dismissed EB-1A Case: Nepalese Dance Choreography

t 
 U-S. Department of Homeland Security 
ident!fying dab deleted to 
 U. S. Citizenship and Immigration senices 
O- +  clear^^ wwmanted 
OfJice of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
prevbAr. Washington, DC 20529-2090 
invovzsicn Of pers~c J p~"acy 
 U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC COP 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
LIN 07 156 51067 
 MAY 0 4 2009 
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. 5 103.5 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. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
bJ.De4hb 
r ohn F. rissom 
p~ctin~ Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in 
the arts. The Director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, the petitioner argues that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3). 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim 
and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) 
have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals seeking 
immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 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. $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. 
4 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the 
petitioner must show that he has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on May 4, 2007, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a 
choreographer of Nepalese dance. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(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). Basring 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. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this classification merely by 
submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(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. 9 204.5(h)(2). 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. 
To hlfill this criterion, the petitioner initially submitted merits of appreciation, awards and acknowledgement 
letters. These included a merit of appreciation from Rupy's International School awarded "for dedication and 
contribution towards the school," dated December 7, 2005 and a certificate of appreciation from FIC 
Marketing Nepal to "praise worthy effort and active presentation," dated July 10, 2004. The petitioner then 
provided pictures of various awards and photographs of the petitioner holding awards without any translation 
andlor minimal explanation. A picture of the petitioner receiving an appreciation letter from Prince Paras Bir 
Bikram was also provided. However, the actual letter from the prince was not submitted. After a review of 
the initial evidence submitted, the Director issued an Request for Evidence ("RFE) dated March 4, 2008. In 
the RFE, the Director notified the petitioner that the evidence provided was insufficient to llfill this criterion. 
More specifically, the RFE requested that a copy of the award that clearly identifies the name of the award and 
recipient be provided. In response to the RFE, the petitioner provided photographs of the awards previously 
submitted, purportedly given to him by the Nepal Film Artists National Association, the Nepal German 
Association, Thakali Sewa Samiti, St. George's College, the Nepal Motion Picture, Dabar Anmol Motion Picture 
and St. Xavier's College. Although each award picture contained a caption that described the award and 
indicated that the petitioner was the recipient, the petitioner submitted no documentary evidence of his actual 
receipt of the awards. In addition, the petitioner provided no direct translations of the information contained on 
the awards with the appropriate certifications as required by 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(3). Accordingly, the evidence 
is not probative and will not be accorded any weight in this proceeding. On appeal, the petitioner does not 
claim this criterion is applicable to his case. Nonetheless, we will address this criterion. 
With regard to the award certificates provided by the petitioner, the Director states that the record does not 
include evidence showing the "significance and overall stature and prestige" of his awards. Additionally, the 
Director notes that the record fails to establish any of the awards are "indicative of national or international 
acclaim." We concur with the Director's finding that there is no evidence showing that these prizes constitute 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes for excellence in the petitioner's field, such as supporting 
evidence showing the prestige associated with receiving the awards or some other evidence consistent with 
national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. The plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 
C.F.R. 5 204.5(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. Moreover, the 
record even lacks general information about the competitions (such as the award criteria, the area from where 
participants were drawn, the number of entrants, or the percentage of entrants who earned some type of 
recognition). In addition, because the petitioner failed to submit evidence which demonstrates his actual 
Page 4 
receipt of the photographed awards and to include certified translations, the AAO cannot determine whether 
the evidence supports the petitioner's claims. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the Jield for which classiJication 
is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or$elds. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, the petitioner must show that 
the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to membership. 
Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum education or 
experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by colleagues or current 
members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding 
achievements. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is 
membership requirements rather than the association's overall reputation. 
The petitioner initially submitted his membership credentials for the Nepal Film Technician Association, the 
Film Artist Association of Nepal, the Nepal Dancer Association, and the Eurasia Reiyukai. In his WE, the 
Director requested information to demonstrate that membership in the organizations is "limited to only those 
with outstanding achievements in the field." In response to the WE, the petitioner provided a letter from the 
President of the Nepal Film Technician Association stating that membership in this group is "only given to 
the very few and selective personalities." On appeal, the petitioner resubmits the membership cards, as well 
as the aforementioned letter from the President of the Nepal Film Technician Association. Additionally, the 
petitioner submits another letter from the Secretary of the Nepal Dancer Association dated March 15, 2008. 
This letter states that the petitioner has been given lifetime membership in this group to acknowledge his 
"great talent and his devotion" and that membership is "only given to the selective personalities." 
The Director concluded that the petitioner failed to "establish that outstanding achievements are required for 
membership in any of these organizations." We agree and find that the record lacks evidence (such as 
membership bylaws or official admission requirements) showing that any of the groups require outstanding 
achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in the petitioner's 
field or an allied one. 
The letters provided by two of the organizations' leaders fail to state the requirements of membership or state 
what types of outstanding achievements are necessary for membership. The letters additionally lack evidence 
demonstrating that membership is judged by recognized national or international experts in the field. 
As such, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Published material 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 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 fiom a local publication or broadcast, or fiom a publication printed in a 
language that the vast majority of the country's population cannot comprehend. 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 initially submitted an August 10, 2001 music review in The Rising Nepal, wherein the article 
evaluates the petitioner's singing album. The article only reviews the petitioner's album and makes no 
mention of his work as a choreographer. This article therefore failed to meet the regulatory requirement that 
the publication must relate to the alien's work in the field for which the classification is sought. He also 
submitted an article from Nepal's Teen Glamour, entitled "Film 'Karan Ar~un.'" However, the article was 
not primarily about him but rather the film itself and included only two sentences mentioning the petitioner, 
each only stating he is the dance director for the film. The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires 
that the published material be "about the alien." The petitioner additionally provided three extractions written in 
English without certified translations fiom the following publications; Saptahik Jansatta, Annapuma, 
Gorkharpatra. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3), any document containing foreign language submitted to 
USCIS shall be accompanied by a full English language translation that the translator has certified as 
complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate from the 
foreign language into English. The petitioner has failed to submit the original documents from which the 
extractions were made. The preceding articles were accompanied by only partial English language 
translations and the individual translations were not certified by the translator as required by 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.2@)(3). Moreover, the article in the Gorkharpatra relates to his singing career, not to choreography, 
the field in which he is trying to obtain his classification. The petitioner also submitted photographs of 
himself appearing in various publications. However, as this criterion specifically requires an author, title, and 
translation, the publication of photographs do not qualify the petitioner under this criterion. The specific 
regulatory requirements reference published written work instead of visual work. As such, these photographs do 
not qualify the petitioner under this criterion. Regardless, the petitioner was not even mentioned by name in any 
of the captions underneath the photograph except for one. These articles also failed to contain the required 
translation as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3) either in 111 or at all. Lastly, the petitioner provided a 
summary statement regarding the petitioner being interviewed on Nepal Television. However, translations of 
such interview were not provided. Further, like photographs, a television interview does not meet the plain 
language of the regulation 
The Director requested additional evidence including the complete articles with the publication name, date 
and certified translations, if necessary. In response to the RFE, the petitioner resubmitted copies of 
documents previously submitted as well as new evidence to include a new article from Vishwaparikrama 
dated March 16-31, 2008. This article postdates the date of filing the petition. A petitioner, however, must 
establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $8 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 
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. 
49 (Cornm. 1971). Accordingly, the AAO will not consider this article in this proceeding. The petitioner also 
submitted articles from Expo 2000 Hannover Bild, Regensburg and Expo Journal with what appear to be 
incomplete or summary translations. Nonetheless, none of these articles even mention the petitioner and there 
are no captions for the photographs that identify him. Likewise, an article in the Donau-Post also provided 
only a summary translation. 
Finally, there is no evidence (such as circulation statistics) showing that any of the preceding articles 
submitted by the petitioner were printed in professional or major trade publications or some other form of major 
media. Many of the articles appear in regional papers rather than nationally or internationally circulated 
publications. Regional coverage or coverage in a publication read by only a small ethnic segment of a 
country's total population is not evidence of national or international acclaim. On appeal, the petitioner 
included an internet printout from www.mediaseen.com, purporting to show that the Annapurna Post is a 
widely circulated publication in Nepal. However, no evidence about this source, the reliability of its contents 
or any other information to support the assertions regarding the Annapurna Post was provided. Nonetheless, 
there is no evidence that the record contains an article from the Annapurna Post. There is only an extract that 
translates an article title as Hamal Annapurna Correspondence, which we cannot conclude is the same 
publication. The petitioner, on appeal, also argues that the Hannover Bild is a widely read publication in 
Europe. Similarly, only an internet printout was provided from www.mondotimes.com to support this claim, 
without any other evidence to substantiate its validity. Regardless, the translation of the article from 
Hannover Bild contained in the record appears to be only a partial translation that does not even mention the 
petitioner. 
As discussed above, the articles submitted by the petitioner were not written primarily about him. If 
mentioned at all, the articles only briefly mentioned the petitioner or captioned his name under a photograph. 
Moreover, many of the articles were not accompanied by the original document and by complete translations 
and instead only provide summary translations. Without complete translations, the actual content of the 
articles cannot be ascertained. See 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(3). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he 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 alliedJield of specijication for which classz$cation is sought. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3) provides that "a petition for an alien of extraordinary ability must be 
accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Evidence of the petitioner's participation as a 
judge must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. The weight given to evidence submitted to fhlfill the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. !j 204.5(h)(3)(iv), therefore, depends on the extent to which such evidence demonstrates, 
reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of 
endeavor. 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. !j 204.5(h)(2). For example, judging a 
national competition for top choreographers andfor dancers is of far greater probative value than judging a local 
competition for youth or novices. 
The petitioner initially provided a certificate of merit issued on November 20,2005 for judging an event at St. 
Xavier's College. This certificate does not indicate what competitive event was judged by the petitioner. 
Additionally, a letter was provided dated December 28,2006 by the Senior Director of the National Center of 
Dance thanking the petitioner for judging the annual folk, modern and classical dance contest of the 
organization. Another letter from the Principal of the Fluorescent English Higher Secondary School thanks 
the petitioner for his judging "various entertaining cultural programmes (programs)." Lastly, in a letter from 
the Organizer of the Aarati Culture Group dated December 26,2006, the petitioner is appreciated for judging 
a "dance competition." In response to the RFE, the petitioner provided an invitation letter from the National 
Center of Dance and one from the Aarati Culture Group. Neither invitation provided additional information 
concerning the nature of the competitions or the competitors. On appeal, the petitioner additionally submitted 
a letter from the director of Rupy's International School stating that the petitioner judged children in the Inter 
House Song and Dance Competitions in 2001. This is the only letter provided which describes the 
competitors at the event, which in this case were youths. 
The record lacks evidence establishing the level of prestige associated with judging the competitions in the 
record, the requirements necessary to become a judge in those competitions, and the names of the dancers he 
evaluated andlor their levels of expertise or other evidence of his judging that is indicative of this highly 
restrictive classification. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzjic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signzjicance in the field. 
The petitioner did not claim this criterion initially or on appeal. Nonetheless, the Director considered the 
several letters of recommendation that were submitted to be potential evidence of this criterion, and in his 
RFE specifically requested that the petitioner identify "original contributions and provide objective 
documentary evidence of their significance in the field." This additional requisite evidence was never 
provided and the Director did not find the petitioner satisfied this criterion. 
An example of one of the letters initially reviewed includes a letter from the Nepalese Embassy. 
[The petitioner]. . . has (made a) significant contribution in his field of performing dance art in 
Nepal.. . .. accomplishments to date have been very promising and we can expect a 
lot from him in the future as well. He is a truly dedicated and a bona fide artist. His 
contribution to the dance and choreography field is exemplary. I wish his a great success in 
his endeavors. 
The preceding letters of recommendation, as well as the other letters provided, discuss the petitioner's talent 
as a choreographer, his training, and examples of where he has performed. However, they fail to demonstrate 
that he has made original contributions of major significance in his field. The letters include no substantive 
Page 8 
discussion as to which of the petitioner's specific artistic achievements rise to the level of original 
contributions of major significance in the field. 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. While the petitioner's artistic 
talent 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 
influence on other performers nationally or internationally, nor does it show that the field has somehow 
changed as a result of his work. 
In this case, the letters of recommendation submitted by the petitioner are not sufficient to meet this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien 's work in thejeld at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The petitioner did not initially submit any identifiable evidence regarding this criterion. 
 The Director 
confirmed this in its RFE. In his denial, the Director also indicated that this criterion was not claimed and that 
the record does not establish eligibility for this criterion. Nonetheless, on appeal, the petitioner argues that 
various letters previously provided fulfill this criterion. In a letter from the Nepal-German Chamber of 
Commerce and Industry, an officer states that the petitioner was involved in many performances including the 
Himalayan Festival 1999 in Berlin, Germany, the World Exposition Expo 2000 in Hannover, Germany, and 
the Himalayan Road Show 2001 in various European countries. The letter boasts that the petitioner "is a 
reputable dancer and has experience of performing in various country promotion programmes (programs) and 
others in national as well as international" programs. Moreover, in another letter from the Nepal Tourism 
Board, the Assistant Manager stated the following performances in which the petitioner participated including 
Discover Nepal in 1999, Destination Nepal Campaign in 2002 and 2003, and the China Road Show in 2002. 
The director of the Nepal Festival of Music and Dance also indicates in his letter that the petitioner "has 
participated as Lead Dancer and Choreographer from Nepal's National Center of Dance" in the annual 
festival that began in 2003. 
The plain language of this criterion indicates that it is intended for visual artists (such as sculptors and 
painters) rather than for than for performing artists such as the petitioner. It is inherent to the performing arts 
to perform. Therefore, not every performance is a showcase or exhibition of the work of every performer. 
Without evidence that the petitioner's performances were comparable to the exclusive artistic showcases that 
might serve to meet this criterion for a visual artist, we cannot conclude that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Even if this criterion could be met by the petitioner's performances, it appears that the most recent performance 
occurred in 2003, four years prior to the petitioner filing for this classification. Such a lapse in time would be 
insufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim in the petitioner's field. Although the petitioner's participation in 
the Nepal Festival may have occurred more recently, the letter does not specifi the dates of his involvement. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the reference letters submitted on the petitioner's behalf are comparable 
evidence of the petitioner's extraordinary ability as a choreographer. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(4) 
allows for the submission of "comparable evidence" only if the ten criteria "do not readily apply to the 
beneficiary's occupation." The regulatory language precludes the consideration of comparable evidence in 
this case, as there is no evidence that eligibility for visa preference in the petitioner's occupation cannot be 
established by the ten criteria specified by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204,5(h)(3). Where an alien is simply 
unable to meet three of the regulatory criteria, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4) 
does not allow for the submission of comparable evidence. 
The reference letters submitted in support of this petition have already been addressed under the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. $5 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (iv) and (v). Further, there is no evidence showing that the 
documentation the petitioner requests re-evaluation of as comparable evidence constitutes achievements and 
recognition consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of her field. While 
reference letters can provide useful information about an alien's qualifications or help in assigning weight to 
certain evidence, such letters are not a substitute for objective evidence of the alien's achievements and 
recognition as required by the statute and regulations. The nonexistence of required evidence creates a 
presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(2)(i). Further, the classification sought requires "extensive 
documentation" of sustained national or international acclaim. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 
8 U.S .C. 8 1 153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The commentary for the proposed regulations 
implementing the statute provide that the "intent of Congress that a very high standard be set for aliens of 
extraordinary ability is reflected in this regulation by requiring the petitioner to present more extensive 
documentation than that required" for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). Primary 
evidence of achievements and recognition is of far greater probative value than the opinions of one's professional 
acquaintances. 
In this case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or 
that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(3). 
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 a national or international level. 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 AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 3 557(b) ("On appeal 
from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in making the initial 
decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also Janka v. US. Dept. of Transp., 
NTSB, 925 F.2d 1 147, 1 149 (9th Cir. 199 1). The AAO's de novo authority has been long recognized by the 
federal courts. See, e.g., Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.