dismissed L-1A Case: Direct Sales

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
identifying data deleted to 
 OfJice of~dmlir~tratl~e Appeals, Ms 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
prevent clearly unwmted 
invasion of personal pri~a#~,Ic 
 U. S. Citizenship and Immigration 
File: WAC 08 2 16 5073 1 
 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. €j 1 101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
IN STRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. €j 103.5 for the 
specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a 
Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 days of the 
decision that the motion seeks to reconsider, as required by 8 C.F.R. €j 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
!@Jfn F. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
* WAC0821650731 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant petition and the matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as an L-IA nonimmigrant 
intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. tj 1 101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner, a South Dakota corporation, is engaged in direct sales of jewelry and 
fashion accessories. It claims to be an affiliate of Fifth Avenue Collection, Ltd., located in Moose Jaw, 
Canada. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary in the position of sales managerlfield trainer. 
The director denied -the petition on two separate and independent grounds. Specifically, the director 
determined that the petitioner had failed to establish: (1) that the U.S. company and the foreign entity have a 
qualifying relationship; and (2) that the petitioner has secured physical premises to house the U.S. office. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that it has maintained the same 
office premises in the United States since 1992, and submits additional evidence in support of the claimed 
affiliate relationship between the petitioner and the foreign entity. 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. Specifically, a qualifying organization must have employed the 
beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge capacity, for one 
continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United 
States. In addition, the beneficiary must seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his 
or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial, executive, or 
specialized knowledge capacity. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form 1-129 shall be 
accompanied by: 
(i) 
 Evidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will employ the 
alien are qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph (l)(l)(ii)(G) of this section. 
(ii) 
 Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or specialized 
knowledge capacity, including a detailed description of the services to be performed. 
(iii) 
 Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full-time employment 
abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing of 
the petition. 
(iv) 
 Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position that was 
managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the alien's prior 
education, training, and employment qualifies himher to perform the intended 
WAC0821650731 
Page 3 
services in the United States; however, the work in the United States need not be the 
same work which the alien performed abroad. 
The first issue to be addressed is whether the petitioner established that the U.S. company and the foreign entity 
have a qualifying relationship. To establish a "qualifying relationship" under the Act and the regulations, the 
petitioner must show that the beneficiary's foreign employer and the proposed U.S. employer are the same 
employer (i.e. one entity with "branch" offices), or related as a "parent and subsidiary" or as "affiliates." See 
generally section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 5 2 14.2(1). 
The pertinent regulations at 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(1)(l)(ii) define the term "qualifying organization" and related 
terms as follows: 
(G) 
 Qualifying organization means a United States or foreign firm, corporation, or other 
legal entity which: 
(1) 
 Meets exactly one of the qualifying relationships specified in the 
definitions of a parent, branch, affiliate or subsidiary specified in 
paragraph (l)(l)(ii) of this section; 
(2) 
 Is or will be doing business (engaging in international trade is not 
required) as an employer in the United States and in at least one other 
country directly or through a parent, branch, affiliate or subsidiary for the 
duration of the alien's stay in the United States as an intracompany 
transferee[.] 
(I) 
 Parent means a firm, corporation, or other legal entity which has subsidiaries. 
(K) 
 Subsidiary means a firm, corporation, or other legal entity of which a parent owns, 
directly or indirectly, more than half of the entity and controls the entity; or owns, 
directly or indirectly, half of the entity and controls the entity; or owns, directly or 
indirectly, 50 percent of a 50-50 joint venture and has equal control and veto power 
over the entity; or owns, directly or indirectly, less than half of the entity, but in fact 
controls the entity. 
(L) AfJiliate means 
(I) 
 One of two subsidiaries both of which are owned and controlled by the 
same parent or individual, or 
WAC 08 216 50731 
Page 4 
(2) 
 One of two legal entities owned and controlled by the same group of 
individuals, each individual owning and controlling approximately the 
same share or proportion of each entity. 
The petitioner filed the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, on August 1, 2008. The petitioner 
stated on Form 1-129 that it is an affiliate of Fifth Avenue Collection, Ltd., a Canadian corporation. 
In support of the petition, the petitioner submitted a chart depicting the ownership of both companies. The chart 
indicates that the ownership of the U.S. company is as follows: 
5,332 common shares 
2,666 common shares 
The company ownership chart indicates that Fifth Avenue Collection Ltd. has the following ownership: 
2,000 common shares 
1,000 common shares 
100 Class A Voting Preference 
294,999 Class B Voting Preference 
The chart indicates that is owned by 
owned by. 
 is listed as the sole owner of 
The petitioner submitted the articles of incorporation for Fifth Avenue Collection Ltd. and articles of amendment 
reflecting the company's name change from -. The articles of incorporation indicate that 
the company is authorized to issue unlimited common shares and unlimited Class A Preference Shares. The 
petitioner also provided a copy of the U.S. company's articles of incorporation, which indicate that the company 
was established in South Dakota in 1991 and is authorized to issue 100,000 shares of common stock. 
The director issued a request for additional evidence (RFE) on September 25, 2008, in which she requested, inter 
alia, additional evidence to establish the ownership of the foreign and U.S. companies. Specifically, the director 
requested copies of stock certificates, stock ledgers, minutes of relevant board meetings addressing stock 
ownership, copies of annual reports, and proof of stock purchase. 
In response, the petitioner submitted the following evidence: 
A copy of the 2007 Form MG-14269, Annual Return of Information, filed by Fifth 
Avenue Collection Ltd. with the Manitoba provincial government. The information return 
identifies the company's shareholders as ,, and - 
Ltd., with the same stock ownership indicated above. 
WAC 08 216 50731 
Page 5 
A copy of the 2008 Form MG-14269, Annual Return of Information, filed by= 
Manitoba Ltd., which identifies 
 as the sole company shareholder. 
A copy of the 2007 Form MG-14269, Annual Return of Information, filed by - 
Manitoba Ltd. which identifies the shareholders as (583,433 Pref A shares) 
and (583,233 Pref A shares). 
Copies of the petitioner's IRS Forms 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return, for the 
2006 and 2007 tax years. The corporate tax returns indicate at Schedule K that the 
company has two share holders, and identify as the controlling shareholder 
with 662'3 % of the shares 
The petitioner also resubmitted the company ownership chart submitted at the time of filing, and copies of both 
companies' articles of incorporation. 
The director denied the petition on December 2, 2008, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
petitioner and the foreign entity have a qualifying relationship. In denying the petition, the director observed that 
"[tlhe petitioner has not submitted the corporate stock certificate, ledger, stock certificate registry, corporate 
bylaws and the minutes of relevant annual shareholder meetings or other evidence." The director found that the 
evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the elements of common ownership and control between the 
U.S. and Canadian companies. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits additional evidence relevant to the ownership and control of the U.S. company, 
including: 
Minutes of the First Meeting of Directors of the U.S. company, dated April 30, 1991, 
which indicates that the petitioner's stock was subscribed as follows: 2,666 
shares; 
 2,666 shares; and 2,666 shares. 
Stock Purchase Agreement made on Febru 
 24 2004, whereby sold his 
2,666 shares in the petitioning company to arY. 
Copies of the petitioner's stock certificates #1-4, indicating that holds a total 
of 5332 shares (certificates #1 and #4) and holds 2,666 shares (certificate 
#2). 
A copy of the petitioner's stock transfer ledger, which indicates that original issuance of 
stock to the three shareholders in April 1991 and the subsequent transfer of shares from 
to in 1994. 
The petitioner also explains and documents the methods by which the petitioner's individual shareholders paid for 
their shares in the company. 
Upon review, the petitioner has not established that the petitioner and the foreign entity have a qualifying 
relationship. 
The regulation and case law confirm that ownership and control are the factors that must be examined in 
determining whether a qualifying relationship exists between United States and foreign entities for purposes 
WAC 08 2 16 5073 1 
Page 6 
of this visa classification. Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593 (BIA 1988); see also 
Matter of Siemens Medical Systems, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 362 (BIA 1986); Matter of Hughes, 18 I&N Dec. 289 
(Comm. 1982). In the context of this visa petition, ownership refers to the direct or indirect legal right of 
possession of the assets of an entity with full power and authority to control; control means the direct or 
indirect legal right and authority to direct the establishment, management, and operations of an entity. Matter 
of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. at 595. 
As general evidence of a petitioner's claimed qualifying relationship, stock certificates alone are not sufficient 
evidence to determine whether a stockholder maintains ownership and control of a corporate entity. The 
corporate stock certificate ledger, stock certificate registry, corporate bylaws, and the minutes of relevant 
annual shareholder meetings must also be examined to determine the total number of shares issued, the exact 
number issued to the shareholder, and the subsequent percentage ownership and its effect on corporate 
control. Additionally, a petitioning company must disclose all agreements relating to the voting of shares, the 
distribution of profit, the management and direction of the subsidiary, and any other factor affecting actual 
control of the entity. See Matter of Siemens Medical Systems, Inc., supra. Without full disclosure of all 
relevant documents, USCIS is unable to determine the elements of ownership and control. 
The regulations specifically allow the director to request additional evidence in appropriate cases. See 8 
C.F.R. 9 214.2(1)(3)(viii). As ownership is a critical element of this visa classification, the director may 
reasonably inquire beyond the issuance of paper stock certificates into the means by which stock ownership 
was acquired. As requested by the director, evidence of this nature should include documentation of monies, 
property, or other consideration furnished to the entity in exchange for stock ownership. Additional 
supporting evidence would include stock purchase agreements, subscription agreements, corporate by-laws, 
minutes of relevant shareholder meetings, or other legal documents governing the acquisition of the 
ownership interest. 
Upon review of the record, the petitioner has established that the U.S. entitv is owned bv two individuals. 
and 
 with holding the majority and con&lling interescin the U.S. entity: 
Therefore, the factual determination to be made is whether 
 also owns and controls Fifth Avenue 
Collection, Ltd. 
If one individual owns a majority interest in a petitioner and a foreign entity, and controls those companies, 
then the companies will be deemed to be affiliates under the regulatory definition even if there are multiple 
owners. In Matter of Tessel, Inc., 17 I&N Dec. 631 (Acting Assoc. Comm. 1981) it was determined that 
"[wlhere there is a high percentage of ownership and common management between two companies, either 
directly or indirectly or through a third entity, those companies are 'affiliated' within the meaning of that term 
as used in section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act." Id. at 633. In the Tessel decision, the beneficiary solely owned 
93% of the foreign corporation and 60% of the petitioning organization, thereby establishing a "high 
percentage of common ownership and common management . . . ." 
The record as presently constituted does not contain sufficient evidence to establish the ownership and control 
of Fifth Avenue Collection, Ltd. The record shows that , a company that is who11 
owned by 
 owns 2,000 common shares in Fifth Avenue Collection, Ltd., while d 
WAC0821650731 
Page 7 
, a company owned by 
 and, owns 1,000 common shares, 100 Class 
A Voting Preference shares, and 294,999 Class B Voting Preference shares. 
Although the petitioner has submitted relevant evidence on appeal with the respect to the ownership and 
control of the U.S. company, the petitioner has not submitted copies of stock certificates, a stock transfer 
ledger, by-laws, minutes of the directors meetings, or other documents that would assist in determining who 
exercises control over the foreign entity. None of the submitted documents identify the significance of 
"common" versus Class A or Class B voting preference shares and the resulting impact upon control of Fifth 
Avenue Collection, Ltd. Therefore the AAO cannot assume that controls the company based on 
her indirect ownership of the majority of the common shares issued. As noted above, without full disclosure 
of all relevant documents, USCIS is unable to determine the elements of ownership and control. Going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof 
in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft 
of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
Based on the foregoing discussion, the petitioner has not established that the petitioner has a qualifying 
relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer. For this reason, the appeal will be dismissed. 
The second issue to be addressed is whether the petitioner established that it has sufficient premises to house 
the U.S. office. In denying the petition, the director cited to the regulations governing "new office" petitions 
at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(~). 
Upon review, the director's determination will be withdrawn. The evidence of record establishes that the 
petitioning company was incorporated in South Dakota in 1991 and that it has been leasing its current 
premises since the early 1990s. Further, with respect to this issue, the corporate tax returns submitted in 
response to the RFE demonstrate that the U.S. company has been actively doing business for more than one 
year and is not a "new office" as defined at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(F). Accordingly, all references made by 
the director to the petitioner as a new office shall also be withdrawn. 
Beyond the decision of the director, a remaining issue is whether the petitioner established that the beneficiary 
has been employed by the foreign entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity on a full-time basis 
for one continuous year within the three years preceding the filing of the petition, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 
2 14.2(1)(3)(iii) and (iv). 
Section 101 (a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101 (a)(44)(A), defines the term "managerial capacity" as an 
assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily: 
(i) 
 manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of 
the organization; 
(ii) 
 supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial 
employees, or manages an essential function within the organization, or a department 
or subdivision of the organization; 
WAC 08 216 50731 
Page 8 
(iii) 
 if another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has the authority to 
hire and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel actions (such as 
promotion and leave authorization), or if no other employee is directly supervised, 
functions at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the 
function managed; and 
(iv) 
 exercises discretion over the day to day operations of the activity or function for 
which the employee has authority. A first line supervisor is not considered to be 
acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of the supervisor's supervisory 
duties unless the employees supervised are professional. 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(a)(44)(B), defines the term "executive capacity" as an 
assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily: 
(i) 
 directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of the 
organization; 
(ii) 
 establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; 
(iii) 
 exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision making; and 
(iv) 
 receives only general supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board 
of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
The petitioner indicated on the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, that the beneficiary has 
been employed by the foreign entity since January 1, 1990. Where asked to describe the beneficiary's duties 
for the last three years, the petitioner stated: "Field Training." In a letter dated July 17, 2008, the foreign 
entity's president stated: 
[The beneficiary] has been with Fifth Avenue Collection Ltd. in Canada for the last sixteen 
years in marketing and sales. She has extensive training in product knowledge, sales 
techniques, interviewing prospective representatives, etc. 
In a second letter, also dated July 17, 2008, the foreign entity's president further described the beneficiary's 
duties in Canada as the following: 
Her duties include conduction of meetings andlor seminars in Sales Training and Leadership, 
setting and monitoring sales objectives, interviewing and hiring sales personnel and 
introducing sales programs and incentives. As such she has established an extensive sales 
force in Canada. 
In the RFE issued on September 25, 2008, the director requested that the petitioner submit copies of the 
foreign entity's payroll records pertaining to the beneficiary for the year preceding the filing of the petition. 
The director also instructed the petitioner to submit: (1) a more detailed job description identifying the 
WAC 08 216 50731 
Page 9 
beneficiary's specific duties and the percentage of time she devotes to each of the listed duties; (2) 
information regarding the total number of employees working at the foreign location; (3) a copy of the foreign 
entity's organizational chart clearly identifying the beneficiary's position and listing all employees who work 
under the beneficiary's supervision by name and job title; and (4) brief job descriptions for the beneficiary's 
subordinates. 
In response to the director's request, the foreign entity submitted a letter dated October 27, 2008. The foreign 
entity stated that the beneficiary was hired on January 30, 1990 and has been a Sales Manager for the past 
fifteen years. The foreign entity indicated that the beneficiary "has extensive training in product knowledge, 
sales techniques, interviewing prospective representatives, etc." 
The foreign entity attached a copy of the beneficiary's 2007 Canada Revenue Income Tax Form T4A, 
Statement of Pension, Retirement, Annuity and Other Income. The Form T4A indicates that the beneficiary 
received $48,639.90 in "self-employed commissions," and $5,244.02 in "other income" from the foreign 
entity. 
The foreign entity stated that it has 65 employees in Canada as of October 31, 2008, and an "independent 
sales force" of 1,500 people. The petitioner re-submitted the above-mentioned company ownership chart for 
the organization rather than submitting the requested organizational chart depicting the staffing of the foreign 
entity. 
The petitioner's response to the RFE also included a copy of the foreign entity's November 2008 publication, 
Glitter, which appears to be a monthly newsletter distributed to the company's independent jewelers/sales 
agents. The beneficiary is pictured in the publication in a section featuring "sales leaders," described as those 
who "receive generous commissions on the sales of the people they have introduced to the business," in 
addition to earnings from their personal sales. The beneficiary is one of 30 sales leaders pictured, and is 
identified as a "Sr. Sales Leader." It appears that all of the company's established jewelers are given 
incentives to recruit and sponsor new jewelers to grow the sales force. 
When examining the proposed executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary, the AAO will look first to 
the petitioner's description of the proposed job duties. 
 See 8 C.F.R. fj 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 
 The petitioner's 
description of the job duties must clearly describe the duties that will be performed by the beneficiary and 
indicate whether such duties will be either in an executive or managerial capacity. Id. 
The evidence of record is insufficient to establish that the beneficiary has been employed by the foreign entity 
in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. Based on a review of the totality of the evidence submitted, 
it appears that, while the beneficiary may be responsible for recruiting and training new independent sales 
agents, she remains responsible for selling the company's products directly to customers. Although requested 
by the director, the petitioner has failed to provide a detailed position description establishing what portion of 
the beneficiary's time is allocated to any managerial or supervisory duties, and what portion is spent 
performing non-qualifling duties. Therefore, based on the minimal explanation in the record regarding the 
beneficiary's position with the foreign entity, the AAO is unable to determine whether the claimed managerial 
duties constitute the majority of the beneficiary's duties, or whether the beneficiary primarily performs non- 
WAC0821650731 
Page 10 
managerial administrative or operational duties. See Republic of Transkei v. INS, 923 F.2d 175, 177 (D.C. 
Cir. 1991). Failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for 
denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(14). The AAO cannot determine whether the beneficiary performs 
duties beyond those of a lead salesperson. An employee who "primarily" performs the tasks necessary to 
produce a product or to provide services is not considered to be "primarily" employed in a managerial or 
executive capacity. See sections 10 l(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act (requiring that one "primarily" perform the 
enumerated managerial or executive duties); see also Matter of Church Scientology Int'l., 19 I&N Dec. 593, 
604 (Comm. 1988). 
Furthermore, the fact that the beneficiary received payments from the foreign entity in the form of "self- 
employed commissions" rather than a salary or wage from the foreign entity raises questions as to whether 
she is included among the foreign entity's 65 employees, or among its 1,500-member "independent sales 
force." The petitioner has failed to submit an organizational chart depicting the staffing structure of the 
foreign entity, which further undermines the AAO's ability to determine whether the beneficiary's position is 
at a senior level within the organizational structure, or whether she is even considered an "employee" of the 
foreign entity. The record as presently constituted does not contain evidence that the beneficiary is a bona 
fide employee of the foreign entity, or that she has been employed by the foreign entity in a primarily 
managerial or executive capacity. For these additional reasons, the petition cannot be approved. 
Finally, for similar reasons as those stated above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary will be 
employed by the U.S. entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. The petitioner evidently expects 
the beneficiary to perform duties in the United States comparable to those she has been performing in Canada, 
but has not provided a detailed description of her proposed duties, identified her proposed salary or wage, or 
indicated that she will be a direct employee of either the U.S. or foreign entity. If the beneficiary will continue 
to be self-employed and receive payments on a commission only basis, she is ineligible for this visa 
classification. Again, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes 
of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). For this additional reason, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by the 
AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 200 I), afd. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003). The AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 557(b) 
("On appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in 
making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also, Janka v. US. 
Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority has been long 
recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g. Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989). 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an 
independent and alternative basis for the decision. When the AAO denies a petition on multiple alternative 
grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a challenge only if he or she shows that the AAO abused its discretion 
' WAC0821650731 
Page 11 
with respect to all of the AAO's enumerated grounds. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. 
Supp. 2d at 1043. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.