dismissed H-1B Case: Software

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 12092400 
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 : DEC . 22, 2020 
The Petitioner, a software enterprise applications and services company, seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. 1 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 California Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish 
that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden 
to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a preponderance of the evidence. 2 We review the 
questions in this matter de nova. 3 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
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 . 
1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 1 0l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b ), 8 U.S.C. § 11 0l(a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b ). 
2 See Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec . 369, 375 (AAO 2010) . 
3 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec . 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . 
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: 
( I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) 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; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) 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). 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. 4 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner states the Beneficiary will be employed as an "implementation specialist" and provides 
the following job duties for the position: 5 
• Analyze Business System Requirements & Solution Design 35% 
• Development and Implementation of Solution 40% 
• Verify and Validate End to End System Implementation 10% 
• End User Training and Training Documentation 5% 
• System Administration 5% 
• Production Rollout and Support 5% 
According to the Petitioner, the position requires at least a bachelor's degree in electrical or electronics 
engineering or another engineering discipline closely related to telecommunications. 6 
4 See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in a specific 
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). 
5 The proffered position's duties are described in various detail throughout the record. While we will not quote the entire 
description for the sake of brevity, we have reviewed and considered the descriptions contained in the Petitioner's initial 
support letter, its response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), and counsel's letters and appeal brief 
6 The Petitioner submitted documentation to suppmt the H-lB 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. 
2 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we conclude that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Specifically, the record (1) does not describe the position's duties with sufficient substantive detail; 
and (2) does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, 
commensurate with a specialty occupation. 
A. First Criterion 
We tum first 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. To inform this inquiry, we will consider the information contained 
in the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) regarding the 
duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations it addresses. 7 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-1B petition, 8 the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Computer Systems Analysts" 
corresponding to the standard occupational classification (SOC) code 15-1121. 
We reviewed the information in the Handbook regarding this occupational category and conclude that 
the Handbook does not establish that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is required for 
"Computer Systems Analysts." The subchapter of the Handbook entitled "How to Become a 
Computer Systems Analyst" states that "most . . . have a bachelor's degree in a computer-related 
field," and "many . . . have technical degrees" and "liberal arts degrees[,] hav[ing] gained 
programming or technical expertise elsewhere" ( emphasis added). The Handbook does not state that 
a minimum of a bachelor's degree is required for entry into the occupation. 9 Furthermore, by 
identifying a number of degrees, such as management information systems, computer science, and 
business administration, as "helpful," 10 the Handbook strongly indicates that a bachelor's degree in a 
7 On appeal, the Petitioner, quoting a disclaimer in the Handbook, asserts that it "should not be used to determine the 
minimum requirements for entry into a specific occupation." See Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, 
Occupational Outlook Handbook, Disclaimer, https://www.bls.gov/ooh/about/disclaimer.htm (last visited Dec. 18, 2020). 
While this assertion runs contrary to the Petitioner's own description of the Handbook as "authoritative" in other parts of 
the record, we do not 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. To satisfy the first criterion, the burden ofproofremains 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. The Petitioner also concludes from the disclaimer that the Handbook "should not be used to 
determine if an applicant is qualified to enter a specific job in an occupation." However, the Petitioner appears to be 
conflating the minimum occupational degree requirements, which is the focus of the first criterion, with the Beneficiary's 
qualifications, which becomes relevant only when the proffered position is found to be a specialty occupation. 
8 A petitioner submits the LCA to DOL to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B worker the higher of either the prevailing 
wage for the occupational classification in the area of employment or the actual wage paid by the employer to other 
employees with similar duties, experience, and qualifications. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(a). 
9 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Computer Systems Analysts, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-systems-analysts.htm (last visited Dec. 18, 
2020). 
10 Id. 
3 
specific specialty is not a normal, minimum entry requirement for this occupation. 11 Although, the 
Handbook's report is insufficient to establish that this occupation is categorically a specialty 
occupation, it does not preclude the Petitioner from establishing its particular position is a specialty 
occupation with other authoritative sources or under one of the other regulatory criteria. 12 
As an alternative authoritative source, the Petitioner references the DOL's Occupational Information 
Network (O*NET) summary report for the proffered position's educational requirements. While the 
summary report provides general information regarding the occupation; it does not support the 
Petitioner's assertion regarding the educational requirements for these positions. For example, the 
Specialized Vocational Preparation (SVP) rating cited within O*NET's Job Zone Four designates this 
occupation as 7 < 8. 13 An SVP rating of 7 to less than("<") 8 indicates that the occupation requires 
"over 2 years up to and including 4 years" of training. 14 While the SVP rating indicates 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 does not establish that a 4 year degree is required for entry into the occupation. The 
Petitioner also asserts that the "Knowledge" section of O*NET identifies the specialized knowledge 
necessary for the occupation. While this section discusses knowledge of computer hardware and 
software, areas of math, business, management, human resources, production, engineering science, 
11 The Petitioner asse1is "the fact that several specific degree fields may qualify a person for employment in the occupation 
or position does not mean that the occupation or position does not require a degree in a specific specialty." 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 2 l 4(i)( I )(B) of the Act. In such a case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would essentially 
be the same. Since there must be a close conelation between the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" and the 
position, however, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in two disparate fields 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. See Section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act 
( emphasis added). The Petitioner does not address how the various degrees, e.g. liberal arts and business, mentioned in 
the Handbook relate to the duties and responsibilities of the proffered position and create a "body of highly specialized 
knowledge." 
12 The Petitioner states that the Director ened by overly relying on the Handbook in her analysis of the first criterion and 
cites to 3Q Digital, Inc. v. USCIS, No. 19-CV-579, 2020 WL 1079068 (D.D.C. Mar. 6, 2020). We note that we are not 
bound to follow the unpublished decision of a United States district court in matters arising even within the same 
district. See Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (BIA 1993). Although the reasoning underlying a district judge's 
decision will be given due consideration when it is properly before us, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter 
of law. Id. Moreover, the Petitioner has furnished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition are 
analogous to those in 3Q Digital, which involved a different SOC category, and where the record contained evidence the 
court believed was not given appropriate consideration. Here, the Director's analysis considered the Petitioner's letters 
and the duties of the proffered position and did not rely solely on the Handbook, contrary to the Petitioner's assertions. 
The Petitioner believes the Director should have discussed the O*NET report included in the record. However, in 
discussing the educational requirements of the occupation, the Petitioner misquotes the O*NET in its response to the RFE, 
appearing to discuss another occupation all together. We therefore do not see how the Director ened by not analyzing the 
misquoted text. The Petitioner also adds that the Director "unlawfully incorporates the [Handbook] into the statutory and 
regulatory definitions of 'specialty occupation'" citing generally to 3Q Digital and RELX, Inc. v. Baran, 397 F. Supp. 3d 
41, 54 (D.D.C. 2019). No explanation is provided for this assertion and neither case addresses the "unlawful" use of the 
Handbook. Without more context, we are unable to further address this assertion. 
13 See O*NET OnLine Summary Report for "15-1121.00 Computer Systems Analysts," 
https://www.onetonline.org/ Archive_ ONET-SOC _ 20 IO_ Taxonomy_ 09 _ 2020/link/summary/15-1121.00 (last visited 
Dec. 18, 2020). 
14 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at 
http://www. onetonline. org/help/ online/ svp. 
4 
and design and production, it does not state it is required for entry into the occupation, nor does it 
specify the particular type of degree(s), if any, that the occupation would require. 
Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
B. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs. The first prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), contemplates common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows 
its focus to the Petitioner's specific position. 15 To satisfy this first prong, 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. 
We generally consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common degree 
requirement: whether an authoritative source 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 establish that such firms "routinely employ 
and recruit only degreed individuals." 16 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not provided an authoritative source that reports at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required for the proffered position, and 
we incorporate our previous discussion on this matter. The Petitioner also does not submit any other 
evidence that a degree is common to the industry. 
Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. 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. Evidence 
provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not limited to, documentation regarding the 
Petitioner's past recruitment and hiring practices, as well as information regarding employees who 
previously held the position. 
The Petitioner states it uses "functional consultants ... such as the beneficiary" to staff "ongoing, 
high-level construction and engineering projects." However, the Petitioner does not provide the total 
number of people it has employed to serve in the proffered position. The Petitioner has been in 
business for thirteen years but does not include information on its past recruitment and hiring practices, 
or its employees who previously held the position. The Petitioner does not explain why it has not 
provided this information. 
15 As the Petitioner combines its arguments in support of the second prong of the second criterion with criterion four, we 
will analyze these two criteria together. 
16 See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 1999) (quoting Hird/Blaker Co1p. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 
1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (considering these "factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
5 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
D. Second Prong of Second Criterion and Fourth Criterion 
The second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) is satisfied if the Petitioner shows 
that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with 
at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 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. 
When determining whether a position is a specialty occupation, we look at whether the position 
actually requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge 
attained through at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific discipline. Upon review of the totality of 
the record, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained or documented why the proffered position is 
so "complex or unique" or "specialized and complex" that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty 
is required. 
We first look to the duties of the position, described in the Petitioner's support letters. A crucial aspect 
is whether the Petitioner has sufficiently described the duties of the proffered position such that we 
may discern the nature of the position. According to the Petitioner, "the 'body of highly specialized 
knowledge' that the Beneficiary applies in performing her duties is her knowledge of electrical 
engineering in the context oflarge-scale telecommunications engineering project management." The 
Petitioner's letters summarize the Beneficiary's duties as "assisting with the design and configuration 
of[] business process software, solv[ing] customer support issues, and assist[ing] [] project managers 
and business analysts resolve design and configuration issues." The Petitioner adds that the 
Beneficiary will "appl[y] [] knowledge of engineering principles to configure and maintain the 
implemented software system" and will "validat[ e] [] engineering and construction requirements 
provided by the client and its contractors." However, the engineering knowledge required to perform 
these functions is not described. 
Reviewing the detailed duties, we are similarly unable to ascertain what project management duties 
would require a degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. For example, according to the 
description under the first duty, "analyze business systems requirements and solution design," the 
Beneficiary will "review and analyze [its client's] business processes" to "identify process gaps in 
forecasting, budgeting, releasing purchase orders, etc.," however the business processes are not 
identified and the knowledge necessary to identify the process gaps is not explained. The duty 
description adds that the Beneficiary will work on different project types like j I 
deployment,! I deployment, and operational projects," but the record does not provide the 
context for these projects or the knowledge required to work on them. The duty description adds that 
the Beneficiary will "prepare a detailed requirements analysis and multiple solution options for 
meeting those requirements," but does not explain what kind of requirements she is analyzing and 
what knowledge is required to create solutions. Nor is it clear what types of solutions she will be 
working on or how they will be used. According to the Petitioner, the "tasks require a full 
understanding of the engineering features provided by thd t and "the pre-existing systems 
including the [client's] proprietary systems" however the Petitioner also explained that it is not the 
6 
Beneficiary's use of software that is specialized but her knowledge of engineering. However, the 
Petitioner does not identify what "specialized and complex" or "complex or unique" knowledge is 
required to understand the engineering features of the client's programs. The duties also state the 
Beneficiary will analyze the programs' interactions and "propose a solution and associated changes to 
keep all the systems in the [client's] project aligned." The vague description continues by stating the 
Beneficiary will "create and maintain the numerous documents and project artifacts required 
throughout project lifecycle." Details for how any of these tasks, occupying more than a third of the 
Beneficiary's time, require specialized knowledge is not provided. Without a more substantive and 
meaningful job description, we are unable to ascertain the nature of the position, i.e. the actual work 
the Beneficiary would perform and thereby the level of education and knowledge necessary to perform 
the duties of the position. The other duties are written in a similar manner. As a result, we are unable 
to ascertain what "complex or unique" or "specialized and complex" knowledge would be necessary 
to perform these broadly described duties. 17 
In order to give context to the proffered position's duties, we look to the record for background 
information. Evidence was not provided indicating who will direct the Beneficiary's work and who 
the Beneficiary will report to or work with. Although the Petitioner states the Beneficiary will "assist" 
project managers and business analysts, it is not clear if the Beneficiary will work on a team with other 
employees of the Petitioner or work with other contractors or employees of the client. For this reason, 
we are unable to ascertain the level of responsibility afforded to the Beneficiary or how her work 
product is used. Reviewing information on the Petitioner, we note that it describes itself in the record 
as providing expertise "in development and implementation of solutions for logistics, supply chain 
planning, manufacturing, procurement, capital construction, asset management, and related complex 
engineering problems in a wide variety of industries like Manufacturing & Distribution, Life Sciences, 
Engineering and Construction, Telecommunications, Oil & Gas, and High-Technology." While 
verbose, the description does not explain the nature of the Petitioner's company and provides very 
little information on what the Petitioner does. 
Turning next to the project the Beneficiary will be working on, the Petitioner states its client is 
installing fiber optic telecommunications networks in multiple locations across the nation. According 
to the Petitioner, with the growth of its client, "the size and complexity of the financial data to be 
managed increased tremendously" and the client "found it increasingly difficult to have controls 
between different business processes." The Petitioner states it designed a "technical solution" which 
17 The Petitioner has also designated the proffered position as a Level I position on the submitted Labor condition 
application (LCA), indicating that it is an entry-level position for an employee who has only basic understanding of the 
occupation. 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_ 11 _ 2009 .pdf The Petitioner's designation of 
this position as a Level I, entry-level 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 from classification as a specialty occupation, just as a Level TV 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 ofa bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, 
a Level TV wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation qualifies as a specialty occupation if that 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)(l) of the Act. 
7 
uses "the engineering requirements of fiber construction to link existing systems, maintain structural 
integrity, and offer a better user experience" and allows the client to "use data collected from the field 
to self-correct, analyze, and mitigate risks as it goes through the process of laying out its high-speed 
fiber network to homes and businesses." The Petitioner's role is to continue to design, implement and 
maintain systems. Even with this background, it is not clear how the Petitioner's technical solutions 
uses or would require specialized knowledge obtained through a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner identifies 8 courses that it believes is "essential" to perform the duties of the proffered 
position. 18 Each course was taken by the Beneficiary 19 either in her undergraduate or graduate 
engineering studies. 20 While brief course descriptions were included in the record, an explanation of 
how these courses relate to the job duties is not included. Moreover, while a few related courses may 
be beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how an 
established curriculum of such courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the duties of the proffered position. 
The Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative specialization as an aspect of the duties of the 
position, and it did not identify tasks that are sufficiently complex or unique to satisfy the second 
alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) or specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Upon review of the totality of the evidence submitted, the Petitioner has not established that more 
likely than not, the proffered position is a specialty occupation under any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Moreover, the record does not establish that the Petitioner has satisfied the 
statutory and regulatory definitions of specialty occupation. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
18 Of the courses listed, only three appear to relate to engineering and the others, focused on math and computer 
programming, could be offered under many degree programs. 
19 To the extent the Petitioner is asserting here that the Beneficiary's experience and qualifications provide her with the 
background to perform these duties, it should be clarified that 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 qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
See Cf Matter of Michael HertzAssocs., 19 l&NDec. 558,560 (Comm'r 1988) ("The facts ofa beneficiary's background 
only come at issue after it is found that the position in which the petitioner intends to employ him falls within [a specialty 
occupation].") 
20 The Petitioner states the Beneficiary's "master's degree in electrical engineering [] clearly relates to tasks she performs." 
However, if the Petitioner requires a master's degree level of education, this requirement would conflict with its 
designation of the occupation as a Level I "Computer Systems Analyst," SOC code 15-1121 on the LCA. The O*NET 
summary report indicates that this occupation has a Job Zone 4 rating, which groups it among occupations for which "most 
... require a four-year bachelor's degree, but some do not." O*NET OnLine Summary Report for" 15-1121.00 - Computer 
Systems Analysts," https://www.onetonline.org/ Archive_ ONET-SOC _ 2010 _Taxonomy_ 09 _ 2020/link/summary/15-
1121.00 (last visited Dec. 18, 2020). Thus, if the Petitioner requires a master's degree to perform the duties of this 
occupation, the wage level would increase by at least one level, to a wage Level TT, because of the master's degree 
requirement and the labor condition application (LCA) in the record would not correspond to the petition. See Prevailing 
Wage Determination Policy Guidance, available at http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC_ Guidance_ 
Revised_ 11 _ 2009 .pdf. 
8 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. 21 The Petitioner has not 
met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
21 See Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 
9