dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9095466 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 25, 2020 
The Petitioner, an information technology consulting company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "computer programmer" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified 
foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body of 
highly specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific 
specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The matter is now before us 
on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate el igibi I ity by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the 
questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christa's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the entire record, 1 for the reasons set out below, we have determined that the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. In her decision, the Director thoroughly discussed the Petitioner's failure to 
meet any of the four regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l) - (4). Upon consideration 
of the record, we adopt and affirm the Director's decision with the comments below. See Matter of P. 
Singh, Attorney, 26 l&N Dec. 623 (BIA 2015) (citing Matter of Burbano, 20 l&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 
1994); see also Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 7-8 (1st Cir. 1996) ("[l]f a reviewing tribunal decides that the 
facts and evaluative judgments prescinding from them have been adequately confronted and correctly 
1 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
resolved by a trial judge or hearing officer, then the tribunal is free simply to adopt those findings" 
provided the tribunal's order reflects individualized attention to the case). 
Regarding the Director's discussion of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(1), we would 
add that the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook), in 
discussing "Computer Programmers" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification 
(SOC) code 15-1131, states, in pertinent part, that most computer programmers have a bachelor's 
degree in computer science or a related subject but some employers hire workers with an associate's 
degree. 2 According to the Handbook, some employers hire workers who have other degrees or 
experience in specific programming languages. 3 
The Handbook does not state that positions located within the computer programmer occupational 
category normally require a bachelor's degree in a specific field, or the equivalent, for entry. Instead, 
it states that the degree requirements for jobs in this occupation vary by employer, and that some 
employers will hire workers with an associate's degree. Moreover, the Handbook's statement that 
"some employers hire workers who have other degrees" undermines the Petitioner's assertion that a 
degree in a particular specialty is a normal minimum requirement for entry into the occupation. 
The Petitioner also referenced DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) summary report 
for "Computer Programmers" listed as SOC code 15-1131.00 for our consideration under this 
criterion. 
Though relevant, the information the Petitioner submits from O*NET does not establish the 
Petitioner's eligibility under the first criterion, as it does not establish that a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or the equivalent, is normally required. The summary report provides general 
information regarding the occupation; however, it does not support the Petitioner's assertion regarding 
the educational requirements for these positions. For example, the Specific Vocational Preparation 
(SVP) rating, which is defined as "the amount of lapsed time required by a typical worker to learn the 
techniques, acquire the information, and develop the facility needed for average performance in a 
specific job-worker situation," cited within O*NET's Job Zone designates this position as having an 
SVP 7 < 8. This indicates that the occupation requires "over 2 years up to and including 4 years" of 
training.4 While the SVP rating provides the total number of years of vocational preparation required 
for a particular position, it is important to note that it does not describe how those years are to be 
divided among training, formal education, and experience - and it does not specify the particular type 
of degree, if any, that a position would require.5 The O*NET summary report for this occupation also 
does not specify that a degree is required, but instead states, "most of these occupations require a four­
year bachelor's degree, but some do not." Similar to the SVP rating, the Job Zone Four designation 
2 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Computer Programmers 
https://www.bis.gov/ooh/computer-and-i nformation-technology/computer-program mers. htm#tab-4 (last visited 
Nov. 10, 2020). 
3 Id. 
4 This training may be acquired in a school, work, military, institutional, or vocational environment. Specific vocational 
training includes: vocational education, apprenticeship training, in-plant training, on-the-job training, and essential 
experience in other jobs. 
5 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/ 
online/svp. 
2 
does not indicate that any academic credentials for Job Zone Four occupations must be directly related 
to the duties performed. 
Further, we note that the O*NET summary report provides the educational requirements of 
"respondents." The respondents' positions within the occupation are not distinguished by career level 
(e.g., entry-level, mid-level, senior-level). Additionally, while the graph in the O*NET summary 
report indicates that 88% of "respondents" claim to hold a bachelor's degree, it does not indicate that 
the "education level" for the respondents must be in a specific specialty. A requirement for a 
bachelor's degree alone is not sufficient. Instead, we construe the term "degree" to mean not just any 
baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed 
position.6 See Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. 
O*NET, therefore, also does not support the assertion that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for these positions. 
Nor is the case law the Petitioner cites sufficient to satisfy the first criterion. The Petitioner asserts 
that the Director has mischaracterized the Handbook and drawn incorrect conclusions with regard to 
the normal minimum requirements for entry into the occupation. The Petitioner cites to Next 
Generation Tech., Inc. v. Johnson, 328 F. Supp. 3d 252 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) to assert that the Director's 
conclusion concerning the "normal" minimum entry requirements for the computer programmer 
occupation ignores the statement that "[m]ost computer programmers have a bachelor's degree in 
computer science or a related field," as stated in the Handbook. 
First, we are not bound to follow the published decision of a United States district court. See Matter 
of K-S-, 20 l&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (BIA 1993). However, even if we were to consider the logic 
underlying Next Generation Tech., Inc., we would still conclude that the Petitioner had not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
As recognized by another court, while the Handbook may establish the first regulatory criterion for 
certain professions, 7 many occupations are not described in such a categorical manner. 8 For example, 
"[the Handbook's] description for the Computer Programmer occupation does not describe the normal 
minimum educational requirements of the occupation in a categorical fashion."9 In such a 
circumstance, "[the Petitioner] could not simply rely on [the Handbook] profile, and instead had the 
burden to show that the particular position offered to [the Beneficiary] was among the Computer 
Programmer positions for which a bachelor's degree was normally required."10 Moreover, the court 
in Next Generation Tech., Inc. relied, in part, on a USCIS policy memorandum regarding "Computer 
Programmers" indicating generally preferential treatment toward computer programmers, and 
6 Nor is it apparent whether these credentials were prerequisites to these individuals' hiring. 
7 Such professions would include surgeons or attorneys, which indisputably require at least a bachelor's degree for entry 
into the occupation. 
8 See lnnova Sols., Inc. v. Baran, 2019 WL 3753334, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2019) (declining to follow Next Generation 
Tech., Inc.). 
9 Id.; See also Xiaotong Liu v. Baran, 2018 WL 7348851 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2018). 
10 See lnnova Sols., Inc. 2019 WL 3753334, at *8. 
3 
"especially" toward companies in that particular petitioner's industry. However, USCIS rescinded the 
pol icy memorandum cited by the court in Next Generation Tech. I nc.11 
As previously stated, the Handbook does not describe the normal minimum educational requirement 
for the occupation in a categorical manner, as some employers accept less than a bachelor's degree. 
On appeal, the Petitioner cites RELX, Inc. v. Baran, 397 F. Supp. 3d 41 (D.D.C. Aug. 5, 2019) to 
support its argument that the proffered position meets the definition of a specialty occupation. 
However, in contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case law of a U. S. circuit court, we are 
not bound to follow the published decision of a U.S. district court, even in matters arising within the 
same district. See Matter of K-S-, 20 l&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (BIA 1993). Although the reasoning 
underlying a district judge's decision will be given due consideration when properly before us, the 
analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. Id. Consistent with the Board's holding in 
K-S- and as discussed below, we decline to follow the court's reasoning. 
The RELX court concluded that "if the position requires the beneficiary to apply practical and 
theoretical specialized knowledge and a higher education degree it meets the requirements" of the 
definition of the term "specialty occupation." RELX, 397 F. Supp. 3d at 55. However, while that 
interpretation encompasses the requirements of section 214(i)(1)(A) of the Act, it ignores entirely 
section 214(i)(1)(B)'s requirement that the higher education degree must be "in the specific 
specialty. " 12 
The RELX court then examined two district court decisions: 
Nowhere in the statute does it require the degree to come solely from one particular 
academic discipline. As other courts have explained "[d]iplomas rarely come bearing 
occupation-specific majors. What is required is an occupation that requires highly 
specialized knowledge and a prospective employee who has attained the credentialing 
indicating possession of that knowledge." See Residential Finance Corp. v. U.S. 
Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 839 F. Supp. 2d 985, 997 (S.D. Ohio 2012) (stating 
that when determining whether a position is a specialized occupation "knowledge and 
11 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0142, Rescission of the December 22, 2000 "Guidance memo on HlB 
computer related positions" (Mar. 31, 2017), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/nativedocuments/PM-6002-
0142-H-1 BComputerRelated PositionsRecission. pdf. 
12 The USCIS regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition. When the agency 
promulgated the regulation in 1991, it found unconvincing the assertions made by multiple commenters that the "specific 
specialty" language was too restrictive. The agency stated the following: 
Most of these commenters suggested that the definition should be expanded to include those occupations 
which did not require a bachelor's degree in the specific specialty. The definition of specialty occupation 
contained in the statute contains this requirement. 
56 Fed. Reg. 61111, 61112 (Dec. 2, 1991). 
This "specific specialty" requirement has been recognized repeatedly. For example, in Caremax Inc v. Holder, 40 F. Supp. 
1182, 1187-88 (N.D. Cal. 2014), the court stated that "a position that requires applicants to have any bachelor's degree, or 
a bachelor's degree in a large subset of fields, can hardly be considered specialized." 
4 
not the title of the degree is what is important.");13 see also Tapis lnt'I v. I.N.S., 94 F. 
Supp.2 d 172, 175-76 (D. Mass. 2000) (rejecting a similar agency interpretation 
because it would preclude any position from satisfying the "specialty occupation" 
requirements where a specific degree is not available in that field). 
RELX, 397 F. Supp. 3d at 55. 
While we may agree with these statements, the RELX court appears to have taken them out of their 
proper statutory context. For example, if the Director in this matter had stated that the requisite 
bachelor's degree was required to have come bearing an occupation-specific major, we would 
withdraw that finding as it would have been incorrect. We agree that the knowledge, and not the title 
of the degree, is what is important, and had the Director stated that an occupation for which a specific 
degree is not available was precluded from qualifying as a specialty occupation, we would have 
withdrawn that statement. Neither the Residential Finance nor the Tapis lnt'I court implied that the 
"specific specialty" requirement contained in section 214(i)(1)(B) was optional. To the contrary, both 
courts found that the plaintiffs had satisfied the requirement. 
While the statutory "the" and the regulatory "a" both mandate a requirement for a bachelor's degree 
in a singular "specific specialty," we do not so narrowly interpret these provisions to exclude positions 
from qualifying as specialty occupations if they permit, as a minimum entry requirement, degrees in 
more than one closely related specialty. This also includes even seemingly disparate specialties 
providing, again, the evidence of record establishes how each acceptable, specific field of study is 
directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position. In general, provided the 
specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and biochemistry, a minimum of a bachelor's or higher 
degree in more than one specialty is recognized as satisfying the "degree in the specific specialty (or 
its equivalent)" requirement of section 214(i)(1)(B) of the Act. In such a case, the required "body of 
highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be the same. However, since there must be a close 
correlation between the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" and the position, a minimum 
entry requirement of a degree in two disparate fields, such as philosophy and engineering, would not 
meet the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)," unless 
the Petitioner establishes how each field is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position. 
We also disagree with the court's statements regarding the Occupational Outlook Handbook 
(Handbook) and the Occupational Information Network (O*NET). Specifically, the court stated that: 
13 With regard to Residential Finance, it is worth noting that the judge's decision appears to have been based largely on 
the many factual errors made by the Director in the decision denying the petition. We further note that the Director's 
decision was not appealed to us. Based on the district court's findings and description of the record, if that matter had first 
been appealed through the available administrative process, we may very well have remanded the matter to the service 
center for a new decision for many of the same reasons articulated by the district court if these errors could not have been 
remedied by us in our de novo review of the matter. To that end, we observe that when another H-1B petitioner challenged 
our reading of Residential Finance in the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio two years later, that court agreed 
with our interpretation of its earlier decision. See Health Carousel, LLC v. USCIS, No. 1:13-CV-23, 2014 WL 29591 (S.D. 
Ohio 2014). 
5 
The explicit O*NET cross reference to Business Intelligence Analyst (SOC Code 15-
1199.08) contained in the [Handbook] listing for "Computer Occupations, All Other" 
defines the technological and educational requirements for the position and explains 
that "[m]ost of these occupations require a four-year bachelor's degree, but some do 
not" with further detail that more than 90% of Business Intelligence Analyst positions 
require at least a bachelor's degree. 
The [Handbook] itself also explains that the typical entry level education for 
"Computer occupations, all other" is a "Bachelor's Degree." Since the [Handbook] 
indeed does provide specific detailed information regarding educational requirements 
for the computer operations category, and the detailed information states most of the 
occupations require a four-year bachelor's degree, the agency's rationale was both 
factually inaccurate and not supported by the record. 
The court did not acknowledge that neither the Handbook nor O*NET indicate that the bachelor's 
degree must be in a specific specialty, as mandated by section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act. Nor do we 
concur with the heavy weight the court assigned to the survey results contained in O*NET's summary 
report for the occupational category at issue in RELX. As noted by the court, 90% of the respondents 
to that survey stated that their organizations required a bachelor's degree for these positions. However, 
those survey results were based on a relatively small sample size: according to O*NET, that statistic 
was compiled based on 24 responses to a survey.14 
We therefore disagree with the court that the Handbook's entry for positions located within the 
"Computer Occupations, All Other" occupational category, and O*NET's entry for positions located 
within the "Business Intelligence Analysts" occupational category were sufficient (whether considered 
together or independently from one another) to satisfy the "specific specialty" requirement mandated 
by Congress in section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act.15 
Because the Handbook and O*NET do not describe the normal minimum educational requirements 
with sufficient specificity to establish that the positions falling within the occupational category meet 
the statutory and regulatory definition of a specialty occupation, we disagree with the heavy weight 
the court assigned them. Instead, we believe that, absent support from either the Handbook and 
O*NET, the court should have analyzed whether the petitioner had sufficiently demonstrated that its 
particular position was one for which a bachelor's degree in a specific field would normally be required 
and whether the stated field(s) of study directly relate to the performance of the duties.16 In other 
14 Employment & Training Administration, Dep't of Labor, Occupational Information Network, O*NET Resource Center, 
O*NET 24.2 Database, Education, Training, and Experience (click desired download format), available at 
https://www.onetcenter.org/dictionary/24.2/excel/education_training_experience.html (last visited Nov. 10, 2020). 
15 See also Irish Help at Home LLC v. Melville, No. 13-cv-00943-MEJ, 2015 WL 848977 at *5 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 24, 2015), 
aff'd 679 Fed. App'x 634 (9th Cir. 2017) ("The AAO found that O*NET was not particularly useful in determining whether 
a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent is a minimum entry requirement because it makes no mention 
of the specific field of study from which a degree must come"). 
16 Though the RELX court briefly discusses the duties of the position, it did not engage in analysis of whether the duties 
actually required the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment 
of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for entry into the occupation. Rather, after 
disposing of the authority set forth in Royal Siam Corp., the court accepted the petitioner's stated standards concerning its 
position. See generally Defensor, 201 F.3d 384, 387. 
6 
words, though we agree with the RELX court that the bachelor's degree does not have to be a degree 
in a single specialty, our agreement is predicated upon the fields of study being closely related to the 
duties of the position and the record reflecting evidence sufficient to establish such relation. 
We therefore cannot agree with the reasoning contained in the RELX decision and conclude that the 
Petitioner's reliance upon it does not support its eligibility.17 
On appeal, the Petitioner also provides printouts from several online sources to illustrate that a 
bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the proffered position. However, while the articles discuss certain 
professional positions, discuss studies about entry-level knowledge preferred or required for the 
positions, and list general course work and specialized classes, they do not indicate that a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty is required for entry. 
Here, the record lacks sufficient probative evidence to demonstrate that this particular position 
proffered by the petitioner is one for which a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied 
the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(1). 
Regarding the Director's discussion of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) and (4), we 
would add the following analysis regarding the job duties of the proffered position. We reviewed the 
Petitioner's statements regarding the proffered position; however, while the Petitioner stated that the 
computer programmer position "require[s] a thorough knowledge of software analysis and an 
experience in systems analysis in a wide range of applications," it has not sufficiently developed 
relative specialization, complexity, or uniqueness as an aspect of the proffered position. That is, while 
the Petitioner provided a list of job duties for the position, it has not explained in detail how tasks such 
as, design, document, review, and maintain components of software solutions per client requirements; 
understand and analyze the business requirement; review and prepare mapping documents for business 
requirements; assist in developing TIBCO solutions and resolve moderate defects; install, maintain 
and develop, and validate and test the business solution; design common logging and error handling 
framework for debugging purpose; create scripts for database creation; migrate data from various 
sources; assist in modeling business logic and automate business processes; document preparation for 
the future reusability of the code and functionality of the same in clear words with flow chart and 
algorithm; and generate project status periodically for management require the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge. These listed duties, 18 when read in 
combination with the evidence found in record of proceedings, suggests that this particular position is 
not so specialized, complex, or unique relative to other computer programmers that the duties can only 
17 We further note that the Director's decision in RELX was not appealed to us. Based on the district court's findings and 
description of the record, if that matter had first been appealed through the available administrative process, we may very 
well have remanded the matter to the service center for a new decision to address many of the concerns articulated by the 
district court if they could not have been remedied by us in our de novo review of the matter. 
18 While the Petitioner provided numerous duties and tasks for the proffered position, we will not list each one. We note 
that this is not an exhaustive list of all tasks for which the Petitioner has not explained the requirement for the theoretical 
and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge. The Petitioner should not assume that any duties or 
tasks not listed here are otherwise persuasive. 
7 
be performed by an individual with a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides a list of the same job duties, adding information about the 
"education requirements for the duty/ how it helped Beneficiary" and "courses/subjects" for each. 
The Petitioner briefly explains how these courses provided the Beneficiary with the knowledge 
necessary to perform the listed duties. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty 
occupation is not the education or experience of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself 
requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Simply providing a long 
list of the Beneficiary's coursework, or courses available in a degree program, does not sufficiently 
develop relative specialization, complexity, or uniqueness of the particular position. 
In addition, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary will be assigned to work on an in-house project: 
I I While the Petitioner provided additional information pertaining to the project (i.e. a 
Project Plan, a Research Study, a Market Competition Study and Analysis, a Project Report, a 
Marketing Analysis Study, and a Product Release Plan), it did not provide sufficient insight into the 
Beneficiary's actual duties, or include details regarding the specific tasks that the Beneficiary will 
perform as they relate to the assigned project. The provided information does not demonstrate how 
the performance of these duties, as described in the record, would require the attainment of a bachelor's 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Here, the Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the 
duties of the position, and it did not identify any tasks that are so complex or unique that only a 
specifically degreed individual could perform them. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the 
second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). Nor has the Petitioner established that 
its proffered position is one with duties sufficiently specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h )( 4)(i i i)(A)( 4). 
Regarding the Director's discussion of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3), we would 
add the following analysis regarding the Petitioner demonstrating that it normally requires a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. The Petitioner submitted a list of 34 
individuals including their positions and educational background. The Petitioner included education 
credentials and copies of its support letters for those individuals that outline the duties for their 
positions. None of the letters of support indicate that the positions for those individuals are the same 
as the one proffered here. As the criterion requires that the Petitioner demonstrate that it normally 
requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position, the Petitioner 
must demonstrate that the imposed requirements apply to previously hired employees in the same 
position as the one proffered here. Given that the information indicates these individuals were 
employed by the Petitioner in different positions, the Petitioner has not satisfied 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(i i i)(A)(3). 
Additionally, on appeal, the Petitioner submits new evidence relating to the four criteria.19 We note 
that the Director requested this type of material within the RFE, but the Petitioner did not submit it at 
that time. Where, as here, a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has 
19 On appeal, the Petitioner submits several job advertisements for positions at other organizations. 
8 
been given an opportunity to respond to that deficiency, we will not accept evidence offered for the 
first time on appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 l&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of 
Obaigbena, 19 l&N Dec. 533, 537 (BIA 1988). If the Petitioner had wanted the submitted evidence 
to be considered, it should have submitted the documents in response to the Director's RFE. Id. Under 
the circumstances, we need not and do not consider the sufficiency of the evidence submitted for the 
first ti me on appeal. 
11. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 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. The Petitioner has not met that burden here, and the petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
9