dismissed L-1B Case: International Procurement

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionofptnonalprivaCY
PUBLICCOP1
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
20 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Rm. 3000
Washington, DC 20529
u.s.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
FILE: SRC 06 073 51177 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: "APR 0 12m7
INRE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L)
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
SELF-REPRESENTED
INSTRUCTIONS:
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.
~~
Robert ~ann, Chief
Administrative Appeals Office
www.uscis.gov
SRC 06 07351177
Page 2
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. 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-IB nonimmigrant
intracompany transferee with specialized knowledge pursuant to § 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § I 1Ol(a)(l5)(L). The petitioner, a Florida corporation, states that it is
engaged in international procurement for the hotel industry. The petitioner claims that it is an affiliate of the
beneficiary's foreign employer, Guillesa Intemacional S.A. de C.V., located in Cancun, Mexico. The
petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as its MexicolU.S. customs specialist for a three-year period.
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner had not established that the position offered to
the beneficiary requires an individual possessing specialized knowledge, or that the beneficiary was employed
by the foreign entity in a specialized knowledge capacity for at least one year within the three years preceding
the filing of the petition.
On appeal, the petitioner disputes the director's decision and asserts that the offered position "absolutely
requires an individual possessing specialized knowledge." The petitioner further contends that the beneficiary
acquired his specialized knowledge prior to joining the foreign entity, and the company hired him due to his
specialized knowledge in the customs field. The petitioner clarifies that the additional training the beneficiary
received while employed by the foreign entity was to enable him to legally represent the company. The
petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence in support of the appeal. In addition, the petitioner requests
oral argument before the AAO.
To establish eligibility for the L-l nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria
outlined in section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). 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 the 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. § 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form I-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)(1)(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.
.1
SRC 06 073 51177
Page 3
(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 him/her to perform the intended
services in the United States; however, the work in the United States need not be the
same work which the alien performed abroad.
This matter presents two related, but distinct issues: (1) whether the beneficiary possesses specialized
knowledge and was employed by the foreign entity for at least one year in a position involving specialized
knowledge within the three years preceding the filing of the petition; and (2) whether the proposed
employment is in a capacity that requires specialized knowledge.
Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § I I84(c)(2)(B), provides the following:
For purposes of section 101(a)(15)(L), an alien is considered to be serving in a capacity
involving specialized knowledge with respect to a company if the alien has special
knowledge of the company product and its application in international markets or has an
advanced level of knowledge of processes and procedures of the company.
Furthermore, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 2l4.2(l)(I)(ii)(D) defines specialized knowledge as:
[S]pecial knowledge possessed by an individual of the petitioning organization's product,
service, research, equipment, techniques, management, or other interests and its application in
international markets, or an advanced level of knowledge or expertise in the organization's
processes or procedures.
The nonimmigrant petition was filed on January 5, 2006. The petitioner stated on Form 1-129 that the
beneficiary would be employed as a "MexicofU.S. Customs Specialist" with the following responsibilities:
"Review and classification of all merchandise destined to Mexico. Coordination of U.S. export documents
and Mexico import documents. Physically checking all dry and frozen product and ensuring correct
classification for Mexican customs." The petitioner stated that the beneficiary has been employed by the
foreign entity as a Mexican customs clearance specialist since January 4, 2005, with responsibility for
documentation, classification of merchandise, health inspections and coordination of shipments from the
United States to Mexico.
In a letter dated January 4, 2006, the foreign entity described the beneficiary's current position in Mexico as
follows:
(The beneficiary] is our import coordinator in Cancun and is responsible for clearance of all
merchandise coming from the United States, including classification of the merchandise,
documentation, and maintaining the most current infonnation on rules, regulations, and
restrictions. He has been trained and has just completed the certification process by Mexican
Customs to be the legal representative of our company for customs clearance. We have paid
for this training and this training is specific to the functions of our company.
SRC 06 073 51177
Page 4
[The beneficiary] has a background in international commerce and is bilingual in Spanish
and English and has an excellent understanding of export and import requirements of the
USA and Mexico.
In a letter dated January 4, 2006, the petitioner further described the nature of its business, and the
beneficiary's proposed employment in the United States:
Our company exports merchandise primarily from our location in the United States to our
location in Mexico and than [sic] distributions it to our clients, which include the Marriott,
Ritz Carlton, Hilton hotels, etc. It is very important that these clients receive their
merchandise in a very timely manner. Our company has sent [the beneficiary] for special
training and certification in customs procedures. It will be his job in the United States to
physically review all merchandise going to Mexico and classify it correctly. By documenting
that he has physically inspected all the merchandise before loading it on our containers and
signing papers for Mexican customs (with his authorized signature) we will be able to save
approximately ten days of customs clearance time. We will also be able to avoid the Mexican
customs "preview" which is done prior to customs clearance. This will avoid the merchandise
coming off the container previous to clearance and being mishandled; giving our customers
the security of being able to purchase more merchandise that will arrive at their door in good
condition. [The beneficiary's] specialized knowledge in proper classification will expedite aU
of our customs procedures.
[The beneficiary] speaks fluent English and Spanish and has a strong background in customs
procedures. He has a full understanding of how our company operates and the level of service
we provide to our clients.
The petitioner stated that it was submitting an "official letter from SAT approving [the beneficiary] as our
legal representative." The record contains a letter dated November 14, 2005 from "Servicio de
Administracion Tributaria" in which the beneficiary and another individual are named, however, the letter is
in the Spanish language and the petitioner did not provide an English translation.
On January 12, 2006, the director issued a request for additional evidence, advising the petitioner that the
evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the knowledge possessed by the beneficiary is
specialized. The director observed that the petitioner had not demonstrated that the beneficiary's duties
involve knowledge or expertise beyond what is commonly held in his field, and advised "the specialized
worker classification was not intended for all employees with any level of specialized knowledge." The
director noted that "mere familiarity with an organization's product or services, such as knowledge with its
nomenclature or procedures, does not constitute specialized knowledge under section 214(c)(2)(B) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act." Accordingly, the director requested that the petitioner provide evidence
that the beneficiary possesses knowledge that is uncommon, noteworthy or distinguished by some unusual
quality and not generally known by practitioners in the field, as well as evidence that the beneficiary's
knowledge of the processes and procedures of the company is apart from the basic or elementary knowledge
possessed by others within the company.
SRC 06 07351177
Page 5
Specifically, the director instructed the petitioner as follows:
• Please submit a record - as opposed to merely a letter - from your human resources
department detailing the manner in which the beneficiary has gained his specialized
knowledge. Documentation should indicate pertinent training courses in which the
beneficiary has been enrolled while working for your company, as well as the duration
of the courses, the number of hours spent taking the courses each day, and certificates of
completion of these courses.
• What are the requirements for the MexicolU.S. Customs Specialist position?
• If the specialized knowledge was attained through the course of regular on-the-job
experience, please clarify exactly what knowledge was attained through the beneficiary's
past employment with the company. For each facet of specialized knowledge, please
explain how the particular knowledge attained at that particular time was different from
knowledge attained by individuals in the identical or similar position for the company.
Explain the beneficiary's knowledge that is uncommon, noteworthy, or distinguished by
some unusual quality.
• Specify how many workers are similarly employed by the U.S. company and the foreign
company. Of these employees, please indicate how many have received training
comparable to the training administered to. the beneficiary. Why is the beneficiary's
knowledge of the processes and procedures of your company considered apart from the
elementary or basic knowledge possessed by others within the company?
• Indicate the minimum amount of time required for the company to consider the
beneficiary to be a specialized knowledge employee. If you consider the specialized
knowledge to have been attained at some point after the beneficiary began employment,
please specify when exactly it was attained and why that particular point is considered
the date specialized knowledge was attained.
• What are the requirements for the Mexican Customs Clearance Specialist position?
The director advised the petitioner that any foreign language document submitted in support of the petition
must be accompanied by an English language translation and a statement signed by the translator stating that
the translator is competent to translate the document.
The petitioner submitted a response to the director's request on January 13, 2006. The petitioner's response
included the following additional information regarding the requirements for the beneficiary's proposed
employment as a MexicolU.S. Customs Specialist: .
1. Minimum of 5 years experience in Mexican/US Customs related positions.
2. Bilingual English/Spanish
3. Certification of "Apoderado Aduanal"
4. Full knowledge of the harmonized code system
S. Product knowledge of our represented brands for customs classification.
6. Microsoft office including access.
7. Management of SAE (Mexican government inventory program)
8. Company's in-house inventory program
SRC 06 07351177
Page 6
9. Ability to manage and oversee a 5 person import/export team in US and Mexico
The petitioner further explained the need for the beneficiary's services as follows:
We have been able to achieve authorization for the Mexican government to have two
employees certified as "apoderados aduanales." This allows us to do our own customs
clearance without an agent. This certification requires several years of experience as well as
being able to pass an extensive test including classification and International laws. We need
to have one certified person in our US office and one certified person in our Mexican office
in order to complete the process required to expedite our exports out of the US and our
imports into Mexico. By being an "apoderado legal" the Mexican government allows that
containers do not get unloaded in Mexican customs because the preview has been done by the
authorized "apoderado" in the USA. It is a lengthy process for a company to achieve this
status and requires a specialized knowledge by the person to do this.... the person needs to
be a Mexican citizen to be an "apoderado."
The petitioner stated in its cover letter that it was attaching thirteen exhibits, and provided a brief description
of each document. The submitted documents were intended to document the beneficiary's training in
international trade and customs and Mexican import tax laws, and also included evidence related to the
foreign entity's application to have the beneficiary certified as an "apoderado" for the company. The
petitioner stated that it was also attaching an outline describing the role of an "apoderado" and noted that "it is
a person that becomes a legal representative of your company and is empowered to act on your behalf in
customs. They are authorized to carry out all customs procedures and have the right to sign for your company
on all legal documents."
The petitioner further stated that it was attaching: (1) "a record from Human Resources detailing the "hours
of preparation for course and 'apoderado' exam"; (2) a letter from Human Resources detailing the beneficiary's
duties in preparation to become an apoderado. The petitioner states that the letter details the beneficiary's
"ample experience in the logistics of import/export as well as knowledge of laws and restrictions," and notes
that the beneficiary "has spent the last year in our company in preparation to come an apoderado and learning
how to handle merchandise for Mexico/US Customs"; and (3) a letter from Human Resources detailing the
beneficiary's experience, including "use of customs computer systems, harmonized codes, import and export
documents, validation docuements (sic], calculation of taxes, rules and regulations, review merchandise in
customs, free trade agreements, infractions and sanctions, operations manual."
All of the above referenced documents were submitted without English translations. Accordingly, the AAO
cannot determine the contents of the majority of the documents or whether the evidence supports the
petitioner's claims, and thus the documents have no probative value. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The failure
to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the
petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14).
The director denied the petition on January 5, 2006, concluding that the petitioner had not established that the
position being offered requires the services of an individual possessing specialized knowledge, or that the
beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge and has been employed by the foreign entity in a specialized
SRC 06 073 51177
Page 7
knowledge capacity for one year. The director noted that the beneficiary completed his training to become an
"apoderado" on September 24,2005, took his examination on September 30,2005, and received notification
that he was approved to be an apoderado for the foreign company on November 14, 2005, less than two
months prior to the filing of the petition.
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the proffered position "absolutely requires an individual possessing
specialized knowledge." The petitioner further explains:
This person must be able to classify merchandise using the Mexican code system."Thisperson
must physically identify products for special permits in Mexico. This person has to have
complete knowledge of the Mexican customs laws and regulations, be able to interpret them
correctly, and be certified to officially represent the company. This procedure starts at the
point of consolidation in the USA where the person physically inspects the merchandise and
takes full responsibility for declarations presented to the Mexican government.
The petitioner also addresses the director's conclusion that the beneficiary has not worked for one year as a
specialized knowledge worker. The petitioner states that the beneficiary's specialized knowledge "was
attained over a period of years working inside customs previous to being employed by our company." The
petitioner attaches photocopies of two photo identification badges depicting the beneficiary, as "proof of
customs employment dating back to 2001." The petitioner further asserts that the beneficiary was hired by the
foreign entity "due to his specialized knowledge" and given further training to become an "apederado" and
legally represent the company. The petitioner claims that the fact that the beneficiary passed the examination
"certifies that the specialized knowledge has been previously attained," and asserts that only persons with
"three years of specialized knowledge" are eligible to take the exam.
The petitioner states that it is attaching a certification letter from "SAT" confirming that the beneficiary has
passed the both the psychological and knowledge examination. The petitioner attaches a letter from "Servicio
de Administracion Tributaria," dated January 26, 2006, which references the beneficiary by name. However,
the petitioner has not provided an English translation of the document.
Upon review, and for the reasons discussed herein, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary
possesses specialized knowledge, or that he would be employed in the United States organization in a
specialized knowledge capacity.
In examining the specialized knowledge capacity of the beneficiary, the AAO will look to the petitioner's
description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(1)(3)(ii).The petitioner must submit a detailed description
of the services to be performed sufficient to establish specialized knowledge. Id. It is also appropriate for the
AAO to look beyond the stated job duties and consider the importance of the beneficiary's knowledge of the
business's product or service, management operations, or decision-making process. See Matter of Colley, 18
I&N Dec. 117, 120 (Comm. 1981) (citing Matter of Raulin, 13 I&N Dec. 618 (R.C. 1970) and Matter of
LeBlanc, 13 I&N Dec. 816 (R.C. 1971».1 As stated by the Commissioner in Matter ofPenner, 18 I&N Dec.
I Although the cited precedents pre-date the current statutory definition of "specialized knowledge," the AAO
finds them instructive. Other than deleting the former requirement that specialized knowledge had to be
SRC 06 073 51177
Page 8
49, 52 (Comm. 1982), when considering whether the beneficiaries possessed specialized knowledge, "the
LeBlanc and Raulin decisions did not find that the occupations inherently qualified the beneficiaries for the
classifications sought." Rather, the beneficiaries were considered to have unusual duties, skills, or knowledge
beyond that of a skilled worker. Id. The Commissioner also provided the following clarification:
A distinction can be made between a person whose skills and knowledge enable him or her to
produce a product through physical or skilled labor and the person who is employed primarily
for his ability to carry out a key process or function which is important or essential to the
business' operation.
Id. at 53.
In this case, the petitioner has not submitted any evidence of the knowledge and expertise required for the
beneficiary's position that would differentiate his current or proposed position from that of any other customs
specialist working with exports from the United States to Mexico. Simply going on record without supporting
documentary evidence is not sufficient for the purpose of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings.
Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). The petitioner neither asserted nor provided evidence that the beneficiary
has acquired specialized knowledge of the organization's product, service, research, equipment, techniques,
management or other interests and its application in international markets, or that he possesses an advanced
knowledge or expertise in the company's processes and procedures. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(I)(ii)(D). While the
beneficiary may in fact possess extensive knowledge of Mexican customs regulations and classification systems,
the petitioner has not identified any aspect of the beneficiary's position that involves special knowledge
specific to the petitioning organization and its foreign affiliate and has therefore failed to satisfy the essential
element of eligibility for this visa classification. Such a conclusion is supported by the petitioner's statement
that the beneficiary already possessed the claimed specialized knowledge when he was hired by the foreign
entity.
The beneficiary's training and experience in Mexican customs procedures and classification systems cannot
be considered specialized knowledge related to the petitioning organization and therefore do not establish
"specialized knowledge" as contemplated by the statute and regulations. Any worker who has worked
extensively in the beneficiary's field could reasonably be expected to possess essentially the same knowledge,
skills and experience as the beneficiary without having worked for the petitioner or the foreign entity. The
petitioner has offered no documentary evidence that would distinguish the petitioner's and foreign entity's
processes, strategies or operating environment from that of any other company engaged in trade between the
"proprietary," the 1990 Act did not significantly alter the definition of" specialized knowledge" from the prior
INS interpretation of the tenn. The 1990 Committee Report does not reject, criticize, or even refer to any
specific INS regulation or precedent decision interpreting the term. The Committee Report simply states that
the Committee was recommending a statutory definition because of "[v]arying [i.e., not specifically incorrect]
interpretations by INS," H.R. Rep. No. 101-723(I), at 69, 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 6749. Beyond that, the
Committee Report simply restates the tautology that became section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act. Id. The AAO
concludes, therefore, that the cited cases, as well as Matter ofPenner, remain useful guidance concerning the
intended scope of the "specialized knowledge" L-IB classification.
SRC 06 073 51177
Page 9
United States and Mexico. The only job requirements specific to the petitioning organization are that the job
holder must have "product knowledge of [the company's] represented brands for customs classification" and
knowledge of the company's "in-house inventory program." The petitioner provided no further explanation
regarding these requirements, nor did it provide evidence that the beneficiary received any specific training in
either of these areas. Again, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165.
It is noted that the statutory definition requires the AAO to make comparisons in order to determine what
constitutes specialized knowledge. As observed in 1756, Inc. v. Attorney General, 745 F. Supp. 9 (D.D.C.
1990), "[s]imply put, specialized knowledge is a relative ... idea which cannot have a plain meaning." The
term "specialized knowledge" is relative and cannot be plainly defined. Although counsel refers to the
beneficiary's extensive experience in the customs field, it is clear that the knowledge and skills that allow him
to successfully perform his duties are widely available to any employee performing similar responsibilities for
a company engaged in trade between Mexico and the United States. The petitioner has not explained how the
knowledge and expertise required for the beneficiary's position would differentiate his knowledge from others
with a similar educational and professional background. While it is undoubtedly helpful that the beneficiary is
familiar with the petitioner's and foreign entity's business, the petitioner has not established that prior
experience with the foreign entity is actually required in order to perform the customs inspection and
documentation duties to be performed by the beneficiary. Rather, the key requirements for the job appear to
be Mexican citizenship, several years of experience working in MexicanfU.S. customs positions, and
designation as an "apoderado" by the Mexican customs authorities. The beneficiary may be one of few
employees within the petitioner's group of companies possessing such a designation, however, the record does
not establish that the duties performed by the beneficiary with the foreign entity or his proposed duties would
require any knowledge that is specific to the petitioner's products, services, processes or other interests.
The AAO recognizes that the foreign entity made an investment to have the beneficiary certified as an
"apoderado" so that he could serve as the company's designated representative for Mexican customs matters.
However, the record suggests that the beneficiary was able to perform the same or similar duties as an import
coordinator for the foreign entity prior to passing the necessary examinations to become an "apoderado," and,
as noted above, the petitioner has emphasized that the beneficiary possessed the claimed specialized
knowledge at the time he was hired by the foreign entity. Furthermore, based on the evidence submitted,
none of the training received by the beneficiary in connection with becoming an apoderado was specifically
related to the petitioner's organization. As noted above, the majority of the evidence provided in response to
the director's request for evidence was submitted without the requested English translations, and therefore was
not probative. The significance of the apoderado training and the details of the beneficiary's specific training
regime have therefore not been fully documented or explained. The evidence submitted in support of the
director's request for evidence was largely non-responsive to the director's detailed and specific requests.
Failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the
petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14). It is noted that in every instance where the petitioner attempted to
distinguish the beneficiary as having specialized knowledge, the petitioner failed to submit any translated
evidence that would allow the AAO to evaluate the claim. Again, going on record without supporting
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings.
Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165.
SRC 06 073 51177
Page 10
The beneficiary's knowledge and expertise do not include the type of special or advanced knowledge of the
petitioner's products, processes or other interests required by the regulations. In Matter of Penner, 18 I&N
Dec. 49 (Comm. 1982), the Commissioner held that "petitions may be approved for persons with specialized
knowledge, not for skilled workers." In the instant case the petitioner has successfully demonstrated that the
beneficiary is knowledgeable in Mexican customs regulations and classification systems. However, the plain
meaning of the term "specialized knowledge" is knowledge or expertise of a company's product or processes
and procedures, rather then skill in a particular field.
The AAO acknowledges counsel's claim on appeal that the beneficiary's presence in the United States is
critical to the petitioning company in achieving its objective of streamlining the customs process for exports
to Mexico. However, merely establishing that the beneficiary will undertake a "key" position will not satisfy
the petitioner's burden of proof. The petitioner must still submit evidence to establish that the beneficiary has
been employed abroad in a position involving specialized knowledge and that he will be employed by the
United States entity in a specialized knowledge capacity. While the beneficiary's skills and knowledge may
contribute to the success of the petitioning organization, this factor, by itself, does not constitute the possession of
specialized knowledge; the regulations specifically require that the beneficiary possess an "advanced level of
knowledge" of the organization's process and procedures, or a "special knowledge" of the petitioner's product,
service, research, equipment, techniques, or management. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(1)(ii)(D). As determined above,
the beneficiary does not satisfy the requirements for possessing specialized knowledge.
The legislative history for the term "specialized knowledge" provides ample support for a restrictive
interpretation of the term. In the present matter, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary
should be considered a member of the "narrowly drawn" class of individuals possessing specialized
knowledge. See 1756, Inc. v. Attorney General, 745 F. Supp. at 16. The petitioner has not furnished evidence
sufficient to demonstrate that the beneficiary's duties involve knowledge or expertise beyond what is
commonly held in his field. The record does not establish that the beneficiary has specialized knowledge or
that he would be employed primarily in a specialized knowledge capacity. For this reason, the appeal will be
dismissed.
The AAO acknowledges the petitioner's request for oral argument. However, the regulations at 8 C.F.R. §
103.3(b) provide that the requesting party must explain in writing why oral argument is necessary. The AAO
has the sole authority to grant or deny a request for oral argument and will grant oral argument only in cases
involving unique factors or issues of law that cannot be adequately addressed in writing. In this instance, the
petitioner identified no unique factor or issues of law to be' resolved. Consequently, the request for oral
argument is denied.
In visa petition proceedings, the burden or proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.