dismissed H-1B Case: Accounting

(b)(6)
DATE: MAR 3 1 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
OFFICE: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) 
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 I-290B) 
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. 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director initially approved the nonimmigrant visa petition. In 
response to new evidence and upon subsequent review of the record, the director issued a notice of 
intent to revoke (NOIR), and ultimately did revoke the approval of the petition. The matter is now 
before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. Approval of the 
petition will remain revoked. 
On the Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129), the petitioner describes itself as a 12-
employee "Wholesale distribution & import/export of name brand perfumes and colognes" firm 
established in . In order to employ the beneficiary in what it designates as a "Budget & 
Accounting Analyst" position, the petitioner seeks to classify him as a nonimmigrant worker in a 
specialty occupation pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The director approved the visa petition on August 29, 2012. However, on April 4, 2014 the service 
center director issued an NOIR in this matter. The petitioner's response was received on May 5, 
2014. Subsequently, on July 1, 2014, the director revoked approval of the visa petition. The 
petitioner filed a timely appeal on July 15, 2014. 
The director's revocation of approval of the petition was based on her finding that the petitioner had 
not demonstrated that the beneficiary is qualified for the proffered position and that the evidence 
available indicates that the approval of the visa petition was occasioned by gross error. 
We have further determined that the director did not err in her decision to revoke approval of the 
petition. Accordingly, the director's decision will not be disturbed. The appeal will be dismissed, 
and approval of the petition will remain revoked. 
We base our decision upon our review of the entire record of proceeding, which includes: (1) the 
petitioner's Form I-129 and the supporting documentation filed with it; (2) the service center's 
NOIR; (3) the response to the NOIR; (4) the director's revocation letter; and (5) the Form I-290B and 
the petitioner's submissions on appeal. 
I. THELAW 
USCIS may revoke the approval of an H-1B petition pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(ll)(iii), which 
states the following: 
(A) Grounds for revocation. The director shall send to the petitioner a notice of 
intent to revoke the petition in relevant part if he or she finds that: 
(1) The beneficiary is no longer employed by the petitioner in the 
capacity specified in the petition ... ; or 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(2) The statement of facts contained in the petition ... was not true 
and correct, inaccurate, fraudulent, or misrepresented a material 
fact; or 
(3) The petitioner violated terms and conditions of the approved 
petition; or 
(4) The petitioner violated requirements of section 101(a)(15)(H) of 
the Act or paragraph (h) of this section; or 
(5) The approval of the petition violated paragraph (h) of this section 
or involved gross error. 
(B) Notice and decision. The notice of intent to revoke shall contain a detailed 
statement of the grounds for the revocation and the time period allowed for the 
petitioner's rebuttal. The petitioner may submit evidence in rebuttal within 30 
days of receipt of the notice. The director shall consider all relevant evidence 
presented in deciding whether to revoke the petition in whole or in part .... 
The statutory and regulatory framework that we must apply in our consideration of the evidence of 
the beneficiary's qualification to serve in a specialty occupation follows below. 
Section 214(i)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(2), states that an alien applying for classification as 
an H-lB nonimmigrant worker must possess: 
(A) full state licensure to practice in the occupation, if such licensure is required to 
practice in the occupation, 
(B) completion of the degree described in paragraph (l)(B) for the occupation, or 
(C) (i) experience in the specialty equivalent to the completion of such degree, 
and 
(ii) recognition of expertise in the specialty through progressively responsible 
positions relating to the specialty. 
In implementing section 214(i)(2) of the Act, the regulation at 8 C.P. R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C) states 
that an alien must also meet one of the following criteria in order to qualify to perform services in a 
specialty occupation: 
(1) Hold a United States baccalaureate or higher degree required by the specialty 
occupation from an accredited college or university; 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(2) Hold a foreign degree determined to be equivalent to a United States 
baccalaureate or higher degree required by the specialty occupation from an 
accredited college or university; 
(3) Hold an unrestricted state license, registration or certification which 
authorizes him or her to fully practice the specialty occupation and be 
immediately engaged in that specialty in the state of intended employment; or 
( 4) Have education, specialized training, and/or progressively responsible 
experience that are equivalent to completion of a United States baccalaureate 
or higher degree in the specialty occupation, and have recognition of expertise 
in the specialty through progressively responsible positions directly related to 
the specialty. 
In addition, 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(v)(A) states: 
General. If an occupation requires a state or local license for an individual to fully 
perform the duties of the occupation, an alien (except an H-1C nurse) seeking H 
classification in that occupation must have that license prior to approval of the 
petition to be found qualified to enter the United States and immediately engage in 
employment in the occupation. 
Therefore, to qualify an alien for classification as an H-1B nonimmigrant worker under the Act, the 
petitioner must establish that the beneficiary possesses the requisite license or, if none is required, 
that he or she has completed a degree in the specialty that the occupation requires. Alternatively, if a 
license is not required and if the beneficiary does not possess the required U.S. degree or its foreign 
degree equivalent, the petitioner must show that the beneficiary possesses both (1) education, 
specialized training, and/or progressively responsible experience in the specialty equivalent to the 
completion of such degree, and (2) recognition of expertise in the specialty through progressively 
responsible positions relating to the specialty. 
II. EVIDENCE 
With the visa petition, the petitioner submitted: (1) evidence pertinent to the beneficiary's education; 
(2) evidence pertinent to the beneficiary's previous employment experience; (3) an evaluation, dated 
September 28, 2011, of the beneficiary's education; and (4) an undated evaluation of the 
beneficiary's education and employment experience, considered together. 
The evidence pertinent to the beneficiary's education shows that he has a bachelor of commerce 
degree awarded by 
_ 
in Pakistan. The September 28, 2011 evaluation states that 
the beneficiary's two-year bachelor of commerce degree is equivalent to a U.S. associate's degree in 
business administration. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
The evidence pertinent to the beneficiary's prior employment consists of employment verification 
letters from two alleged previous employers. A letter dated November 5, 2005 states that the 
beneficiary worked for from February 1999 to October 2005. A 
letter dated December 16, 2008 from in states that the beneficiary 
worked for that company as an accounts manager from August 2007 to November 2008. The 
beneficiary's job title at is not stated. 
The undated evaluation was produced by Ph.D., Associate Professor, School of 
Business Administration, and states: "I have examined the work history 
(presumed to be verifiable) of [the beneficiary] .. .. " It further states that the beneficiary's education 
and his asserted employment experience, considered together, are equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's 
degree in business administration with a concentration in accounting. In an October 17, 2011 cover 
letter appended to that evaluation, the evaluator stated: 
The 
credits are granted. 
completed by 
offers internships (professional experience) for which 
I am authorized to grant credit and grades for internships 
students. 
The visa petition was approved on the strength of the evidence submitted. However, the NOIR 
issued on April 4, 2014 stated: 
Discussion of Investigative Report of Memorandum 
You offered the beneficiary a position as a budget and accounting analyst for your 
company, a position requiring the expertise of a holder of at least a bachelor's degree 
in the specialty occupation.1 During the consular interview, the beneficiary provided 
evidence of having been granted only a two-year Bachelor of Science degree from the 
which is not equivalent to university level course work in the 
United States. 
Furthermore, the beneficiary's employment history did not establish that he had 
experience that would qualify him for the duties described in the petition. 
Suggested documentation to Overcome Grounds for Revocation 
You may submit any further available evidence to establish that the beneficiary 
qualifies for the proffered position. 
A copy of the investigative report or memorandum that provided this 
information is enclosed. 
1 While we do not agree with the conclusion that a budget and accounting analyst position necessarily 
requires a specialized bachelor's degree, the issue of whether or not the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation is not currently before us. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
The investigative report observed that the beneficiary's education is equivalent to a U.S. associate's 
degree. As to the beneficiary's claims of employment, the report stated: 
A subsequent investigation and interview by Fraud Prevention Unit revealed 
that the beneficiary's employment in all three companies was tentative and 
unverifiable: he filed no tax returns with local tax authorities but provided fraudulent 
income tax documents. He also provided highly suspect, newly handwritten salary 
slips, which he explained by saying that he was paid under the table, in cash. The 
salary slips showed an income of approximately $200/month, a woefully inadequate 
wage for a trained accountant in the local job market, casting into severe doubt the 
nature of the beneficiary's job activities. 
Post recommends that USCIS revoke [the beneficiary's] H-1B petition as he is not 
qualified - either academically or by virtue of his job experience - to work under the 
terms for which he has been petitioned. 
The NOIR states that a copy of the investigative report was appended to it when it was sent to the 
petitioner. Included in the record are: (1) a revised version of the November 5, 2005 letter from 
also dated November 5, 2005; (2) a revised version of the December 18, 2008 letter 
from also dated December 18, 2008; (3) a letter, dated August 26, 2011, from 
_ 
; ( 4) a statement, dated September 1, 2013, from the beneficiary 
pertinent to his alleged employment at : (5) a letter, dated January 8, 2013 from 
(6) a letter, dated January 18, 2013, from (7) handwritten receipts 
purporting to show payments by to the beneficiary; (8) a letter, dated January 22, 
2013, from (9) salary slips purporting to show wage payments by Haji 
to the beneficiary; (10) documents that purport to be Pakistani income tax returns 
for the years ended June 30, 2007 and June 30, 2008; and (11) "Affidavits" from. of 
and of. 
The August 26, 2011 letter from states: "This is to certify that [the 
beneficiary] .. . had been working with us since 22-May-2006 to 16-Jul-2007. He was working with 
us in the capacity of ACCOUNTANT."2 The person who produced that letter enclosed the date and 
one paragraph of the body of that letter in a box. 
The beneficiary's September 1, 2013 statement reads: 
PROOF OF SALARY 
2 We observe that this employment claim was not made in the submissions originally provided with the visa 
petition. 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
I worked at as an accountant. I received my salary in 
my bank Account# as per company policy I received my salary in two parts 
for every month. Highlighted transactions are related to your requirements and others 
are personal. 
For the purpose, my bank statement and NTN certificate are enclosed. 
My Salary there was 22000/=Rs Plus 1 Bonus, leave encashment and Fuel 2000/=Rs 
include in salary. 
No bank statements were then provided to us with that letter. The person who produced that letter 
enclosed both the heading and a portion of the body of that letter in boxes. 
The January 8, 2013 letter from characterizes the beneficiary's former position as a 
"Senior Accountant" position. It further states: 
[The beneficiary's] monthly salary at the time of leaving job Rs. 20,000/ - (Rupees 
Twenty Thousand only) per month Plus One Bonus French benefits other during his 
tenure he drew his salary on Cash basis. 
[Verbatim] 
We observe that the person who produced that letter enclosed two paragraphs of the body of that 
letter in boxes. 
The January 18, 2013 letter from characterizes the beneficiary's previous position as 
an "Accountant" position. The person who produced that letter enclosed the single paragraph of the 
body of that letter in a box. 
The handwritten receipts purport to show that 
on two occasions. 
paid the beneficiary 20,000 Rupees 
The January 22, 2013 letter from states that the beneficiary's appointment to 
his Accounts Manager position there was made without an appointment letter. 
The "Salary Slip[s]" from purport to show that the company paid a gross 
salary of 29,000 Rupees on October 6, 2008 and November 3, 2008 as his salary for September and 
October of that year. 
The income tax returns provided purport to show that the beneficiary earned 260,000 Rupees during 
the year ended June 30, 2007 and 348,000 Rupees during the year ended June 30, 2008. A note 
typed on those returns presumably by a consular official indicates that those returns were never filed. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
In response to the NOIR, the petitioner submitted a printout of transactions pertinent to the 
beneficiary's account with in and a letter pertinent to an account the 
beneficiary held with • 
An unsigned letter that purports to be from - is dated January 81h, 2010 and 
states that the beneficiary's account with that bank has been marked as dormant and transactions are 
restricted. It further states, "You are requested to please call on us for re-activation of your above 
account." 
In his May 2, 2014 letter, counsel states that the consulate did not specify in what sense the 
beneficiary's employment claims were tentative and unverifiable and otherwise asserted that the 
evidence submitted is sufficient to show that the proffered position should be approved. Counsel 
cited the Pakistani wage data provided, together with the exchange rate information, to support the 
proposition that the salary reportedly paid to the beneficiary by his Pakistani employers was 
commensurate with an accountant position. 
After reviewing the petitioner's response to the NOIR and finding the evidence submitted 
insufficient to refute the findings in the NOIR, the director revoked the approval of the petition on 
July 1, 2014 finding, as was noted above, that the beneficiary had not been shown to be qualified for 
the proffered position. In that decision the director stated: 
[Y]ou have included no specific information concerning the duties of the several 
positions to establish that the work experience included theoretical and practical 
application of specialized knowledge. You have submitted no evaluation of the 
beneficiary's work history from a qualified evaluator. 
The petitioner submitted a timely Form I-290B appeal, again asserting that the evidence is sufficient 
to show that the beneficiary is qualified for the proffered position. 
The petitioner stated: 
The [director] revoked the H-lB petition based on completely different legal and 
factual grounds than those alleged in the Notice of Revocation. Specifically, the 
[NOIR] makes no mention that [the petitioner] did not submit an evaluation of [the 
beneficiary's] work history from a qualified evaluator. This issue was never raised in 
the [NOIR] . Likewise, the [NOIR] makes no mention that [the petitioner] did not 
provide specific information concerning the duties of the several positions to establish 
that [the beneficiary's] work experience included theoretical and practical application 
of specialized knowledge. Rather, the (NOIR] alleged solely that [the beneficiary's] 
employment was unverifiable, not that his employment (even if verifiable) would still 
not qualify him for the proffered position. These are two separate and distinct factual 
issues, which the VSC has improperly conflated. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted copies of evidence previously submitted aJong with an 
evaluation of the beneficiary's combined education and work experience by 
Ph.D., of the dated July 21, 2014. The evaluation by Dr. IS 
accompanied by a letter dated September 19, 2012 from Dr. Dean, School of 
Business, 
III. ANALYSIS 
Initially, we observe that the NOIR stated, inter alia, "the beneficiary's employment history did not 
establish that he had experience that would qualify him for the duties described in the petition." 
Upon-review of the record, we find that the NOIR placed the petitioner on notice that revocation of 
the approval of the petition was contemplated within the scope of the revocation-on-notice 
provisions, because the evidence of record did not establish that the beneficiary was qualified for the 
proffered position. 
We further find that, fully considered in the context of the entire record of proceedings, the 
petitioner's response to the NOIR failed to overcome the grounds specified in the NOIR for revoking 
the petition. 
The record indicates that the beneficiary holds a Bachelor of Commerce degree from the 
which is a two-year program. An academic credentials evaluation by of 
equates the beneficiary's academic achievements to an "Associate in 
Arts in Business Administration" earned at a U.S. institution of higher education. Consequently, this 
evaluation does not establish that the beneficiary possesses "a foreign degree determined to be 
equivalent to a United States baccalaureate or higher degree" as required in part by 8 C. P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(C)(2). Therefore, absent (1) an actual U.S. bachelor's or higher degree from an 
accredited college or university, (2) a foreign degree determined to be equivalent to such a degree, or 
(3) a pertinent license, the only remaining avenue for the beneficiary to qualify for the proffered 
position is pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4). 
Under 8 C. F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4), the petitioner must establish both (1) that the beneficiary's 
combined education, specialized training, and/or progressively responsible experience are equivalent 
to completion of a United States baccalaureate or higher degree in the specialty occupation, and (2) 
that the beneficiary has recognition of expertise in the specialty through progressively responsible 
positions directly related to the specialty. 
For purposes of 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4), the provisions at 8 C. F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D) 
require one or more of the following to determine whether a beneficiary has achieved a level of 
knowledge, competence, and practice in the specialty occupation that is equal to that of an individual 
who has a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specialty: 
(1) An evaluation from an official who has authority to grant college-level credit 
for training and/or experience in the specialty at an accredited college or 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
university which has a program for granting such credit based on an 
individual's training and/or work experience; 
(2) The results of recognized college-level equivalency examinations or special 
credit programs, such as the College Level Examination Program (CLEP), or 
Program on Noncollegiate Sponsored Instruction (PONSI); 
(3) An evaluation of education by a reliable credentials evaluation service which 
specializes in evaluating foreign educational credentials;3 
(4) Evidence of certification or registration from a nationally-recognized 
professional association or society for the specialty that is known to grant 
certification or registration to persons in the occupational specialty who have 
achieved a certain level of competence in the specialty; 
(5) A determination by the Service that the equivalent of the degree required by 
the specialty occupation has been acquired through a combination of 
education, specialized training, and/or work experience in areas related to the 
specialty and that the alien has achieved recognition of expertise in the 
specialty occupation as a result of such training and experience .... 
In accordance with 8 C. F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5): 
For purposes of determining equivalency to a baccalaureate degree in the specialty, 
three years of specialized training and/or work experience must be demonstrated for 
each year of college-level training the alien lacks .... It must be clearly demonstrated 
that the alien's training and/or work experience included the theoretical and practical 
application of specialized knowledge required by the specialty occupation; that the 
alien's experience was gained while working with peers, supervisors, or subordinates 
who have a degree or its equivalent in the specialty occupation; and that the alien has 
recognition of expertise in the specialty evidenced by at least one type of 
documentation such as: 
(i) Recognition of expertise in the specialty occupation by at least two recognized 
authorities in the same specialty occupation; 
(ii) Membership in a recognized foreign or United States association or society in the 
specialty occupation; 
(iii) Published material by or about the alien in professional publications, trade 
3 The petitioner should note that, in accordance with this provision, we will accept a credentials evaluation 
service's evaluation of education only, not training and/or work experience. 
(b)(6)
---- -------------
Page 11 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
journals, books, or major newspapers; 
(iv) Licensure or registration to practice the specialty occupation in a foreign country; 
or 
(v) Achievements which a recognized authority has determined to be significant 
contributions to the field of the specialty occupation. 
It is always worth noting that, by its very terms, 8 C. P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) is a matter strictly 
for USCIS application and determination, and that, also by the clear terms of the rule, experience 
will merit a positive determination only to the extent that the record of proceeding establishes all of 
the qualifying elements at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5)- including, but not limited to, a type of 
recognition of expertise in the specialty occupation. 
As an analytical aid to this discussion, we note that the regulation at 8 C. F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(l) can be broken down into several evidentiary elements which must be 
satisfied for a submission to merit consideration as an educational-equivalency evaluation of 
training and/or experience under that criterion, namely, that the submission establishes: 
• That, at the time of the evaluation, the person who made it was an official of an 
accredited U.S. college or university; 
• That, at the time of the evaluation, said college or university official had 
authority to grant not just any college-level credit for training and/or 
experience, but "college-level credit for training and/or experience in the 
specialty" (emphasis added) at that educational institution; and 
• That, at the time of the evaluation, that accredited college or university had "a 
program for granting such credit based upon an individual's training and/or 
work experience". 
Also, it should be noted, that we require that the evidence of record include persuasive documentary 
evidence from an appropriate official at the referenced college or university - such as a dean or 
provost - that substantiates that, at the time when the person rendered the evaluation of training 
and/or work experience: he or she was an official at that college or university; that he or she was 
authorized to award college-level credit in the particular specialty pertinent to the petition; and that, 
at that same time, that accredited college or university had a program for granting such credit in the 
pertinent specialty based on an individual's training and/or work experience. We find that the 
evaluations of the beneficiary's combined education and work experience submitted by the petitioner 
are insufficient to establish that the beneficiary possesses the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree 
in any specific specialty. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
Specifically, Professor authority to award credit is self-certified. As noted above, we 
will not accept a faculty member's opinion as to the college-credit equivalent of a particular person's 
work experience or training, unless authoritative, independent evidence from the official's college or 
university, such as a letter from the appropriate dean or provost, establishes that the official is 
authorized to grant academic credit for that institution, in the pertinent specialty, on the basis of 
training or work experience. That the director accepted Professor opinion in initially 
granting the instant visa petition was gross error. 
With respect to the evaluation by Dr. submitted on appeal, we note that the letter written 
by Dr. which was appended to the evaluation was written nearly two years prior to Dr. 
evaluation; therefore, it does not demonstrate that (1) at the time of the evaluation, Dr. 
had authority to grant not just any college-level credit for training and/or experience, but 
"college-level credit for training and/or experience in the specialty" (emphasis added) at the 
and (2) at the time of the evaluation, the had a 
"program for granting such credit based on an individual's training and/or work experience. " 
Further, while Dr. opines that the beneficiary's professional experience reflects 
"experience and training in positions of progressively increasing responsibility" and that the 
beneficiary's skills and training "demonstrate the equivalent of university level training in 
Accounting and related areas," there is insufficient evidence that Dr. had the authority to 
grant college-level credit for training and/or experience in Accounting at the time of his evaluation. 
Moreover, there is insufficient evidence in the record that the beneficiary has recognition of 
expertise in the industry, membership in a recognized association in the specialty occupation, or 
published material by or about the beneficiary. Thus, absent corroborating evidence as outlined in 8 
C.F.R . § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5), we cannot conclude that the beneficiary's past work experience 
included the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in a 
field related to the proffered position or that the beneficiary has recognition of expertise in the 
industry. 
Based on these reasons, we agree with the director that the petitioner has failed to establish that the 
beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of the proffered position. Therefore, approval of the 
instant visa petition was correctly revoked pursuant to 8 C. P.R. § 214.2(h)(11)(iii)(A)(5). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed and approval of the visa petition will remain revoked. 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 ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. Approval of the visa petition will remain revoked.