dismissed EB-1A Case: Performing Arts

r IdentifYing data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of per<;onal pn V 1CY 
PlmTJCCOPY 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Date: NOV 1 8 2010 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(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 by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion. The fee for a Form 1-290B is currently $585, but will increase to $630 on November 23,2010. Any 
appeal or motion filed on or after November 23, 2010 must be filed with the $630 fee. Please be aware that 
8 C.F.R. 9 I 03.5(a)( I )(i) requires that any motion must be filed within 30 days ofthe decision that the motion 
seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
S _ Perry Rhew 
r Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas 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 classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the performing arts, pursuant 
to section 203(b)(1 )(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1 )(A). 
The director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim necessary to quality for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and additional evidence.' For the reasons discussed below, the 
petitioner has not established her eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. Specifically, the 
petitioner has submitted qualitying evidence under only one of the ten regulatory criteria of which an 
alien must satisty at least three. 
I. Law 
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 benetit 
prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101 st Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990): 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to 
1 The .titioner has retained new counsel on appeal. We note that the petitioner's previous attorney,_ 
was suspended from practicing before the Board of Immigration Appeals, immigration courts and 
the Department of Homeland Secur~h 11,2009. 
For clarity, however, we will refer t~ as "prior counsel" in this deciSIOn. 
Page 3 
those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. ld.; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award) or 
through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the following ten categories of 
evidence. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt oflesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the iield for which 
classiiication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields; 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation; 
(iv) 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 allied field of specialization for which classification 
is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional 
or major trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
Page 4 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the 
court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation 
of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion? With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while uscrs may have raised legitimate concerns 
about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have 
been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Id. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner 
failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfY the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at 1122 (citing to 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits determination" as the corollary to this 
procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, uscrs determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that.his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered "sustained 
national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary ability" visa. 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A)(i). 
Id. at 1119-20. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits determination. In reviewing Service Center decisions, the AAO will 
apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO will conduct a 
new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step analysis rather than the 
two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(iv); So/tane v. DO),381 
F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004); Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 
(E.D. Cal. 2001), aird, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003) (recognizing the AAO's de novo authority). 
2 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.S(h)(3)( vi). 
Page 5 
II. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria3 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The record contains no assertion that the petitioner has submitted qualifying evidence that meets the 
requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). Nevertheless, we will address the evidence 
of record that relates to that criterion. 
The petitioner submitted a Certificate of Recognition from the Thin Gyan Burmese Arts and Culture 
Association and an Award of Appreciation from the Cyclone Nargis Relief Committee. The petitioner 
also submitted a letter from 
asserting that the station awarded the petitioner second prize as most sold music album in 
The petitioner did not submit any evidence to establish that the certificate of recognition and award of 
appreciation are nationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence. letter, 
the petitioner relies on this letter as evidence of her award for record sales rather than the award itself. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i) requires the submission of primary evidence unless the 
petitioner is able to document that primary evidence is either unavailable or does not exist. Even where 
primary and secondary evidence does not exist, the petitioner must submit affidavits rather than letters. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i). The petitioner has not documented that her original award is unavailable or 
does not exist or that secondary evidence of the award, such as media coverage, is also unavailable or 
nonexistent pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(ii). Thus, we need not rely on in lieu 
of the award itself. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
Published material about the alien in pr(~ressional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classt/ication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author (~r the material, and any necessary translation. 
The petitioner submitted the following news article: 
1. An August 2007 article in the Mandalay Gazette naming the petitioner's 
performance as the "significant part" of the New York Summer Burmese Water 
Festival and a lengthy interview with the petitioner in the same issue. The 
, The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence 
not discussed in this decision. 
Page 6 
circulation is listed on the front page as 12,000. The paper has a California 
address. 
2. A September 2007 article in the same publication about the petitioner's 
perfonnance for a Buddhist Temple fundraiser in San Francisco. 
3. A translation of a British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) interview about a 
Fundraising concert for Bunnese patients with HIV / AIDS at the University of 
Grove Campus and confinnation of the interview trom the 
4. A letter trom the Chief of the Bunnese Service of Voice of America (VOA) 
confinning that the VOA interviewed the petitioner in June 2007. 
5. An April 2000 interview of the petitioner in Fashion Image Monthly Magazine. 
6. A 1996 article about the petitioner in a Japanese "newsletter." 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted letters from the 
editor of Shwe Amyutae Magazine confinning that the magazine has interviewed the beneficiary. The 
director questioned the availability of VOA and BBC in Bunna. On appeal, the petitioner submitted 
materials from the BBC's website confinning that it enjoys 7.l million listeners in Bunna. The 
petitioner also submitted materials continning that VOA reaches 32 percent of Bunnese annually. We 
are satisfied that they constitute major media in Bunna. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has submitted qualifYing evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Evidence oj'the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge oj'the vvork oj' 
others in the same or an alliedfield (?lspecificationfhr which classification is sought. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted an October 2009 
issue of the Mandalay Gazette reporting on the petitioner's duties as a judge at a September 2009 
Bunnese American Medical Association event. The petitioner also submitted a letter from the 
president of the association confinning that the beneficiary served as a judge at this event. The director 
concluded that the beneficiary's service as a judge at a local event was insufficient. On appeal, counsel 
asserts that the director misinterpreted the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The petitioner filed the petition on September 22, 3008. The only evidence of the petitioner's service 
as a judge is trom September 2009, after the petition's tiling date. The petitioner must establish her 
eligibility as of the filing date. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 
49 (Reg'!. Comm'r. 1971). Thus, we cannot consider the petitioner's service as ajudge. 
Page 7 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) that predates the filing of the petition. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
Prior counsel initially asserted that the petitioner's contributions consist of singing original songs 
(claimed to be uncommon in Burma), "contributing" songs to the Burmese film industry and a unique 
and elegant style "studied by younger aspiring performers." Prior counsel referenced the August 2007 
Mandalay Gazette interview for the question as to why the petitioner, unlike most female artists, sings 
original songs. That question, however, does not appear in the Mandalay Gazette. Rather, it appears in 
the VOA interview. In fact, in the Mandalay Gazette the petitioner acknowledges that she does not 
write her own songs. Thus, it appears that she sings original songs other songwriters have written for 
her. Prior counsel also referenced several letters that praise the petitioner's talent. Prior counsel did not 
address the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) in response to the director's request for additional 
evidence. 
On appeal, counsel reiterates prior counsel's assertion regarding the question in the Mandalay Gazette 
about singing original songs. As stated above, however, prior counsel mischaracterized where the 
question occurred and the petitioner acknowledged in the Mandalay Gazette that she does not write her 
own songs. Counsel asserts that the evidence establishes that the petitioner stands apart from her peers. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be both 
original and of major significance. We must presume that the words "original" and "major 
significance" are not superfluous and, thus, that they have some meaning. To be considered a 
contribution of major significance in the field of music, it can be expected that the petitioner would 
have some demonstrable influence in the field. 
While the fact that the petitioner does not write her own songs does not preclude a finding that she 
has made original contributions unrelated to songwriting, it is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate 
what those original contributions might be. The record contains no evidence as to how the 
petitioner's music constitutes her own original contribution. 
The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. USCIS 
may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter 
q{ Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS 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; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's 
eligibility. See id. at 795; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that 
expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). USCIS may even give less 
Page 8 
weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way 
questionable. ld. at 795; see also Matter ofSoffid, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing 
Maller of Treasure Craft ofCalifiJrnia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'!. Comm'r. 1972)). 
The letters provided simply attest broadly to the petitioner's talent and standing in the field. Merely 
repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof 4 
The petitioner also did not submit corroborating evidence of original contributions in existence prior 
to the preparation of the petition, which could have bolstered the weight of the reference letters. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifYing evidence that meets the plain 
language requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Evidence (~fthe di,\play of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
Prior counsel initially asserted that the petitioner's performances at fundraising events serves as 
qualifYing evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). The director concluded that 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii) is not relevant to performing artists. On appeal, counsel relies on a dictionary 
definition for "exhibition" to conclude that this criterion does apply to performing artists. Counsel also 
states that there is no case law to support the director's conclusion. 
We agree with the director that performing is not synonymous with displaying one's work. Ifwe were 
to accept counsel's argument that a performance artist like the petitioner meets this criterion, it would 
render the regulatory requirement that a beneficiary meet at least three criteria meaningless as this 
criterion would effectively be collapsed into the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). The ten 
criteria in the regulations are designed to cover different areas; not every criterion will apply to every 
occupation. This interpretation has been upheld by at least one district court .. See Negro-Plumpe v. 
Okin, 2:07-CY-820-ECR-RJJ at 8-9 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (finding that the AAO did not abuse its 
discretion in finding that a performance artist should not be considered under the display criterion). 
While we acknowledge that a district court's decision is not binding, the court's reasoning indicates 
that the AAO's interpretation of the regulation is reasonable. 
Therefore, while the petitioner's performances have evidentiary value for other criteria, they cannot 
serve to meet this criterion. Instead, as the petitioner's performances are far more relevant to the 
aforementioned "leading or critical role" criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) and the 
"commercial successes in the performing arts" criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x), they will be 
discussed separately within the context of those criteria. We will also consider these performances as 
part of our final merits determination. 
4 Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); 
Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Similarly, USCIS need not accept 
primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 
(D.C. Dist. 1990). 
Page 9 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, prior counsel asserted that the petitioner 
performed in a leading or critical role for a Burmese Chinese Buddhist Temple fundraising event, the 
New York Summer Burmese Water Festival and the University of Maryland HIV/AIDS Burmese 
fundraising event. As stated above, the petitioner submitted published material covering her 
performance at these events. The petitioner also submitted a letter fro~onfirming 
that he has attended concerts where the petitioner was the "featured singer." 
We are not persuaded that every artist who performs at a benefit concert performs a leading or critical 
role for the organization or establishment that organized the concert. While the Mandalay Gazette 
asserts that the petitioner performed in a significant role at the New York Summer Burmese Water 
Festival, the petitioner has not demonstrated that this festival enjoys a distinguished reputation 
nationally that sets it apart from the myriad of cultural events that take place across the country. 
Moreover, the record does not establish that the concerts where the petitioner was the "featured signer" 
enjoy a distinguished reputation. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office receipts or record. 
cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
The petitioner initially submitted a letter 
stating that the petitioner's greatest hits album in 2002 "up to cassettes, compact lSCS 
and video compact dis~ the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner 
submitted a letter from ____ of stating that the beneficiary's 
albums "are very successful for high popularity and ic lovers" and "in top sale 
list." In addition, a coowner of states: "Hundreds of 
thousands of her tapes and CDs have been sold, if not petl also submitted what 
purport to be payments to the petitioner. The evidence does not establish the source of these payments. 
As discussed above, the petitioner further submitted the letter from __ asserting City FM Radio 
awarded the petitioner second prize as most sold music album in 20"O"5.""'Therector concluded that the 
petitioner had not submitted contracts or suflicient evidence of payments to support the assertions in the 
above letters. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner provided letters from independent sources and relies on 
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) cases that involve family based petitions. The BIA has held that 
Page 10 
testimony should not be disregarded. See, e.g., Matter olS-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BlA 2000) 
(citing cases). The BIA also held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction of 
corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." Id. If testimonial evidence 
lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit 
corroborative evidence. Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BlA 1998). 
The letters submitted lack specificity and do not provide the actual sales data. 
inconsistent, with_ attesting to "up to" 250,000 in album sales and 
possibility of sales in the millions. As stated above, the petitioner relies on letter as 
evidence of her award for record sales rather than the award itself. We reiterate that the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i) requires the submission of primary evidence unless the petitioner is able to 
document that primary evidence is either unavailable or does not exist. As the petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the award is unavailable, we need not rely on_ letter in lieu of the award 
itself. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifYing evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). 
Summary 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted the requisite evidence under at least three of the 
evidentiary categories for which evidence must be submitted to meet the minimum eligibility 
requirements necessary to qualifY as an alien of extraordinary ability. Nevertheless, we will review the 
evidence in the aggregate as part of our final merits determination. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, we must next conduct a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
'"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien has sustained 
national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of 
expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
Ultimately, the evidence in the aggregate does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. The petitioner, a singer, relies on a 
small number of radio interviews, media coverage in a U.S. newspaper printed in a language the 
majority of Americans cannot comprehend, radio airplay, appearances at fundraisers, inconsistent and 
ambiguous attestations of album sales and vague letters praising her talent. Performing and radio play 
are inherent to the petitioner's occupation as a singer. The petitioner has not established that the venues 
where she has performed are consistent with national or international acclaim. The media coverage in 
the record is minimal. The remaining evidence is ambiguous or conclusory. Thus, the petitioner's 
Page 11 
evidence is not consistent with sustained national or international acclaim in the United States or 
Burma. 
III. Conclusion 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself as a 
singer to such an extent that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or international 
acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence indicates that the 
petitioner shows talent as a singer, but is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set her 
significantly above almost all others in her 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. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.