dismissed EB-2 Case: Education

(b)(6)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Admini strative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washin gton, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: AUG 1 4 2014 OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
TN RE: 
PETITION : 
Petitioner: 
Beneficiary : 
Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2) 
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 1-2908) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.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, 
Lt~- t'' ~~-
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition and the 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner describes itself as a private school. It seeks to permanently employ the beneficiary in 
the United States as a "Bilingual French/English Science Teacher." The petitioner requests 
classification of the beneficiary as an advanced degree professional pursuant to section 203(b )(2) of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). 
At issue in this case is whether the beneficiary possesses an advanced degree as ' required by the 
terms of the labor certification and the requested preference classification. 
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
As required by statute, the petition is accompanied by an ETA Form 9089, Application for 
Permanent Employment Certification (labor certification), aprroved by the U.S. Department of 
Labor (DOL). 1 The priority date ofthe petition is May 9, 2013. 
Part H of the labor certification states that the offered position has the following minimum 
requirements: 
H.4. Education: Master's degree in Physical Science, Education, or related. 
H.5. Training: None required . 
H.6. Experience in the job offered: 24 months. 
H. 7. Alternate field of study: None accepted. 
H.8. Alternate combination of education and experience: None accepted. 
H.9. Foreign educational equivalent: Accepted. 
H.1 0. Experience in an alternate occupation: None accepted. 
H.14. Specific skills or other requirements: [Blank]. 
Part J of the labor certification states that the beneficiarv possesses a Master's degree in Physical 
Science from the France, completed in 1996. The record 
contains certificates of the following degrees awarded to the beneficiary: 
• A Licence degree from the 
• A Maitrise in Science from the 
"""'1pleted in 1995. 
completed in June 1996. 
The director's decision denying the petition concludes that the beneficiary does not have the 
equivalent of a U.S. master ' s degree as required by the terms of the labor certification. 
1 
See section 212(a)(5)(D) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(D); see also 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(a)(2). 
2 The priority date is the date the DOL accepted the labor certification for processing. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(d). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner states that the beneficiary's CAPES in Physics and Chemistry is 
the equivalent of a U.S. master's degree in Physics and Chemistry. Counsel further states that the 
beneficiary's 
education at the where he studied 
in preparation for the CAPES examination is equivalent to a master's degree. 
The petitioner's appeal is properly filed and makes a specific allegati9n of error in law or fact. The 
AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis.3 We consider all pertinent evidence in the 
record, including new evidence properly submitted upon appeal.4 We may deny a petition that fails 
to comply with the technical requirements of the law even if the director does not identify all of the 
grounds for denial in the initial decision. 5 
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS 
The Roles of the DOL and USCIS in the Immigrant Visa Process 
At the outset, it is important to discuss the respective roles of the DOL and U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) in the employment-based immigrant visa process. As noted above, the 
labor certification in this matter is certified by the DOL. The DOL's role in this process is set forth at 
section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, which provides: 
Any alien who seeks to enter the United States for the purpose of performing skilled or 
unskilled labor is inadmissible, unless the Secretary of Labor has determined and 
certified to the Secretary of State and the Attorney General that-
(I) there are not sufficient workers who are able, willing, qualified (or equally 
qualified in the case of an alien described in clause (ii)) and available at the time 
of application for a visa and admission to the United States and at the place 
where the alien is to perform such skilled or unskilled labor, and 
3 See 5 U.S.C . 557(b) ("On appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the 
powers which it would have in making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice 
or by rule."); see also Janka v. US Dept. of Transp., NTSB , 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). 
The AAO's de novo authority has been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g., Soltan e v. 
DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). 
4 The submission of additional evidence on appeal is allowed by the instructions to Form I-290B, 
Notice of Appeal or Motion, which are incorporated into the regulations by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(l). 
The record in the instant case provides no reason to preclude consideration of any of the documents 
newly submitted on appeal. See Matter ofSoriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988). 
5 See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd , 
345 F.3d 683 (9111 Cir. 2003). 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(II) the employment of such alien will not adversely affect the wages and 
working conditions of workers in the United States similarly employed . 
It is significant that none of the above inquiries assigned to the DOL, or the regulations implementing 
these duties under 20 C.P.R . § 656, involve a determination as to whether the position and the alien are 
qualified for a specific immigrant classification . This fact has not gone unnoticed by federal circuit 
courts: 
There is no doubt that the authority to make preference classification decisions rests 
with INS. The language of section 204 cannot be read otherwise. See Castan eda­
Gonzal ez v. I
NS, 564 F.2d 417, 429 (D.C. Cir. 1977). In tum, DOL has the authority 
to make the two determinations listed in section 212(a)(14). 6 Id. at 423. The 
necessary result of these two grants of authority is that section 212( a)( 14) 
determinations are not subject to review by INS absent fraud or willful 
misrepresentation, but all matters relating to preference classification eligibility not 
expressly delegated to DOL remain within INS ' authority. 
Given the language of the Act, the totality of the legislative history, and the agenci es' 
own interpretations of their duties under the Act, we must conclude that Congress did 
not intend DOL to have primary authority to make any determinations other than the 
two stated in section 212(a)(14 ). If DOL is to analyze alien qualifications, it is for 
the purpose of "matching " them with those of corresponding United States workers so 
that it will then be "in a position to meet the requirement of the law," namely the 
section 212(a)(14) determinations . 
Madany v. Smith, 696 F.2d 1008, 1012-1013 (D.C. Cir. 1983). Relying in part on Madany, 696 F.2d 
at 1008, the Ninth Circuit stated: 
[I]t appears that the DOL is responsible only for determining the availability of 
suitable American workers for a job and the impact of alien employment upon the 
domestic labor market. It does not appear that the DOL 's role extends to determining 
if the alien is qualified for the job for which he seeks sixth preference status. That 
determination appears to be delegated to the INS under section 204(b ), 8 U.S .C. 
§ 1154(b ), as one of the determinations incident to the INS's decision whether the 
alien is entitled to sixth preference status. 
K.R.K. Irvine, Inc. v. Landon, 699 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1983). The court relied on an amicus brief 
from the DOL that stated the following: 
6 Based on revisions to the Act, the current citation is section 212(a)(5)(A) . 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
The labor certification made by the Secretary of Labor . . . pursuant to section 
212(a)(14) of the [Act] is binding as to the findings of whether there are able, willing, 
qualified, and available United States workers for the job offered to the alien , and 
whether employment of the alien under the terms set by the employer would 
adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed United 
States workers. The labor certification in no way indicates that the alien offered the 
certified job opportunity is qualified (or not qual(fied) to perform the duties of that 
job . 
(Emphasis added.) Id. at 1009. The Ninth Circuit, citing K.R.K. Irvine, Inc., 699 F.2d at 1006, revisited 
this issue, stating: 
The Department of Labor (DOL) must certify that insufficient domestic workers are 
available to perform the job and that the alien's performance of the job will not 
adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed domestic 
workers. Id. § 212(a)(14), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(l4). The INS then makes its own 
determination of the alien's entitlement to sixth preference status. Id. § 204(b), 
8 U.S.C. § 1154(b). See generally K.R.K. Irvine, Inc. v. Landon, 699 F.2d 1006, 
1008 9th Cir.1983 ). 
The INS, therefore, may make a de novo determination of whether the alien is in fact 
qualified to fill the certified job offer. 
Tongatapu Woodcraft Hawaii, Ltd. v. Feldman, 736 F. 2d 1305, 1309 (9th Cir. 1984). 
Therefore, it is the DOL's responsibility to determine whether there are qualified U.S. workers 
available to perform the offered position, and whether the employment of the beneficiary will 
adversely affect similarly employed U.S. workers. It is the responsibility of USCIS to determine if 
the beneficiary qualifies for the offered position, and whether the offered position and the 
beneficiary are eligible for the requested employment-based immigrant visa classification. 
Eligibility for the Classification Sought 
Section 203(b)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2), provides immigrant classification to members of 
the professions holding advanced degree~. See also 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(l). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines the terms "advanced degree" and "profession." An 
"advanced degree" is defined as: 
[A ]ny United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree 
above that of baccalaureate. A United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the 
specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral degree 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a United States doctorate 
or a foreign equivalent degree. 
A "profession" is defined as "one of the occupations listed in section 101(a)(32) of the Act, as well 
as any occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the 
minimum requirement for entry into the occupation." The occupations listed at section 10l(a)(32) of 
the Act are "architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or 
secondary schools, colleges, academies, or seminaries." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i) states that a petition for an advanced degree professional 
must be accompanied by: 
(A) An official academic record showing that the alien has a United States advanced 
degree or a foreign equivalent degree; or 
(B) An official academic record showing that the alien has a United States 
baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree , and evidence in the form of 
letters from cunent or former employer(s) showing that the alien has at least five 
years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty. 
In addition, the job offer portion of the labor certification must require a professional holding an 
advanced degree. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(4)(i). 
Therefore, an advanced degree professional petition must establish that the beneficiary is a member of 
the professions holding an advanced degree, and that the offered position requires , at a minimum , a 
professional holding an advanced degree. Further, an "advanced degree" is a U.S. academic or 
professional degree (or a foreign equivalent degree) above a baccalaureate, or a U.S. baccalaureate (or a 
foreign equivalent degree) followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty. 
In the instant case , the petitioner relies on the beneficiary's Baccalaureat, Licence and 
degrees and his CAPES award as together constituting education that is the equivalent to a U.S. 
master's degree. The petitioner also asserts that the CAPES alone and 
the alone 
individually equate to a U.S. master's degree. 
We have reviewed the Electronic Database for Global Education (EDGE) created by the Americ an 
Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO) . According to its 
website, AACRAO is "a nonprofit, voluntary, professional association of more than 11 ,000 higher 
education admissions and registration professionals who represent more than 2,600 institutions and 
agencies in the United States and in over 40 countries around the world ." See 
http: //www.aacrao.org / About-AACRAO.aspx. Its mission "is to serve and advance higher education 
by providing leadership in academic and enrollment services." !d. EDGE is "a web-based resource 
for the evaluation of foreign educational credentials." See http://edge .aacrao.org /info .php . USCIS 
considers EDGE to be a reliable, peer-reviewed source of information about foreign credentials 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
equivalencies. 7 
We acknowledge that the beneficiary's education was completed before France adopted the Bologna 
Accords and EDGE provides information both before and after the Bologna Accords were adopted . 
EDGE states that prior to the Bologna Accords, the Licence was a one-year program that is a 
prerequ1Slte to a one-year program and that the Licence was a prerequisite to two-years of 
teacher training, which in this case represents the beneficiary's two years of study and training for 
the CAPES examination. EDGE does not indicate that a program is required prior to the 
CAPES education and examination. 
According to EDGE regarding post-Bologna degrees in France, the beneficiary's degree 
represents attainment of a level of education comparable to a bachelor's degree in the United States. 
EDGE further states that this is a one-year, post-secondary program that was phased out by the L-M­
D cycle (Licence-Master-Doctor) when French universities became Bologna compliant. EDGE 
states that the Master's degree in France is a two-year post-secondary program. 
EDGE also states that the beneficiary's Certificat d' Aptitude au Professorat de l' Enseignements 
Secondaire (CAPES) "represents attainment of a level of education comparable to a bachelor 's 
degree in secondary education in the United States." 
The record contains the following evidence in support of the petitioner's assertion that the beneficiary 
possesses the foreign equivalent of a U.S. master's degree: 
• An affidavit from the head of the . Education Department, certifying 
that the beneficiary completed the physics and chemistry curricula at the University of 
Montpellier in preparation for the CAPES examination from September 1996 to June 1997; and 
that the beneficiary took the Physics and Chemistry Teacher's Training Program from 
September 1998 to June 1999. 
• A certificate from the France, attesting 
to the beneficiary's completion of the CAPES exanlination, uly 17, 1997 . 
• A letter from the , dated October 18, 1999, stating 
7 In Confluenc e International , Inc. v. Holder, 2009 WL 825793 (D.Minn. March 27, 2009), the court 
determined that the AAO provided a rational explanation for its reliance on information provided by 
AACRAO to support its decision. In Tiseo Group, Inc. v. Napolitano , 2010 WL 3464314 
(E.D.Mich. August 30, 2010), the court found that USCIS had properly weighed the evaluations 
submitted and the information obtained from EDGE to conclude that the beneficiary 's three-year 
foreign "baccalaureate " and foreign "Master's" degree were only comparable to a U.S. bachelor's 
degree. In Sunshine Rehab Services, Inc. v. USCIS, 2010 WL 3325442 (E.D.Mich. August 20, 
201 0), the court concluded that US CIS was entitled to prefer the information in EDGE and did not 
abuse its discretion in reaching its conclusion. The court also noted that the labor certification 
required a degree and did not allow for the combination of education and experience. 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
that the beneficiary passed the National Teacher's Exam (CAPES) and was granted tenure by 
the French Ministry of Education on September 1, 1999. 
• An evaluation of the beneficiary's educational credentials prepared by for 
_ concluding that the beneficiary's education credentials are 
equivalent to a "Bachelor of Science Degree, with a dual major in Physics and Chemistry , 
and a Master of Science Degree in Education, with a specialization in Physics and Chemistry , 
from an accredited U.S. college or university." Mr. also cites the 
L contained in the record, dated September 2008, and concludes 
that the beneficiary's Certificat d' Aptitude au Professorat de l' Enseignement Secondaire 
(CAPES) is equivalent to a Master's degree in Education with a specialization in Physics and 
Chemistry. 
• A letter from the Cultural Attache and Head of Education at the 
stating that the beneficiary's was awarded before 
the Bologna Accords in France and is equivalent to a "Master's First Year (Master I) as 
defined by the Accords ." Mr. states that the CAPES is a professional degree 
awarded by the French Ministry of Education for professional teachers and that certified 
school teachers must hold both a master ' s degree and the CAPES. He further states that "the 
CAPES is considered equivalent to a Master 2 level diploma by the French Ministry of 
Education. " 
• letter rom the Academic Director o 
dated February 26, 2014, stating that "the CAPES is the French national 
teacher's recruiting exam whose validation gives the candidate the right to teach junior high 
and high school in the French Education school system." He further states that "(t]eachers 
who have passed the CAPES (French National Teacher's Exam) will be given full 
certification status only if they hold a master's degree (5 year university degree after 
high school) or an equivalent degree that is recognized and validated by the Ministry of 
Education. " (Emphasis in original). 
• An affidavit frorr , a member of the faculty of the 
stating that the beneficiary was a student in the Education Department of the 
which was then called Mr. states that the beneficiary completed 
the Physics and Chemistry curricula in preparation for the CAPES exam from September 
1996 to June 1997 and that he completed the Physics and Chemistry Teacher 's Training 
Program from September 1998 to June 1999. 
• A letter from Mr. stating that as of 2010, certified school teachers were required to 
hold both a master's degree and the CAPES to be able to start teaching. 
• A letter from the Science Department, dated March 3, 2014, stating 
that "the is the equivalent of a Master's First Year (Master I) as defined by the 
....... - -------- - - -----
(b)(6)
Page 9 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
reforms implemented in the French Higher Education System so as to conform to European 
Community standards." 
The record contains the which Mr. relies upon 
in evaluating the beneficiary's education credentials for Mr. 
concludes that according to this report, the beneficiary's Certificat d'Aptitude au 
Professorat de l 'Enseignement Secondaire (CAPES) is equivalent to a Master's degree in Education 
with a specialization in Physics and Chemistry . However, the report states that the CAPES 
is a "Certificate of Ability for Secondary School Teaching" and is a "2-year second cycle universal 
program based on [the Licence]." This report does not state that it represents the equivalent of a 
master's degree as indicated by Mr. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any 
inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence, and attempts to explain or reconcile 
such inconsistencies, absent competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth, in fact, lies, 
will not suffice. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-592 (BIA 1988). 
The letter from Mr. the Cultural Attache and Head of Education at the 
states that the beneficiary's is equivalent to a "Master's First 
Year (Master I) as defined by the Accords." Mr. states that the CAPES is a professional 
degree awarded by the French Ministry of Education for professional teachers and that certified 
school teachers must hold both a master's degree and the CAPES. He further states that "the 
CAPES is considered equivalent to a Master 2 level diploma by the French Ministry of Education ." 
However, it is unclear why the CAPES is considered to be an equivalent to a master's degree by the 
French Ministry of Education when both a master's degree and the CAPES are required for school 
teachers to become certified. If the CAPES is truly equivalent to a master's degree, it is unclear why 
the French Ministry of Education would require a master's degree in addition to the CAPES. 
The conclusion that the CAPES is equivalent to a master's degree also conflicts with the letters from 
Mr. of the faculty and the Academic Director of 
Mr. and Mr. both state that 
school teachers must have both a master's degree and the CAPES, which supports the conclusion 
that the CAPES is not equivalent to a master's degree, but that it is a separate credential. 
The petitioner also asserts that the beneficiary's degree alone is equivalent to a U.S. 
master's degree. As stated above, the beneficiary's degree was awarded before France 
became compliant with the Bologna degree system . EDGE states that the degree is a one­
year, post-secondary program that has been phased out by the L-M-D cycle and is equivalent to a 
level of education comparable to a bachelor's degree in the United States. Therefore, this degree 
alone does not constitute the equivalent of a U.S. master's degree to qualify the beneficiary as an 
advanced degree professional under the Act. 
Therefore, based on the conclusions of EDGE and the evidence in the record, the petitioner has not 
established that the beneficiary possesses a degree that is, by itself, the foreign equivalent of a U.S. 
master's degree. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
Page 10 
After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, it is concluded that the petitioner has failed to 
establish that the beneficiary possessed at least a U.S. academic or professional degree (or a foreign 
equivalent degree) above a baccalaureate. Therefore, the beneficiary does not qualify for classification 
as an advanced degree professional under section 203(b )(2) of the Act. 
The Minimum Requirements of the Offered Position 
The petitioner must also establish that the beneficiary satisfied all of the educational , trmmng , 
experience and any other requirements of the offered position by the priority date. 8 C.F.R. § 
103.2(b)(l), (12). See Matter ofWing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 159 (Act. Reg. eomm. 1977); 
see also Matter ofKatigbak , 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Reg. eomm. 1971). 
In evaluating the job offer portion of the labor certification to determine the required qualifications 
for the position, users may not ignore a term of the labor certification, nor may it impose additional 
requirements. See Madany, 696 F.2d at 1008; K.R.K. Irvine, Inc., 699 F.2d at 1006; Stewart infra­
Red Commissary of Massachu setts, Inc. v. Coomey , 661 F.2d 1 (1st eir. 1981 ). 
Where the job requirements in a labor certification are not otherwise unambiguously prescribed , e.g., 
by regulation, users must examine "the language of the labor certification job requirements" in 
order to determine what the petitioner must demonstrate about the beneficiary's qualifications. 
Madany , 696 F.2d at 1015. The only rational manner by which users can be expected to interpret 
the meaning of terms used to describe the requirements of a job in a labor certification is to 
"examine the certified job offer exactly as it is completed by the prospective employer. " Rosedale 
Linden Park Company v. Smith, 595 F. Supp. 829, 833 (D.D.e. 1984)(emphasis added). USeiS's 
interpretation of the job ' s requirements , as stated on the labor certification must involve "reading 
and applying the plain languag e of the [labor certification]." !d. at 834 (emphasis added) . users 
cannot and should not reasonably be expected to look beyond the plain language of the labor 
certification or otherwise attempt to divine the employer's intentions through some sort of reverse 
engineering of the labor certification. Even though the labor certification may be prepared with the 
beneficiary in mind, USCIS has an independent role in determining whether the beneficiary meets the 
labor certification requirements. See Snapnames.com , Inc. v. Michael Cherto_ff, 2006 WL 3491005 *7 
(D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006). 
In the instant case, the labor certification states that the offered position requires a Master ' s degree in 
Physical Science , Education , or related. As discussed above, the petitioner has not established that 
the beneficiary possesses the foreign equivalent of a U.S. master's degree to qualify as an advanced 
degree professional and to meet the terms of the labor certification. 
The petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary possessed the minimum requirements of the 
offered position set forth on the labor certification by the priority date. Accordingly, the petition must 
also be denied for this reason. 
·---------· ·---·-----···-·------------------ ---- - --------
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~JON 
Page 11 
III. CONCLUSION 
In summary, the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary possessed an advanced degree as 
required by the terms of the labor certification and the requested preference classification. 
Therefore, the beneficiary does not qualify for classification as a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree under section 203(b )(2) of the Act. The director's decision denying the petition 
is affirmed. 
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 ofOti ende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed .