dismissed EB-1A Case: Cook

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: - Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
EAC 05 113 53718 Date: )#Y 1 6 2005 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Lmmigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
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. 
hobert P. Wiernann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be, dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to sectibn 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 8 1 153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability. The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to 
qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall f~st be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim 
and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the 
individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained 
national or international acclaim and recognition in his field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that 
the petitioner must show that he has earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on March 10, 2005, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as 
a cook. The statute and regulations require the petitioner's acclaim to be sustained. The record reflects that 
the petitioner has been residing in the United States since December 2000. Given the length of time between 
the petitioner's arrival in the United States and the petition's filing date (more than 4 years), it is reasonable to 
expect him to have earned national acclaim in the United States during that time. The petitioner has had 
ample time to establish a reputation as a cook in this country. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of which 
must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted a certificate signed by Geoff Zhang of the World Culture Alliance of Flushing, New 
York stating that he received a "Lifelong Award for Outstanding Achievements in Cuisine" (2004). This 
award constitutes local or institutional recognition rather than national or international recognition. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits an April 21. 2005 letter frosting: 
In the competition of photographers contest hold [sic] each year in New York, normally more than 500 
cuisine masters participated in the cuisine competition. . . . After carefully [sic] and strict selection, 
only 20 winner [sic] are chosen for 2nd advanced competition. 
Finally in the second turn, 6 masters are chosen for outstanding achievement prize. only [sic] 
It is unclear as to why the word "photographers" is included in the first sentence cited above. Further, we 
note that the petitioner's award from the World Culture Alliance was a "Lifelong Award for Outstanding 
Achievements in Cuisine." ril 25, 2005 letter, however, describes a two-phase "cuisine 
competition" which is not entirely consistent with conferring a "lifelong" achievement award. Nevertheless, 
the petitioner's evidence fails to demonstrate that the 500-contestant competition described i 
letter actually took place in New York in 2004. Large-scale competitions typically issue event programs 
listing the order of events and the names of the participating contestants. At a competition's conclusion, 
results are usually provided indicating how each participant performed in relation to the other competitors in 
his or her events. The petitioner, however, has provided no evidence of the official comprehensive results for 
this 2004 competition. Nor has the petitioner submitted contemporaneous evidence of publicity or media 
coverage surrounding the event. 
The petitioner also submits a certificate (dated July 10, 2002) stating that he won a "2nd grade prize in the 
cuisine match held by Jiangsu cuisine committee." This award constitutes local recognition rather than 
national or international recognition. Furthermore, the translation accompanying this award was not certified 
as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). We cannot ignore that the petitioner was residing in 
Flushing, New York at the time this award certificate was issued. The petitioner fails to explain how he was 
able to attend a "cuisine match in Jiangsu, China in 2002 while simultaneously residing in Flushing, New 
~ork.' The petitioner has not resolved this discrepancy. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any 
inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such 
inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where 
the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Doubt cast on any aspect of the 
1 According to the information provided on the petitioner's Form 1-140 and Form 1-485, he last entered the U.S. on 
December 10, 2000. There is no evidence of the petitioner's departure and subsequent U.S. reentry showing that he 
actually attended the Jiangsu cuisine competition in China in 2002. 
petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining 
evidence offered in support of the visa petition. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which'classiJication is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, the petitioner must show that 
the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to membership. 
Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum education or 
experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by colleagues or current 
members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding 
achievements. In addition, it is clear from the regulatory language that members must be selected at the 
national or international level, rather than the local or regional level. Therefore, membership in an association 
that evaluates its membership applications at the local or regional chapter level would not qualify. Finally, 
the overall prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements 
rather than the association's overall reputation. 
The petitioner submitted a certificate of membership for the World Culture Alliance of Flushing, New York. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a document entitled "Badge of the World Culture Alliance" which lists what 
appear to be the organization's bylaws. Under the heading "Part V. MEMBERS" the document states: "2. 
Individual Members: All individual members who have some culture, art unit and organization technology 
influence can apply to enroll." Thus, there is no indication that admission to membership in the World 
Culture Alliance requires outstanding achievement or that individuals are evaluated by national or 
international experts in consideration of their admission to membership. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The petitioner submitted various captioned photographs of what are alleged to be his culinary creations. 
Without proper translations accompanying these captioned photographs, it cannot be determined that the 
petitioner's culinary creations are among those pictured. Nevertheless, the plain language of this criterion 
requires the petitioner to provide evidence demonstrating that his creations have been "displayed" at culinary 
"exhibitions or showcases." In this case, the specific venues where the petitioner's culinary creations were 
displayed have not been identified. In fact, there is no contemporaneous evidence (such as an event program 
or brochure) demonstrating the petitioner's involvement at specific culinary exhibitions or showcases in the 
U.S. or China. 
It must be stressed that a cook does not satisfy this criterion simply by arranging for his or her work to be 
displayed or evaluated. We find no evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's creations have regularly been 
displayed at exclusive national venues. Nor is there any indication that the petitioner's dishes have been 
featured along side those of culinary artists who enjoy national or international reputations. Furthermore, the 
petitioner has not demonstrated his regular participation in shows or exhibitions at exclusive venues devoted 
largely to the display of his culinary creations alone. The evidence presented by the petitioner is not 
Page 5 
sufficient to show that his exhibitions enjoy a national reputation or that participation in his exhibitions was a 
privilege extended to only top national or international culinary experts. 
In this case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he meets at least three of the criteria that must be satisfied 
to establish the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Beyond the regulatory criteria, the petitioner submitted various letters of support. These letters state that the 
petitioner is a talented cook, but they fall short of demonstrating his sustained national or international 
acclaim in the United States or China. 
The petitioner's appeal was filed on May 16, 2005. The appellate submission was accompanied by supporting 
evidence (which has been addressed throughout this decision). On the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal to the 
AAO, however, the petitioner indicated that a brief and/or evidence would be submitted to the AAO within 30 
days. As of this date, more than six months later, the AAO has received nothing further. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an extent that he may 
be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the 
very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him significantly above 
almost all others in his field at the national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established 
eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(5) requires "clear evidence that the 
alien is coming to the United States to continue work in the area of expertise. Such evidence may include 
letter(s) from prospective employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a 
statement from the beneficiary detailing plans on how he or she intends to continue his or her work in the 
United States." The record contains no such evidence. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by 
the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), am. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit 
sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.