dismissed EB-1B Case: Forest Products And Paper Science Engineering

U.S. Department of IIomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W.. Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
LIN 07 020 50358 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as Outstanding Professor or Researcher Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(B) 
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. 
A&&?/O&dt IG-L 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska 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 is a non-profit education and research institution. It seeks to classify the beneficiary as 
an outstanding researcher pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(B). The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the 
United States as a Research Scientist 11. The director determined that the petitioner had not established 
that the beneficiary had attained the outstanding level of achievement required for classification as an 
outstanding researcher. 
On appeal, counsel provides a brief statement. For the reasons discussed below, we uphold the 
director's decision in this matter. 
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): 
(B) Outstanding professors and researchers. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph 
if -- 
(i) the alien is recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific 
academic area, 
(ii) the alien has at least 3 years of experience in teaching or research in the 
academic area, and 
(iii) the alien seeks to enter the United States -- 
(I) 
 for a tenured position (or tenure-track position) within a 
university or institution of higher education to teach in the 
academic area, 
(11) 
 for a comparable position with a university or institution of 
higher education to conduct research in the area, or 
(In) for a comparable position to conduct research in the area 
with a department, division, or institute of a private employer, if 
the department, division, or institute employs at least 3 persons 
Page 3 
full-time in research activities and has achieved documented 
accomplishments in an academic field. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(i)(3) states that a petition for an outstanding professor or researcher 
must be accompanied by: 
(ii) Evidence that the alien has at least three years of experience in teaching andlor 
research in the academic field. Experience in teaching or research while working on an 
advanced degree will only be acceptable if the alien has acquired the degree, and if the 
teaching duties were such that he or she had full responsibility for the class taught or if 
the research conducted toward the degree has been recognized within the academic field 
as outstanding. Evidence of teaching andlor research experience shall be in the form of 
letter(s) from current or former empIoyer(s) and shall include the name, address, and 
title of the writer, and a specific description of the duties performed by the alien. 
This petition was filed on October 23, 2006 to classify the beneficiary as an outstanding researcher in 
the field of Forest Products, Pulp and Paper Science Engineering. Therefore, the petitioner must 
establish that the beneficiary had at least three years of research experience in the field as of that date, 
and that the beneficiary's work has been recognized internationally within the field as outstanding. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(i)(3)(i) states that a petition for an outstanding professor or 
researcher must be accompanied by "[elvidence that the professor or researcher is recognized 
internationally as outstanding in the academic field specified in the petition." The regulation lists six 
criteria, of which the beneficiary must satisfi. at least two. It is important to note here that the 
controlling purpose of the regulation is to establish international recognition, and any evidence 
submitted to meet these criteria must, therefore, be to some extent indicative of international 
recognition. More specifically, outstanding professors and researchers should stand apart in the 
academic community through eminence and distinction based on international recognition. The 
regulation at issue provides criteria to be used in evaluating whether a professor or researcher is 
deemed outstanding. Employment-Based Immigrants, 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30705 (proposed July 5, 
199l)(enacted 56 Fed. Reg. 60897 (Nov. 29, 1991)). The petitioner claims to have satisfied the 
following criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the academic field which require 
outstanding achievements of their members. 
The petitioner submits evidence that the beneficiary is a member of Sigma Xi. 
 The petitioner 
submitted evidence that full membership requires a "noteworthy" achievement and that Sigma Xi has 
65,000 members, 200 of which are Nobel Laureates. We note that, according to these numbers, only 
three percent of Sigma Xi members are Nobel Laureates. 
' The petitioner does not claim that the beneficiary meets any criteria not discussed in this decision and the 
record contains no evidence relating to the omitted criteria. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated that Sigma Xi requires outstanding 
achievements for membership. On appeal, counsel asserts that, as a member of Sigma Xi, the 
beneficiary has demonstrated a level of experience consistent with the regulatory standards. 
Counsel is not persuasive. The petitioner has not submitted evidence establishing how Sigma Xi 
defines "noteworthy." Such "noteworthy" achievements as authoring one or two published articles are 
not "outstanding" such that the author stands apart in the academic community through eminence and 
distinction. The Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook, 224 (2006-2007 ed.) reflects 
that university faculty spend a significant amount of their time doing research and often publish their 
findings. Id. at 224. In addition, the handbook acknowledges that faculty face "the pressure to do 
research and publish their findings." Id. at 225. 
We acknowledge that 200 of the 65,000 members of Sigma Xi are Nobel Laureates. The prestige of the 
Nobel Prize is not in dispute. It remains, however, that the petitioner is not a recipient of the Nobel 
Prize. Thus, its significance is irrelevant. That Sigma Xi includes members who have won the Nobel 
Prize does not impart that distinction to the vast majority (97 percent) of its members who have not 
been so recognized. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Published material in professional publications written by others about the alien's work in the 
academic field. Such material shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessa y translation. 
The director acknowledged the submission of articles that cite the beneficiary's work. The director 
concluded that articles which cite the beneficiary's work are primarily about the author's own work, not 
the beneficiary. As such, although they cannot be considered under this criterion as published material 
about the beneficiary, the articles will be considered under a separate, more relevant criterion below. 
Counsel does not specifically challenge the director's finding regarding this criterion and we concur 
with the director that the petitioner has not established .that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as the judge of the work 
of others in the same or an allied academicfield. 
The record reflects that the beneficiary has refereed manuscripts for two journals. We note that the 
beneficiary's immediate supervisor is an associate editor for one of the journals. In response to the 
director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted letters from the associate editors of 
the two journals asserting that reviewers are selected based on their international recognition in the 
field. 
The director concluded that skilled researchers are routinely requested to review manuscripts and that 
the petitioner had not demonstrated that the beneficiary's reviewing responsibilities can serve to meet 
this criterion. On appeal, counsel does not specifically challenge this conclusion, but asserts generally 
that the director failed to consider the opinions of experts in areas where the director does not have 
expertise. 
We cannot ignore that scientific journals are peer reviewed and rely on many scientists to review 
submitted articles. Thus, we concur with the director that peer review is routine in the field; not every 
peer reviewer enjoys international recognition. Without evidence that sets the beneficiary apart from 
others in his field, such as evidence that he has reviewed an unusually large number of articles, received 
independent requests from a substantial number of journals, or served in an editorial position for a 
distinguished journal, based upon the evidence submitted, we cannot conclude that the beneficiary 
meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientiJic or scholarly research contributions to the academic 
field. 
The petitioner cannot satisfy this criterion simply by listing the beneficiary's past projects and 
demonstrating that the beneficiary's work was "original" in that it did not merely duplicate prior 
research. Research work that is unoriginal would be unlikely to secure the beneficiary a master's 
degree, let alone classification as an outstanding researcher. Because the goal of the regulatory criteria 
is to demonstrate that the beneficiary has won international recognition as an outstanding researcher, it 
stands to reason that the beneficiary's research contributions have won comparable recognition. To 
argue that all original research is, by definition, "outstanding" is to weaken that adjective beyond any 
useful meaning, and to presume that most research is "unoriginal." 
As stated above, outstanding researchers should stand apart in the academic community through 
eminence and distinction based on international recognition. The regulation at issue provides criteria 
to be used in evaluating whether a professor or researcher is deemed outstanding. 56 Fed. Reg. 
30703, 30705 (July 5, 1991). Any Ph.D. thesis, postdoctoral or other research, in order to be 
accepted for graduation, publication or funding, must offer new and useful information to the pool of 
knowledge. To conclude that every researcher who performs original research that adds to the 
general pool of knowledge meets this criterion would render this criterion meaningless. 
Furthermore, the regulations include a separate criterion for scholarly articles. 8 C.F.R. 
3 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F). Thus, the mere authorship of scholarly articles cannot serve as presumptive 
evidence to meet this criterion. To hold otherwise would render the regulatory requirement that a 
beneficiary meet at least two criteria meaningless. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director discounted the beneficiary's contributions "without basis" 
and notes the number of reference letters submitted. We will consider the letters in detail below. The 
opinions of experts in the field, however, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a 
successful claim of international recognition. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) may, in its 
discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Carort 
Interrtatiorzal, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 1988). However, CIS 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; 
CIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. 
at 795. CIS 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 of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 
165 (Commr. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Regl. Commr. 
1972)). 
In evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of international 
recognition and vague claims of contributions are less persuasive than letters that specifically 
identify contributions and provide specific examples of how those contributions have influenced the 
field. In addition, letters from independent references who were previously aware of the petitioner 
through his reputation and who have applied his work are far more persuasive than letters from 
independent references who were not previously aware of the petitioner and are merely responding to 
a solicitation to review the petitioner's curriculum vitae and work and provide an opinion based 
solely on this review. Ultimately, evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition 
carries greater weight than new materials prepared especially for submission with the petition. An 
individual with international recognition should be able to produce unsolicited materials reflecting 
that recognition. 
The beneficiary received his Ph.D. from the South China University of Technology in 2000. Since that 
time he has worked as a postdoctoral researcher and finally a research scientist at the Institute of Paper 
Science and Technology (IPST), part of the petitioning university. The petitioner initially provided 
letters from colleagues who affirm, in general terms, the importance of the beneficiary's work without 
providing specific examples of how the work has impacted the field. 
, a professor at the South China University of Technology, asserts that he was the 
beneficiary's Ph.D. advisor. notes that the beneficiary had already published three papers 
while studying for his Master's Degree. 
 explains that the beneficiary's Ph.D. research 
"focused on developing technologies of modified kraft pulping and ECF bleaching of southern China 
softwood resource as well as investigating the fundamental mechanisms." - notes that 
conventional krafi cooking techniques consume significant bleaching chemicals and produce organic 
pollutants in the effluent, prompting a search for low kappa modified kraft cooking and low pollution 
bleaching technologies. According to , the beneficiary "developed extended modified 
continuous cooking (EMCC) and ECF bleaching technologies" which "can allow pulp mills to cook 
to lower kappa number, reducing bleaching chemicals usage and decreasing bleaching effluent 
pollution." Finally, asserts that the beneficiary "investigated the lignin structural 
characteristics during EMCC pulping and ECF bleaching," which "provided fundamental and deep 
understanding of lignin structural changes which is the key to develop[ing] new pulping and 
bleaching technologies." 
While 
 confirms that the beneficiary's work is "very important for pulp companies," he does 
not identify any pulp company that is now cooking to a lower kappa number or reducing bleaching 
chemical usage based on the beneficiary's work. 
At IPST, the beneficiary works under 
 The record does not 
include a general reference letter from 
 contain letters 
from some of the beneficiary's other collaborators and coauthors of his work at PST. 
, currently an associate professor at North Carolina State University, previously 
worked as an associate professor at IPST and was a co-principal investigator for two of the projects 
on which the beneficiary worked. Specifically, the beneficiary "demonstrated that the acetylation of 
lignin plays a cru 
 the photostability of mechanical pulp during light irradiation." In a 
subsequent letter, 
 explains that mechanical pulping is an environmental friendly process 
that is currently only appropriate for low-value and short-life products such as newsprint due to its 
tendency to discolor. 
According to 
 the beneficiary's work added to the general pool of knowledge of structural 
characteristics and photo-behaviors of acetylated lignin and "provided a fundamental principle for 
viable practical solution to the problems of brightness reversion of mechanical pulps." while Dr. 
asserts that this work contributes to the viability of low cost paper manufacture that would 
allow the United States to remain competitive with other low cost manufacturers, -does not 
identify any paper manufacturer that has utilized the beneficiary's work to lower its costs. - 
further asserts that the estimated economic benefits of the beneficiary's work on high kappa oxygen 
delignification technology "are on the order of 1-2 million dollars savings for a 100 ton/day mill 
implementing" this technology. ma does not identify a mill that has recognized these savings 
and the record contains no letters from officials at a paper mill confirming such savings based on the 
beneficiary's work. 
, an Alumni Distinguished Professor at North Carolina State University, asserts that 
he is in a position to judge the beneficiary's work "as a peer." 
 further asserts that he 
knows the beneficiary "though his research work on extended oxygen delignification technologies." 
We note that I is, in fact a listed coauthor of this work and, thus, appears to be one of the 
beneficiary's close collaborators. asserts that the beneficiary demonstrated a relationship 
between pulp bleachability and residual ligin structures, providing "an in-depth understanding in 
chemistry of extended oxygen delignification of high kappa pulps." In a subsequent letter, he asserts 
that the industry "has obtained improved guidance for developing optimal extended oxygen 
delignification technologies for U.S. pulping and bleaching operations." 
a research forest products technologist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 
Forest Service, Southern Research Station, is another coauthor who provides similar information. Dr 
also discusses the beneficiary's work with nanoparticles, speculating that this work "may lead 
to new product platforms for pulp products and directly address the technical challenges established 
by American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) Agenda 2020 to develop new Forest Based 
Materials." does not explain how this work has already impacted the paper industry. In a 
subsequent letter, asserts that the beneficiary's work on oxygen delignification has 
provided "guidance" for pulp mills and has had "a significant impact upon the industry." 
, an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsm-Ma d. lson and former 
postdoctoral researcher at PST, confirms that the beneficiary "demonstrated that condensed 
phenolics at C-5 and p-hydroxyphenols in ligin were enriched during the residual oxygen and two- 
stage oxygen delignification, and that conjugated C-5 noncondensed phenolic structure can be used 
to determine the overall extent of oxygen delignification." concludes that this work is 
"critical for pulp mills to optimize oxygen delignification conditions to enhance reactivity of lignin 
towards delignification and to minimize carbohydrate degradation." 
The petitioner also provided a letter from , an associate professor at the 
  we dish Pulp and 'paper Research Institute. 
 acknowledges that he has been 
collaborating with ' group since 1998 and his curriculum vitae shows that he and Dr. 
have coauthored conference presentations. t asserts that the beneficiary's 
work "has given fundamental insight into the mechanisms of photobleaching of high-yleld 
mechanical pulps and retardation of photoyellowing of acetylation of mechanical pulp ligins. Dr. 
Nilvebrant discusses the importance of this work, but concludes only that the beneficiary's results 
"may have an impact on future industrial applications." 
In a subsequent letter, 
 asserts that the beneficiary's 
mechanical pulp has "already reverberated throughout the industry." 
that the beneficiary's work on oxygen delignification "has been well 
will certainly have an impact on future industrial applications." 
 Similarly, 
principal scientist at International Paper, asserts that the beneficiary's work with nan~technolo~yhas 
"reverberated throughout the industry." 
an associate professor at the University of New Brunswick, asserts that he has 
"known" the beneficiary since 1999 when the beneficiary was an exchan e student at IPST. Dr. Li 
states that he and the beneficiary continue to commu h~ does not explain how 
he initially became aware of the beneficiary's work. ~~~~~~~enerally that the beneficiary's 
work "has provided important insight into the understanding of the fundamentals of [the] 
photochemistry involved in the photodiscoloration of wood pulps." In addition, explains that 
the beneficiary has "characterized and identified structural features that enhance reactivity towards 
extended oxygen delignification of high kappa pulps, which provides important guidance for future 
development of new extended oxygen delignification systems." concludes: 
His another [sic] research area relates to the supra-molecular structural features of 
cellulose during enzymatic hydrolysis using solid state 13c nuclear magnetic 
resonance, for which he is a renowned expert. He is also one of the pioneering 
researchers worldwide in developing nano-cellulosic composites from natural 
woodlpulp sources, which is an emerging technology to be used in many industrial 
applications. 
In a subsequent letter, asserts that the beneficiary's research on high-yield pulp ligin 'bas 
made a significant difference for subsequent studies that have built on his pioneering work." 
In his January 5, 2007 letter, 
 a former faculty member at PST, asserts that the 
beneficiary's work "has 
 paper industry" and that "many of the advances in 
this area may be attributed to [the beneficiary's] significant research discoveries.'' More specifically, 
asserts that the beneficiary's research was critical for developing improved extended oxygen 
delignification (EOD) technologies for U.S. pulp mills and "helped to establish the next generation 
of processes for this crucial industry." 
None of the above references identifies a mill that is utilizing the beneficiary's work and the record 
contains no letters from mill officials affirming their reliance on the beneficiary's work and attesting 
to their economic savings. While works for International Paper and asserts generally that 
the beneficiary's work has "reverberated" throughout the industry, he knows the beneficiary from 
their collaboration in China and does not affirm that International Paper is adopting the beneficiary's 
techniques. 
Ln response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted letters from 
more independent members of the field. -, a research associate at the State 
University of New York (SUNY) College of Environmental Science and Forestry, asserts that he is 
"rather familiar with [the beneficiary's] ioneering work" but does not explain how he became aware 
of the beneficiary's work. While dh praises the beneficiary's work and reputation, he 
generally concludes only that the beneficiary's research "has significant positive environmental and 
economic implications for the paper industry." 
- Director of the Laboratory of the Chemistry of Natural Products at the 
Universitk Bordeaux in France, asserts that he has recently cited the beneficiary's research in his own 
published article. The citation evidence in the record does not include an article by m 
Thus, it is not clear that he had already cited the beneficiary as of the date of filing, the date as of 
which the petitioner must establish the beneficiary's eligibility. 
 See 8 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. Commr. 1971). Re ardless, 
 does not 
explain the context in which he cited the beneficiary's work. gfurther asserts that the 
beneficiary's work on mechanical pulp "has had a tremendous economic and environmental impact 
upon the field." 
 If true, it can be expected that several pulping mills would have already 
Page 10 
implemented the beneficiary's results leading to economic benefits. As stated above, the record does 
not contain testimonials from mill operators affirming the impact of the beneficiary's work on their 
industry. 
 ina ally, a professor at Mississippi State University, affirms that he is familiar 
with the beneficiary's work and is providing an independent reference letter. On the final page of his 
letter he indicates his o inion is based on a review of the beneficiary's accomplishments and notable 
publications. While 1) affirms that the beneficiary's work is an important addition to the 
general pool of knowledge, he concludes only that, as of yet, the beneficiary's work "has significant 
economic implications for the pulp and paper industry as a whole." 
We acknowledge that the beneficiary is a prolific author of scholarly research articles and that his 
articles individually have been minimally cited. However, as stated above, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
9 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F) provides a separate criterion relating to the authorship of scholarly articles. Thus, 
we cannot conclude that evidence relating to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F) is also 
presumptive evidence that the beneficiary meets the original contributions criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
3 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E). To hold otherwise would render the regulatory requirement that an alien meet at 
least two criteria meaningless. 
While the beneficiary's research 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 or postdoctoral research, in order to be accepted for 
graduation, publication or funding, must offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. 
The record does not establish that the beneficiary's research is internationally recognized as 
outstanding. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly books or articles (in scholarly journals with 
international circulation) in the academicJield. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary has authored several published articles and has 
presented his work at several conferences. Many of the petitioner's references affirm that his 
publication record is remarkable for a young researcher of similar experience. While the petitioner 
need not demonstrate that the beneficiary is one of that small percentage at the top of his field as 
required for classification pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, the petitioner must demonstrate 
that the beneficiary stands apart in the academic community through emjnence and distinction based 
on international recognition. 56 Fed. Reg. at 30705. 
The Association of American Universities' Committee on Postdoctoral Education, on page 5 of its 
Report and Recommendations, March 3 1, 1998, set forth its recommended definition of a postdoctoral 
appointment. Among the factors included in this definition are the acknowledgement that "the 
appointment is viewed as preparatory for a full-time academic andlor research career," and that "the 
appointee has the freedom, and is expected, to publish the results of his or her research or scholarship 
during the period of the appointment." Thus, this national organization considers publication of one's 
work to be "expected," even among researchers who have not yet begun "a hll-time academic andlor 
research career." Moreover, as stated above, the Occupational Outlook Handbook, 224, also provides 
that university faculty spend a significant amount of their time doing research and often publish their 
findings. In addition, the handbook acknowledges that faculty face "the pressure to do research and 
publish their findings." Id. at 225. 
The above information reinforces our position that publication of scholarly articles is not automatically 
evidence of international recognition; we must consider the research community's reaction to those 
articles. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted 11 articles that cite the beneficiary's work. Two of those articles were 
self-citations from the beneficiary's coauthors. The citations submitted do not establish that any one of 
the petitioner's articles had been cited more than three times as of the date of filing. In response to the 
director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted evidence of 16 citations of the 
beneficiary's-English-language articles and 39 citations of his Chinese-language articles. Of the 16 
English-language citations, seven are from the beneficiary himself or . While self- 
citations are a normal and expected process, they cannot establish the beneficiary's recognition beyond 
his own circle of colleagues. ~hile the beneficiary's Chinese-language articles have-been cited 39 
times in the aggregate, no one article has been cited more than eight times. Moreover, the petitioner 
has not demonstrated that the Chinese-language journals have an international circulation as required 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F). 
While the number of the beneficiary's published articles may be indicative of international exposure, 
we are not persuaded that the petitioner has demonstrated that the beneficiary's publication record is 
indicative of international recognition as outstanding. Even if we were to conclude that the large 
number of publications alone serves to meet this criterion, the beneficiary would only meet one 
criterion. For the reasons discussed above, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary 
meets any other criterion. 
The petitioner has shown that the beneficiary is a talented and prolific researcher, who has won the 
respect of his collaborators, employers, and mentors, while securing some degree of international 
exposure for his work. The record, however, stops short of elevating the beneficiary to the level of an 
alien who is internationally recognized as an outstanding researcher or professor. Therefore, the 
petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is qualified for the benefit sought. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 4 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.