dismissed H-1B Case: Law

MATTER OF H-C- PC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 22,2016 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a law firm, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a paralegal under the H-1 B 
nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 10l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-1B 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, Vermont Service Center, denied the. petitiOn. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the Director erred in denying the petition. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The~regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
Matter of H-C- PC 
(1) 
(2) 
(3) 
(4) 
A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions amopg 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that 
knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has consistently 
interpreted the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any 
baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed 
position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Cherto.ff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree 
requirement in a specitic specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a 
particular position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the H -1 B petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a "paralegal." In 
response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided the following job 
duties for the position: 
Research and analyze economic trends and their potential effects on the short and 
long term marketing decisions of the law firm with a concentration in the 
following U.S. geographic markets: Tri-State Pennsylvania region, California, 
and New York (collectively referred to as the "Targeted Domestic Market"); 
Research and a~alyze market conditions in international locations (primarily, 
China, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Bangladesh, which are collectively herein 
referred to as "Targeted International Market") to determine the poten'tial success 
of promoting our law firm's services for international clients who are interested in 
investing in the United States (particularly in the Targeted Domestic Market; 
develop research methods to gather data on potential clients, competitors, pricing 
and prevailing conditions in the Targeted Domestic Market and Targeted 
International Market; Measure the effectiveness of such marketing efforts and 
strategies, analyzing the results, and preparing reports to the principals of the law 
firm. The estimated percentage of time devoted to this area- (20-30%) percent. 
Research, analyze, and report on prospective markets (customized to client's 
industry, product line, and/or service line) for international clients who are 
2 
\ 
Matter of H-C- PC 
interested in investing or expanding its product and/or service lines in the 
Targeted Domestic Market and/or Target¢d International Market; Conduct costs 
and benefit analysis and assist the principals of the law firm to present an initial 
assessment report (covering all relevant pdtential legal issues and market analysis 
customized to the client's facts and cir¢umstances) to help clients make an 
informed decision, especially those who ; are not familiar with US laws. The 
estimated percentage of time devoted to this area- (30-35%) percent. 
Research relevant laws and emerging trends (e.g., EB5 sunset impact, country 
condition reports, legal barriers to entry); braft, revise, and present assessment to 
supervising attorneys; Review, prepare and draft relevant legal documents; 
including contracts, petitions, applications, affidavits, exhibits, briefs, and 
appeals; Directly communicate with clients (In English and Chinese-Mandarin 
and Chinese-Cantonese); Assist attorneys of the law firm to provide legal insights 
on relevant Chinese law and cultural observations for US clients who wishes to 
enter China's market. The estimated percentage of time devoted to this area :­
(30-35%) percent. 
According to the Petitioner, the duties of the proffered position can only be performed by someone 
holding a bachelor's degree or higher in "economics or international marketing or [closely] related 
field." 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for th¢ reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered .position qualifies as a specialty occupation.1 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or 
its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation.2 
A. Labor Condition Application 
We tum first to the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-IB petition, in 
which the Petitioner designated the proffered positidn under the occupational category "Paralegals 
and Legal Assistants" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 23-2011 at a 
Level I wage. On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary's proffered position exceeds the 
knowledge and duties of a typical paralegal position. The Petitioner further asserts that USCIS has 
typically recognized positions with an '~international component" or with multiple disciplines as 
"special and complex." The Petitioner notes that the Beneficiary's supervisor, an attorney, could not 
perform the duties of the position. 
1 
Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
2 
The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the fl-1 8 petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
3 
Matter of H-C- PC 
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) guidance states that wage levels should be determined only 
after selecting the most relevant occupational code classification. Then, a prevailing wage 
determination is made by selecting one of four wage levels for an occupation based on a comparison 
of the employer's job requirements to the occupational requirements, including tasks, knowledge, 
skills, and specific vocational preparation (education, training and experience) generally required for 
acceptable performance in that occupation. Factors to be considered when determining the wage 
level for a position include the complexity of the job duties, as well as the levels of judgment, 
supervision, and understanding required to perform the job duties. 
DOL guidance states that a Level I (entry) wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which 
the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the occupation. This wage 
rate indicates: (1) that the Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, 
if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that she will be closely supervised and her work closely monitored 
and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that she will receive specific instructions on required tasks and 
expected results? A Level I wage should be considered for research fellows, workers in training, or 
internships. 
According to DOL guidance, an indication that the job request warrants a wage determination at a 
Level I would be a requirement for years of education and/or experience that are generally required 
as described in the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) Job Zones. The occupational 
category "Paralegals and Legal Assistants," has been assigned an O*NET Job Zone 3, which groups 
it among occupations for which medium preparation is needed. More specifically, most occupations 
in this zone "require training in vocational schools, related on-the-job experience, or an associate's 
degree." See O*NET OnLine Help Center, at http://www.onetonline.org/help/online/zones, for a 
discussion of Job Zone 3. 
Therefore, the Petitioner's designation of the proffered position at a Level I on the LCA suggests 
that the Petitioner's academic and/or professional experience requirements for the protiered position 
would be less than "training in a vocational school, related on-the-job experience, or an associate's 
degree." 
The Petitioner's assertion that the pro tiered position exceeds the knowledge and duties of a typical 
paralegal position is not reflected in the wage level chosen by it on the LCA.4 The statements 
regarding the claimed level of complexity, independent judgment and understanding required for the 
proffered position, as well as the requirements, appear to be materially inconsistent with the 
3 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. 
Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://tlcdatacenter.com/download/ NPWHC Guidance Revised 
II 2009.pdf. - -
4 
A petitioner must distinguish its proffered position from others within the occupation through the proper wage level 
designation to indicate factors such as complexity of the job duties, the level of judgment, the amount and level of 
supervision, and the level of understanding required to perform the job duties. Through the wage level, the Petitioner 
reflects the job requirements, experience, education, special skills/other requirements and supervisory duties. 
4 
Matter of H-C- PC 
certification of the. LCA for a Level I position. This conflict challenges the overall credibility of the 
petition in establishing the nature of the proffered position and in what capacity the Beneficiary will 
be employed. Therefore, we are precluded from finding that the proffered position is. a specialty 
occupation. Nevertheless, we will perform a complete specialty occupation analysis under each of 
the four, alternative criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
B. First Criterion 
We first tum to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A){l), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position.5 To inform this inquiry, we recognize DOL's Occupational 
Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and educational 
requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 6 
The Petitioner designated the position under the occupation "Paralegals and Legal Assistants" on the 
LCA, therefore, we reviewed the subchapter of the Handbook entitled "How to Become a Paralegal 
or Legal Assistant." The Handbook reports, in relevant part: "Most paralegals and legal assistants 
have an associate's degree in paralegal studies, or a bachelor's degree in another field and a 
certificate in paralegal studies."7 It further specifies, "There are several paths a person can take to 
become a paralegal. Candidates can enroll in a community college paralegal program to earn an 
associate's degree." It also states that "many employers prefer, or even require, applicants to have a 
bachelor's degree." According to the Handbook, "Employers sometimes hire college graduates with 
no legal experience or legal education and train them on the job." 
As such, the Handbook does not support a conclusion that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty 
is required for entry into this occupation. Rather, the Handbook indicates that there are various paths 
to enter into this occupation, such as obtaining an associate's degree in paralegal studies or a college 
degree in an unrelated field. The Handbook reports that employers sometimes hire individuals who 
have earned a degree but have no legal experience or education. This passage of the Handbook does 
not indicate that there are any specific degree requirements for these jobs. Indeed, the Petitioner 
5 In the current matter, the Petitioner contends that the Director erred by analyzing other criterion beyond the fourth 
criterion, or that which qualifies a beneficiary based on specialized and complex knowledge associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty. Regardless, we will analyze each criterion in 
determining whether the Beneficiary's proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
6 All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not, however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant 
information. That is, the occupational·category designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the 
general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered position, and USCIS regularly reviews the Handbook on ,the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. To satisfy the first criterion, however, the 
burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position 
would normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for·entry. 
7 
For additional information regarding the occupational category "Paralegals and Legal Assistants," see U.S. Dep't of 
Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-2017 ed., Paralegals and Legal Assistants, 
available at http://www.bls.gov/ooh/legallprint/paralegals-and-Iegal-assistants.htm (last visited Nov. 14, 20 16). 
5 
Matter of H-C- PC 
indicates that the proffered position requires a degree in economics or international marketing, 
academic fields not mentioned in the Handbook when referencing paralegals. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation from a probative source to substantiate its 
assertion regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. Thus, the 
Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J). 
C. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: "The degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may 
show that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
contemplates the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by 
USCIS include: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the 
industry's professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether 
letters or affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms "routinely employ 
and recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 
1999) (quoting Hird!Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
As previously discuss~d, the Petitioner has not established that its profiered position is one for which 
the Handbook, or other authoritative source, reports a requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, we incorporate by reference the previous discussion on 
the matter. Also, there are no submissions from the industry's professional association indicating 
that it has made a degree a minimum entry requirement. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not submit 
any letters or affidavits from similar finns or individuals in the Petitioner's industry attesting that 
such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." Thus, the Petitioner has not 
satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
6 
Matter of H-C- PC 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
In support of its assertion that the proffered positiOn qualifies as a specialty occupation, the 
Petitioner submitted descriptions of the proffered position. However, as noted previously, the 
Petitioner designated the proffered position as an entry-level position within the occupational 
category by selecting a Level I wage. This designation, when read in combination with the 
Petitioner's job descriptions and the Handbook's account of the requirements for this occupation 
further suggests that. the particular position is not so complex or unique that the duties can only be 
performed an individual with bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
In the alternative, the Petitioner may submit evidence to establish that the duties of the position are 
so complex or unique that only an individual with a degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent 
can perform the duties associated with the position. The Petitioner has indicated that the 
Beneficiary's educational background in international marketing will assist her in carrying out the 
duties of the proffered position. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is 
not the skill set or education of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself qualities as a 
specialty occupation. 
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). 
D. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 
To merit approval of the petition under this criterion, the record must establish that a petitioner's 
imposition of a degree requirement is not merely a matter of preference for high-caliber candidates 
but is necessitated by performance requirements of the position. While a petitioner may assert that a 
proffered position requires a specific degree, that statement alone without corroborating evidence 
cannot establish the position as a specialty occupation. Were USCIS limited solely to reviewing a 
petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, then any individual with a bachelor's degree could 
be brought to the United States to perform any occupation as long as the Petitioner created a token 
degree requirement, whereby all individuals employed in a particular position possessed a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty, or its equivalent. See Defensor v. Meissner, 
201 F.3d at 388. Evidence provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not limited to, 
documentation regarding the Petitioner's past recruiting and hiring practices, as well as information 
regarding employees who previously held the position . 
., 
Matter of H-C- PC 
As noted, the Petitioner does not assert in the current matter the Beneficiary's proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation under any of the criterion but the fourth criterion, going as far to 
state that the Director acted in error by analyzing any criterion beyond the fourth. Therefore, here, 
the Petitioner has not submitted any supporting documentation to substantiate a conclusion that the 
Petitioner has previously hired anyone in the Beneficiary's proffered position and that these 
positions required a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent. 
Without more, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that it normally 
requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the proffered 
position. Therefore, it has not satisfied the third criterion of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
E. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that we have previously sustained cases with respect to paralegals 
when the duties of the position exceed those typically performed by paralegals and cites certain non­
precedent decisions. In addition, the Petitioner makes reference to a non-precedent decision of this 
office and states that "it appears that positions which have an international component or multi­
disciplines have been recognized as special and complex." The Petitioner points to the Beneficiary's 
supervisor at the law firm, an attorney, and notes that he is not able to perform the duties of this 
position, thus demonstrating that the proffered position is more specialized and complex than typical 
paralegal positions. 
First, when "any person makes application for a visa or any other document required for entry, or 
makes application for admission, ... the burden of proof shall be upon such person to establish that 
he is eligible" for such benefit. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; see also Matter ofTreasure 
Craft of Cal., 141&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972). Furthermore, any suggestion that users 
must review unpublished decisions and possibly request and review each case file relevant to those 
decisions, while being impractical and inefficient, would also be a shift in the evidentiary burden in 
these proceedings from the Petitioner to USCIS, which would be contrary to section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. Accordingly, neither the Director nor our office was required to request and/or 
obtain a copy of the unpublished decisions cited by the Petitioner. 
If the Petitioner wished to have unpublished decisions considered by USCrS in the adjudication of a 
petition, it is permitted to submit copies of such evidence that it either obtained itself through its own 
legal research and/or received in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed in 
accordance with the applicable regulations. Otherwise, "[t]he non-existence or other unavailability 
of required evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility." 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i). In the instant 
case, the Petitioner did not submit copies of the unpublished decisions. As the record of proceedings 
does not contain any evidence of the unpublished decisions, there were no underlying facts to be 
8 
Matter of H-C- PC 
analyzed and, therefore, no prior, substantive determinations could have been made to determine 
what facts, if any, were analogous to those in these proceedings. While 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c) provides 
that our precedent decisions are binding on all USCIS employees in the administration of the Act, 
unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. 
Further, while the Petitioner provided a more detailed job description in response to the RFE, the 
description does not establish that the duties are more specialized and complex than positions that 
are not usually associated with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
We also incorporate Ol;lr earlier discussion and analysis regarding the duties of the proffered position, 
and the designation of the proffered position in the LCA as a Level I position (of the lowest of four 
assignable wage-levels) relative to others within the occupational category. 8 Without further 
evidence, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that its proffered position is one with specialized and 
complex duties as such a position within this occupational category would likely be classified at a 
higher-level, requiring a substantially higher prevailing wage.9 
Finally, the Petitioner suggests that since the Beneficiary's supervising attorney cannot perform the 
duties of this particular paralegal position, it thereby follows that it is a specialty occupation; 
however, we do not find this analysis persuasive. The mere fact that an attorney cannot perform the 
duties of this particular paralegal position does not demonstrate that knowledge required to perform 
them is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. Given that the LCA submitted in support of the petition was certified for 
a Level I wage, it must therefore be concluded that either ( 1) the position is a low-level, entry 
position relative to other paralegals and, thus, based on the findings of the Handbook, published by 
the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the proffered position is not a specialty occupation; or (2) the LCA 
does not correspond to the petition. In other words, even if it were determined that the proffered 
position requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, such that it 
would qualify as a specialty occupation, the petition could still not be approved because the 
Petitioner has not submitted an LCA that corresponds to a higher level position. 
8 The Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-le~el position undermines its claim that the position is 
particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. Nevertheless, a 
Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position rrom classification as a specialty occupation, just as a 
Level IV wage-designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain occupations (e.g., doctors or 
lawyers), a Level I, entry-level position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation qualifies 
as a specialty occupation ifthat higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. That is, a position's wage level designation may be a relevant factor but is not 
itself conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)( I) of the Act. 
9 
A Level IV (fully competent) position is designated by DOL for employees who "use advanced skills and diversified 
knowledge to solve unusual and complex problems" and requires a significantly higher wage. For additional information 
regarding wage levels as defined by DOL, see U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage 
Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised_ II_ 2009.pdf. 
9 
Matter of H-C- PC 
Although the Petitioner asserts that the nature of the specific duties is specialized and complex, the 
record lacks sufficient evidence to support this claim. Thus, the Petitioner has submitted inadequate 
probative evidence to satisfy the criterion of the regulations at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)( 4). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The burden is on the 
Petitioner to show 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. 
Cite as Matter ofH-C- PC, ID# 186409 (AAO Nov. 22, 2016) 
10