dismissed EB-1A Case: Taekwondo

U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO)
20MassachusettsAve, N.W.,MS2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
8 U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: D 2 1 20l2 Office: TEXASSERVICECENTER FILE:
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor AlienWorkerasanAlien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto Section
203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct,8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOfficein yourcase. All of thedocuments
relatedto thismatterhavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Pleasebeadvisedthat
anyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If you believethe AAO inappropriatelyappliedthe law in reachingits decision,or you haveadditional
informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,youmayfile a motionto reconsideror a motionto reopenin
accordancewith the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The
specific requirementsfor filing sucha motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion
directly with theAAO. Pleasebeawarethat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresanymotionto befiled within
30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
RonRosenberg
ActingChief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION:TheDirector,TexasServiceCenter,deniedtheemployment-basedimmigrantvisa
petition,whichisnowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)onappeal.Theappealwill be
dismissed.
Thepetitionerseeksclassificationasan"alienof extraordinaryability" in theathleticsasaTaekwondo
Master,pursuantto section203(b)(1)(A)of the Immigrationand NationalityAct, 8U.S.C.
§ 1153(b)(1)(A).Thedirectordeterminedthepetitionerhadnotestablishedthesustainednationalor
internationalacclaimnecessarytoqualifyforclassificationasanalienof extraordinaryability.
Congressseta veryhighbenchmarkfor aliensof extraordinaryabilityby requiringthroughthestatute
thatthepetitionerdemonstratethe alien's"sustainednationalor intemationalacclaim"andpresent
"extensivedocumentation"of the alien'sachievements.Seesection203(b)(1)(A)(i)of the Act and
8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).Theimplementingregulationat8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)statesthatanaliencan
establishsustainednationalor internationalacclaimthroughevidenceof a one-timeachievementof a
major,internationallyrecognizedaward. Absentthereceiptof suchanaward,theregulationoutlines
tencategoriesof specificobjectiveevidence.8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)through(x). Thepetitionermust
submitqualifyingevidenceunderatleastthreeof thetenregulatorycategoriesof evidenceto establish
thebasiceligibilityrequirements.
Thepetitioner'sprioritydateestablishedby thepetitionfiling dateisJune10,2011.OnSeptember9,
2011, the directorservedthe petitionerwith a requestfor evidence(RFE). After receivingthe
petitioner'sresponseto the RFE,the directorissuedhis decisionon April 27, 2012. On appeal,the
petitionersubmitsabrief with newdocumentaryevidence.Forthereasonsdiscussedbelow,theAAO
upholdsthedirector'sultimatedeterminationthatthepetitionerhasnotestablishedhereligibilityfor the
classificationsought.
I. LAW
Section203(b)of theAct states,in pertinentpart,that:
(1)Priorityworkers.-- Visasshallfirstbemadeavailable. . . to qualifiedimmigrantswho
arealiensdescribedin anyof thefollowingsubparagraphs(A) through(C):
(A)Alienswithextraordinaryability.- An alienisdescribedin thissubparagraphif -
(i) thealienhasextraordinaryability in thesciences,arts,education,business,or
athleticswhich has been demonstratedby sustainednational or international
acclaimand whoseachievementshavebeenrecognizedin the field through
extensivedocumentation,
(ii) the alienseeksto enterthe UnitedStatesto continuework in theareaof
extraordinaryability,and
Page3
(iii) thealien'sentryinto theUnitedStateswill substantiallybenefitprospectively
theUnitedStates.
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS)andlegacyImmigrationandNaturalizationService
(INS)haveconsistentlyrecognizedthatCongressintendedto seta veryhighstandardfor individuals
seekingimmigrantvisasasaliensof extraordinaryability. SeeH.R.723 101stCong.,2d Sess.59
(1990);56Fed.Reg.60897,60898-99(Nov.29,1991).Theterm"extraordinaryability"refersonlyto
thoseindividualsin thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento theverytopof thefieldof endeavor.Id.;
8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2).
Theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)requiresthatthe petitionerdemonstratethealien'ssustained
acclaimandtherecognitionof hisor herachievementsin thefield. Suchacclaimmustbeestablished
eitherthroughevidenceof aone-timeachievement(thatis, amajor,internationalrecognizedaward)or
throughthe submissionof qualifyingevidenceunderat leastthreeof the ten categoriesof evidence
listedat8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x).
In 2010,theU.S.Courtof Appealsfor theNinthCircuit(NinthCircuit)reviewedthedenialof apetition
filedunderthisclassification.Kazarianv. USCIS,596F.3d1115(9thCir.2010).Althoughthecourt
upheldthe AAO's decisionto denythe petition,the courttook issuewith the AAO's evaluationof
evidencesubmittedto meeta givenevidentiarycriterion With respectto thecriteriaat 8C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and(vi), thecourtconcludedthatwhileUSCISmayhaveraisedlegitimateconcerns
aboutthesignificanceof theevidencesubmittedto meetthosetwocriteria,thoseconcernsshouldhave
beenraisedin asubsequent"final meritsdetermination."Id. at1121-22.
Thecourt statedthatthe AAO's evaluationrestedon an improperunderstandingof the regulations.
Insteadof parsingthesignificanceof evidenceaspartof the initial inquiry,the courtstatedthat"the
properprocedureistocountthetypesof evidenceprovided(whichtheAAOdid),"andif thepetitioner
failedto submitsufficientevidence,"theproperconclusionis thattheapplicanthasfailedto satisfythe
regulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence(asthe AAO concluded)."Id. at 1122(citing to
8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)).
Thus,Kazariansetsfortha two-partapproachwheretheevidenceis firstcountedandthenconsidered
in thecontextof a finalmeritsdetermination.In thismatter,theAAOwill reviewtheevidenceunder
theplainlanguagerequirementsof eachcriterionclaimed.As thepetitionerdidnotsubmitqualifying
evidenceunderatleastthreecriteria,theproperconclusionis thatthepetitionerhasfailedto satisfythe
regulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.Id.
Specifically,the court statedthat the AAO had unilaterallyimposednovel substantiveor evidentiary
requirementsbeyond those set forth in the regulationsat 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3)(iv)and 8C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Page4
II. ANALYSIS
A. TranslatedEvidence
"Petitionersand applicantsfor immigrationbenefitsarerequiredby regulationto providecertified
English translationsof any foreign languagedocumentsthey submit." Matter of Nevarez,
15I&N Dec.550, 551 (BIA 1976) (citing 8C.F.R. § 103.2(b),now promulgatedat 8C.F.R.
§ 103.2(b)(3))whichstates:"Any documentcontainingforeignlanguagesubmittedto USCISshallbe
accompaniedby a full Englishlanguagetranslationwhichthetranslatorhascertifiedascompleteand
accurate,andby thetranslator'scertificationthatheor sheis competentto translatefromtheforeign
languageinto English." The languageutilized within the regulationimplicitly precludesa single
certificationthatvalidatesseveraltranslatedformsof evidenceunlessthecertificationspecificallylists
thetranslateddocuments.Withouta singletranslator'scertificationfor eachforeignlanguageform of
evidence,or atranslator'scertificationspecificallylistingthedocumentsit is validating,thecertification
cannotberegardedto becertifyinganyspecificform of evidence.Thefinal determinationof whether
evidencemeetstheplainlanguagerequirementsof a regulationlieswith USCIS. SeeMatterof Caron
International,19I&N Dec.791,795(Comm'r1988)(findingthattheappropriateentityto determine
eligibilityisUSCIS).
At theoutset,theAAO notesthatthepetitionerhasfiled anumberof foreignlanguagedocuments,but
shehasfailedto providethepropertranslationsfor thesedocuments,asrequiredundertheregulationat
8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(3).Thepetitionerhasfailedto provideinformationrelatingto theidentityor
competencyof thetranslator(s),or informationonwhethertheEnglishtranslationsarecompleteand
accurate. Without certified translations,the foreign languagedocumentshave no evidentiaryor
probativevalue.
B. EvidentiaryCriteria2
Documentationof the alien's receiptof lessernationallyor internationallyrecognizedprizesor
awardsfor excellencein thefieldofendeavor.
Thiscriterioncontainsseveralevidentiaryelementsthepetitionermustsatisfy.Accordingto theplain
languageof theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i),theevidencemustestablishthatthealienbethe
recipientof theprizesor theawards(in theplural).Theclearregulatorylanguagerequiresthatthe
prizesor theawardsarenationallyor internationallyrecognized.Theplainlanguageof theregulation
alsorequiresthepetitionerto submitevidencethateachprizeor awardis onefor excellencein thefield
of endeavorratherthansimply for participatingin or contributingto an eventor to a group. The
petitionermustsatisfyall of theseelementstomeettheplainlanguagerequirementsof thiscriterion.
2Thepetitionerdoesnotclaimto meetor submitevidencerelatingto theregulatorycategoriesof evidencenot
discussedin thisdecision.
Page5
Thepetitionerprovidedevidenceof numerousawardsissuedattaekwondocompetitions.Thedirector
determinedthatthepetitionerfailedtomeettherequirementsof thiscriterion.
Onappealcounselstates:"Services[sic]failedto lookintothedescriptionsof charactersof aforesaid
competition.Attachedand shown as Exhibit A, a brief descriptionof the World Taekwondo
Hammnadangclearlyindicatesthatthisisaninternationalacclaimedfestival."USCISwill notpresume
thata prizeor anawardis nationallyor internationallyrecognizedbasedon theeventatwhichit was
issued.Althoughsomeof thecompetitionsin whichthepetitionerreceivedaprizeor anawardbearthe
word"World" within thecompetition'stitle, thepetitionerhasnot providedevidenceto establishthat
thesecompetitionsarenationallyor internationallyrecognized.Evenif thepetitionerwereto establish
thatthecompetitionsarenationallyor internationallyrecognized,thislevelof acknowledgementdoes
notautomaticallyimputesuchrecognitiontoherprizesor awards.A prizeor anawarddoesnotgarner
nationalor internationalrecognitionfrom thecompetitionin whichit is awarded,noris it derivedfrom
the individualor groupthat issuedthe award. Rather,nationalandinternationalrecognitionresults
throughthe awarenessof the accoladein the eyesof the field nationallyor internationally.This
recognitioncanoccurthroughseveralmeans;for example,throughmediacoverage.Thepetitioner
failedtoprovidesupportingdocumentationrelatingto thenationalor internationalrecognitionof anyof
theawardsonrecord.
As such,thepetitionerhasnot submittedevidencethatmeetstheplainlanguagerequirementsof this
criterion.
Documentationof the alien's membershipin associationsin thefield for whichclassificationis
sought,whichrequireoutstandingachievementsoftheirmembers,asjudgedbyrecognizednational
or internationalexpertsin theirdisciplinesorfields.
Thiscriterioncontainsseveralevidentiaryelementsthepetitionermustsatisfy.First,thepetitionermust
demonstratethatsheis amemberof morethanoneassociationin herfield. Second,thepetitionermust
demonstrateboth of the following: (1) that the associationsutilize nationallyor internationally
recognizedexpertstojudgetheachievements(in theplural)of prospectivememberstodetermineif the
achievementsareoutstanding,and(2) thattheassociationsusethisoutstandingdeterminationasa
conditionof eligibility for prospectivemembership.It is insufficientfor the associationitself to
determineif theachievementswereoutstanding,unlessnationallyor internationallyrecognizedexperts
in thepetitioner'sfieldrenderthisdetermination.Thepetitionermustsatisfyall of theseelementsto
meettheplainlanguagerequirementsof thiscriterion.
The petitioner provided membershipin the Korean National TaekwondoDemonstrationteam,
Kukkiwon,andcoachof theKoreanCulturalServiceof NewYork (KCSNY)demonstrationteamas
qualifyingassociationsunderthiscriterion.Thedirectordeterminedthatthepetitionerfailedto meet
therequirementsof thiscriterion.
Onappeal,counselrepeatedlyrefersto thenationalor internationalacclaimof theseassociations.The
regulationdoesnot referencethe nationalor internationalacclaimof suchassociations,ratherthe
Page6
regulationrequiresthattheassociationsutilizenationallyor internationallyrecognizedexpertstojudge
theachievementsof prospectivememberstodetermineif theachievementsareoutstanding.
At issueiswhethereachassociationrequiresoutstandingachievementsof itsmembers,andwhetherthe
associationreliesonnationallyor internationallyrecognizedexpertstojudgetheprospectivemembers'
et vfromen May 300rdin01
theevidenceprovidedin responseto theRFE,theKoreanNationalTaekwondoDemonstrationteam,
requirestheprospectivememberto beacredentialedKukkiwonmemberof theboardof directorsand
to haveachieveda fifth degreeblackbeltor higheramongotherexperienceandpersonalattributes.
Nothing in the undatedletter signedby demonstratesthat the Korean National
TaekwondoDemonstrationteamrequiresoutstandingachievementsof itsmembers.
Regardingthe petitioner'smembershipon the Kukkiwon TaekwondoDemonstrationteam, she
establishedshewasa memberof thisteamthroughthedocument,"Certificateof Career"signedby the
association'spresident, Theevidenceonrecordfailedto demonstratethisassociation
is aqualifyingassociationasit merelyrequiresitsmemberstobe:(1)taekwondodancertificateholders
fromKukkiwon;(2)highschoolgraduateorhighdegreeholders;(3)age19andover;(4)abletotravel
abroad;(5) foreign taekwondodan certificate holders residing in Korea; (6) recipientsof a
recommendation;and (7) participantsin domesticand foreigndemonstrationsand all of regular
scheduledtrainings.Thepetitionerhasnotdemonstratedthattheseareoutstandingachievementsin the
fieldof taekwondo.
The petitioner demonstrationteam throughthe
November15,2011,lettersignedby A coachingpositionon a
teamis not a membershipin an associationas requiredunder8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(ii). The
petitioner'srolefor thisteamwill beconsideredbelowunder8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)93)(viii).
In view of the foregoing,the petitionerhasnot submittedevidencethat meetsthe plain language
requirementsof thiscriterion.
Publishedmaterialaboutthealienin professionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajor
media,relatingto thealien'swork in thefield for whichclassifìcationis sought. Suchevidence
shallincludethetitle,date,andauthorofthematerial,andanynecessarytranslation.
Thedirectordiscussedtheevidencesubmittedfor this criterionandfoundthatthepetitionerfailedto
establishher eligibility. On appeal,the petitionerdoesnot contestthe director'sfindings for this
criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this issue to be
abandoned.Sepulvedav. U.S.Att'yGen.,401F.3d1226,1228n.2 (11thCir.2005);Hristovv.Roark,
No.09-CV-27312011,2011WL 4711885at *1, 9 (E.D.N.Y.Sept.30,2011)(thecourtfoundthe
plaintiffsclaimsto beabandonedashefailedto raisethemonappealto theAAO). Accordingly,the
petitionerhasnotsubmittedqualifyingevidenceunderthiscriterion.
Page7
Evidenceof thealien'sparticipation,eitherindividuallyor on a panel,asa judge of theworkof
othersin thesameor analliedßeldofspecifìcationfor whichclassificationissought.
Thedirectordeterminedthatthepetitionermettherequirementsof thiscriterion.TheAAO affirmsthe
director'sfavorabledeterminationasit relatestothiscriterion.
Evidenceof thealien'sauthorshipof scholarlyarticlesin thefield, inprofessionalor majortrade
publicationsor othermajormedia.
Thedirectordiscussedtheevidencesubmittedfor this criterionandfoundthatthepetitionerfailedto
establishher eligibility. On appeal,the petitionerdoesnot contestthe director'sfindings for this
criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considersthis issue to be
abandoned.Sepulveda401 F.3dat 1228n.2;Hristov,2011WL 4711885,at *9. Accordingly,the
petitionerhasnotsubmittedqualifyingevidenceunderthiscriterion.
Evidenceofthedisplayof thealien'sworkin thefield atartisticexhibitionsor showcases.
Thedirectordiscussedtheevidencesubmittedfor thiscriterionandfoundthatthepetitionerfailedto
establishher eligibility. On appeal,the petitionerdoesnot contestthe director'sfindings for this
criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considersthis issue to be
abandoned.Sepulveda401F.3dat 1228n.2;Hristov,2011WL 4711885,at *9. Accordingly,the
petitionerhasnotsubmittedqualifyingevidenceunderthiscriterion.
Evidencethat the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizationsor
establishmentsthathavea distinguishedreputation.
This criterionanticipatesthat a leadingrole shouldbe apparentby its positionin the overall
organizationalhierarchyandthatit beaccompaniedbytherole'smatchingduties.A criticalroleshould
be apparentfrom the petitioner'simpacton the organizationor the establishment'sactivities. The
petitioner'sperformancein thisrole shouldestablishwhethertherolewascriticalfor organizationsor
establishmentsasawhole.Thepetitionermustdemonstratethattheorganizationsorestablishments(in
theplural)havea distinguishedreputation.Whileneithertheregulationnorprecedentspeakto what
constitutesa distinguishedreputation,Merriam-Webster'sonlinedictionarydefinesdistinguishedas,
"markedby eminence,distinction,or excellence."3Dictionariesarenot of themselvesevidence,but
theymaybereferredtoasaidsto thememoryandunderstandingof thecourt. Nix v.Hedden,149U.S.
304, 306 (1893). Therefore,it is the petitioner'sburdento demonstratethat the organizationsor
establishmentsclaimedunderthis criterionare markedby eminence,distinction,excellence,or an
equivalentreputation.Thepetitionermustsubmitevidencesatisfyingall of theseelementstomeetthe
plainlanguagerequirementsof thiscriterion.
3Seehttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/distinguished,accessedonNovember1,2012,acopyofwhich
isincorporatedintotherecordof proceeding.
Page8
Thepetitionerclaimseligibility basedon two organizations;asthe coachof the KoreanNational
TaekwondoDemonstrationteamandas the coachof the KCSNY TaekwondoDemonstrationteam.
Thedirectordeterminedthatthepetitionerfailedtomeettherequirementsof thiscriterion.
Regardingthe petitioner'srole as coachof the KoreanNationalTaekwondoDemonstrationteam,
counsel'sappellatebriefstates:"To beemployedby anationalteamorto beselectedtobeamemberof
anationalteamperseisconsideredbyanyrationalpersonasoutstandingpersonnel,whichis thesame
asanymemberof anyUSnationalathleticteam."Counselassertsthatanymemberof anationalteam
is consideredto beoutstanding.Thestandardunderthiscriterionis focusedon thenatureof therole
andtheorganizationor theestablishment.Therefore,thepetitionermustdemonstratethattheKorean
NationalTaekwondoDemonstrationteamfor whichsheservedasthecoachenjoyeda distinguished
reputation.Although headof the24thOlympicTaekwondoDemonstrationteam,
indicatedthatit wasahighhonortobeselectedfor thisteam,hisletterdidnotattestto there tationof
theteam,nordid heindicatethatit enjoyeda distinguishedreputation.Additionally, indicated
thatthe petitionerservedasthis team'scaptainwhile shecharacterizedher role on the teamasthe
coach.It is not arentif thesetwo positionareonein thesameor if theysharethesamejob duties.
of Kukkiwon,assertedthattheKoreanNationalTaekwondoDemonstration
team"is oneof thepremierorganizationsin thefieldof Taekwondo."Howeve thepetitionerfailedto
provideanyadditionalevidenceto corroborate assertion. letterdidprovidethe
dutiesassociatedwith the petitioner'srole ascoachof this team, m is case,is sufficientto
demonstratethat her role was leadingwithin the organization. However,the petitionerfailed to
documentthisorganization'sreputation.
Evenif the AAO acceptedthat the KoreanNationalTaekwondoDemonstrationTeamenjoysa
distinguishedreputation,theplainlanguageof theregulationrequiresevidenceof a leadingor critical
role for qualifying organizationsor establishmentsin the plural, consistentwith the statutory
requirementfor extensiveevidence.Thus,thepetitionermustestablishthatsheperformedin aleading
orcriticalrolefor atleastoneotherorganizationorestablishmentwithadistinguishedreputation.
Re i the etitioner'sroleascoach , theletterfrom
indicatedthatthe KoreanConsulateGeneralsupportedthe KCSNY itself, andlisted
numerousac itiesof theKCSNY;however,thepetitionermustestablishthedistin ishedreputation
of theKCSNYTaekwondoDemonstrationteamratherthantheKCSNY. did provide
thedutiesassociatedwiththepetitioner'sroleasheadcoachof theKCSNYTaekwondoDemonstration
team,whichin thiscase,is sufficientto demonstratethatherrolewasleadingwithin theorganization.
Still, the recordlacksevidenceto establishthe distinguishedreputationof the KCSNY Taekwondo
Demonstrationteam.
As aresult,thepetitionerhasnotsubmittedevidencethatmeetstheplainlanguagerequirementsof this
criterion.
Page9
C. Summary
Thepetitionerhasfailedtosatisfytheantecedentregulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.
III. CONCLUSION
Thedocumentationsubmittedin supportof a claimof extraordinaryability mustclearlydemonstrate
thatthealienhasachievedsustainednationalorinternationalacclaimandisoneof thesmallpercentage
whohaverisentotheverytopof thefieldof endeavor.
Hadthe petitionersubmittedthe requisiteevidenceunderat leastthreeevidentiarycategories,in
accordancewith the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determinationthat
considersall of theevidencein thecontextof whetheror not thepetitionerhasdemonstrated:(1) a
"level of expertiseindicatingthattheindividualis oneof thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento the
very top of the[ir] field of endeavor"and (2) "that the alienhassustainednationalor international
acclaimandthathis or herachievementshavebeenrecognizedin thefield of expertise."8C.F.R.
§§204.5(h)(2)and(3);seealsoKazarian,596F.3dat 1119-20.WhiletheAAO concludesthatthe
evidenceis notindicativeof alevelof expertiseconsistentwiththesmallpercentageattheverytopof
thefieldor sustainednationalor internationalacclaim,theAAO neednotexplainthatconclusionin a
finalmeritsdetermination.4Rather,theproperconclusionisthatthepetitionerhasfailedtosatisfythe
antecedentregulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.Id. at1122.
Thepetitionerhasnotestablishedeligibilitypursuanttosection203(b)(1)(A)of theAct andthepetition
maynotbeapproved.
Theburdenof proofin visapetitionproceedingsremainsentirelywith thepetitioner.Section291of the
Act, 8U.S.C.§ 1361;Matter of Soriano,19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988)(citing Matterof
Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966)). Here, the petitionerhas not sustainedthat burden.
Accordingly,theappealwill bedismissed.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.
TheAAO maintainsdenovoreviewof all questionsof factandlaw. SeeSoltanev.DOJ,381F.3d143,145(3d
Cir.2004).In anyfutureproceeding,theAAO maintainsthejurisdictiontoconductafinalmeritsdetermination
astheofficethatmadethelastdecisionin thismatter.8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(ii).Seealsosection103(a)(1)of
theAct; section204(b)of theAct; DHSDelegationNumber0150.1(effectiveMarch1,2003);8 C.F.R.§ 2.1
(2003);8 C.F.R.§ 103.1(f)(3)(iii)(2003);Matterof Aurelio,19I&N Dec.458,460(BIA 1987)(holdingthat
legacyINS,nowUSCIS,isthesoleauthoritywiththejurisdictiontodecidevisapetitions).