dismissed EB-1A Case: Sciences

(b)(6)
DATE: JUL 1 5 2013 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigr ation Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W ., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http:Uwww.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
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 sciences, pursuant to 
section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality 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 
qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
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 awatd, 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. 
The petitioner 's priority date established by the petition filing date is March 6, 2012. On August 8, 
2012, the director served the petitioner with a request for evidence (RFE). After receiving the 
petitioner's response to the RFE, the director 
issued his decision on November 26, 2012. On appeal, the 
petitioner submits a brief with additional documentary evidence. For the reasons discussed below, the 
AAO upholds the director's ultimate determination that the petitioner has not established his eligibility 
for the classification sought. 
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 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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 H.R. 723 101st 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. 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.1 With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while users 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)." Jd. 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. 
1 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. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page4 
II. ANALYSIS 
A Evidentiary Criteria2 
Evidence of the alien 's participation , either individually or on a pan el, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought. 
The director determined the petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. The petitioner has 
submitted sufficient evidence to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion contains multiple evidentiary elements that the petitioner 
must satisfy. The first is evidence of the petitioner's contributions (in the plural) in his field. These 
contributions must have already been realized rather than being potential, future contributions. The 
petitioner must also demonstrate that his contributions are original. The evidence must establish that the 
contributions are scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related in nature. The final 
requirement is that the contributions rise to the level of major significance in the field as a whole, rather 
than to a project or to an organization. The phrase "major 
significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it 
has some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1995) 
quoted in APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003). Contributions of major 
significance connotes that the petitioner's work has significantly impacted the field. The petitioner 
must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
The petitioner provided expert letters, his citation record and peer review record, and his research 
findings as evidence under this criterion. The director determined that the petitioner failed to meet the 
requirements of this criterion. In affirming the director's fmding, this decision does not afford less 
weight to the petitioner's research findings because they were the result of a small collaboration. 
On appeal, counsel asserts: "The USCIS has erred by increasing the evidentiary threshold to 
demonstrate sustained national and international acclaim. Further, the Service erred in its application of 
the standard of proof needed to make the final merits determination." In evaluating evidence, USCIS 
must "examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually 
and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is 
probably true." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
On appeal counsel identifies two letters from those in the field as representative of the evidence counsel 
claims the director discounted. 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence not 
discussed in this decision. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
PageS 
The first letter counsel quotes is from Associate Professor of Chemical Engineering at the 
Within the letter, expressly stated the petitioner's "achievements are 
genuinely outstanding!" also stated the petitioner "has made several innovative and original 
contributions of major scientific significance to the fields of synthetic and biofunctional nanoparticles .. 
. " Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfY the petitioner 's burden of 
proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), ajfd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. 
Cir. 1990); Aryr 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). More specifically, stated:" is one of 
the top investigators in the field of modified nanoparticle synthesis. This is exemplified by his 
landmark research efforts on the detection of Staphylococcal enterotoxin B (SEB) published in 
explained that the petitioner developed a method that "allows an 
extremely promising detection limit ... in under 2 hr [sic] time using a 'fluorocount' method ... This 
work and these results are clearly a high-value product." did not indicate the level of 
improvement that the petitioner's fmdings hold over the current detection time limit, nor did he describe 
how this improvement has already impacted the petitioner's field. Rather, indicated that the 
petitioner's findings were promising and that they have the potential to impact his field. Although 
continues to describe the future potential and how the petitioner's "ongoing work in this field will 
no doubt lead to strategies for the design of novel biological and medically-important compounds," 
did not describe how the petitioner has already made significant impacts within his field. A 
petitioner must establish the elements for the approval of the petition at the time of filing. 8 C.P.R. §§ 
103.2(b)(1), (12). A petition may not be approved if the beneficiary was not qualified at the priority 
date, but expects to become eligible at a subsequent time. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 
(Reg'l Comm'r 1971). 
Counsel's second example of a letter the director discounted is the letter from 
works in the 
On appeal counsel indicates is an independent 
expert who has not worked with the petitioner and that he has relied on the petitioner's work. 
did indicate that he and other researchers have relied on the petitioner's findings. Any research, 
in order to be accepted for publication, must offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. 
It does not follow that every researcher who performs original research that adds to the general pool of 
knowledge and contributes to the constant progression of the field has inherently made a contribution of 
major significance to the field as a whole. 
That the petitioner's fmdings will provide a prospective benefit to the United States as a permanent 
resident is a requirement under the Act. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(iii) of the Act. However, neither of 
the authors identified how the petitioner has already made a significant impact in his field, which is 
required by this regulatory criterion. A petitioner must establish the elements for the approval of the 
petition at the time of filing. 8 C.P.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12). A petition may not be approved if the 
beneficiary was not qualified at the priority date, but expects to become eligible at a subsequent time. 
See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. This evidence does not establish that, as of the priority 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
date, the petitioner had made a contribution of major significance in the field as required by the 
regulation. 
The remaining letters within the record assert future impacts within the petitioner's field and claim that 
the petitioner possesses the traits and talents to become an outstanding research scientist. However, 
none of the letters sufficiently described how the petitioner's work has already made a significant and 
original impact in his field. The majority of the letters claimed that his findings were of major 
significance, but none establish that these findings have resulted in influential innovations in the 
petitioner's field. The Act already contains the requirement that the petitioner will provide a 
prospective benefit to the United States as a permanent resident. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the 
. Act. However, 
possible future innovations are not in line with the regulatory requirement that the 
petitioner has already made a significant impact in his field. A petitioner must establish the elements 
for the approval of the petition at the time of filing. 8 C.P.R.§§ 103.2(b)(1), (12). A petition may not 
be approved if the beneficiary was not qualified at the priority date, but expects to become eligible at a 
subsequent time. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. This evidence does not establish that, as 
of the priority date, the petitioner had made contributions of major significance in the field as required 
by the regulation. 
Contained within the remaining expert letters are claims that the petitioner's speeches and presentations 
at conferences constitute contributions of major significance in the field. Publication and presentations 
are not sufficient evidence under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major 
significance." Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009) aff'd in part 596 P.3d 1115 
(9th Cir. 2010). In 2010, the Kazarian court reaffirmed its holding that the AAO did not abuse its 
discretion in finding that the alien had not demonstrated contributions of major significance. 596 P.3d at 
1122. Furthermore, several letters from the petitioner's colleagues were provided pursuant to the 
petitioner's request. Vague, solicited letters from local colleagues that do not specifically identify 
contributions or provide specific examples of how those contributions influenced the field are 
insufficient. Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 P.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009) aff'd in part 596 P.3d 1115 (9th 
Cir. 2010). 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has stated that testimony should not be disregarded simply 
because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) (citing 
Matter of M-D-, 21 I&N Dec. 1180 (BIA 1998); Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998); Matter 
of Dass, 20 I&N Dec. 120 (BIA 1989); see also Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211, 218 (BIA 1985)). 
The Board clarified, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction of corroborative 
testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. at 1332. If 
testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to 
submit corroborative evidence. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. at 1136. 
In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that the AAO's conclusion that "letters from physics professors 
attesting to [the alien's] contributions in the field" was insufficient was "consistent with the relevant 
regulatory language." 596 F.3d at 1122. The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and 
have been considered above. While such letters can provide important details about the petitioner's 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
skills, they 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. 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" but rather is admissible only if it will assist the 
trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue). USCIS may even give less 
weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way 
questionable. Id. at 795; see also Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft 
of California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190). Thus, the content of the writers' statements and how they became 
aware of the petitioner's reputation are important considerations. While letters authored in support of 
the petition have probative value, they are most persuasive when supported by evidence that already 
existed independently in the public sphere. Such independent evidence might include but is not limited 
to letters from independent industry experts with firsthand knowledge of the petitioner's impact in the 
field, media coverage, and citations to the petitioner's work. 
The record contains evidence that the petitioner has authored several scholarly articles. The regulation 
at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) contains a separate criterion regarding the authorship of published 
articles. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). If every provision of the regulation is to have meaning, USCIS 
must presume that the regulation views contributions as a separate evidentiary requirement from 
scholarly articles. Counsel asserts on appeal that the petitioner's citations corroborate the experts' 
statements about the significance of the petitioner's publication record and shows that other researchers 
are influenced by the petitioner's work. While the number of citations to the petitioner's work is a 
factor, it is not the only factor to be considered in determining the petitioner's eligibility for this 
criterion. Generally, the number of citations is reflective of the petitioner's original findings and that 
the field has taken some interest to the petitioner's work. However, it is not an automatic indicator that 
the petitioner's work has been of major significance in the field. In this case, the record contains 
evidence that, over a period of approximately 10 years, the petitioner has authored 24 articles published 
in scientific journals, one review paper, and one book chapter. While the petitioner's steady publication 
of articles over a long period of time has resulted in a significant number of citations in the aggregate, 
the number of citations per article is also relevant. The record reflects that, as of the date of filing, two 
of the petitioner's articles had received a moderate amount of citations. While a moderate amount of 
citations demonstrates awareness of the petitioner's work and its value, ilot every researcher who 
performs valuable research has inherently made a contribution of major significance in the field as a 
whole. Moreover, the content of those citations the petitioner submitted as examples of his impact does 
not reveal significant reliance on the petitioner's results as suggested by counsel. The Feature Article 
on fluorescent dye-doped silica nanoparticles "summarizes recent developments" in this area and cites 
the petitioner's work as one of at least 117 articles. Three other review articles cite the petitioner's 
work as one of at least 405, 68 and 65 articles. None of these articles singles the petitioner's work out 
as any more significant in the field than the other articles cited. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
Counsel states: "Only research findings that are considered 'fundamental or important discoveries' to 
their field of research are mentioned in the introduction of scientific publications." Counsel failed to 
provide evidence in support of this assertion. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute 
evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N 
Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). The 
unsupported assertions of counsel in a brief are not evidence and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary 
weight. See INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183, 188-89 n.6 (1984). A communication with a total of 17 
footnotes reporting on a new strategy for synthesizing core-shell nanopoarticles of Ag@SiOz cites the 
petitioner's research as one of five articles within one footnote supporting the proposition that there 
exists recent "increased interest in silica-coated metal nanoparticles for diverse applications." The 
remaining citing articles in the record merely cite the petitioner's work within a summary of past 
research in the area without implying that the authors specifically applied the petitioner's work in their 
own research. 
As additional support of the position that the petitioner's citation record sufficiently qualifies him under 
this criterion, counsel provides several AAO administrative decisions that reference citation records. 
The cited cases are unpublished and nonbinding decisions. While 8 C.P.R. § 103.3(c) provides that 
AAO precedent decisions are binding on all USCIS employees in the administration of the Act, 
unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. The AAO may consider the reasoning within the 
unpublished decision; however, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. Some of 
the non-precedent administrative decisions counsel references are not for the same immigrant 
classification under which the petitioner is applying? Counsel's reliance on the AAO's unpublished 
decisions does not establish that the petitioner's moderately cited articles are indicative of or consistent 
with contributions of major significance in his field. 
Counsel further asserts that USCIS erred in its representation of the number of citations the petitioner's 
published material garnered. While the petitioner did establish that two of his articles were cited 
moderately, this moderate amount is not consistent with counsel's statement: "We wish to point out that 
several of the Applicant's publications were cited numerous times as evidence of more than one 
qualifying contribution of major significance in the field." As discussed above, the number and content 
of citations does not establish that the petitioner has made contributions of major significance. 
The petitioner's patents, patent applications and grants do not by themselves serve as the measure of an 
individual's ability to qualify for this classification. A patent merely provides the patentee "the right to 
exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United 
States or importing the invention into the United States, and, if the invention is a process, of the right to 
exclude others from using, offering for sale or selling throughout the United States, or importing into 
the United States, products made by that process." See 35 U.S.C. § 154. Rather, the level of the impact 
in the field as a whole through the wide use of the innovation is a more appropriate measure to 
determine if an alien has sufficiently influenced his field. See Matter of New York State Dep 't. of 
3 While the outstanding researcher classification under section 203(b )(1 )(B) of the Act is within the same preference category 
as the classification requested in this matter, the contributions criterion is different for the two classifications. Compare 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E) with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
(b)(6)
- - - - --- -·- - -· ·· 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 215, 221 n. 7, (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). The petitioner failed to document any 
impact from his patent applications or patents, such as licenses or other interest in the petitioner's 
patented innovations. 
Based on the foregoing, the evidence demonstrates that the petitioner is a talented researcher and 
prolific author with potential, but it falls short of establishing that the petitioner had already made 
contributions of major significance in the field. Thus, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that 
meets the plain language requirements of 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 director determined the petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. The petitioner has 
submitted sufficient evidence to establish that he meets this criterion. ' 
B. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. 
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 have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Had the petitioner 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: (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" 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. 4 
Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. !d. at 1122. 
4 The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 P.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.P.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). See also section 103(a)(1) of 
the Act; section 204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.P.R. § 2.1 
(2003); 8 C.P.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that 
legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions). 
(b)(6)
----------- ----- - - ·----·-··--··· 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(1)(A) of the Act and the petition 
may not be approved. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of 
Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.