dismissed EB-1A Case: Rock Mechanics

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of .Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: - Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: MAR 0 4 2009 
LIN 07 161 52402 
IN RE: 
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. 8 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. 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). 
w 
%hn F. Grissom, Acting Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the 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. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in business. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the 
sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. More specifically, the director found that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5@)(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. 5 204.5@)(2). 
 The specific requirements for supporting 
documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition 
in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5@)(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. 
' Page 3 
This petition, filed on May 15, 2007, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a Rock Mechanics Scientist. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an 
alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time 
achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such 
an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to 
establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 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. 5 204.5(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. 5 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the 
following criteria. ' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted a January 3 1, 1985 certificate from the Federal Minister of Economic 
Cooperation for Germany certifying that he "successfully completed" vocational and advanced 
training in the field of mining engineering. The petitioner has not established that this certificate 
was presented for excellence in the field rather than fulfillment of his training requirements. 
Successful completion of a training course is not tantamount to the petitioner's receipt of a 
nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in mining engineering. 
The petitioner submitted a November 1 1,2000 Certificate of Commendation from his employer, the 
Korea Institute of Energy Research (KIER), recognizing him "for his contribution to this Institute 
with his creativity, diligence, and sincerity, thus being industrious in his work, and especially for his 
great contribution as a person in long service." This award from the petitioner's employer reflects 
institutional recognition rather than national or international recognition for excellence in the field. 
The petitioner submitted two "Award Conferment Verifications" from the Ministry of Commerce, 
Industry and Energy of the Republic of Korea. The first states that the petitioner received a Ministry 
of Industry Minister's Award, issuance number 43424, on December 3 1, 1998 for merit in "Mining 
Safety Management and Mine Damage Prevention." The second states that the petitioner received a 
Ministry of Energy Minister's Award, issuance number 3281, on March 16, 1990 for merit in the 
"Mining Mechanization Industry." In response to the director's request for evidence and again on 
appeal, the petitioner submitted information regarding the criteria for these awards. The petitioner's 
evidence included a March 23, 2007 letter discussing the Minister's Award from the Ministry of 
Commerce, Industry and Energy. This letter does not provide a name, address, telephone number, or 
any other information through which its author can be contacted. The petitioner also submitted 
documents entitled "Guidelines on the Business Awards by the Minister" and the "Government Prize 
1 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
. and Award Administration Guide." The "Guidelines on the Business Awards by the Minister" list 
the "Conditions of Qualification" as follows: 
I. Person who has served for more than 5 y[e]ars at the field which is applied. 
2. Person who has participated in the core business of the field achieved and merited, also 
accompanied with patriotic sentiment of nation and sense of duty, and become an 
exemplary to other both in public and private life. 
We note the issuance numbers of the petitioner's Minister Awards, 
 and suggesting 
multiple recipients. Awards regularly bestowed upon a large number of recipients are not consistent 
with being in "that small 
 who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." See 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). Further, the petitioner has not submitted evidence showing that his award 
commanded a significant level of recognition beyond the presenting agencies. 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 and it is his burden to establish every element of this criterion. 
For example, there is no evidence demonstrating that recipients of the Ministers Award were 
announced in professional journals or in some other manner consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top his field. In this case, the evidence submitted by the petitioner 
does not establish that his Minister Awards constitute nationally or internationally recognized awards 
for excellence in his field of endeavor. 
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 field for which 
classzjication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
In 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, 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 evidence of several commissions and committees to which he was 
appointed, but the record does not include evidence of the official admission requirements for these 
organizations. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted documentation of his 
membership in the Korean Society for Geosystem Engineering (KSGE) and the Korean Society for 
Rock Mechanics (KSRM). The petitioner also submitted the societies' articles governing their 
membership requirements. 
Page 5 
Article 2 of the KSGE's articles states: 
 "Individual members shall consist of those who are 
interested in the Korean Society for Geosystem Engineering and have professionally excelled in a 
scientific field approved by the Board of Directors." We cannot conclude that expressing interest in 
the Society and excelling professionally in one's field are tantamount to outstanding achievements. 
Article 1, Section 6, "Member's Qualifications" of the KSRM's articles states: "Individual member: 
A member who has earned a Ph.D. in a related field, and has exhibited excellence in a base rock 
course." We cannot conclude that earning an advanced degree and exhibiting excellence in a base 
rock course constitute outstanding achievements. 
In this case, there is no evidence showing that the preceding organizations require outstanding 
achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in the 
petitioner's field or an allied one. Accordingly, 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 alliedfield of specijkation for which classiJication is 
sought. 
The petitioner did not initially claim to meet or submit evidence relating to this regulatory criterion. 
On May 17, 2007, the director issued a notice requesting evidence for this criterion and the other 
regulatory criteria. The petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence did not address 
the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5@(3)(iv). On appeal, the petitioner claims to meet and 
submits evidence addressing this regulatory criterion. For example, the petitioner's appellate 
submission includes evidence showing that he served as ,an editorial director for the Journal of the 
Korean Society for Geosystem Engineering and as an independent Ph.D. examiner for various 
universities. With regard to the evidence and arguments relating to the petitioner's participation as a 
judge of the work of others, he was put on notice of required evidence and given a reasonable 
opportunity to provide it for the record before the visa petition was adjudicated. The petitioner 
failed to submit the requested evidence for this criterion and now submits it on appeal. However, the 
AAO will not consider this evidence for any purpose. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 
1988); Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). The appeal will be adjudicated based on 
the record of proceeding before the director. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he 
meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signzjkance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted five recommendation letters in support of his petition. 
 These letters 
describe the petitioner's qualifications as a scientist, his activities in the field, and the general 
importance of research in the area of rock mechanics, but they fail to establish that specific work 
attributable to him represents original contributions of major significance in rock mechanics or the 
mining industry. 
Director, Geoscience Engineering Division, Korean Institute of Geoscience and 
Mineral Resources (KIGAM), formerly the KIER, states: 
I have . . . had the opportunity to work with [the petitioner] here at KIGAM where he has 
served as a Principal Researcher. His dedication to the field of Rock Mechanics has yielded 
phenomenal findings and innovative safety measures used both during mine excavation and 
tunnel rehabilitation. His abilities to work with different sedimentary materials and to make 
real world predictions as to their behavior under stress has propelled him to the very top of 
this very competitive and important field. 
He has held the position of the Principal Researcher at the Korean Institute of Geoscience 
and Mineral Resources (KIGAM) since 1980 through the present date. He has established 
himself through meticulous research and ground breaking advances in the field of rock 
mechanics for over twenty years. . . . We at KIGAM have benefited tremendously from 
having such an extraordinary scientist on our staff. 
letter does not specifically identify the petitioner's "ground breaking advances in the 
field of rock mechanics." While the petitioner's work is no doubt of value, it can be argued that any 
research must be shown to be original and present some benefit if it is to receive funding and 
attention from the scientific community. Any Ph.D. thesis, technical report, or published research, in 
order to be accepted for graduation, publication, presentation, or funding, must offer new and useful 
information to the pool of knowledge. It does not follow that every scientist who performs original 
work that adds to the general pool of knowledge for improving mining safety measures or 
rehabilitation methodologies has inherently made a contribution of major significance in the field. 
[The petitioner] possesses a unique combination of skill and experience that will certainly 
benefit the United States. [The petitioner] is an extremely gifted and respected scientist. 
His work on tunneling and rehabilitation methods for large tunnels have been published and 
relied upon extensively worldwide. He is an intuitive thinker and researcher in the field. He 
has the ability to combine all of the required sciences involved in rock mechanics and 
develop solutions to real-world problems that face the mining and transportation industries 
worldwide. 
letter does not specifically identify the petitioner's findings that "have been published 
and relied upon extensively worldwide." Regarding the petitioner's published findings, his appellate 
submission includes documentation from the-~e~ahmei of ~eoenvironment system ~ngin&rin~ at 
Hanyang University, the Department of Mineral and Mining Engineering at Dong-A University, and 
the Department of Mineral and Energy Resources Engineering at Semyung University requesting 
permission to utilize the petitioner's published work in their course material and course textbooks. 
While this documentation shows that the petitioner's work has attracted the attention of these three 
universities, there is no evidence demonstrating the actual incorporation of the petitioner's articles 
into their course material or their published course textbooks as of the petition's filing date. 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, 49 (Regl. Commr. 1971). Nevertheless, we cannot conclude 
that these requests demonstrate that the petitioner's published findings were contributions of major 
significance in his field. 
The petitioner's published work is far more relevant to the "authorship of scholarly articles" criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Here it should be emphasized that the regulatory criteria are separate 
and distinct from one another. Because separate criteria exist for authorship of scholarly articles and 
original contributions of major significance, USCIS clearly does not view the two as bhg 
interchangeable. If evidence sufficient to meet one criterion mandated a finding that an alien met 
another criterion, the requirement that an alien meet at least three criteria would be meaningless. We 
will further address the petitioner's published work and the attention it has garnered under the next 
criterion. 
[The petitioner's] work has provided modern construction companies the ability to safely 
excavate mine shafts and also to repair old tunnels that had created [sic] without the proper 
safety measures in place. His efforts have resulted in countless lives saved and millions of 
dollars in labor costs averted. Mining disasters have been a regular occurrence throughout 
history. It is through the work and ability of scientists like [the petitioner] that these disasters 
can be minimized if not avoided entirely. 
~rofessor, Department of Energy and Resources Engineering, Dong-A 
University, states: 
[The petitioner's] educational background and over twenty years of professional experience 
in the field has helped him to become of [sic] the very finest scientists in the world in the 
field of Rock Mechanics. He is truly at the top of his profession. He has achieved every 
major professional accomplishment a scientist could achieve in the field. He is published, 
decorated, and has held important positions in ground breaking research projects. 
professor, Department of Geosystem Engineering, Kangwon National University, 
states: "[The petitioner's] experiences have been as the Master of Engineering Teams, and has 
- - 
trained numerous technicians in the development of mines throughout ~orea and-~erman~. . . . In 
my experience, very few people possess the background and skill [the petitioner] possesses . . . ." 
We note that the preceding five letters contain several duplicate passages. It is not clear who is the 
actual author of the duplicative text in these letters of support, but it is highly improbable that these 
five individuals independently formulated the exact same wording. While it is acknowledged that 
these individuals have lent their support to this petition, it remains that they did not independently 
prepare significant portions of their letters. As such, we find the duplicative statements to be of 
Page 8 
limited probative value. Nevertheless, the letters of recommendation submitted by the petitioner do 
not specify exactly what his original contributions to his field and the mining industry have been, nor 
do they provide a substantive explanation indicating how any such contributions were of major 
significance in his field. According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(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 has 
earned the admiration of those offering letters of support, the documentation submitted by him does 
not establish 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 rock mechanics scientists 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 support submitted by the petitioner are not sufficient to meet this criterion. 
The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a 
successful extraordinary ability claim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions 
statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 79 1, 795 
(Commr. 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 795-796. Thus, the content 
of the experts' statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are important 
considerations. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of 
an immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of original 
contributions of major significance that one would expect of scientist who has sustained national or 
international acclaim. Without evidence showing that the petitioner's work has been unusually 
influential, highly acclaimed throughout his field, or has otherwise risen to the level of contributions 
of major significance, we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his authorship of scholarly material in publications such as 
Journal of the Korean Society for Geosystem Engineering and for presentation at the Geological 
Society of America's Annual Meeting (2003) and the Joint Assembly of the American Geophysical 
Society (2006). The petitioner also submitted evidence of several reports and studies he authored as 
a principal researcher at the KIGAM. The director found that the record lacked evidence showing 
that the petitioner's work has been independently cited or has otherwise impacted his field. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits evidence showing that his body of work was cited an aggregate of 
two times. One of these citations was a self-citation by one of the petitioner's coauthors. As 
discussed, the petitioner's appellate submission includes documentation from the Department of 
Geoenvironment System Engineering at Hanyang University, the Department of Mineral and Mining 
Engineering at Dong-A University, and the Department of Mineral and Energy Resources 
Engineering at Semyung University requesting permission to utilize the petitioner's published work 
in their course material and course textbooks. The preceding documentation, however, is not 
Page 9 
sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner's articles have attracted a level of interest in his field 
consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. 
We concur with the director's findings for this criterion and take administrative notice of the fact that 
authoring scholarly articles is inherent to scientific research. For this reason, we will evaluate a 
citation history or other evidence of the impact of the petitioner's articles when determining their 
significance to the field. For example, numerous independent citations would provide solid evidence 
that other researchers have been influenced by the petitioner's work and are familiar with it. On the 
other hand, few or no citations of an alien's work may indicate that his work has gone largely 
unnoticed by his field. In this case, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's articles were 
frequently cited, or that they appeared in major publications or other major media in a manner 
consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. As such, the petitioner has not established 
that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien S work in the jeld at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
The petitioner argues that his presentations at the Geological Society of America's Annual Meeting 
(2003) and the Joint Assembly of the American Geophysical Society (2006) meet this regulatory 
criterion. The petitioner's field, however, is not in the arts. The plain language of this regulatory 
criterion indicates that it is intended for visual artists (such as sculptors and painters) rather than for 
researchers such as the petitioner. The ten criteria in the regulations are designed to cover different 
areas; not every criterion will apply to every occupation. The petitioner's conference presentations 
are more relevant to the "authorship of scholarly articles" criterion at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3)(vi) and 
have already been addressed there. Nevertheless, in the fields of science and engineering, acclaim is 
generally not established by the mere act of presenting one's work at a conference or symposium 
along with scores of other participants. Nothing in the record indicates that the presentation of one's 
work is unusual in the petitioner's field or that invitation to present at the venues where the 
petitioner spoke was a privilege extended to only a few top scientists. Many professional fields 
regularly hold conferences and symposia to present new work, discuss new findings, and to network 
with other professionals. These conferences are promoted and sponsored by professional 
associations, businesses, educational institutions, and government agencies. Participation in such 
events, however, does not elevate the petitioner above almost all others in his field at the national or 
international level. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
We withdraw the director's finding that the petitioner meets this regulatory criterion. In order to 
establish that he performed a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment with a 
distinguished reputation, the petitioner must establish the nature of his role within the entire 
organization or establishment and the reputation of the organization or establishment. 
The letter from 
 states that petitioner has held the position of Principal Researcher at the 
KIGAM since 1980. The petitioner submitted information about the KIGAM printed from its 
internet site, but this self-serving material is not adequate to demonstrate that the institute has a 
distinguished reputation. Further, while states that the petitioner has performed important 
work in the field of rock mechanics, the record does not establish that his role in the Geotechnical 
Engineering Division was leading or critical for the KIGAM. There is no evidence demonstrating 
how the petitioner's role differentiated him fiom the other principal researchers in the various divisions 
of the KIGAM, let alone its more senior leadership (such as its directors). The documentation 
submitted by the petitioner does not establish that he was responsible for his employer's success or 
standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical role" and indicative of sustained 
national or international acclaim. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate receipt 
of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). The conclusion we reach by considering the evidence to meet each criterion 
separately is consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even in the aggregate, the 
evidence does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage who has risen to the very 
top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(2). 
Beyond the decision of the director, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(5) requires "clear evidence 
that the alien is coming to the United States to continue work in the area of expertise. Such evidence 
may include letter(s) from prospective employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as 
contracts, or a statement from the beneficiary detailing plans on how he or she intends to continue 
his or her work in the United States." The record does not include such evidence. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an extent 
that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim .or to be within the 
small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at the national or international 
level. Nor is there clear evidence showing that the petitioner will continue to work in his area of 
expertise in the United States. 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. 8 557(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 Janku v. 
US. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). 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). 
Page 11 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the 
benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.