dismissed EB-1A Case: Television/Film Production

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Oflice of Administrative Appeals MS 
2090Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
/L 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
 g g 2009 
EAC 06 01 7 50733 
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. !j 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. 
!j 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 $585. Any motion must be 
filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 
5 103S(a)(l)(i). 
b$b 
zohn F. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employrnent-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center on March 21, 2007. The petitioner appealed the director's decision on 
April 19, 2007. The director subsequently reissued his decision on June 14, 2007, and the 
petitioner appealed this decision to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on July 10, 2007. 
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 11 53(b)(l)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in the arts. 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. 
We note that the record also contains a copy of a second Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, dated December 5, 2007, which moves to reopen and reconsider the director's June 14, 
2007 decision. The record before the AAO does not indicate whether the motion was 
accompanied by a fee or was accepted by the Nebraska Service Center. However, even if filed 
with the proper fee, the motion would have been untimely, as it was filed more than 30 days after 
the director issued his decision. The AAO will consider all of the evidence contained in the 
record of proceeding, including evidence submitted with this unreceipted motion. ' 
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 to the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
1 
The petitioner was represented by different counsel during the earlier stages of this proceeding. Former 
counsel will be referred to as "prior counsel" in this decision. 
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, 
60898-9 (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 has risen to the 
very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(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. 4 
204.5(h)(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. 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a television 
director and producer. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(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). 
The petitioner submitted documentation indicating that he won the Japan Prize Contest 2001 
United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) Prize and the Grand Prize at the New York 
International Children's Film Festival (NYICFF) in 1997. The petitioner did not initially allege 
that these prizes constituted major, internationally recognized awards. However, in his brief 
accompanying the motion to reopen and reconsider (MTR), counsel asserts that these awards are 
major, internationally recognized awards and that the petitioner qualifies for this visa preference 
classification as an alien of extraordinary ability based on these awards. 
With the petition, the petitioner submitted a copy of a November 14, 2001 certificate from 
UNICEF indicating that the jury of the Japan Prize Contest had recommended the UNICEF Prize 
be awarded to Young Asia Television Nepal for the program Four Years in Hell. The record 
contains an undated letter from Worldview Global Media Limited in Sri Lanka that indicated the 
petitioner was the "Country Representative of Young Asia Television for Nepal." A February 2 1, 
2002 letter from Young Asia Television informed the petitioner that his program Four Years in 
Hell would be screened at the TV Competition of the North-South Media Festival. 
In response to the director's request for evidence (RFE) dated August 22, 2006, the petitioner 
submitted copies of pages from the website of the Japan Broadcasting Corporation (NHK) 
accessed on September 19, 2006, and from the website of the European Broadcast Union, also 
accessed on September 19, 2006, indicating that the Japan Prize is an international education 
program competition sponsored by NHK "to encourage quality educational TV programmes and 
to promote international understanding and cooperation among nations." A review of the NHK 
website, accessed on February 25, 2009 and made a part of the record, indicates that the 
UNICEF Prize is a special prize awarded in the Audiovisual Division of the Japan Prize 
competition. 
Page 4 
The petitioner also submitted certified translations of media coverage of the prize awarded. The 
documentation attributes production of the program Four Years in-~ell to the petitioner. The 
petitioner also submitted a copy of a July 7, 2007 letter from- who stated that 
he and the petitioner produced the program together. 
In denying the petition, the director stated that an Internet search revealed that the film Four 
Years in Hell was produced and directed by and that despite letter, 
it cannot be determined what the petitioner "actually contributed to this production." 
In an October 27,2007 letter, stated: 
Particular reference is made to the films "Four Years in Hell" and "Kumari - the 
Living Goddess." Both these films were completed because of [the petitioner's] 
initiative and implementation. Without [his] research, direction, and camera 
expertise, neither of the films would have been produced. With respect to each 
film my duties were to raise funds and arrange the distribution of the films." 
As noted by counsel, the director did not identify the sources used in his Internet research and 
did not make the search results a part of the record. Therefore, the use of such research is an 
improper basis for denial of the petition. However, the AAO conducted its own Internet search, 
including Educational Media Reviews ~nline,~ Filmmakers ~ibrar~,~ and Media Rights: ~ilms,' 
all of which are made a part of the record. All indicate that was the producer or 
director of the film. None made an attribution to any input by the petitioner. 
Other evidence of record, however, indicates that the petitioner was instrumental in the 
production of the film. In a December 16, 1998 letter, the director of the New York International 
Children's Film Festival (NYICFF) invited the petitioner and the subject of the film to attend the 
film's screening at the NYICFF Awards ceremony and to accept an award for the film. The 
petitioner submitted a copy of the award with his name inscribed. A February 21, 2002 letter 
from the North-South Media Festival informed the petitioner that his film "Four Years in Hell" 
was selected to be screened at the festival and asked him to inform of the selection. 
In an October 27, 2007 letter, stated that the petitioner was the force behind the 
film, and that his primary responsibility was to raise funds and arrange for the film's distribution. 
We note that the-petitioner also submitted articles from several newspapers that report on his 
receipt of the UNICEF Prize. However, as discussed further below, the names of the publication 
and the dates of the articles are written by hand. Therefore, it cannot be determined that the 
articles actually appeared in the publication named. Nonetheless, we find the evidence is 
sufficient to establish that the petitioner was the winner of the UNICEF Prize at the Japan Prize 
Contest. 
2 
http://1ibweb.1ib.buffalo.edu/en1ro/e~oDetail.asp?Numbe~843, accessed on February 25,2009. 
3 
www.filtnakers.com/index.php?a=fi1mDetail&lnID=1092, accessed on February 25,2009. 
4 
wcvw.rnediarights.or~/film~four vears in hell, accessed on February 25,2009. 
However, the petitioner has not established that the UNICEF Prize at the Japan Prize Contest is a 
major, internationally recognized award and that his receipt of the award constitutes a one-time 
achievement which makes him eligible for this visa preference classification. 
Congress' example of a one-time achievement is a Nobel Prize. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 
(September 19, 1990). The regulation is consistent with this legislative history, stating that a one- 
time achievement must be a major, internationally recognized award. 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3). 
Significantly, even a lesser internationally recognized award could serve to meet only one of the ten 
regulatory criteria, of which an alien must meet at least three. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i). The 
selection of Nobel Laureates, the example provided by Congress, is reported in the top media 
internationally regardless of the nationality of the awardees, is a familiar name to the public at large 
and includes a $1 million cash prize. While an internationally recognized award could conceivably 
constitute a one-time achievement without meeting all of those elements, it is clear fi-om the 
example provided by Congress that the award must be internationally recognized in the alien's field 
as one of the top awards in that field. 
The petitioner submitted no documentation to establish that the Japan Prize competition is reported 
in the top international media. While the petitioner submitted copies of news articles regarding the 
Japan Prize competition, the news coverage appears to be of a local or national nature. The record 
does not reflect that the Japan Prize or the UNICEF Prize is one recognized by the general public. 
However, the prize will be considered as receipt of a lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prize as discussed further below. 
Counsel also alleges that the petitioner's receipt of the Grand Prize at the NYICFF in 1997 is 
also receipt of a major, internationally recognized award and makes him eligible for this visa 
classification. The petitioner submitted a copy of a December 16, 1998 letter fkom the NYICFF 
inviting him to appear in New York to accept the 1997 Grand Prize award for his film Kumari - 
The Living Goddess. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted a February 25, 1999 letter fi-om the NYICFF to 
the petitioner explaining his receipt of the award. According to the letter, signed by Eric 
Beckrnan, the director of the festival: 
The 1997 NYICFF Grand Prize was presented to you as the filmmaker of Kumari 
- The Living Goddess. The Grand Prize is selected each year by audience vote. 
We had no award ceremony in 1997 but decided to honor you retroactively at this 
year's festival. There was no money awarded - only the bronze statuette inscribed 
with your name. 
The petitioner also submitted a copy of an undated article from Time Out New York. The article 
indicates that the short film Kumari - The Living Goddess was presented at the inaugural 
NYICFF. Other documentation indicates that the NYICFF was founded in 1997 and bills itself as 
"the largest festival for children and teens in North America." The record does not, however, 
support counsel's assertion that the Grand Prize at the NYICFF is a major, internationally 
recognized award. The petitioner submitted no documentation such as announcement of the 
winners in international news or any other documentation that the NYICFF is other familiar to 
the general public such as with the Nobel Prizes or the Oscars. Without documentary evidence to 
support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The 
unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N 
Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter oflaureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez- 
Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). However, the petitioner's receipt of this award will 
be considered as receipt of a lesser nationally or internationally recognized prize as discussed 
further below. 
The petitioner's evidence does not establish that he is the recipient of a major, internationally 
recognized prize or 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. 
The petitioner has also submitted evidence that he claims meets the following   rite ria.^ 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in thejeld of endeavor. 
As noted above, the petitioner initially alleged that his receipt of the 2001 UNICEF Prize at the 
Japan Prize Contest and of the Grand Prize at the 1997 NYICFF was evidence that he meets this 
criterion. 
In his October 27, 2007 letter, Frode Pedersen states that the NYICFF "has become a major 
event" and that "The Grand Prize awarded by the New York International Children's Film 
Festival is a prize nationally and internationally recognized within the television and motion 
picture industry for excellence in the field of endeavor." However, nothing in the record supports 
statements regarding the status of NYICFF. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure 
Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). Further, even if the Grand Prize is 
recognized as a nationally or internationally recognized award, the petitioner submitted no 
documentation to establish that his receipt of the prize during the festival's inaugural year was 
receipt of a nationally or internationally recognized award in 1997. The evidence therefore does 
not establish that the petitioner's receipt of the 1997 Grand Prize at the NYICFF was receipt of a 
nationally or internationally recognized award of excellence in his field. 
As discussed above, however, the documentation submitted indicates that although the UNICEF 
Prize was not in the petitioner's name, he was primarily recognized as the person responsible for 
producing and directing the film Four Years in Hell. The evidence of record also establishes that 
5 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
Page 7 
the UNICEF Prize at the Japan Prize Contest is an internationally recognized award of 
excellence in the petitioner's field. 
Nonetheless, the regulation requires that the petitioner establish sustained national or 
international acclaim. A single prize, awarded four years prior to the filing of the appeal on 
October 24, 2005, does not provide evidence of the petitioner's sustained acclaim and is not 
sufficient to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in theJeld for which classiJication is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
In order to meet this criterion, published materials must be primarily about the petitioner and be 
printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. To qualify as major 
media, the publication should have significant national distribution and be published in a 
predominant language. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a 
particular locality but would qualify as major media because of a significant national 
distribution. 
The petitioner submitted copies of articles about the NYICFF, which includes mention of the 
showing of his film, Kumari - The Living Goddess. However, these articles are about the 
NYICFF and not about the petitioner or his work. 
The petitioner also submitted copies of several documents that he stated were from media such 
as Himal Magazine, the Kantipur Daily, and the Kathmandu Post. These documents all contain 
handwritten notations purporting to show the publication and date of the articles. However, the 
petitioner submitted no documentation to verify that these articles appeared in the publications 
identified. Without supporting documentary evidence, the petitioner has not met his burden of 
proof. Matter ofSofJicci, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
Assuming that the initially submitted documents are what they purport to be, we note that some 
of the articles discuss programming by Young Asia Television, and are therefore not about the 
petitioner. Others, dated in 2001, are about the petitioner or his documentary, Four Years in Hell. 
However, the articles appeared only during a few months in 2001. The petitioner submitted no 
similar documentation of his work prior to or subsequent to that period. The petitioner must 
establish that he has achieved sustained acclaim. Eligibility under this criterion is not established 
by references to the petitioner's work during a limited period of time. The evidence does not 
establish that the petitioner 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 alliedJield of specification for which classification is 
sought. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of a June 25, 2003 letter fiom the Advertising Agencies 
Association of Nepal (AAAN), thanking him for being a jury member for the Crity Advertising 
Awards 2060, a February 12, 2004 letter from the radio station Image FM 97.9, requesting the 
petitioner to act as a jury member of a music award, "Image Award 2004," and an April 2,2004 
letter thanking him for agreeing to be a jury member. The letter from AAAN indicates that the 
petitioner was asked to act as a jury member because of his "commendable contribution" to the 
field that he represented. 
The February 12, 2004 letter from the radio station Image FM 97.9 stated that the petitioner 
would be a member of a three-person panel judging the music award categories of best music 
video of the year, best video music director, best cameraman, best editor and best music video 
special effects. In response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted a copy of a page from the 
website of "adtricks," accessed on September 27, 2006. The document indicates that the CRITY 
Awards recognize "the talent of the advertising professionals while acknowledging the 
contribution of advertising agencies to the advertising sector, Nepali business and industries, and 
the economy as a whole." The awards include best television commercial, best art director, best 
TVC director, best copy writer, and most popular advertisement. Although these awards are 
advertising and music awards, they appear to be in an allied field of endeavor to that of the 
petitioner. 
Nonetheless, although the petitioner submitted documentation that he was asked to be a jury 
member on both of these programs, he submitted no documentation to establish that he actually 
participated in the programs. Additionally, not all who sit as a judge will have extraordinary 
ability or will qualify under this criterion. The AAO interprets this regulation to require that the 
selection and participation process for serving as the judge of the work of others in the field be 
indicative of national or international acclaim in the field. The evidence does not establish that 
the petitioner was chosen to participate as a jury member because of his national or international 
acclaim. The invitation from AAAN indicated that the petitioner was selected because of his 
"commendable contributions" to his field. However, a "commendable" contribution is not 
automatically the equivalent of national or international acclaim. 
The evidence does not establish that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzjk, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signtficance in the field. 
Prior counsel stated in his November 1,2006 letter accompanying the petitioner's response to the 
RFE that the evidence "clearly demonstrates his original contribution of major significance in the 
field of television production and direction and more specifically, the genre of 'edu-tainment' or 
'info-tainment."' The petitioner submitted copies of letters from several individuals that prior 
counsel asserted detail the petitioner's "pioneering work in his field, his high level of expertise 
relative to others in his profession, and corroborates [his] national and international prestige in 
relation to his colleagues." The letters, however, do not attest to any original contribution by the 
petitioner that was of major significance in the petitioner's field of directing and producing. Prior 
counsel asserts that the petitioner "provided the world with a rare glimpse of the Upper Mustang 
Region of Nepal with his documentary film of the area which is original and extraordinary as 
access to this area has always been forbidden to tourists and visitors." However, prior counsel 
provided no analysis and the petitioner submitted no documentation to indicate that the 
petitioner's filming coup constituted a contribution of major significance to the field. 
In his August 7, 2007 brief, prior counsel asserts that the petitioner's invitations to participate in 
the Prix Jeunesse International Film Festival and the 2002 North-South Festival are evidence that 
he meets this criterion. Nonetheless, the petitioner submitted no documentation to establish how 
an invitation to any event constitutes a contribution of major significance to his field of 
endeavor. 
In his December 12, 2007 brief, counsel asserts that the petitioner also meets this criterion based 
on his "critical role in establishing the television industry in Nepal." Nothing in the record, 
however, supports counsel's statement. While the record contains documentation that the 
petitioner was the country representative for Young Asia Television for Nepal, there is no 
evidence that the petitioner or Young Asia Television was instrumental in the development of the 
television industry in Nepal. Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions 
of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of 
counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); 
Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 
506 (BIA 1980). 
The record does not establish that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in theJield at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The wording of this criterion indicates it is intended for those in the visual arts such as sculptors 
and painters. The petitioner did not initially claim to meet this criterion. In his December 12, 
2007 brief counsel claims that the petitioner meets this criterion based on the presentation of his 
work, including Four Years in Hell and Kumari - the Living Goddess, at forums such as 
UNICEF, NYICFF, Prix Jeunesse International, and the North-South Media Festival. However, 
the evidence does not indicate that the petitioner's work was featured more prominently than 
others in the competitions or that his work was the main focus of the competitions or festivals. 
Accordingly, 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. 
To meet this criterion, the petitioner must show that he performed a leading or critical role for an 
organization or establishment and that the organization or establishment has a distinguished 
reputation. 
Prior counsel alleged that the petitioner "has performed in a leading critical capacity for multiple 
organizations and establishments with excellent, world renowned reputations." Counsel cites the 
petitioner's position as Country Representative of Young Asia Television for Nepal and 
managing director of YA Media Nepal Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner submitted documentation 
regarding the programming from Young Asia Television at Nepal and evidence that Young Asia 
Television won the UNICEF Prize. However, the winning of one prize does not, by itself, 
indicate that the organization enjoys a distinguished reputation. The petitioner also provided a 
copy of a page from The Himalayan Times, which states that "International Media Network 
Nepal Pvt. Ltd., is Nepal's foremost media company." Nonetheless, the reputation of a parent 
company such as the International Media Network Nepal Pvt. Ltd. does not necessarily impute to 
that of a subsidiary such as YA Media Nepal Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner submitted no other 
documentation to establish that Young Asia Television Nepal or YA Media Nepal Pvt. Ltd. is an 
organization with a distinguished reputation. 
Prior counsel also asserted that in the positions discussed above, the petitioner performed in a 
critical capacity for Nepal Television, His Majesty's Government Film Development Board, 
Katmandu, the Kantipur Television Network, the Film Journalist Association of Nepal, the 
Danish Broadcasting System, the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation and the Japan 
Broadcasting Corporation. The documentation of record, however, does not support prior 
counsel's assertions. The petitioner submitted no documentation that he worked for these 
organizations in any capacity. 
Prior counsel also stated that the petitioner "produced many documentary programs" for 
UNICEF, the United Nations Development Programs, and the International Labor Organization. 
However, the petitioner submitted no documentation that his production of films was in a leading 
or critical role for these organizations. Prior counsel also asserts that the petitioner meets this 
criterion for his work as an appointed member of the faculty of Tribhuvan University charged 
with formulating the criteria and curriculum in establishing a Bachelor in Film Studies for the 
university and as treasurer of Worldview Nepal's Executive Board. The evidence submitted by 
the petitioner indicates that he was appointed to a committee to work on the degree program for 
the university. There is no evidence that he served in a critical capacity on the committee or for 
the university. He also submitted documentation that he served as a volunteer treasurer of the 
nonprofit group Worldview Nepal. Nothing the record, however, establishes that Worldview 
Nepal is an organization with a distinguished reputation or that treasurer of the group is a lead or 
critical role. Further, the evidence does not establish that the position of treasurer with 
Worldview Nepal is within the petitioner's area of expertise. Thus, even if the petitioner's 
position and Worldview Nepal met the two-prong requirement of the regulation, the petitioner 
has not shown how the position of treasurer fits within his area of expertise and therefore is 
evidence of his extraordinary ability. 
The evidence does not establish that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
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 his field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as 
a television director and producer 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 indicates that the petitioner has obtained a measurable level of success in 
his field, but is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him significantly above 
almost all others in his field. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 29 1 
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.