dismissed EB-1A Case: Photography

identitymg data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
inVasIon of personal pnvacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: JUL 0 5 2D12 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department or I-Iomcland ~ccurit) 
I),S. Cili/('I1 .... hip and I rlHtlilLLIIiUI1 Sl'r\ ict;" 
Admini<;'lf()[ivc Appeal." ()fliee (i\:\U) 
~O rvla~"achu':>l'lb /\v(,,, N.\V., t\:IS 2()')i) 
\\iashi!l210n. DC :~O';;2()·.'J){)(1 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, H USc, § 1153(b)( 1 )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must he made to that office. 
If you hclieve the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you havc additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to rcopen 
in accordance with the instructions on Form 1-29013, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fcc of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 c'F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 c'F.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(i) requires any motion to be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Texas 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 as a photographer. The director determined that the petitioner had 
not established the requisite extraordinary ability and failed to submit extensive documentation of 
her sustained national or international acclaim. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and 
present "extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the 
Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that 
an alien can establish sustained national 'or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time 
achievement of a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the 
regulation outlines ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through 
(x). The petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory 
categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner meets the regulatory categories of evidence at 
8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), (vi), and (vii). For the reasons discussed below, the AAO will 
uphold the director's decision. 
I. LAW 
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. 
-Page 3 
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 101s1 Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" 
refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. [d.; 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 ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
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. USClS, 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 AACYs 
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 USClS 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." [d. 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)." [d. at 1122 
(citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3». 
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 this matter, the AAO will review the evidence under 
the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not submit qualifying 
evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy 
the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. [d. 
I 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. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. § 2045(h)(3)(vi). 
Pegc 4 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criterii 
J)oCllmentation of the alien's receipl of lesser nationally or inlernationallv 
reco[inized prizes or awards J(Jr excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from _ Department Administrator, School of Visual 
Communication, Scripps College of Communication, Ohio University, stating: 
[The petitioner 1 was awarded the Enlight Fellowship to study visual communication at Ohio 
University in the Scripps College of Communication and the School of Visual 
Communication. [The petitioner] was one of the first two students selected for this new 
fellowship. The two students were selected based on talent, undergraduate 
accomplishments and recommendation. 
[The petitioner'sj graduate degree in anthropology Irom the University of Colorado, coupled 
with her acclaimed portfolio and a strong recommendation by academic leaders and Mr. 
Rich Clarkson, the former Director of Photography at National Geographic Magazine 
quickly made her an outstanding candidate. 
The Enlight fellowship is a fully funded tuition scholarship with a cost of living stipend that 
underwrites a student for two years of education in the School of Visual Communication. 
[The petitioner's] skills as a visual journalist gained her internships at the Cleveland Plain 
Dealer, the Dallas Mornin[i News and the Washington Post while on her Enlight 
Fellowship. 
[The petitioner] completed her graduate degree in August of 2010. 
Regarding the petitioner's Enlight Fellowship, the AAO notes that academic study is not a field 
of endeavor, but training for a future field of endeavor. As such, academic scholarships and 
student fellowships cannot be considered prizes or awards in the petitioner's field of endeavor. 
Significantly, this office has held, in a precedent decision involving a lesser classification than the 
one sought in this matter, that academic performance, measured by such criteria as grade point 
average. is not a specific prior achievement that establishes the alien's ability to benelit the 
national interest. Matter oj' New York State Del' 't oj' Tramp., 22 I&N Dec. 215, 21 Y, n.6 
(Comm'r 1998). Thus, academic performance is certainly not comparable to the awards criterion 
set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(i), designed to demonstrate an alien's eligibility for this more 
exclusive classification. Moreover, competition for university scholarships and graduate 
fellowships is limited to other students. Experienced professional photojournalists do not seek 
student scholarships. The petitioner's Enlight Fellowship represents financial support for her 
graduate studies at Ohio University rather than a nationally or internationally recognized prize or 
2 On appeal. the petitioner does not claim to meet any of the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. 
Page 5 
award for excellence in the field of endeavor. There is no documentary evidence demonstrating 
that the petitioner's fellowship was recognized beyond her alma mater and therefore 
commensurate with a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in 
the field. 
The petitioner submitted evidence showing that she received a Silver award in the "Feature" 
category of the Visual Culture Awards (VCA) photography contest in 2008. The petitioner also 
submitted information about the contest printed from its website at http://www.\ij~J!.I! 
cultureawards.com/2008/. The documentation submitted Irom the contest's website indicates that 
2227 images were submitted by individuals from 38 countries as entries in 19 different categories 3 
The submitted information does not indicate how many entries competed in the "Feature" category 
where the petitioner received an award. Moreover, a competition may be open to contestants from 
throughout a particular country or countries, but this factor alone is not adequate to establish that 
an award or prize from the competition is "nationally or internationally recognized." Further. the 
contest information submitted from the VCA' s own website is not sufficient to demonstrate that the 
petitioner's Silver award is a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in the 
field of endeavor. USCIS need not rely on self-promotional material. See Braga v. Poulos, No. 
CV 06 5105 SJO (c. D. CA July 6, 2(07) atl'd 2009 WL 604888 (9th Cir. 2(09) (concluding that 
the AAO did not have to rely on self-serving assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the 
magazine's status as major media). The petitioner also submitted an internet screenshot of a 
single page of Google search results for the term visual cltltltre awards 4 The AAO notes that the 
first four Google search results on the screenshot reflect internet links to the VCA's website. As 
shown by thc preceding example, Google search results are often duplicative. Further, they are 
not always about the particular object of the search. For these reasons, thc pctitioner's 
submission of a single Google search results screenshot is generally not a reliable gauge of 
recognition in one's lield of endeavor. Regardless, none of the search results specifically 
mention the petitioner's Silver award in the Feature category. Moreover, without copies of the 
full articles identified in the Google search results, the AAO cannot conclude that they are about 
the petitioner's Silver award or that her specific award from the VCA equates to a nationally or 
internationally recognized award for excellence in photography. 
The petitioner submitted documentation indicating that she attended the "Fall Digital Photography 
at the Summit" one-week training workshop in Jackson, Wyoming in 2006. The petitioner asserts 
that she received the "Spirit Award" at the preceding photography workshop stating: "The evidence 
for the Spirit Award I won in 2006 is an e-mail I sent to Rich Clarkson on Oct. I O. 2006" The 
petitioner submitted a copy of her October 10, 2006 e-mail that she sent to Rich Clarkson, who runs 
the workshop, thanking him for the Spirit Award. In response to the director's request lor evidence. 
the petitioner submitted an October 21, 2010 letter from William Allen, former Editor-in-Chief, 
National Geographic magazine, stating: 
, "Each category wtll be judged by a single jury member who will award the Gold. Silver. Bronze and up to seven 
Award of Excellence recipients." See bJ.UL:/hY\A/\v.vi.)LLilL(~Lll_lJ.[caY{nLQ'ic_~.J]JJJL2Jl.o~-1':' accessed on June 11,2012, copy 
incorporated into the record of proceedings . 
.! The Googlc screens hot submitted by the petitioner indicates that the search term visual clIlture award.'·; was not 
placed in quotes, lhcn:by generating many results unrelated to the yeA photography contest. 
Page 6 
A few years ago I was teaching a photographic workshop primarily for professional 
photographers and those who aspired to such a career. One student impressed the faculty so 
much that she was given our top award for her talent, drive and spirit. That young woman 
was [the petitioner], That award is not given lightly by some of the top photographers and 
editors in the world. It speaks to both her exceptional talent now and to the potential to 
become someone special in the field - one of the people who can make a difference in the 
world. 
Mr. Allen· s letter does not specify the name of the award or the date when it was received by the 
petitioner. Rather than submitting primary evidence of her receipt of the 2006 Spirit Award, the 
petitioner instead submitted an October 10, 2006 e-mail that she sent to Rich Clarkson thanking him 
for the Spirit Award and an October 21, 2010 letter from workshop instructor William Allen written 
more than four years later. A petition must be filed with any initial evidence required by the 
regulation. il C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(I). The nonexistence or other unavailability of primary evidence 
creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i). According to the same 
regulation, only where the petitioner demonstrates that primary evidence does not exist or cannot be 
obtained may the petitioner rely on secondary evidence and only where secondary evidence is 
demonstrated to be unavailable may the petitioner rely on affidavits. Where a record docs not 
exist, the petitioner must submit an original written statement on letterhead from the relevant 
authority indicating the reason the record does not exist and whether similar records for the time 
and place are available. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(ii). The October 21, 2010 letter from Mr. Allen 
and the October 10, 2006 e-mail authored by the petitioner do not comply with the preceding 
regulatory requirements. Moreover, while the petitioner submitted materials about the 
"Photography at the Summit" workshop and its faculty, there is no specific mention of the Spirit 
Award in the submitted materials. There is no evidence showing that the Spirit Award IS a 
nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in the field of photography. 
With regard to the petitioner's Enlight Fellowship, her Silver award in the "Feature" category of the 
YCA photography contest, and her Spirit Award from the Photography at the Summit student 
workshop in which she participated, the petitioner did not submit evidence of the national or 
international recognition of her particular awards. The plain language of the regulation at 
il C.F.R. § 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 her burden to establish every element 
of this criterion. In this case, there is no documentary evidence demonstrating that the 
petitioner's specific awards were recognized beyond the presenting organizations and therefore 
commensurate with nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in 
the field. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Docllmentation of the alien's memhership in associations ill the field j(Jr which 
classification is sOllght, which reqllire olltstanding achievements oj" their 
members, as jlldged hy recognized national or international experts in their 
disciplines or fields. 
Page 7 
The AAO withdraws the director's finding that the petitioner meets this regulatory criterion, [n 
order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a 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 submitted an internet screenshot and her identification card from the American 
Society of Media Photographers (ASMP) indicating that she has been a "General" member since 
2010. The petitioner also submitted a letter from Rex Curry, a former board member of the 
Dallas chapter of the ASMP, stating: 
ASMP represents the best editorial, commercial and fine art photographers in the country. 
Its membership application is very competitive. The applicants must be sponsored by 
two general members and their portfolios must pass strict reviews by the national ASMP 
board as well as the local chapter board. 
The petitioner states: 
To join ASMP, a photographer MUST follow the steps and rules below: 
I. Convince two general ASMP members with his/her work that he/she is qualified for 
the ASMP general membership 
2. Be sponsored by two ASMP general members to as [sic 1 he/she submits the 
membership application 
3. Submit a portfolio website to ASMP 
4. The ASMP local chapter board reviews the applicant's portfolio 
5. The ASMP national board reviews the applicant's portfolio 
6. The applicant can be an ASMP general member ONLY atier he/she passes the two 
strict portfolio reviews. 
The petitioner does not specify the source of the above information or submit material from the 
ASMP listing the preceding six "steps and rules."; Going on record without supporting 
S Regarding the ASMP's "General Member" eligibility requirements, the society's website states: "Photographers 
actively and professionally engaged in media photography arc eligible for General Membership with all of its 
henefits and privileges. General Members must be photographers who have three or more consecutive years or 
puhlication experience, and whose primary source of earned income (greater than 50%) is from the licensing of their 
photography. ASMP requires applicants to be sponsored by two ASMP General Members. General Members have 
full voting privileges. . .. Membership Cost: $335 and one-time Find a Photographer fee $50. Join hy filling out 
the application form online." See hHlr//~t~.nm~.()rgLarlicks/mcmbcrship-calq.!orics.html, accessed on June 12,2012, 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Malter of Sojjici, 22 I&N Dec. 158. 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure 
Crafi of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg' I Comm'r 1972)). Regardless, the AAO cannot 
conclude that being sponsored by two ASMP members and submitting one's portfolio for review 
by ASMP board members equate to outstanding achievements. Further, there is no documentary 
evidence showing that the ASMP's portfolio review boards are comprised of "recognized 
national or international experts" in photography as required by the plain language of this 
regulatory criterion. 
In addition to the aforementioned deficiencies, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires "membership in associations" in the plural. The use of the plural is 
consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive evidence. Section 203(b)(I)(A)(i) of the 
Act. Significantly, not all of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are worded in the plural. 
Specifically, the regulations at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (ix) only require service on a 
single judging panel or a single high salary. When a regulatory criterion wishes to include the 
singular within the plural, it expressly does so as when it states at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(8) 
that evidence of experience must be in the form of "letler(s)." Thus, the AAO can infer that the 
plural in the remaining regulatory criteria has meaning. In a different context. federal courts 
have upheld lJSCIS' ability to interpret signiticance from whether the singular or plural is used 
in a regulation. See Maramjaya v. USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at 12 (D.C. Cir. March 
26,2008); Snapnames.com Inc. v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 at * 10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2(06) 
(upholding an interpretation that the regulatory requirement for "a" bachelor's degree or "a" 
foreign equivalent degree at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(2) requires a single degree rather than a 
combination of academic credentials). Therefore, even if the petitioner were to establish that her 
"General" membership in the ASMP meets the elements of this regulatory criterion, which it does 
not, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires evidence of the 
petitioner's membership in more than one association requiring outstanding achievements of its 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not establ ished that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relatinR to the alien '.I' work in the field for which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
allY necessary translation. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner 
failed to establish her eligibility. On appeal. the petitioner docs not contest the direetor's 
findings for this criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this 
issue to be abandoned. Sepulveda v. u.s. Att'y Gell., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11 th Cir. 20(5); 
Hris(ov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-2731201l, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2(11) 
copy incorporated into the record of proceedings. The AAO notes that the preceding requirements are not indicative 
of outstanding achievements. 
Page 9 
(the court found the plaintifrs claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the 
AAO). Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory 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 allied field of specification jiir which 
classification is sought. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner 
failed to establish her eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's 
findings for this criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this 
issue to be abandoned. Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885. at "9. 
Accordingly. the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
On appeal, counsel focuses on three articles authored by the petitioner in Chinese Journalist, 
Journalism Lover, and Journal of GlI{lngzholl University and asserts that the articles meet the 
plain language requirements of this regulatory criterion. The petitioner's appellate submission, 
however, includes only partial English language translations of the preceding articles. The 
English language translations accompanying the articles were not full and complete translations 
as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 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. [d. Moreover, while the 
petitioner previously submitted Chinese language online material about Chinese Journalist, 
Journalism Lover, and Journal of Cuangzhou University, the petitioner failed to provide certified 
English language translations of the submitted material as required by the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Thus, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that Chinese Journalist, 
Journalism Lover, and Journal of Guangzhou University are "professional or major trade 
publications or other major media." Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets 
this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence oj the di.lplay of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
The petitioner submitted documentary evidence demonstrating that she has displayed her work at 
artistic exhibitions and showcases. Accordingly. the AAO affirms the director's fInding that the 
petitioner meets the plain language requirements of this regulatory criterion. 
B. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three categories of 
evidence. 
Page 10 
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. 
Even if the petitioner had submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary 
categories, in accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits 
determination that considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has 
demonstrated: (I) a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the[ir 1 field of endeavor" 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)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While the 
AAO concludes that the evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small 
percentage at the very top of the field or sustained national or international acclaim, the AAO need 
not explain that conclusion in a final merits determination." Rather, the proper conclusion is that the 
petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three categories of evidence. 
Id. at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(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. 
"The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004). In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination as the office 
that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.r.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(ii). See also section 103(a)(I) nf the Act; section 
204(h) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1,20(3); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 c:.F.R. 
§ 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 45H, 460 (HIA (987) (holding that legacy INS, now 
users, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).