinear optimization: algorithms and 
programs and a 2003 paper entitled "On the problem of global optimization of a multivariable function") also 
meet this criterion. The petitioner's publications, however, relate to the "authorship of scholarly articles in the 
field" criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Here it should be emphasized that the regulatory criteria are 
separate and distinct from one another. Because separate criteria exist for awards, original contributions of 
major significance, and authorship of scholarly articles, CIS clearly does not view these 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. Further, regarding 
the petitioner's paper and textbook from 2003, we note that this material was published subsequent to the 
petition's filing date. 
 A petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 
 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.2(b)(12); see Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 45. Accordingly, the AAO will not consider the 2003 
publications in this proceeding. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the$eld, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner initially submitted a document entitled "List of Proceedings" which listed a total of 32 articles, 
scientific reports, conference materials, and student manuals prepared by him. However, no actual copies of 
the published material from this list were submitted. The plain language of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
tj 204.5(h)(3)(iii), however, requires "Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media." The petitioner's listing of his publications and 
scientific reports does not meet this requirement. Simply going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 
22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft ofCalzjornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. 
Comm. 1972)). 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a manual (textbook) entitled 
Numerical methods of nonlinear optimization: algorithms and programs. This manual bears text stating 
"Authorized at session of Editorial Advice November 28,2002" and "Moscow Publishing House MA1 2003." 
The petitioner also submitted a paper entitled "On the problem of global optimization of a multivariable 
function" bearing a date of January 22, 2003. On appeal, the petitioner submits evidence showing that his 
paper "To a problem of global optimization of functions of many variables in MATLAB environment" was 
included among numerous papers accepted for a May 2004 scientific conference. All of this evidence was 
published subsequent to the petition's filing date. A petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at the time 
Page 10 
of filing. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12); see Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 45. Accordingly, the AAO will 
not consider this evidence in this proceeding. 
The record includes no evidence showing that the petitioner has authored scholarly articles in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media as of the petition's filing date. Nor is there is evidence of the 
field's reaction to the petitioner's articles in the form of citation indices showing that his articles are frequently 
cited by others in his field. Frequent citation by independent researchers would demonstrate widespread 
interest in, and reliance on, the petitioner's work. If, on the other hand, there are few or no citations of his 
work, suggesting that that work has gone largely unnoticed by the greater filed, then it is reasonable to 
conclude that his published work is not nationally or internationally acclaimed. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
In this case, we find that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate his receipt of a major internationally 
recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria that must be satisfied to establish the sustained 
acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an extent that he may 
be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the 
very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him significantly above 
almost all others in his field at the national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established 
eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
This petition should never have been approved, and the director, upon learning of this error, essentially had no 
choice but to revoke the erroneous approval. As stated previously, pursuant to section 205 of the Act, CIS may 
revoke the approval of a petition "at any time for good cause shown." The director's realization that a petition 
was incorrectly approved is good and sufficient cause for revoking the approval of an immigrant petition. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 582. Therefore, we concur with the director's decision to revoke the approval 
of the petition. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(5) requires "clear evidence that the 
alien is coming to the United States to continue work in the area of expertise. Such evidence may include 
letter(s) from prospective employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a 
statement from the beneficiary detailing plans on how he or she intends to continue his or her work in the 
United States." The record includes no such evidence. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by 
the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 200 1 ), affd. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. As always, the burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the 
- 
Page 11 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. The burden remains with the petitioner in revocation 
proceedings to establish eligibility for the benefit sought under the immigration laws. Matter of Cheung, 12 
I&N Dec. 715 (BIA 1968), affirmed in Matter of Estime, 19 I&N 450 and Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 582, 
590. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.