dismissed EB-1A Case: Chef

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invBllton of personal privacy 
PUBLlCCOPY 
DATE: OCI 2 Ij 201i\)FFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Securit) 
U.S. Citi/.enship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (;\AO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave" N.W .. MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529·2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section203(b)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; 8 U.S.C. § IIS3(b)(\)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF· REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Otllce in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the otllce 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 law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision. or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the otllce that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion. with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § I 03.S(a)( I lei) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, on March 18, 20 I 0, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on 
appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § llS3(b)(l)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability as a chef. In the director's decision, he determined that the 
petitioner failed to meet the awards criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.S(h)(3)(i), the leading or critical role criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii), and the high salary criterion pursuant to the regulation at C.F.R. 
§ 204.S(h)(3)(ix). In fact, the director determined that the petitioner failed to meet any of the 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
On appeal, the petitioner argues: 
I would like to appeal your decision by providing your office with further 
evidence that has not been previously submitted. Per your request in the decision 
letter, I am accompanying with Form I-290B, additional documents that apply to 
the regulation at title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, section 204.5(h)(3) part (vi) 
concerning evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. Also more 
evidence is presented outside those regulations pertaining to the applicant's 
reputation in terms of national and international recognition especially from a 
major source like the world renown civil rights and minority leader Mrs. _ 
-
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) provides that "[a]n officer to whom an appeal is taken 
shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the party concerned fails to identify specifically any 
erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal." In this case, the petitioner has 
not identified as a proper basis for the appeal an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of 
fact in the director's decision. Instead of contesting the director's decision regarding the awards 
criterion, the leading or critical role criterion, and the high salary criterion, the petitioner claims 
eligibility for the first time on appeal for the authorship of scholarly articles criterion pursuant to 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(vi). Again, the petitioner offers no argument that 
demonstrates error on the part of the director based upon the record that was before him. As the 
petitioner failed to contest the decision of the director or offer additional arguments regarding the 
awards criterion, the leading or critical role criterion, and the high salary criterion, the AAO, 
therefore, considers these issues to be abandoned and will not further discuss those criteria on 
appeal. See Sepulveda v. Us. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226,1228 n. 2 (lIth Cir. 200S). 
Kt:!!arUln!! the scholarly articles criterion, on appeal, the petitioner submitted a letter from the 
who stated: 
We would like to confirm that [the petitioner] has published an article in the 2002 
November issue. The topic was "Best ingredients for Dumpling style food". In 
Page 3 
this article, [the petitioner] gave little tricks and tips on how to choose the right 
ingredients when cooking dwnpling style foods and the right way of cooking 
them. This article was well received by local readers and reviews showed that the 
readers found it to be extremely useful and enlightening. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2) provides that the non-existence or unavailability of required 
evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. According to the same regulation, only where the 
petitioner demonstrates that primary evidence does not exist or cannot be obtained may the petitioner rely 
on secondary evidence and only where secondary evidence is demonstrated to be unavailable may the 
petitioner rely on affidavits. In this case, the petitioner failed to submit primary evidence, such as the 
actual article, or any documentary evidence demonstrating that primary evidence or secondary evidence 
does not exist or cannot be obtained. As such, the petitioner failed to comply with the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. §103.2(b)(2). 
Furthermore, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires "[e]vidence of 
the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media [emphasis added]." Generally, scholarly articles are written by and for experts in a 
particular field of study, are peer-reviewed, and contain references to sources used in the articles. In 
this case, the letter fails to reflect that the food article contains the characteristics of a scholarly article. 
As there is no evidence such as that the petitioner's article was peer-reviewed, references any sources, 
or was otherwise considered "scholarly," the petitioner failed to establish that the article is insufficient 
to meet this criterion. Moreover, this regulatory criterion also requires the authorship of scholarly 
articles in professional or major trade publications or other media. The petitioner failed to 
submit any documentation to establish that is a professional or major 
trade publication or other major media. 
Moreover, even if the petitioner were to submit supporting documentary evidence showing that the 
article meets the elements of this criterion, which he has not, section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act requires 
the submission of extensive evidence. Consistent with that statutory requirement, the plain language of 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires more than one scholarly article. Significantly, not all 
of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are worded in the plural. Specifically, the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (ix) only require service on a single judging panel or a single high salary. When a 
regulatory criterion wishes to include the singUlar within the plural, it expressly does so as when it states 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) that evidence of experience must be in the form of "Ietter(s)." Thus, the 
AAO can infer that the plural in the remaining regulatory criteria has meaning. In a different context, 
federal courts have upheld USCIS' ability to interpret significance from whether the singUlar or plural is 
used in a regulation. See Maramjaya v. USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at 12 (D.C. Cir. March 
26, 2008); Snapnames.com Inc. v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 at *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006) 
(upholding an interpretation that the regulatory requirement for "a" bachelor's degree or "a" foreign 
equivalent degree at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(2) requires a single degree rather than a combination of 
academic credentials). 
Finally, even if the petitioner were to prevail on the single issue raised on appeal, and the AAO does not 
imply that he would, such a conclusion would not overcome the director's ultimate conclusion that the 
petitioner failed to meet at least three of the criteria at the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Page 4 
Furthennore, the AAO notes that the petitioner submitted a letter from President of the 
'\111er'Lcan Association, who stated that the petitioner is "a great contributor to the cause of the 
However, the petitioner failed to indicate which criteria, if any, the letter purportedly 
is no indication that the letter from Mr. _meets any of the regulatory criteria at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
As stated in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § I03.3(a)(I)(v), an appeal shall be summarily dismissed 
if the party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement 
of fact for the appeal. As the petitioner does not contest the director's findings and offers no 
substantive basis for the filing of the appeal for any of the criteria, the regulations mandate the 
summary dismissal of the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.