dismissed E-2 Case: Culinary

(b)(6)
DATE:MAY 0~ 2014 
IN RE: Applicant: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizen sh ip and Immigration Serviceo 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachu setts Ave. N. W , MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529 -2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
OFFICE: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
APPLICATION: Application for Change of Status and Extension of Stay as an E-2 Nonimmigrant 
Treaty Investor Pursuant to 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(e)(20) and (21). 
IN BEHALF OF APPLICANT : 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed plea se find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. This is a 
non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent deci sions. 
All ofthe documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that origin ally decid ed your 
case. Please be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made 
to that office. 
Thank you, 
l~ ~Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center denied this nonimmigr ant visa appli cation and 
dismi sse d the applicant's subsequent motion to reopen and reconsider. 1 The director has s ince reopen ed 
the matter sua spont e and issued a new decision denying the application. That decision has been certi f ied 
to the Admini strativ e App ea ls Office (AAO) for review . The director's dec ision will be affirm ed and the 
appli cation will be denied . 
The treaty enterpri se (also referred to herein as "the employer") is a California corporation that is majori ty 
owned by an E-2 nonimmigrant treaty trader. It filed this application to change the applicant ' s 
nonimmigrant statu s to that of an essential employee of a treat y investor pursuant to s ection 
IOl(a)(lS)(E)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) , 8 U.S .C. §I IOI(a)(IS)(E) (ii) and 8 
C.P.R.§ 214 .2(e)(3) . The a pplic ant and the principal E-2 nonimmigrant treaty investor are both nation als 
of the Republic of Korea . The treaty enterpri se seeks to employ the applicant as the head chef of its 
Korean restaurant. 
The director denied the application, finding that the record lacked evid ence which would allow U.S. 
Citiz enship and Immigra tion Service s (USCIS) to conclude that the a pplica nt possesses spec ial 
qualifi cation s that make her services essential to the efficient operation of the enterpri se that seek s to 
employ her. 
Reco gnizin g that the application involved a complex or novel issue of law, the director certified the 
decision to the AAO for review. 8 C.P.R.§ 103.4(a). 
I. THELAW 
Section 10 I (a)(JS)(E)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U .S.C. § I I 0 I (a)( IS)(E )(ii) 
defin es a treat y inve stor as: 
an alien entitled to enter the United States under and in pur suance of the provisions of a 
treaty of commer ce and navigation between the United States and the foreign state of 
which he is a nation al, and the spouse and children of any such alien if accomp anying or 
following to join him ; .. . (ii) solely to develop and direct the operations of an enterpri se 
in which he has invested , or of an enterpris e in which he is activ ely in the process of 
inve sting , a substantial amount of capital . ... 
The regulation at 8 C.P .R . § 214.2(e) (3) states the following, m pertinent part, with regard to the 
employee of a treaty investor: 
. . . a n alien employee of a treaty inve stor, if otherwi se admissibl e, may be cla ss ified as 
Unlike many other employment-ba sed nonimmigrant visa c lassific ation s, appr oval of an E-2 
nonimmi grant visa is based on the filing of an application, not a petition . See 8 C.P.R. 2I4 .2(e); see also 
62 Fed . Reg . 48138 (Sept. I 2, I 997). Therefor e, for purpose s of this decision , the alien will be referred to 
as an "applicant." 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
E-2 if the employee is in or is coming to the United States to engage in duties of an 
executive or supervisory character, or, if employed in a lesser capacity, the employee has 
special qualifications that make the alien's services essential to the efficient operation of 
the enterprise. The employee must have the same nationality as the principal alien 
employer. . .. 
Additionally, the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(e)(18) defines the term "special qualifications" as those 
skills and/or aptitudes that an employee in a Jesser capacity brings to a position or role that are essential ro 
the successful or efficient operation of the treaty enterprise. The regulation further states that in order to 
determine whether the skills possessed by the a! ien are essential to the efficient operation of the 
employing treaty enterprise, a Service officer must consider the following factor s, where applicable: 
(i) The degree of proven expertise of the alien in the area of operations involved; 
whether others possess the applicant's specific skill or aptitude; the length of the 
applicant's experience and/or training with the treaty enterprise; the period of 
training or other experience necessary to perform effectively the projected duties; 
the relationship of the skill or knowledge to the enterprise's specific processes or 
applications, and the salary the special qualifications can command; that 
knowledge of a foreign language and culture does not , by itself, meet the special 
qualifications requirement , and; 
(ii) Whether the skills and qualifications are readily available in the United States. In 
all cases , in determining whether the applicant possesses special qualification s 
which are essential to the treaty enterprise, a Service officer must take into 
account all the pa1ticular facts presented ... . 
II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
The treaty enterprise is a California corporation thatoperates as a Korean restaurant under the name 
' In a letter dated May 4, 2010, which accompanied the initial application, coun sel stated that the 
treaty enterprise intends to employ the applicant as the head chef . Counsel briefly described the job 
dutie s of the proposed position and fUither stated that the position of head chef is essential to the U.S. 
entity's operation because the head chef would be charged with hiring and over seeing subordinate cooks 
and chefs, training staff in the preparation of authentic Korean cuisine, and generally managing the 
growing customer base . Coun sel claimed that the alien applicant meets the criteria of the proffered 
position as a result of her prior employment as head chef of a Korean restaurant in Japan, where she was 
employed for 12 years and was charged with "preparing authentic Korean food, training of staff, and 
managing the kitchen ." 
The initial evidence also included a list of ten responsibilities assigned to the petitioner's head chef 
position and an employment certificate from the applicant's foreign employer. According to the 
employment certificate, the applicant was employed as head chef of 111 
Osaka , Japan , from April l, 1997 until October 1, 2009, where her duties were to "prepare and cook all 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
menu and train new employees how to cook." 
The record also shows that the director issued two nearly identical requests for evidence (RFEs) which 
addressed the lack of evidence describing the applicant's degree of expettise in the area of operations that 
the proposed position requires and establishing that the applicant's experience in fact meets the 
requirements of that position. In both instances, the director requested a more detailed description of the 
applicant's duties; an explanation and evidence of the applicant's degree of proven expettise in her area 
and whether others possess the applicant ' s specific skill or aptitude to perform the proposed duties; a 
description of the applicant ' s experience or training with the treaty enterprise, if applicable; and a 
description and evidence to establish the period of training or other experience required to perform the 
proposed duties . The director fmther requested evidence from sources such as the chamber of commerce, 
state employment sources , labor organizations, or trade sources to establish that the applicant ' s skills and 
qualifications are not readily available in the United States. In the second RFE, the director also 
reque sted evidence to support the treaty enterprise owner's statement that his business had made an effort 
to recruit employees for the offered position . 
In response to the first RFE, owner and president of the treaty enterprise, submitted a 
statement dated June 4, 2010 discussing the applicant's prior experience as a Korean chef during her 
employment abroad and claiming that such prior employment would enable her to carry out her assigned 
duties as head chef of the treaty enterprise . Mr. emphasized the applicant's experience cooking with 
a yakiniku grill and stated : 
As we use yakiniku grills in our restaurant, [the applicant's] experience as a Korean Chef 
creating authentic Korean dishes on authentic yakiniku grills using specialized technique s 
honed in Japan make her uniquely qualified for our position as head chef. We have 
found no other locally qualified chef with her unique experience mastering the authentic 
Korean cuisine coupled with the use of authentic yakiniku grills. The qualifications for 
this position require years of experience as a head chef in the proper environment, the 
likes of which [the applicant] possesses. 
The response also included a letter dated June 18, 2010 from president of the 
of Mr. stated that the members of his organization 
who own Korean restaurants employ chefs who have "years of experience cooking authenti c dishes 
overseas from Korea," or recruit chefs from ethnic Korean restaurants in Japan who have experience in 
the "emerging trend of Korean restaurants implementing Japanese grilling techniques." Mr. states 
that such experience is "rarely found locally," and that chefs from overseas often market them selves to 
local restaurant owners in southern California. He concludes that "it is in our experience working with 
Korean restaurant establishments that their chefs have years of experience developing their expertis e 
cooking Korean dishes." 
In addition , the applicant submitted two letters from other restaurant owners/managers in In 
a letter dated June 10, 2010, of stated that his restaurant's hiring process "is 
based on having the required experience cooking authentic Korean and/or Japanese dishes in an authentic 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
overseas environment." owner of stated in a letter dated June 
18, 2010 that "it has been our policy that our head chef must have had years of training in preparing 
Korean cuisines" and that such years "are cultivated in overseas authentic Korean restaurants" either in 
Korea or in Japan. Ms. stated that "these kinds of qualifications are rarely found in local applicants 
and are highly sought after to the point where sometimes the same chef is recruited by several Korean 
competitors. 
Lastly, the first RFE response included an expanded description of the ten responsibilities the applicant 
would perform as head chef and the percentage of time to be allocated to each area of responsibility. 
The response to the second RFE included an updated letter from of the 
of and five additional letters from owners and managers of local 
Korean restaurants in the area. Mr. attests that "Korean restaurants require their heap 
chefs to have foreign culinary experience" and that "[c]andidates who meet this qualification are nqt 
readily available in the local market." 
The five new letters were similar in content to the letters provided by Mr. and Ms. In a letter 
dated May 9, 2012, restaurant owner stated that the key element of an authentic Korean 
restaurant is a chef who trained in Korea . Three of the other restaurant owners in statements dated May 
14, 2012, May 15, 2012, and June 1, 2012, respectively, emphasized the importance of foreign experience 
for the position of head chef in a Korean restaurant. The fifth letter, dated May 16, 2012, general! y stated 
that "it is essential to maintain a highly trained and experienced kitchen ." 
After reviewing the second RFE response, the director affirmed the denial of the application on ServiGe 
motion and certified her decision to the AAO. The director determined that the evidence submitted was 
insufficient to establish that the applicant has special qualifications that make her services essential to the 
efficient operation of the treaty enterprise. The director acknowledged the letters from restaurant s and tl1e 
attesting to the scarcity of the applicant's ski lis, but 
emphasized that the letters were not supported by documentary evidence to substantiate their claims, and 
did not include information regarding the source of information provided in their letters. The director 
further noted that the treaty enterprise was asked to corroborate Mr. 's statement that he made an 
effort to recruit employees for the position prior to seeking to hire the applicant, but it failed to respond to 
this request. 
III. ANALYSIS 
The petitioner did not claim nor does the evidence of record supp01t a finding that the beneficiary woul~ 
engage in duties of an executive or supervisory character. See 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(e)(l7) (defining 
executive and supervisory character and explaining in part that (l) such a position must be principally and 
primarily executive or supervisory and (2) primarily supervisory positions do not generally involve the 
direct supervision of low-level employees and that routine work usually performed by a staff employee 
may only be of an incidental nature). Therefore, the remaining issue to be addressed in this proceeding is 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
whether the treaty enterprise that seeks to hire the applicant has established that she has special 
qualifications that will make her services essential to the prospective employer. 
Although section 10l(a)(l5)(E) of the Act is silent on whether employees of treaty investors and treaty 
enterprises may be admitted in E nonimmigrant visa classification, USCIS has historically allowed for the 
admission of non-executive or non-supervisory employees who possess special qualifications which make 
their skills essential, i.e., indispensable to the success of the investment, thereby indicating that the at ien 
employee's essentiality to the enterprise is the foremost consideration in the context of E nonimmigrant 
visa classification . The regulations were amended in 1997 for the purpose of codifying existing policy 
guidelines related to theE nonimmigrant treaty trader and treaty investor visa classification. 62 Fed. Reg. 
48138,48144 (Sept. 12, 1997) ("1997 Final Rule") . Therefore it is instructive to look to the commentary 
accompanying the 1997 Final Rule for clarification of the regulations pertaining to alien employees with 
special qualifications that make their services essential to the efficient operation of the enterprise. 
The agency clearly intended that there would be no bright-line test for determining whether an at ien 
employee is essential to an investment enterprise. !d. On the contrary, in determining whether an 
employee is essential to an organization, USCIS will consider a variety of factors, including the 
uniqueness of a special skill which, while not required, may have a positive impact in making the 
determination. !d. In fact, there is no set group of factors that determine what constitutes an essential 
employee. Rather, essentiality must be determined based on the specific facts of each case, taking into 
account an alien's skills, which may include knowledge of a foreign language and culture, knowledge of 
conditions in the foreign country that are unique to his or her nationality, and previous employment with 
the enterprise in question, where applicable. !d. 
USCIS must also consider whether the needed skills are "commonplace" or readily available among 
United States workers who are able to perform the duties in question, thus indicating that the alien 
applicant who possesses these skills may not be essential or indispensable to the enterprise . !d. 
A. Degree of Proven Expertise 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(e)(l8)(i) requires consideration of: the degree of proven expertise of 
the alien in the area of operations involved; consideration of whether others possess the applicant~s 
specific skill or aptitude, the length of the applicant's experience and/or training with the treaty 
enterprise; the period of training or other experience necessary to perform the projected duties effectively; 
the relationship of the skill or knowledge to the enterprise's specific processes or applications; and the 
salary the special qualifications can command. Knowledge of a foreign language and culture does not, by 
itself, meet the special qualifications requirement. 
Here, the treaty enterprise provided minimal evidence to establish the applicant's degree of proven 
expe1tise in the field of Korean cuisine. The only evidence of the alien's prior experience consisted of an 
employment certification document and its English language translation , which contained the name of the 
employing entity in Japan, the dates of employment, and a brief statement indicating that during her 
employment abroad the alien was required to "[p]repare and cook all menu and train new employees how 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
to cook." Although the employer's name was translated to the letter 
itself contains no information regarding the applicant's specific culinary skills , expertise in specific 
cooking styles or techniques, or the restaurant's menu. As the applicant's claimed expertise in yakiniku 
grilling techniques is central to its claim that the applicant possesses special qualifications, the lack of 
specific information and documentation regarding her previous training and experience in the cui inary 
field presents a significant evidentiary deficiency. 
Moreover, the director specifically requested in both RFEs that the treaty enterprise "explain and provide 
evidence to establish the applicant's degree of proven expertise in the area of operations that he or she 
will be involved." The treaty enterprise responded to both requests with the same basic employment letter 
from the applicant's prior employer in Japan, and its own brief and unsupported statements regarding the 
applicant's skills. Failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be 
grounds for denying the application. 8 C.P.R. § l03.2(b)(l4). Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. 
Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 
14 I&N Dec . 190 (Reg. Comm'r 1972)). Therefore, the treaty enterprise's unsupported assertions that the 
applicant possesses "unique abilities" are insufficient. 
For these reasons, the evidence submitted fails to establish the applicant's degree of proven expertise in 
Korean cuisine. Fut1her, due to the lack of any specific information or documentation regarding the 
applicant's skills and experience, the record does not establish whether others possess the applicant's 
specific skill or aptitude to petform the contemplated duties. That is, the treaty enterprise has not 
submitted evidence that would differentiate the applicant from any other chef in her field. 
The applicant has no prior training or experience with the treaty enterprise that could be weighed 
positively. Further, the record contains no specific information or evidence to establish the period of 
training or other experience necessary to effectively petform the projected duties, other than_ Mr. 's 
vague statement that "the qualifications for this position require years of experience as a head chef in the 
proper environment." Finally, the treaty enterprise has not established whether the job requires skills or 
knowledge that are specific to the enterprise's specific processes or applications. It attempts to 
distinguish itself from other Korean restaurants by emphasizing its use of the yakiniku grill, but has not 
provided evidence that this cooking method is in fact uncommon in its culinary field. 
Overall, the treaty enterprise has submitted minimal evidence for consideration pursuant to 8 C.P.R. .§ 
214.2(e)(l8)(i). While the applicant may have knowledge of a foreign language and culture based on her 
nationality, the record lacks evidence that address the depth of the alien ' s experience with the type of 
Korean cuisine she would be expected to prepare in her proposed position, information regarding ht;'r 
specific skills such that they could be compared to others, and evidence regarding the amount and type of 
training and experience actually required to perform the anticipated head chef duties . 
B. Availability of Required Skills and Qualifications in the United States 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 21 4.2(e)(18)(ii) requires consideration of whether the applicant's skills and 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
qualifications are readily available in the United States. Such consideration contributes to the overall 
determination of whether an applicant possesses special qualifications that make her services essential to 
the operation of the enterprise. 
The owner of the treaty enterprise stated in his letter dated June 4, 2010 that he has "found no other 
locally qualified chef with [the applicant's] unique experience mastering the authentic Korean cuisine 
coupled with the use of authentic yakiniku grills." Therefore, the director requested evidence of the treaty 
enterprise's recruitment efforts, such as copies of job announcements. While this classification does not 
require a labor market test certified by the U.S . Department of Labor, the director's request that the treaty 
enterprise corroborate its claims with evidence was reasonable and relevant. The treaty enterprise did not 
acknowledge this request and instead relies on letters from its local and other 
Korean restaurant owners. 
The submitted letters support a conclusion that there is competition among -area Korean 
restaurant owners to hire from a pool of experienced and reputable head chefs with overseas training and 
experience. For example, manager of Inc. stated that "[it] is very hard to 
find a head chef in the local area. All the best head chefs are already hired by our competitors and the 
ones who decide to move positions already have done so with the intent or contract to go to another 
kitchen." Mr. also states that "if there is a qualified local chef with a good reputation, that chef is 
already employed ," and observes that "even in the case where an authentic Korean restaurant close s 
down, other restaurants would not want to hire their chefs who do have foreign experience because they 
came from an unsuccessful restaurant." While all of the restaurant owners indicated that they hired head 
chefs with overseas training and experience, none of them claimed to have actually recruited their chei's 
from outside the United States, and only one restaurant manager, Ms . indicates that direct 
recruitment of overseas chefs is a normal practice in the field. 
This evidence does not support a conclusion that the skills and qualifications needed for the treaty 
enterprise's head chef position are not readily available in the United States. The submitted evidence is 
focused instead on whether desirable Korean head chef candidates are readily available in the 
metropolitan area. 
In administrative immigration proceedings, the applicant must prove by a preponderance of evidence that 
he or she is eligible for the benefit sought. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 201 0). In 
evaluating the evidence, eligibility is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its 
quality. Id. The director must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and 
credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether 
the fact to be proven is probably true. Here, the treaty enterprise submitted insufficient relevant evidence 
for consideration pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(e)(l8)(i) and (ii) and therefore fell short of meeting its 
burden of proof in this proceeding . 
We do not doubt that the treaty enterprise requires an individual with experience in authentic Korean 
cuisine and that a head chef position is likely required for most restaurant operations . The evidence as .a 
whole, however, is insufficient to meet the employer's burden to establish that the alien applicarit 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
possesses special qualifications that make her services essential to the efficient operation of the enterprise 
as defined at 8 C.P .R.§ 214 .2(e)(l8). Accordingly , the director's decision dated June 29, 2012 will be 
affirmed and the application will be denied. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
In visa proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
applicant. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. Accordingly, 
the application must be denied. 
ORDER: The director's decision is affirmed. The application is denied .