dismissed EB-1A Case: Culinary Arts

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
~KIC COPY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Kiea- data deleted $0 
mvew dearly Pnww 
Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER a: QEC 2 2005 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETJTIONER: 
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. 
y~obert P. Wiemann, 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 on appeal. The appeal will be 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. § 1153(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 first 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 or her 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 January 13, 2005, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability 
as an "Advanced level cook." The statute and regulations require the petitioner's acclaim to be sustained. 
According to Part 3 of the Form 1-140 petition, the petitioner has been residing in the United States since June 
2002. Given the length of time between the petitioner's arrival in the United States and the petition's filing 
date, 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. 
In support of the petition, the petitioner submitted a signed statement regarding his cooking qualifications. 
This document, however, was not sufficient to demonstrate the petitioner's sustained national or international 
acclaim, or that his achievements have been recognized in his field of expertise. On June 9, 2005, the director 
Page 3 
denied the petition, finding that the petitioner's evidence did not satisfy any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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. On appeal, 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 the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submits the following: 
1. "Certificate of Honor" from the "Labor Bureau of Quanzhou City" (allegedly issued in "October 
1996") stating that the petitioner "was awarded the Prize of Second Grade Cook in the 1998 
Competition of Culinary Arts in this citym1 
2. "Certificate of Honor" from the "Labor Bureau of Quanzhou City" stating that the petitioner "was 
awarded the Prize of First Grade Cook in the 1998 Competition of Culinary Arts in this city" 
3. "Certificate of Prize" from the "Cooks7 Association of Fuzhou City" stating that the petitioner "was 
awarded the First Grade in the 1998 Competition of Culinary Arts in this city" 
4. "Letter of Thanks" from the Manager of the Chinese Meal Department of the Fuzhou City West 
Lake Hotel 
5. Photograph of a trophy bearing an inscription stating: "[The petitioner] is awarded First Grade 
Prize of 'Straight Cup Culinary Arts Competition."' 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3), any document containing foreign language submitted to Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (CIS) shall be accompanied by a full English language translation that 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 translations accompanying the petitioner's trophy inscription, 
Letter of Thanks, and award certificates were not certified as required by the regulation. 
In regard to item 1, the discrepancy regarding the date of issue and the date of the competition has not been 
resolved. Nor has the petitioner offered an explanation regarding why the name "BO YU appears in English 
at the top of the certificate. 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 petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to 
1 The petitioner offers no explanation for the discrepancy regarding these dates. It is not possible for the petitioner to 
have been issued an award in "October 1996" for a competition that had not taken place until 1998. We further note that 
the name "BO YU" appears in English in the upper border of this certificate, but the appearance of this text is not 
explained, nor is it addressed in the accompanying English language translation. 
Page 4 
a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa 
petition. 
Based on the names of the issuing entities, we find that items 1 through 4 reflect local or institutional recognition 
rather than national or international recognition. In regard to item 5, there is no evidence demonstrating that the 
1998 "Strait Cup Culinary Arts Competition" was national or international in scope. Nor is there evidence 
from the awarding entity or the print media showing that the petitioner's "Strait Cup Culinary Arts 
Competition7' trophy is a nationally or internationally recognized culinary arts award. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification 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 submits his employee identification card for the Quanzhou Hotel and his "Certificate of 
Professional Qualification" from Quanzhou City. Again, the translations accompanying these credentials 
were not certified as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(3). Further, the plain language of this 
criterion requires "documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field." We cannot 
conclude that a qualification certificate and an employee identification card represent association 
memberships for purposes of this criterion. There is no evidence demonstrating that obtaining such 
credentials required outstanding achievement in the culinary arts or that the petitioner was evaluated by 
national or international experts in order to receive those credentials. 
The petitioner also submits his "Certificate of Membership" for the Quanzhou City Culinary Arts Association 
(QCCAA). We cannot ignore that this association is a local association rather than a national or international 
association. Furthermore, there is no evidence of the bylaws or the official membership requirements for the 
QCCAA demonstrating that admission to membership requires outstanding achievement or that individuals 
are evaluated by national or international experts in consideration of their admission to membership. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submits what he alleges is evidence of his authorship of a book entitled Male Tonic Recipes. 
The evidence submitted by the petitioner shows only the cover of this book. The translation accompanying 
the book cover was not certified as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Further, there is no 
evidence of the field's reaction to this book, nor any indication that it is widely viewed as significantly 
influential. Nor is there evidence showing that this publication enjoyed substantial national or international 
readership. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the$eld at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The petitioner submits sixteen photographs of what are alleged to be his culinary creations. Without proper 
translations of the placards appearing in these 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 
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. 
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. 8 204.5(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, Znc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), afSd. 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). 
Page 6 
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.