dismissed EB-2 Case: Health Administration

(b)(6)
U.~. DepartJl1eJit of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigratio11 Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.s·. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: NOV 2 1 2013 OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigr~nt Petition fo~ 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 Iriunigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(Z) 
ON BEHALF OF PETfTIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
\ 
\ 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (MO) in your ca:se. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through no'n-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
you:r c~se or if you seek to prese11t new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a · 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I~290B 'instrtictiolls at 
http:U.www.uscis.gov/fotms for tbe 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, 
/!:A-'· Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-fRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DJSCUSSlON: The preference visa petition was initially denied by t11e Director, Nebraska Service 
Center and came before the Administration Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The director's . decision 
wa5 affirmed and the .appeal was dismissed by the AAO on July 26, 2013. The matter is now before 
the AAO on a motion to reopen and a ·motion to reconsider. The motio11 will be granted. The 
previous decision of the AAO, dated July 26, 2013 willbe affirmed, and the petition will remain denied, 
'fhe petitioner describes itself as a hospital. It seeks to permanently employ the beneficiary in the 
United States as a "Community Health Manager;'' The petitioner requests classification of the 
berteficiat'y as art advanced degree professiom1l pursu~nt 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 I::USTORY . 
As required by s' t~tl!te, the petition is accompanied by an ETA Fotm 9089; Application for 
Permanent Employment Certification (labor certificatioll), approved by the U.S. Department of 
Uibor (DOL). 1 The priority date of the petition is Aliglist 8, 2012} 
~ . 
Part H of the labor certification states that tbe offered position has the following miiliinulll 
requirements: 
' 
H.4 ~ Education: Master's degree in "B~siness Administration or related.'' 
H .. 5. Training: None required ; 
H.6. Experience in thejob offered: None required. 
H.7. Alternate field of study: "Health Administration or medical related." 
H.8. Alternate combination of education and e~p~rielice: None accepted. 
H.9. Foreign educational equivalent: Accepted. 
H.10. Experience i.n an alternate occupation: None accepted. 
H.14. Specific skills or other requirements: Left bl~nk. 
Part J of the labor certification states that the beneficiary possesses a Master's degree in "International 
Business" from the completed in 2011. The record contains a copy 
of the beneficiary 's Master of Science in International Business diploma and transcripts from the 
issued in 2011. 
The director ' s decision qenying the petition stated that because the beneficiary's Master's degree ill 
International Business frotn is from an entity that is not an 
1 See section 212(a)(5)(D) of. the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(D}; see a./so 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 
accredited institution recognized by the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), the benefi~iary does 
rtot meet the educational qualifications of the labor certification for classification as an advanced 
degree professional. 
In 
affmrting the director's decision, the AAO also determined, beyond the decision of the director, that 
the petitioner did not establish its ability to pay the beneficiary's proffered wage from the priority date 
onward. 
On motion, counsel for the petitioner states tha:t the beneficiary's Master's degree in International 
Business fron1 qualifies her as an advanced degree professional because: (1) the definition of 
"advanced degree" in 8 CF ,R. § 2045(~)(2) does not state that the degree must be issued from an 
accredited institution; (2) is art institution that has been certified · by the U,S. Department 'of 
Homeland Secm:ity under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP); and (3) n.as been 
accredited by the California B.urealJ for Priv;:tte Postsecondary Education (BPPE). Counsel also asserts 
that the petitioner has the continuing ability to pay the beneficiary's proffered wage. · 
The instant motion to reopen qualifi~s for consideration under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2) because the 
petitioner is providing new facts with supporting docu,roentation not previously submitted. The 
motion to reconsider qualifies for consideration under S C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3) bec~use tb.e petitioner's 
counsel asserts tl)at the director an_d the AAO made an erroneous decision through misapplication of 
law or policy. Therefore, the petitioner's motion is properly filed. The AAO conducts appellate 
review on a de novo basis. 3 · The AAO considers all pertinent evidence in the record, including new 
evidence properly submitted upon appeal.4 A petition that fails to comply with the technicaJ 
requirements of the law may be denied by the MO even if the director does not identify all of the 
grounds for denial in the initial decision. 5 
3 See 5 U.S.C. 557(b) ("On appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency ba$ ;ill t_he 
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 y. U.S. 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., Soltane 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 irtto the regulations by 8 C.F.R, § l03.2(a)(1). 
The record in the instant case provides n.o reason to preclude consideration of any of the documents 
newly submitted on appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 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), aff'd, 
345 F.3d 683 (9
1
h Cir. 2003). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
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 pro~ss. As noted above, the 
labor certifica.tion in this matter is certified by the DOL. The DO,L's role in this process is set forth a.t 
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 deterrtiined and 
certified to the Secretary of State and the Attorney Genera.l 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 a.nd at the place 
where the alien is to perform 
such skilled or unskilled labor, and 
(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.
F.R. § 656, involve a determination as to whether the posjtjon a.nd the alien are 
qualified for a. specific i:rnmigrant ·classification. this fact has not gone unnoticed by fed_eral circuit 
courts: 
There is no dm~bt that the authority to make preference classification dee_isions rests 
with INS. The language of section 204 cannot be read otherwise. See Castaneda~ 
Gonzalez v. INS, .564 F.2d 417, 429 (D.C. Cir. 1977). In turn, 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)(l4) 
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 CJ.gencies' 
· own interpretations of their duties under the Act, we must conclude that Congress did 
not intend DOL to have primary authority to make any determina.tions other thanthe 
two stated in section 212(a)(14). If DOL is to analyze· alien qualifications, it is for 
6 ·Based on revi_sions to the Act, the c1.1rrent citation is section 212(a)(5)(A). 
(b)(6)
PageS 
NON-PRECEDENT DECIS.ION 
· the purpose of "matching" them with those of corresponding United S~ates workers so 
that it will then be "in a position to meet the requirement of the law," namely the 
. section 212(a)(14) determinations. · 
Madimy v. Smith, 696 F.2d 1008, 1012,.1013 (D.C. Cir. 1983). Relying inpart on Mada.ny, 696 F.2d 
at 1008, the Ninth Circuit stated: 
[I]t appears that the DOL is responsible . only for determining the availability o{ 
suitable American workers for a job and the impact of alien employment upon the 
dorne~tic 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 t,mder 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.J(. Irvine, Inc. v. Landon, 699 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cit. 1983). The co11rt relied on an amicus brief 
from the DOL that stated tbe following: · 
The . labor certification made by the Secretary of Labor , . . pursu,ant to section 
212(a)(14) of t.he [Act] Is binding as to the findings of whether there are able, wiUi.ng, 
qualified, and available United States workers for the job offered to the alien, arid 
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 wotkets .. The labor. certification in no way indicates that the alien offered the 
certified job opportunity is qualified (ot not qualifi~d) to perform the dudes ofthat 
job. · ·· · · 
(Emphasis added.) Id. at 1009. The Ninth Circuit, citingK.RJ(.lrvine, Inc., 699 F.2d at 1006, revisited 
this issue, 
stating: 
The Department of Labor (DOL) rnust 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 
worker.s. "!d. § 212(a)(14), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(14). The INS then makes its own 
dete~ination of the alien's entitlement to sixth preference status • . _Id. § 404(b), 
8 U.S.C. § 1154(b). See generally K.R.K. Irvine, Inc. v. Landon, 699 F.2d 1006, 
'- l008 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 (9tb Cir. 1984). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page6 
Therefore, it is the DOL's re~ponsibility to determine whether there are qualified U.S. workers 
avail~ble 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, a.nd whether the offered position and the 
benefi~iary are eligible for the requested employment-based immigrant visa class_ifi~tiop. 
Eligibility for the Classification Sought 
• > 
Section 203(b)(2) of the Act, 8 {).S.C. § 1153(b)(2), provides immigrant classification to members of 
the professions holding advanced degrees. 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 "profe~sion.'' An 
"advanced degree" is defined as: 
[A]ny United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equiva.lent degree 
above that of baccalaureate. A United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experien~ . in the 
specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If a docto111l degree 
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 se.Ction 101(a)(32) of the AG~, as well 
as any occupation for which a Unit.ed States baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the 
mlnimuin requirement for entry into the occupation." The occupations listed at section 101(a)(32) Of 
the Act. are "architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in. elementary or 
seoondaty schools, colleges, a~demies, or seminaries." 
The regula1iol) at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i) states that a petition for. an advaQC(!d 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 lhat the alien has a United States 
baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree, and evidence in the form of 
letters from current 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 esmblish th(l_t the beneficiary is a member of 
the professions holding an advaQced degree, and that the offered position requires, at a min.irnurn, ·a 
professional holding an advanced degree. Further, an "advanced degree'' is a · U.S. academic or 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDECISION 
Page 7 
professional degree (or a foreign equivalent degree) above a baccalaureate, or a U.S. baccalaureate (or~ 
foreign equjv~ent degree) followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the speC;ialty. 
The beneficiary possesses a Master's degree in "lnternational Business" from the California 
International University (CIU), which has not been accredited by ~ recognized a~crediting agency. 
For tbe reasons set forth below, a degree 
from an unaccredited institution will not be <::onsldered an 
advanced degree under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
In the United States, institutions of higher education an~ ilot authorized or accredited by the federal 
goverrunent. 7 Instead, the authority to issue degrees is granted at the state level. However, state 
approval to operate is not the sarne as accteditaticm by a recognized accrediting agency. 
According to the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), "[t]he goal of accreditation is to en.sure that 
education provided by institutions of higber education meets acceptable levels of quality." 8 
Accreditation also ensures the nationwide recognition of a school's degrees by employers and other 
institutions, and also provides institutions and its students with access to federal funding, 
Accrediting ~gencies are ,private educational associations that develop evaluation criteria teflectlng 
the qualities of ~ sound educational program, and conduct evaluations to assess wbetber i:Qstitutions 
meet those critetia. 9 Institutions that rrieet an a<:;crediting agency's criteria are then "accredited" by 
that agency. 10 
The DOE and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) ate the two entities 
responsible for the recognition of accrediting bodies in t):le United States. While the DOE does not 
accredit institutions, it is required by law to publish a list of recognized accrediting agencies that are 
deemed r,eliable authorities a.s to the quality of education provided by the institutions theyaccredit. 11· 
The CHEA, an association of 3,000 degree-granting colleges and universities, plays a similar 
oversight role. The presidents of American universities and colleges established CHEA in 1996 "to 
strengthen higbet education through strengthened accreditation of higber education instihiJions." 12 
CHEA also recognizes accrediting organizations. "Recognition by CHEA affirms that Standards and 
processes of accrediting organizations are consistent with quality, improvement, and accountability 
ex:pectations that CHEA has established.''
13 
According to CHEA, accrediting institutions of higher 
educa.tion "involves bundreds of self-evaluations and site visits each year, attracts thousands of 
7 See http://ope.ed.gov/accreditation. 
8 http:/ /www2.ed .gov /prin t/admins/finaid/accred/accteditation.htrrtl. 
9 ld. . 
10 ld. · 
11 !d. 
1 ~ www.chea:brg!pdf/Recognition_Policy-June_28_2010-FINAL.pdf. 
1 /d. . 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
I 
·-' 
higher education volunteer professionals, and calls for substantial investment of institutional, 
accrediting organization, and volunteer time and effort."14 
As stated in the AAO's July 26, 2013 decision, the DOE and CHEA recognize six regional 
associations th~t accredit U:S. colleges and universities, one of which is the Western Association of 
Schools a:nd Colleges (W ASC), the ~ccrediting association with jurisdiction over California, where 
is located. 15 WASC's website lists all accredited ~nstitutions within its jurisdiction, and is 
not named as one of the accredited institutions. See www.wascsen"ior.org/apps/in:stitlltions (accessed 
November 6,2013). Therefore, 1 has not been accredited by a recognized accrediting agency. 
While is approved to operate in California by the Bureau for Private Posts¢~ond~ry Education 
(BPPE); the fact remains th~t it is an unaccredited institution. The State of California acknowledges 
"accreditation as an indication of the quality of edu~tion offered," and that institutions "must be 
accredited by an agency recognized by the [DOE] in order for it or its students to receive federal 
funds." http:/ /www.cpec.ca.gov/x _college guide_ old/accreditation. asp. California's Education Code 
stateS that approval to operate in California is gra_nted ~{t~r the BPPE has verified that the institution 
"has the capacity to satisfy the minimum operating standards.'' Cal. Ed. Code section 94887. 
Accreditation provides assurance of a basic level of quality of the education provided by an 
institution as well as the nationwide acceptance of its degrees. A degree from a state approved 
inslitutioo. that i.s: unaccredited does not provide a sufficient assurance of quality. Therefore, since 
the beneficiary's .in Master's degree in International Business from · is not from an accredited 
institution of higher education, it does not qualify as an advanced degree within the meaning of 8 
C.P.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
The AAO rejects counsel's claim that the beneficiary's degree from should be accepted as an· 
advanced degre~ because U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement .has approved the school to 
enroll foreign students·-under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program. The approval of an 
institution to enroll nonimmigrant foreign Students pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214 .. 3 is unrelated to the 
requirements for immigrant classification as ' an advanced degree professioi}~J}. As stated in the 
AAO's July 26, 2013 decision, a broad range of educational institutions may be approveq to enroll 
foreign students, including commllnity colleges, junior cofleges, seminaries, conservatories, high 
schools, elementary schools, and institutions which provide language training, instruction in the 
liberal arts or fine arts, and/or instruction in the professions. Id. The fact (hat an institution is 
authorized to enroll nonimmigrant students does not mean that its degrees meet the requirements of 
an advanced degree under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). Counsel takes issue with this assertion thcH 
After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, it is concluded that t~e petitioner has failed to 
establish that the beneficiary possessed at least a U.S. academic or professional degree (Qr 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 speci~ty. Therefore, the beneficiary 
14 /d. 
15 See bttpV/www.cbea.org/Directories/regional.asp. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
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 t_he benefi~iary satisfied all of the educational, training, 
experience and any other requirements Of the offered position by the priority date. 8 C.F.R. § 
l03.~(b)(1), (1Z). See Matter o/Wzng 's Tea !louse, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 159 (Act. Reg. Comm. 1977); 
see _a./so Matter o[Katigbak, 14 I&N l)ec , 45,49 (Reg. Comm. 1971). 
In evaluating the job offer portion of the labor certification to determine the required qua1ifications 
for the position; 'USCIS may not ignore a teriJl of the labor certification, nor may it impose additional 
requirements. See Madariy, 696 F.Zd at 1008; K.R.K. Irvine, Inc., 699 F.2d at 1006; Stewart Infra­
Re(l Commissary of Massachusetts, Inc. v .. Coomey, 661 F.2d 1 (1st Cit. 1981). 
Where the job requirements iii 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 l,JSCIS 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.C. 1984)(emphasis added). tJSCIS's 
interpretation of the job's requirements, as Stated on the labor certification mu_st involve '·'reading 
and applying the plgin language of the [labor certification]." /d. at 834 (emphasis added). · users 
cailllot 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 
ben~ficiary iii mind, USCIS has an independent role in determining whether the beneficiary meets the 
"labor certification requirementS. See Snapnames.com; Inc. v. Michael Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 *7 
(D. Or. N(>V. 30; 2006). 
In the instant case, the labor certification states that the offered position requires a Master's degree in 
''Business A~ministration or related," or in an alternate field of study, "Health Administration or 
medical related." . For the reasons explained above, the· petitioner has failed to e_stablish that the 
beneficiary possesses a Master's degree in "Business Administration," in "Health Administra.tion," or a 
tna.ster' s degree in a related field of study to these degrees. 
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-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
The Ability to Pay the Proffered Wage 
The petitioner must demonstrate the continuing ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority 
date onward. Tbe regulation 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2) states in pertinent part: 
Ability of prospective employer to pay wage. Any petition filed by or for an 
employment-based immigrant which requires an offer of employment must be 
accompanied by evidence that the prospective United States employer has the ability 
to pay the proffered wage. The petitioner must demonstrate this ability a.t tlte time the 
priority date is es~ablished and continuing until the beneficiary obtains lawful 
permanent residence. Evidence of this ability shall be either in the form of copies of 
annual reports, federal ~ax returns, or audited fmancial statements. 
Oil motion, counsel has submitt.ed suf{ici~_nt evidence to establish that the petitioner has the 
continuing ability to pay the beneficiary's proffered wag~. Therefore, the AAO~s previous holding 
regarding the petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage is withdrawn. 
III. CONCLUSION 
In summary, the petitioper f(liled to establish that the beneficiary possessed an . advanced degree as 
required by the tetrns of the labor certificatiol) and the requested preference classification. 
Therefore, the beneficiary . does . not qualify for classification as a member of tbe professiOilS holding 
an advanced degree under section 203(b )(2) of the Act. ·As stated above, the petitioner has 
established its ability to pay the beneficiary's proffered wage, anci the AAO's July 26, 2013 finding 
ill. this regard is withdrawn. However, the other aspects of the AAO's July 26, 2013 decision are 
affirmed. 
l.n visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The motion is granted, and the decision of the AAO, dated July 26, 2013, is affirmed in 
part. The petition remains denied.