dismissed EB-1A Case: Culinary Arts

&nWying data deleted to 
~=-tdearlyiraramm~ 
-om!mwptnel 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: EAC 04 002 52446 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: NOV 0 7 2005 
IN RE: 
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. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
s'rL 
Wobert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 04 002 52446 
Page 2 
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. 8 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 ths 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. 
tj 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. tj 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 October 1,2003, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability in 
Chinese culinary art. 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 November 25, 2000. Given the length 
of time between the petitioner's arrival in the United States and the petition's filing date (more than 34 
months), 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 culinary artist 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 
EAC 04 002 52446 
Page 3 
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 the field of endeavor. 
In a September 29, 2003 letter accompanying the petition, counsel states that in "1988, [the petitioner] was 
honored with the title of 'National First Class Cook."' This statement contradicts a partial translation of a 
2001 article in World Cuisine stating: "[The petitioner's] award winning record is very impressive including 
National First class cook (1987)." Nevertheless, the record includes no first-hand evidence of this award. 
Counsel also states that in "1988, [the petitioner] won grand award at Huai Yen Cup Food Craving [sic] 
Championship." The record, however, includes no evidence of this award. Without documentary evidence to 
support his claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported 
assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); 
Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 
1980). 
The petitioner submitted a Certificate of Award issued by the "Organizational Committee of the First Chinese 
Cuisine Championship 1992" stating that he won a "Silver Award at the First World Chinese Cuisine 
Competition, Section Food-Craving [sic] ." 
The petitioner also submitted a Certificate of Award issued by the "Chinese Association of Culinary Arts 
(CACA) Beijing Wuzhou Hotel July 1994" stating that he won a "Gold Award at Five Continentals Cup 
Culinary Art competition, Section of Food Crafting & Design." 
The record includes no information about the preceding competitions (such as the award criteria, the number 
of entrants, or the percentage of entrants who earned some type of recognition). Further, there is no evidence 
of contemporaneous publicity surrounding the petitioner's awards or evidence showing that they enjoy a 
substantial level of recognition. Because the statute requires "extensive documentation" of sustained national 
or international acclaim, the petitioner must submit evidence showing that his awards enjoy significant 
national or international stature. For example, 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 the 
competitions in which he received awards. In this case, the record contains no documentation from the 
awarding entities to establish that the petitioner's awards are nationally or internationally recognized awards. 
In addition to the above deficiencies, the record contains no evidence showing that the petitioner has won any 
significant culinary arts awards in China or the United States subsequent to 1994. The absence of such 
awards indicates that the petitioner has not sustained whatever acclaim he may have earned in China during 
the 1980's and 1990's. 
EAC 04 002 52446 
Page 4 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in thefieldfor which classiJcation 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 gven 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 September 29, 2003 letter from counsel states: "[The petitioner] is a member in good standing of 
Chinese Association of Culinary Art (CACA). CACA is a national highest [sic] association in the field. Only 
an individual with national reputation is eligible for admission." The record, however, includes no first-hand 
evidence of the petitioner's active membership status in this association. Furthermore, there is no evidence of the 
bylaws or the official membership requirements for the CACA 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. As previously noted, the unsupported assertions of counsel 
do not constitute evidence. See Matter of Obaigbena at 533, 534; Matter of Laureano at 1; and Matter of 
Ramirez-Sanchez at 503, 506. 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in theJield for which classiJication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
In order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner and, as stated in the 
regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. To qualify as major . 
media, the publication should have significant national or international distribution. An alien would not earn 
acclaim at the national or international level from a local publication or from a publication in a language that most 
of the population cannot comprehend. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a 
particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local 
community papers.' 
The petitioner submitted an incomplete translation of an article appearing in the June 2001 issue of World 
Cuisine. The petitioner also submitted an incomplete translation of an article appearing in Easteat. Pursuant 
to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3), however, any document containing foreign language submitted to Citizenship and 
' Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For example, 
an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, Virginia, cannot 
serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
EAC 04 002 52446 
Page 5 
Immigration Services (CIS) shall be accompanied by a full English language translation that the translator has 
certified as complete and accurate. The two articles submitted by the petitioner were not accompanied by full 
English language translations as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). Furthermore, the partial 
translation of the Easteat article does not identify the date or author of the material as required by this 
criterion. Finally, there is no evidence showing that these publications have substantial national readership. 
In this case, there is no indication that the petitioner has earned sustained acclaim in the national media of the 
United States or China. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedJield of speciJication for which clmsiJication is sought. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) provides that "a petition for an alien of extraordinary ability must be 
accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Evidence of the petitioner's participation as a 
judge must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. 
The petitioner submitted a certificate issued in 1998 from the CACA stating: "You are cordially invited to 
serve as a judge at the First Chinese Food Festival on Lu Style. Thank you." The record, however, includes 
no information about this festival or evidence of the petitioner's activities as a judge at this event. We note 
here that the plain wording of this criterion requires "[elvidence of the alien's participation . . . as a judge of the 
work of others." An invitation is not tantamount to participation. 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from the "Organizational Committee of The First National Chuang-Hua 
Cup Food-Craving [sic] Championship Oct. 1999" stating: "[The petitioner], at our invitation, sat on the 
evaluation panel for the First National Chuang-Hua Cup Food-Craving [sic] Competition. [The petitioner] 
has made substantial contributions." 
The petitianer also submitted a May 8, 2002 letter from "Mr.' Principal of the QingDao Business 
School, who states: "In 1997, [the petitioner] . . . served as Chairman of evaluation committee of QingDao 
Chinese Cooking Competition with over 300 participants from 16 cities in China." We note here that the 
petitioner was worlang as an instructor at the QingDao Business School at the time of this competition. 
The September 29, 2003 letter from counsel states that in "2000, [the petitioner] was invited to serve as 
advisor and award-giving judge at National Chinese Cuisine Championship hosted by Chinese Central 
Television Station (CCTV). . . . To serve as a judge at this nationwide televised festival represents [the 
petitioner's] unsurpassed national attainment." 
In regard to the petitioner's participation in the CCTV event, the partial translation of the June 2001 article in 
World Cuisine states: " . . . in 2000, China Central TV Station hosted a national Cuisine Championship in 
which [the petitioner] was invited to serve as a special advisor and hard [sic] the awards to winners." The 
article in World Cuisine indicates that the petitioner served as an "advisor" to the event and handed out 
awards, but it does not state that the petitioner participated as a judge. Therefore, counsel's claim that the 
petitioner served as a "judge" at this event is not supported by the evidence. As previously noted, the 
EAC 04 002 52446 
Page 6 
unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. See Matter of Obaigbena at 533,534; Matter of 
Laureano at 1; and Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez at 503,506. 
In the preceding instances, there is no evidence showing the level of expertise of the contestants evaluated by 
the petitioner (i.e.- novice, amateur, or professional). Further, we note the absence of contemporaneous 
published material or national publicity surrounding the petitioner's involvement at the events. We cannot 
ignore that the statute and regulations require "extensive documentation" of sustained national or international 
acclaim. Without evidence showing that the petitioner's activities at these competitions involved evaluating 
professional culinary artists at the national level, we cannot conclude he meets this criterion. 
In addition to the above deficiencies, we note that the statute and regulations require the petitioner's acclaim 
to be sustained. Subsequent to 2000, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner has served as a culinary 
arts judge in the United States or China. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in thejeld, in professions or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his authorship of articles entitled "The Demands for Food-Carving 
Study" in Oriental Gourmet and "Eat" in Chinese Cuisine. There is no evidence of the culinary field's reaction 
to these published articles, nor any indication that they are widely viewed as significantly influential. 
Furthermore, there is no evidence showing that the publications in which the articles appeared have 
substantial national or international readership. We f~her note that these articles were not accompanied by 
full English language translations as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 103.2(b)(3). 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in theJield at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The September 29, 2003 letter from counsel states: "[The petitioner's] master pieces have been exhibited at 
the cover page of a number of professional journalsltrade publications . . ." Without proper translations 
accompanying the cover pages, it cannot be determined that the petitioner's culinary creations are among 
those pictured. Nevertheless, published material relating to the petitioner's work has already been addressed. 
The plain language of this criterion requires the petitioner to provide evidence demonstrating that his 
creations have been "displayed" at culinary "exhibitions and 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 culinary artist 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 works 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 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. 
EAC 04 002 52446 
Page 7 
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 three letters of support. These letters indicate that the 
petitioner is a talented culinary artist, but they fall short of demonstrating his sustained national or 
international acclaim in the United States or China. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished hmself to such an extent that he may 
be said to have acheved sustained national or international acclaim or to be with 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@)(1)(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 fi-om 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 e~idence.~ 
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 al1,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), affd. 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. 8 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
On appeal, counsel states: "Attached please find a letter from Taipei, Tokyo restaurant, offering the beneficiary the 
position of chef at the monthly salary of $3,000 as soon as he receives employment authorization document from your 
office." This letter, however, was not included among the documentation submitted on appeal.