dismissed EB-1A Case: Medical Informatics

i$endfsIbgdaUto 
preveyL zIrkyi-y 2:7~mm@d 
invasim ~f-&mal privacy 
U.S. Department of Ifomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
8, 
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 : 
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. 
rt P. wiemas~hief 
Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska 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 to classifL the beneficiary as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the sciences, 
pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
tj 1 153(b)(l)(A). The director determined the petitioner had not established the beneficiary's sustained 
national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. 
On appeal, counsel implies that the director found that the petitioner had submitted sufficient evidence 
relating to at least three of the regulatory criteria and that the director erred in not finding that the 
evidence satisfied the petitioner's burden. 
As will be discussed in more detail below, counsel mischaracterizes the director's findings. What 
counsel characterizes as the director's acknowledgement of the significance of various pieces of 
evidence is actually a reiteration of counsel's initial assertions, which the director then dismissed as not 
supported by sufficient evidence. For the reasons discussed below, we uphold the director's decision. 
Section 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 (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, 60898-9 (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. tj 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It 
should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that the beneficiary has sustained national 
or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition seeks to classify the beneficiary as an alien with extraordinary ability as a Director of 
Applied Clinical Informatics. On appeal, counsel asserts that the beneficiary's field of medical 
informatics is small and does not generate "celebrity-style" acclaim within the general population. We 
concur with counsel that the petitioner need only demonstrate that the beneficiary enjoys national or 
international acclaim within his field. Counsel then asserts, however, that it "necessarily follows" from 
the small nature of the beneficiary's field that his achievements "would be recognized by a very narrow 
and small group of people, rather than nationwide." The statute, however, requires national or 
international acclaim, albeit within the alien's field. Nothing in the statute or regulations suggests that 
the requirement of national or international acclaim can be waived for small fields. In fact, the statute 
and regulations do not exclude the possibility that there may be some fields that lack the potential for 
their top members to qualify for this highly exclusive classification. Finally, we note that acclaim 
implies recognition beyond one's immediate circle of colleagues. Thus, mere employment in more 
than one country does not automatically establish international acclaim. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 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 qualifj 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director required the evidence submitted to meet a given criterion 
independently establish national acclaim whereas it is the satisfaction of three criteria in the 
aggregate that ultimately establishes the necessary acclaim. Counsel cites Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 
440 (N.D. Ill. E.D. 1995) and Buletini v. INS, 860 F. Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich. S.D. 1994) in support 
of the appellate brief. 
In contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case law of a United States circuit court, the 
AAO is not bound to follow the published decision of a United States district court in matters arising 
within the same district. See Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 71 5 (BIA 1993). Although the reasoning 
underlying a district judge's decision will be given due consideration when it is properly before the 
AAO, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. Id. at 719. 
Moreover, the two cases cited by counsel do not suggest that evidence relating to a given criterion 
must be accepted as meeting that criterion with no analysis of the significance of the evidence in the 
field. The court in Muni, 891 F. Supp. at 445-446, expressly acknowledged that the submission of 
evidence relating to at least three criterion "does not mandate a finding that the [alien] has sustained 
national or international acclaim," but found fault with the failure by the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service (legacy INS, now Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS)) to explain why 
the evidence in that case was not sufficient in the aggregate. Similarly, the court in Buletini, 891 F. 
Supp. at 1234, acknowledges that CIS "must evaluate the quality, including the credibility, of the 
evidence presented to determine if it, in fact, satisfies the criteria." 
In the matter before us, while the director did state that the evidence submitted to meet individual 
criteria did not demonstrate acclaim on its own, we interpret the director's decision as finding that 
the documentation was not indicative of or even consistent with national or international acclaim. A 
petitioner cannot establish the alien's eligibility for this classification merely by submitting evidence 
that simply relates to at least three criteria. In determining whether an alien 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 if that statutory standard is to have any meaning. An 
"accomplishment" that is inherent to the field or is otherwise unremarkable cannot establish 
sustained national or international acclaim simply by being accompanied by evidence of two 
additional "accomplishments" that also fail to set the alien apart from most members of that field. 
Such a conclusion would be untenable as it would not limit this classification to that small 
percentage who have risen to the top of the field. Finally, as will be discussed below, for many of 
the criteria the petitioner claims the beneficiary meets, the evidence submitted does not even comply 
with the plain language requirements of the relevant regulation. 
The petitioner has submitted evidence that is claimed to meet the following criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in thejield of endeavor. 
Counsel initially asserted that the beneficiary's bonus, cash incentives and a preferred parking incentive 
from his former employer serve to meet this criterion. The director concluded that the awards were not 
nationally or internationally recognized as mandated by the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(i). On appeal, counsel asserts that the director "conceded the numerous prestigious prizes 
and awards earned by the beneficiary for his work in the field." 
As noted above, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3)(i) requires that any prize or award be 
nationally or internationally recognized to meet this criterion. We concur with the director that the 
record does not demonstrate that the beneficiary's incentives as an employee of Siemens Medical 
Solutions USA, Inc. are nationally or internationally recognized. For example, the most renowned and 
experienced members of the field, regardless of employer, do not aspire to win these incentives. 
Moreover, there is no evidence that the selection of those receiving the incentives is reported outside of 
Siemens. Ultimately, the incentives were simply issued in recognition of and as appreciation for good 
-- - 
I 
 The petitioner does not claim that the beneficiary meets any of the criteria not discussed in this decision and 
the record contains no evidence relating to those criteria. 
job performance at Siemens. Thus, these incentives cannot serve to meet the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3)(i). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classzJcation is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of the beneficiary's membership in the American Medical 
Informatics Association (AMIA), the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), the 
Israeli Medical Association and the Israeli Society of Anesthesiologists. The petitioner also submitted 
an unsigned letter purportedly from - Deputy Director of the Chaim Sheba Medical Center 
in Israel, confirming that the beneficiary meets the criteria of a system analyst and recommending him 
to be accepted as a member of the Israeli Society of System Analysts. An identification card in Hebrew 
accompanies this letter but is not accompanied by a full and certified translation as required pursuant to 
8 C.F.R. fj 103.2(b)(3). 
In addition, counsel initially asserted that the beneficiary's "membership" on the staff and faculty of 
various institutions serve to meet this criterion. 
The director did not address this criterion and counsel does not address it on appeal. The plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires that the beneficiary be a member of 
associations that require outstanding achievements of their members. Thus, a mandatory factor for this 
criterion is the membership requirements for the associations of which the beneficiary is a member. 
The petitioner failed to submit any evidence establishing the requirements for membership in the above 
associations other than the letter purportedly from . This letter, however, is unsigned and, 
thus, has little evidentiary value. Regardless, the letter implies that the only membership requirement 
for the Israeli Society of System Analysts is that the prospective member qualifl as a system analyst. 
Qualifjring for employment in an occupation is not an outstanding achievement in that occupation. 
Finally, a job is not a membership in an association. Thus, we will not consider the beneficiary's staff 
and faculty "memberships" under this criterion. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence to establish that the 
beneficiary meets this criterion, specifically, the membership requirements of the associations of which 
the beneficiary is a member. Thus, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedjeld of specification for which classiJication is sought. 
On July 18, 2003, Siemens Medical Solutions hired the beneficiary as a Systems Analyst VI. The 
petitioner submitted five letters from employees and former employees at Siemens discussing his role 
at that company. , a former system analyst at Siemens, asserts that he and the beneficiary 
worked on the company's new Computerized Physician Order Entry (CPOE) product in the Soarian 
Department (DC6). Within their department, "there were several specific modules each with its own 
team of analysts, managers, developers, designers, etc." According to , the beneficiary 
facilitated internal validation meetings with Siemens employed physicians. Georgian Grigore, a project 
manager and consultant with the Siemens Program and System Engineering (PSE) group, asserts that 
the beneficiary served as "primary medical advisor on a variety of medical informatics projects" and 
"facilitated internal validation meetings with Siemens-employed physicians on an IT solution." 
Counsel relies on a series of internal electronic mail messages to and from the beneficiary during his 
time at Siemens to meet this criterion. These messages demonstrate that the beneficiary was involved 
in organizing meetings with physicians to validate various systems and summarizing the feedback from 
these physicians. On September 2, 2004, the beneficiary received a message asking him to "review" 
pharmacy documents prior to a pharmacy analysis work session as Siemens had decided to utilize him 
across projects rather than on one project alone. The record also contains his comments on a "Materials 
Management System" document. Another message from the beneficiary reiterates his duty to "review 
the approvers/reviewers documents for 6 DUCs and Supp. specs that are part of ORMS 1.5." On 
January 25,2006, the beneficiary was asked to attend spring "review" meetings on a cardiology project. 
The director did not discuss this evidence and counsel does not address this criterion on appeal. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3)(iv) requires evidence that the beneficiary participated "as a judge," 
not merely that his regular employment duties included the review of work by his coworkers. The 
internal electronic mail messages document the typical sharing of ideas inherent to the design of 
electronic databases and systems. While the beneficiary's opinion was clearly valued by his employer, 
the statute contemplates acclaim and, thus, recognition beyond one's employer. Moreover, the use of 
the phrase "as a judge" implies an appointment to a formal judging position. While the petitioner need 
not demonstrate that the judging position required extraordinary ability, the position must be consistent 
with national or international acclaim. The record does not include evidence that the beneficiary 
formally served as an official judge of the work of others, such as but not limited to, evidence that the 
beneficiary served in a position in which he selected nominees or awardees for an award or that he 
served as an editor of a prestigious journal. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientiJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-rehted 
contributions of major signijicance in the$eld. 
Initially, counsel relies on the beneficiary's patents and patent applications to meet this criterion. The 
director concluded that the beneficiary had yet to receive acclaim for his patented technologies. On 
appeal, as stated above, counsel asserts that the evidence submitted to meet a given criterion need not 
establish acclaim on its own. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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. This office has previously stated that a patent is not 
necessarily evidence of a track record of success with some degree of influence over the field as a 
whole. See Matter of New York State Dep 't. of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 21 5, 221 n. 7, (Cornmr. 1998) 
(hereinafter "NYSDOT"). Rather, the significance of the innovation must be determined on a case-by- 
case basis. Id. Thus, a patent or patent application, while relevant to this criterion, must be 
accompanied by evidence of the patented technology's significance in the field if it is to be considered a 
contribution of major signzjicance. 
We acknowledge the submission of several reference letters. The opinions of experts in the field, 
while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful claim of sustained national or 
international acclaim. CIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as 
expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 1988). 
However, CIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition 
is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; CIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether 
they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. CIS may even give less weight to an opinion that 
is not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. Id. at 795; See 
also Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comrnr. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Regl. Commr. 1972)). 
In evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of widespread 
acclaim and vague claims of contributions are less persuasive than letters that specifically identify 
contributions and provide specific examples of how those contributions have influenced the field. 
In addition, letters from independent references who were previously aware of the petitioner through 
his reputation and who have applied his work are the most persuasive. Ultimately, evidence in 
existence prior to 'the preparation of the petition carries greater weight than new materials prepared 
especially for submission with the petition. An individual with sustained national or international 
acclaim should be able to produce unsolicited materials reflecting that acclaim. 
-, Director of the Acute Care Hospital at the Chaim Sheba Medical Center, lists five 
projects on which the petitioner worked at that center. 
 Specifically, the beneficiary configured, 
installed and/or designed a Datex information system for the anesthesiology department, a workforce 
scheduling and administration system used by 65 doctors on a regular basis, a point-of-care on-line help 
system sponsored by the European Society of Anesthesiologists, an infia-thecal chemotherapy database 
to monitor and follow-up on children undergoing chemotherapy and an anesthesia pre-op visit form. 
, Director of the Cardiothoracic Anesthesia Unit at the Chaim Sheba Medical 
- - 
Center, asserts that the beneficiary's Datex system "was the first system of the kind in Israel (actually 
our department was one of the pioneers in this area in the world)." asserts that the 
customization, troubleshooting and maintenance of the system "demanded [an] extraordinary amount 
of work and talent." 
The petitioner also submitted other letters from the beneficiary's colleagues in Israel that provide 
generalized praise of the beneficiary's work there. It is inherent to the beneficiary's field to install and 
customize information systems. The record lacks evidence that the Chaim Sheba Medical Center was 
ever noted in the trade or general media for its unique Datex information system or that the system is 
serving as a model for other hospitals. 
Asstated 
above, the beneficiary also coordinated several projects during his three years at Siemens. 
notes the complexity of the programs on which the beneficiary worked, praises the 
beneficiary's skills and asserts that the beneficiary was "widely recognized throughout DC6 as 
demonstrated by his participation on so many teams." The statute, however, requires national or 
international acclaim, which necessitates recognition beyond one's own employer. 
asserts that the beneficiary has received "widespread recognition from his peers and within 
the professional community" for his contributions to medical informatics. While 
 asserts 
that the beneficiary was active in the design and development of information systems for operating 
rooms, scheduling, pharmacy and cardiology departments, he does not provide any examples of these 
systems being licensed or otherwise utilized beyond Siemens. 
a former project architect for Siemens, asserts that the beneficiary proposed a "new 
system requirement documentation tool" and that based on the beneficiary's recommendations, "the 
tool used for capturing the requirements was adopted as the de-facto standard for communicating 
acceptance criteria for the product." The record lacks evidence that this tool was adopted as an industry 
de-facto standard beyond Siemens. 
All of the references discuss the importance of the beneficiary's unique knowledge in both information 
systems and medicine. The issue of whether the beneficiary has unique skills, however, is within the 
jurisdiction of the Department of Labor. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 22 1. 
The record establishes that the beneficiary's work at Siemens was original and valuable to Siemens. 
The record establishes that the beneficiary is listed as an inventor on patents and patent applications and 
that Siemens issued cash and other incentives to the beneficiary in recognition of his work there. 
Without additional evidence of the importance of the beneficiary's work to the industry as a whole, 
however, such as evidence that his work is widely licensed or otherwise adopted, we cannot conclude 
that his contributions are of major signiJicance. 
Finally, while the petitioner has been noted in the media for its efforts on automating its medical 
records and other processes, these mentions all predate the beneficiary's employment with the 
petitioner. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien S authorship of scholarly articles in the $el4 in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The record includes five medical articles coauthored by the beneficiary. The petitioner, however, seeks 
to classifv the beneficiarv as an alien of extraordinarv ability in the field of medical informatics. Dr. 
, a former fellow medical student with the- beneficiary, asserts that the beneficiary 
published an article on his computerized anesthesia chart. The record does not contain an article on this 
subject. The record does confirm, however, that the beneficiary presented work involving informatics 
at internal meetings, a conference in Israel and a conference in Bern, Switzerland. 
The director concluded that while the evidence related to this criterion, it did not set the beneficiary 
apart from other medical researchers. On appeal, counsel asserts that the director conceded that the 
beneficiary meets this criterion. 
As discussed above, the evidence submitted to meet a given criterion must be indicative of or consistent 
with national or international acclaim if that statutory standard is to have any meaning. As the 
beneficiary seeks to work in the field of informatics, we will only consider the beneficiary's conference 
presentations relating to that field. We are satisfied that presentations at major conferences, rather than 
internal symposia, are comparable to published articles as they provide a similar avenue for national or 
international exposure. The record contains evidence of two conference presentations beyond the 
beneficiary's internal presentations and a class lecture to business students in Detroit. 
While we concur with the director that medical researchers typically publish their findings, the 
beneficiary's field is informatics. The petitioner has not demonstrated, however, that informatics is a 
field where publication is unique or rare.2 Without evidence that the beneficiary's two conference 
presentations set him apart from other members of the informatics field, such as evidence that his 
conference presentations have been cited or have otherwise impacted the field, we cannot conclude that 
two conference presentations and no published articles in the field of informatics are sufficiently 
indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim to meet this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
2 
 The website www.informatics-review.com/journals lists 37 journals dedicated to medical informatics. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary "has won acclaim" 
for his current role with the petitioner. On appeal, counsel asserts that the director agreed that the 
beneficiary plays a critical role for the petitioner. 
We have already considered the beneficiary's contributions while employed at Siemens above. At 
issue for this criterion are the role the beneficiary was hired to fill and the reputation of the entity that 
hired him. 
The beneficiary's position title at Siemens was System Analyst VI. Without an organizational chart, 
we cannot conclude that this position is leading or critical for Siemens beyond the company's obvious 
need to hire competent system analysts. Finally, the record lacks evidence of Siemen's reputation 
nationally. 
Six months before the petition was filed, the petitioner hired the beneficiary as its Director of Applied 
Clinical Informatics. We concur with the director that the record establishes the petitioner's 
distinguished reputation nationally. The petitioner operates 44 hospitals and 379 clinics and employs 
56,000 full-time employees. The record includes the petitioner's organizational chart for Clinical 
Operations Improvement. The beneficiary and three other informatics directors report to the 
petitioner's "COY Assistant and "TIS" Administrative Support. Both of these employees report to the 
Chief Medical Informatics Officer, who reports to the Executive Vice President of Clinical Operations 
Improvement. The Executive Vice President, confirms the beneficiary's duties, 
including playing a leading role as a member of the quality indicators and performance improvement 
team, responsible for the management of biomedical device data integration and managing a $4 million 
budget proposal. 
We concur with counsel that the petitioner does not need to demonstrate that the beneficiary's role 
itself has earned him acclaim. We are satisfied that the beneficiary's role is sufficiently critical to 
minimally meet this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other sign2Jicantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field 
Counsel initially asserted that the beneficiary's current salary is 191 percent of the average salary in his 
occupation. confirms that the petitioner is paying the beneficiary an annual salary of 
$147,000. The petitioner submitted evidence that only 10 percent of "Medical and Health Services 
Managers" earn $12 1,190 or higher. 
The director quoted counsel's claims and concluded that the beneficiary's wages are not "dramatically 
higher than the 90~ percentile salary estimate for this profession." On appeal, counsel asserts that the 
director, "while conceding that this salary is well above the 9oth percentile, seems to require specific 
percentile information about the wage, even though this type of information is nowhere to be found as a 
requirement in law or the regulation." 
The regulation requires that the petitioner demonstrate that the beneficiary's remuneration is 
"significantly high" in relation to others in the field. We interpret that phrase to require evidence that 
the beneficiary's remuneration is comparable with the most renowned and experienced members of the 
field, not merely that it is well above the average. 
We concur that while the evidence establishes that the beneficiary's compensation is within the top ten 
percent in the larger field of "Medical and Health Services Managers," the petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the beneficiary's remuneration is "significantly high in relation to other Directors of 
Applied Clinical Informatics. Thus, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this 
criterion. 
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. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a 
system analyst or Director of Applied Clinical Informatics 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 indicates that the petitioner shows talent as a system analyst, but is not 
persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field. 
Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 
the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 136 1. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.