(b)(6)

DAJ~ 3 0 2013 OFFICE: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER

INRE: Petitioner:

U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 Washington, DC 20529-2090

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

FILE:

PETITION: Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur ·Pursuant to Section 203(b)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § ll53(b )(5)

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:

INSTRUCTIONS:

Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office.

If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § l03.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen.

Thank you,

Ron Rosenberg Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office

www.uscis.gov

(b)(6)Page 2

DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the preference visa petition, which is now befor¢ the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed.

The petitiqner seeks classification as an employment creation alien pursuant to section 203(b)(5) of the Immigrati9n and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(5).. The petition is based on an

·investment in The limited partnership is located within the United s(ates Citizenship ~d Irnrnigration Services (USCIS) designated

pursuant to section 61 0( c) of the Departments of Commerce, justice and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1993\ Pub. L. No. 102-395, 106 Stat. 1874 (1992), as amended by section 116 of Pub. L. No. 105-119, 111 Stat. 2440' (1997); section 402 of Pub. L. No. 106-396, 114 Stat. 1637 (20QO) and section 11037 of Pub. L. N:o. 107-273, 116 Stat. 1758 (2002). Counsel indicated in her initial October 5, 2011 letter that the limited partnership "will, within the strategic center of , ... undertake certain real ~stateidevelopment and business activities." The petitioner indicated on part 2 of the petition that the limited partnership is located in a targeted employment area~ for which the required amount of

I

capital is $500,000.

In her May 3, 2012 decision, the director denied the petition on the grounds that the petitioner (1) has failed to document the lawful source of the required amount of capital; and (2) has failed to demonstrate that he has placed the required amount of capital at risk for the purpose of generating a return on the capit~l. On appeal, the petitioner ~ubmits a three-page letter from counsel and additional evidence.

For the reasons discussed below, the petitioner has not overcome the director's finding that he has failed to document the lawful source of the required amount of capital. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

I. THELAW

Section· 203(b)(5)(A) of the Act, as amended by the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization .Act, Pub. L. No. 107-273, 116 Stat. 1758 (2002), provides classificat;ion to qualified immigrants seeking to enter the United States for the purpose of engaging in a new commercial enterprise:

(i) in which such alien has invested (after the date of the enactment of the Immigration Act of 1990) or, is actively in the process of investing, capital in an amount. not less than the amount specified in subparagraph (C), and

(ii) which-will benefit the United States economy and create full-time employment for not fewer than 10 United (States citizens or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence or other immigrants lawfully authorized to be employed in the United States (other than the immigrant and the immigrant's spouse, sons, or daughters).

(b)(6)

Page 3

II. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The petitioner filed the petition on October 6, 2011, supported by the following types of evidence: (1) documents relating to the , (2) documents relating to

(3) documents relating to ; (4) a document .on projected employment creation, entitled " Job Generating Impacts from

_ (5) stamped but uncertified translations purportedly of documents relating to the petitioner's importing business in Egypt; (6) stamped but uncertified translations purportedly of documents relating to the sale of the petitioner's real estate properties in Egypt from 2005 to 2010; (7) bank statements for five of the petitioner's accounts, with account numbers ending in (8) documents relating to the petitioner and his family members; and (9) a July 28, 2011 letter from confirming the receipt of a $550,000 wire transfer on that date.

On February 15, 2012, the director issued a Request for.Evidence (RFE), requesting the petitioner to provide evidence of the lawful source of the petitioner's funds. On March 28, 2012, the petitioner responded to the director's RFE with a letter from counsel, mistakenly dated November 9, 2011, and a number of documents. All of the documents are either foreign language documents or uncertified translations of foreign language documents. Specifically, the petitioner submitted: (1) stamped but uncertified translations purportedly of the petitioner's import business's tax-related documents: (2) stamped but uncertified translations purportedly of certifications from a chartered accountant; (3) stamped but uncertified translations purportedly of tax modification-related documents; (4) stamped but uncertified translations purportedly of the petitioner's tax-related documents; (5) stamped but uncertified translations purportedly ·of documents relating to goods imported by the petitioner's import business; (6) a stamped but uncertified translation purportedly of a document entitled "a Permanent License"; (7) stamped but uncertified translations purportedly of an importer's register and extract from a commercial register; and (8) stamped but uncertified translations purportedly of fees collection bills, issued by Commercial International Bank (Egypt).

1n her decision denying the petition, the director concluded that the petitioner's evidence fails to show: (1) the lawful source of the required amount of capital; and (2) that the required amount of capital was placed at risk for the purpose of generating a return on the capital.

On appeal, counsel raises several issues. First, counsel asserts that the previously submitted evidence 'shows that "[t]he money in the [petitioner's] account was earned by [the petitioner] in a lawful manner over the course of the past several years, through the operation of his business and real-estate investments." Counsel further asserts that the petitioner has placed the required amount of capital at risk and references additional supporting evidence, including: (1) documents showing a July 20, 2011, wire transfer of $550,000 from the petitioner's account, with account number ending in ; (2) the petitioner's bank statements from June 2011 to July 2011, for an account with account number ending in ; (3) February 2011 to April 2011 and June 2011 b'ank statements for an account belonging to _ _ (4) two payment confirmations showing that on both February 8, 2011, and February 14, 2011, the petitioner wired $220,000 to . (5) January 2011 to May 2012 bank statements of

(b)(6)

Page 4

anAl Watany Bank of Egypt account, belonging to with account number ending in (6) uncertified translations purportedly of the petitioner's tax­related docmhents; and (7) uncertified translations purportedly of the petitioner's sons',

birth certificates.

III. ISSUES ON APPEAL

A. Uncertified Translations

The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) provides:

Translation. Any document containing foreign language submitted to [USCIS] shall be accompanied by a full English language translation which the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English.

The record contains numerous foreign language documents. None ofthem, however, have been properly translated pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). First, the English translations the petitioner submitted on appeal fail to contain a certification from the translator certifying that the translations are complete and accurate; or that the translator is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. Indeed, none of the translations even identifies the translator. Although the translation purportedly for a document entitled "Certificate of the Tax Situation," has a stamp that states: '

this stamp is insufficient to meet the plain language requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Similarly, although the translations for the petitioner's sons' birth certificates have an English and foreign language stamp that includes the words: "Helper," "Translation" and "Accurate Translation," the stamp fails to meet the plain language requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3).

Second, none of the English translations the petitioner submitted in response to the director's RFE meet the plain language requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Although each translation has an English and foreign language stamp that includes the words: "Helper," "Translation" and "Accurate Translation," the stamp does not constitute a cert.ification from the translator certifying that the translation is complete and accurate, or that the translator is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. Indeed, as with other translations in the record, none of the translations submitted in response to the director's RFE even identify the translator.

The translations submitted in response to the director's RFE also contain notable mistakes and indications that they are not complete and accurate translations. For example, the translation purportedly for a notice modifying the petitioner's import business's sales tax return for 2007 indicates that the notice was issued on May 7, 2005. The translation purportedly for a document entitled "Collecting Tax Receipt" indicates that the "Date of Pay" for 2007 taxes was "May 3, 2005." .

(b)(6)

Page 5

. Third, none of the English translations the petitioner initially submitted in support of the petition ,, meet the plain language requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The translations purportedly of the

. ' petitioner'·s import business' registration contain a partially legible stamp that states "True Authentic Translatiop, Tr. Dr. So[illegible] [illegible], [illegible]. C. 23531." Neither the translations nor the partially legible stamp .includes a certification from the translator certifying that the translations are complete ~nd accurate, or that the translator is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. The remaining translations, including uncertified translations purportedly of the petitioner's import business's tax records, the sale of the petitioner's real estate properties, his marriage certificate and his children's birth certificates, all contain an English and foreign language stamp. As discussed, the stamp does not constitute a certification from the translator certifying that the translation is complete and accurate, or that the translator is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. Again, as with all other translations in the record, the translations initially submitted in support of the petition fail to identify the translator.

Accordingly, none of the petitioner's foreign language documents hftve any evidentiary weight and will not b'e considered, because none of them have been translated in accordance with the plain language requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3).

B. Source of Funds

In order to establish the lawful source of funds, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.6U)(3) lists the type of evidence a petitioner must submit, as applicable, including foreign business registration records, business or personal tax returns, or evidence of other sources of capital. A petitioner cannot establish the lawful source of funds merely.by submitting bank letters or statements documenting the deposit of funds. Matter of Ho, 22 I&N Dec. 206, 210-211 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998); Matter of Izummi, 2~ I&N Dec. 169, 195 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). An unsupported letter indicating the number and value,of shares of capital stock held by the petitioner in a foreign business is also insufficient documentation of source of funds. Matter of Ho, 22 I&N Dec. at 211.

Initially cpunsel asserted that the sources of the petitioner's funds were his import business and · property investment/construction business in Egypt. Specifically, the import business is named

and In addition, the petitioner "owns and devel9ps much property throughout Egypt," and has sold four properties from 2005 to 2011." On appeal!:,, the petitioner reiterates that he has "provided financial statements, bank accounts and tax documents to evidence his lawful earned income," $550,000 of which was then wired to the

1. Import Business

The petitioner's evidence relating to the import business fails to establish the lawful source of the funds he invested in First, the petitioner has failed to establish that he owned or owns the import business in Egypt. The petitioner has provided uncertified translations purportedly of his import business's registration documents, issued by. the

(b)(6)Page 6

Egyptian Ministry of Economy and Foreign Trade. As discussed, the translations do not meet the plain langilage requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3), and therefore, have no evidentiary value.

Second, even if the AAO were to consider the translations, they fail to establish the lawful source of the funds the petitioner invested in Specifically, although the uncertified translations purportedly of certificates issued by a chartered accountant, provide information relating to the import business's "total volume of the monthly sales and sales taxes" from 2005 to 2010, neither the certificates nor any other evidence in the record explain the basis of knowledge. For example,· these certificates are not accompanied by contemporane_b~s records made in the ordinary course of business.

' ' . '

Furthermore, the uncertified translations entitled ''Statement of General Tax on Sales" contain the. following sentence: "1, [the petitioner,] hereby affirm that the data provided are true and under my responsibility." Other than the self-serving affirmation, the translations fail to point to· any documents, such as business records, to support the sales information listed. In addition, the information in the uncertified translations shows that the sales information _listed is not reliable. Specifically, most of the uncertified translations entitled "Statement of General Tax on Sales" predate th~ tax period for which they purportedly relate.· .Por example, the "Statement of General Tax on Sales" for "Period: from 01.11 to/expiry date: 31.03" is dated March 28, 2011. The "Statement of General Tax on Sales" for "Period: from 03.11 to/expiry date: 31.05" is dated May 29, 2011. The "Statement of General Tax on Sales" for "Period: from 04.11 to/expiry date: 15.06" is

_dated May 29, 2011. The "Statement of General Tax on Sales" for "Period: from 05.11 to/expiry date: 31.07" is dated June 27, 2011. Also, the sales "value" and "tax" as reported in the uncertified translatio~s entitled "Statement of General Tax on Sales'' are problematic. For example, one uncertified translation states that for "Period: from 01.11 to/expiry date: 31.03" the sales value was 530,517.15 Egyptian Pounds (EGP), and.the sales tax was EGP 53,051.72. The next uncertified translation, however, states that for "Period: from 02.11 to/expiry date: 03 .04" the sales value- was EGP 298,609.55, and the sales tax was EGP 29,860.96. The petitioner has provided no explanation on why sdles value and sales tax as reported for "Period: from 02.11 to/expiry date: 03.04" were significantly lower than sales value and sales tax as reported for "Period: from 01.11 to/expiry date: 31.03." With the exception of four days, these two periods overlap; yet, according to the uncertified translations entitled "Statement of General Tax on Sales," the sales . value decreased . by EGP 231,907.60, and the sales tax decreased by EGP 23,190.76 .

. Additionally, although the petitioner has provided other uncertified translations, including one entitled "Certificate of the Tax Situation," the petitioner has provided insufficient evidence showing that these documents are reliable in proving the petitioner's personal income. Specifically, although the uncertified translation entitled "Certificate of the Tax Situation," appears to have been issued by the Egyptian Ministry of Finance, it also states: "We hereby attest the validity of the signature of tax administdtion [ w ]ith no responsibility on the part of the ministry con~erning the contents of this document."

On appeal, the petitioner has provided documents that counsel categorized as the petitioner's personal income tax return for 2008. As with all other translations in the record, this one fails to

(b)(6)Page 7

'>

meet the plain language requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3), and has no evidentiary weight. Moreover, the director specifically requested evidence oflawful source of funds in her February 15, 2012 RFEi, and the petitioner failed to provide the requested evidence. A petitioner may submit anything in support of an appeal, including new evidence; however, where a service center has requested specific evidence, and the petitioner failed to comply wit~ the request, the evidence may not be considered on appeal. In other words, where a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency; in the evidence and has been given an opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the AAO is precluded from considering evidence offered for the first time on appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766-67 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 537 (BIA 1988). If the petitioner wished th·e documents to be considered, he should have submitted them in response to the director's RFE. /d.

Even if the AAO could consider this UIJ.Certified translation, it fails to establish the lawful source of the petitioner's funds. First, the document relates to 2008, and neither the document nor any other evidence in the record shows that any of the petitioner's earnings from 2008 became a part of his investment in 2011. Second, some of the information in this translation is unintelligible and contradictory. For example, the translation shows that in 2008, the petitioner's "Net profit of Commercial or Industrial Activities" was EGP 320,000, or $56,834.40. 1 The same translation, however, shows that the petitioner's ."Net Tax" and "Due Tax" were also EGP 320,000. This appears to indicate that for 2008, the petitioner had to pay as much tax as his net profit from commercial or industrial activities, leaving him with no income. Third, the translation further indicates that in 2008 the petitioner's "Period's net profits" were EGP 63,891, or $11,347.50.2

Assuming arguendo that this amount was the petitioner's 2008 personal income, this amount is a mere 2.06 percel).t of the petitioner's 2011 $550,000 wire transfer to

Finally, th,e petitioner's 2008 tax return is inconsistent with an uncertified translation purportedly of a document relating to his tax return for 2008 and 2009. Specifically, according to the translation for the 2008 to 2009 tax return, (1) the petitioner's 2008 "Net profit of Commercial or Industrial Activities" was EGP 34,448, not ESJP 320,000; (2) his 2008 "Net incomes (Loss) of real estate wealth" were EGP 3,384, not EGP 0; (3) his 2008 "Net Tax" was EGP 37,832, not EGP 320,000; (4) his 2008 "Due Tax" was EGP 32,832, not EGP 320,000; and (5) his 2008 "Period's net profits" were EGP 4,175, not EGP 63,891. The petitioner has provided inconsistent documents and "it is incumbent upon [him] to resolve the inconsistencies by independent objective evidence. Attempts to explain or reconcile the conflicting accounts [or evidence], absent competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth, in fact, lies, will not suffice." Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). The petitioner has provided no such evidence to explain or reconcile the inconsistent documents. In short, neither the petitioner's 2008 tax return nor his tax returns for any other years establishes the lawful source of his 2011 investment in Jay Peak Lodge and Townhouses, L.P.

1 U.S. dollar value on December 31, 2008 was obtained from http://www.oanda.com/currency/converter/, accessed on December 17, 2012, a printout of which is incorporated into the record of proceeding. · · · 2 . . .

U.S. dollar value on December 31, 2008 was obtained from http://www.oanda.com/currency/converter/, accessed on December 17, 2012, a printout of which is incorporated into the record of proceeding. 3 $11 ;347.50 7 ·$550,000 X 100::::0 2.0632

(b)(6)Page 8

Accordingly, based on the evidence in the record, the petitioner has failed to document that he has accumulat~d sufficient personal funds from the import business to invest $500,000 in

2. Sale of Real Estate Properties

The petitioner's evidence relating to the sale of four properties from 2005 to 2010 fails to establish the lawfuU source of the funds he invested in _ -- ;~ _________

0 _ ____ __ _ _ As discussed,

the translations purportedly of documents relating to the sale of properties do not meet the plain language t\equirements of 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3), and therefore, have no evidentiary value. Even if the AAO could consider these translations, they do not establish the lawful source of funds.

The uncertified translations purport to show that: (1) on July 10, 2010, the petitioner sold a real estate property for EGP 5,000,000, or $871,068;4 (2) on April 27, 2010, the petitioner sold a real estate property for EGP 1,500,000, or $268,740;5 (3) on November 12, 2008, the petitioner sold a real estateproperty for EGP 2,000,000, or $357,482;6 and (4) on July 26, 2005, the petitioner sold a

. . '7 real estate property for EGP 1,920,000, or $330,766.

First, the evidence of the July 10, 2010 sale is from January 2, 2011. Similar to a delayed birth certificate~ the confirmation of a sale of property several months after the claimed transaction raises serious questions regarding the truth of the facts asserted. Cf Matter of Bueno, 21 I&N Dec. 1029, 1033 (BIA 1997); Matter of Ma, 20 I&N Dec. 394 (BIA 1991) (discussing the evidentiary weight accorded to delayed birth certificates in immigrant visa proceedings). In addition, the uncertified

I .

translation of the document relating to the sale indicates that the petitioner sold the property "in his capacitv is being the biological guardian of his underage children

The petitioner has provided no evidence showing that he owned the property or was enti.tled to the sales proceedings.

Moreover; although the petitioner has provided a number of bank statements relating to his accounts, he has no~ pointed to any transactions documented in the bank statements showing that he in fact received ~ny of the proceeds from the sale of the four real estate properties. Indeed, the petitioner has provided no bank-related documents for 2005 or 2008, when he claimed to have received money from the sale of two real estate properties. Moreover, some of the transactions documented in the submitted bank statements,. specifically those from the Al Watany Bank of Egypt, are in a foreign language. These transactions have not been translated, let alone properly translated pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3).

4 u.s. dollar value on July 10, 2010 was obtained from http://www.oanda.com/currency/converter/, accessed on December 17, 2012, a printout of which is incorporated into the record of proceeding. 5 U.S. dollar value on April 27, 2010 i-as obtained from http://www.oanda.com/currency/converter/, accessed on December 17, 2012, a printout of which is incorporated into the record of proceeding. 6 U.S. dollar value on November 12, 2008 was obtained from http://www.oanda.com/currency/converter/, accessed on December -17, 2012, a printout of which is incorporated into the record of proceeding. 7 U.S. dollar value on July 26, 2005 was obtained from http://www.oanda.com/currency/converter/, accessed on December 17, 2012, ·a printout of which is incorporated into the record of proceeding.

(b)(6)Page 9

Second, the pet1t10ner has failed to provide any documents relating to his initial purchase or acquisitiort of any of the four real· estate properties, or evidence showing that the funds he used to purchase dr acquire these properties were from lawful sources.

Finally, although the evidence shows that funds were transferred between the petitioner's accounts and accounts belong to allegedly the petitioner's sons, the evidence fails to show that the transferred funds were from lawful sources.

Accordingly, based on the evidence in the record, the petitioner has failed to document that he has accumulat~d sufficient personal funds from the sale of four real estate properties from 2005 to 201 0 to invest $500,000 in

C. Investment of Capital

The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.6(e) defines "capital" and "investment." The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.6(j)(2) explains that a petitioner must document that he or she has placed the required amount

- of capital at risk for the purpose of generating a return on the capital. Evidence of mere intent to invest, or of prospective investment arrangements entailing no present commitment, will not suffice to show that the petitioner is actively in the process of investing. The alien must show actual commitment of the required amount of capital. The regulation then lists the types of evidence the petitioner may submit to meet this requirement. The full amount of the requisite investment must be made available to the business most closely responsible for creating the employment upon which the petition is based. Matter of /zummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 179.

In her decision denying the petition, the director found that !he petitioner has failed to establish that he has invested or is actively in the· process of investing $500,000 into

Specifically, the director concluded that the only relevant evidence in the record at the time- a letter from People's United Bank confirming the receipt of $550,000 on July 28, 2011 does not identify the source of the funds or document the account from which the funds were deducted- fails to show that the petitioner has invested or is actively in the process of investing.

On appeal, the petitioner has filed the following evidence (1) documents showing a July 20, 2011, wire transfer of $550,000 from the· petitioner's account, with account number ending in to Peoples Savings Bank; and (2) the July 2011 bank statement of the petitioner's account ending in

showing an outgoing wire transfer of $550,000 on July 20, 2011. The AAO is precluded from considering these documents for the first time op appeal. In her February 15, 2012 RFE, the director specifically requested evidence relating to investment of capital, stating that although the petitioner claimed 'the total proceeds from the property sales were EGP 10,420,000 or approximately $1,726,010.78, "the record does not docun:!_ent the [petitioner's] accumulation 6f these funds along with the deductions of the required capital for the investment. Further, the record does not identify where the accumulation of wealth was maintained prior to the capital investment." In response to the director's RFE, the petitioner failed to provide the documents he later submits on appeal. A petitioner may submit anything in support of an appeal, including new evidence; however, where a

(b)(6)

l '

' '

Page 10

service cehter has requested specific evidence, and the petitioner failed to comply with the request, . that particplar evidence may not be considered on appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. at

766-67; see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 537. If the petitioner wished for the documents to be considered, he shouldhave submitted them in :response to the director's RFE. Jd.

Eve·n if the AAO could consider these documents, the documents are inconsistent with evidence ~ . . ..

already in ~the record. Specifically, the People's United Bank le;tter, dated July 28, 2011, states that it received the funds on July 28, 2011, while the wire transfer doc;ument arid bank statement submitted on appeaL1show a July 20, 2011 transfer date. Moreover, the ~ire transfer document states that the funds were transferred to . Peoples Savings Bank, not People's United Bank. The petitioner has provided no evidence · showing that these are the same bank. In . fact, according to http://www.routingnumbers.org/, these are two different banks,, with Peoples Savings Bank located in Ohio or Iowa; and People's United Bank located in Bridgeport, Connecticut.8

Furthermore, according to the petitioner's .Tune 2011 bank st~tement for an ·account with account number ending in on June 7, 2011, wire tr,ansferred $649,980 to the petitioner' s account. The same bank statement shows t at oh June 15, 2011, the petitioner wire transferred $249,000, with a description of "Transfer to Checking 01-:37p ft0369 Online"; and $178,114.05, with a description of "Transfer to Savings Plus 01:41 p #0369 Online." The same bank statement further shows that on June 21, 2011, the petitioner wire transferred $24,980, with a description of "Transfer to Checking 03: 13p #0369 Online." The petitioner has provitled insufficient evidence showing to whose account(s) the petitioner transferred the funds. Similarly, according to the petitioner's July 2011 bank statement for an account with account number ending in on July 20, 2011, the petitioner received the following deposits: (1) $20,000, wit.h a description of "Deposit 10:50a Teller"; (2) $40,000, with a description of "Deposit 10:23a #0~69 Teller"; and (3) $249,980, with a description of "Deposit 10:21a #0369 Teller." The petitioner hhs provided no document showing the source(s) of these deposited funds.

Accordingly, based on the evidence in the record, the petitiqner has not documented that he has placed the required amount of capital at risk for the purpose of generating a return on the capital.

IV. SUMMARY

For all of the reasons set forth above, considered in sum and as alternative grounds for denial, this petition cannot be approved. The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the ~ct, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The petiti~ner has not met that btJrden.

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

8 Online information from http://www.routingnumbers.org/, relating to People's United Bank and Peoples Savings Bank accessed on January 14, 2013, and incorporated into the record of proceeding.