dismissed EB-1A Case: Culinary Arts

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionofpersonalprivacy
PUBLICCOPY
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
U.S.CitizenshipandimmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO)
20 MassachusettsAve.,N.W., MS2090
Washington.DC 20529-2090
U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: Office: NEBRASKASERVICECENTER FILE:
FEBo92012
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: •ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien Workeras an Alien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the
documentsrelatedto this matterhavebeenreturnedto theoffice thatoriginally decidedyour case.Please
beadvisedthatanyfurtherinquiry thatyou mighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If youbelievethelaw wasinappropriatelyappliedby usin reachingour decision,or youhaveadditional
informationthatyou wish to haveconsidered,you mayfile a motionto reconsideror a motionto reopen.
Thespecificrequirementsfor filing sucha requestcanbefoundat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5. All motionsmustbe
submittedto theoffice thatoriginally decidedyour caseby filing a FormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor
Motion, with a feeof $630. Pleasebeawarethat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresthatanymotionmust
befiled within 30 daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseeksto reconsideror reopen.
Tliankyou,
Peg Oe
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION:The employment-basedimmigrantvisa petition was deniedby the Director,
NebraskaServiceCenter,andis nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO) on appeal.
Theappealwill bedismissed.
The petitionerseeksclassificationas an employment-basedimmigrantpursuantto section
203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct), 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A),asan
alienof extraordinaryability in the arts.1 Thedirectordeterminedthatthepetitionerhadnot
establishedthe requisiteextraordinaryability throughextensivedocumentationand sustained
nationalor internationalacclaim.
Congressseta veryhighbenchmarkfor aliensof extraordinaryabilityby requiringthroughthe
statutethatthepetitionerdemonstratethealien's"sustainednationalor internationalacclaim"and
present"extensivedocumentation"of thealien'sachievements.Seesection203(b)(1)(A)(i)of the
Act and8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).Theimplementingregulationat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)statesthat
an aliencanestablishsustainednational.or internationalacclaimthroughevidenceof a one-time
achievementof amajor,internationallyrecognizedaward.Absentthereceiptof suchanaward,the
regulationoutlinestencategoriesof specificobjectiveevidence.8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)through
(x). The petitionermustsubmitqualifyingevidence.underat leastthreeof the ten regulatory
categoriesof evidencetoestablishthebasiceligibilityrequirements.
OnDecember5, 2011,in accordancewith theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(16)(i),theAAO
issueda notice advising the petitioner of derogatoryinformationregardinghis claimed
employment with Rio's D'Sudamericaandhis intent·to continueto work in his areaof expertise. In
response,the petitioner submitteddocumentaryevidenceovercomingthe derogatoryinformation
discussedin theAAO's notice.
On appeal,thepetitionerassertsthathe meetstheregulatorycategoriesof evidenceat 8 C.F.R.
§§204.5(h)(3)(i),(ii), and (v). For the reasonsdiscussedbelow, the AAO will uphold the
director'sdecision.
I. Law
Section·203(b)of theActstates,inpertinentpart,that:
(1) Priorityworkers.- Visasshallfirst bemadeavailable. . . to qualifiedimmigrantswho
arealiensdescribedin anyof thefollowingsubparagraphs(A) through(C):
(A) Alienswith extraordinaryability.- An alienis describedin thissubparagraphif -
(i) the alienhasextraordinaryability in the sciences,arts,education,
business,or athleticswhichhasbeendemonstratedby sustainednational
1Thepetitionerwasinitially representedby attorney In thisdecision,theterm"previous
counsel"shallreferto
Page3
or internationalacclaimandwhoseachievementshavebeenrecognized
in thefield throughextensivedocumentation,
t
(ii) thealienseékstoentertheUnitedStatesto continuework in thearea
of extraordinaryability,and
(iii) the alien'sentryinto theUnitedStateswill substantiallybenefit
prospectivelytheUnitedStates.
U.S. CitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS)andlegacyImmigrationandNaturalization
Service(INS)haveconsistentlyrecognizedthatCongressintendedto setaveryhighstandardfor
individualsseekingimmigrantvisasasaliensof extraordinaryability. SeeH.R.723101"Cong.,2d
Sess.59(1990);56Fed.Reg.60897,60898-99(Nov.29,1991).Theterm"extraordinaryability"
refersonly to thoseindividualsin that smallpercentagewho haverisento the very top of the
field of endeavor.Id. and8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(2).
The regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)requiresthat an aliendemonstratehis or her sustained
acclaimandtherecognitionof hisorherachievementsin thefield. Suchacclaimandachievements
must be establishedeither throughevidenceof a one-time.achievement(that is, a major,
internationalrecognizedaward)or throughmeetingatleastthreeof thefollowingtencategoriesof
evidence:
(i) Documentationof the alien's receiptof lessernationallyor internationally
recognizedprizesorawardsforexcellencein thefieldof endeavor;
(ii) Documentationof thealien'smembershipin associationsin thefield for which
classificationis sought,whichrequireoutstandingachievementsof theirmembers,
asjudgedby recognizednationalor internationalexpertsin their.disciplinesor
fields;
(iii) Publishedmaterialaboutthealienin professionalormajortradepublicationsor
othermajormedia,relatingto thealien'swork in thefield for whichclassificationis
sought. Suchevidenceshall include the title, date,and authorof the material,and
anynecessarytranslation;
(iv) Evidenceof thealien'sparticipation,eitherindividuallyor on apanel,asajudge
of the work of othersin the sameor an allied field of specializationfor which
classificationis sought;
(v)Evidenceof thealien'soriginalscientific,scholarly,artistic,athletic,orbusiness-
relatedcontributionsof majorsignificancein thefield;
(vi) Evidenceof the alien'sauthorshipof scholarlyarticlesin the field, in
professionalormajortradepublicationsorothermajormedia;
Page4
(vii) Evidenceof thedisplayof thealien'swork in thefield atartisticexhibitionsor
showcases;
(viii) Evidencethat the alien hasperformedin a leadingor critical role for
organizationsorestablishmentsthathaveadistinguishedreputation;
(ix) Evidencethatthealienhascommandedahighsalaryorothersignificantlyhigh
' remunerationfor services,in relationtoothersin thefield; or
(x) Evidenceof commercialsuccessesin theperformingarts,asshownbyboxoffice
receiptsorrecord,cassette,compactdisk,orvideosales.
In 2010,theU.S.Courtof Appealsfor theNinthCircuit(NinthCircuit)reviewedthedenialof a
petitionfiledunderthisclassification.Kazarianv.USCIS,596F.3d1115(9thCir.2010).Although
thecourtupheldtheAAO's decisionto denythepetition,thecourttook issuewith theAAO's
evaluationof evidencesubmittedtomeetagivenevidentiarycriterion.2Withrespecttothecriteria
at 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and(vi), the courtconcludedthatwhile USCIS.may haveraised
legitimateconcernsaboutthesignificanceof theevidencesubmittedto meetthosetwo criteria,
thoseconcernsshouldhavebeenraisedin asubsequent"finalmeritsdetermination."Id. at1121-22.
ThecourtstatedthattheAAO'sevaluationrestedonanimproperunderstandingof theregulations.
Insteadof parsingthesignif¿canceof evidenceaspartof theinitial inquiry,thecourtstatedthat"the
properprocedureis to countthe typesof evidenceprovided(whichthe AAO did)," andif the
petitionerfailedto submitsufficientevidence,"theproperconclusionis thattheapplicanthasfailed
to satisfythe regulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence(asthe AAO concluded)."Id. at
1122(citingto 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)).Thecourtalsoexplainedthe"final meritsdetermination"as
thecorollarytothisprocedure:
If apetitionerhassubmittedtherequisiteevidence,USCISdetermineswhetherthe
evidencedemonstratesbotha"levelof expertiseindicatingthattheindividualis one
of thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento theverytopof the[ir] field of endeavor,"
8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(2),and "that the alien has sustainednational or international
acclaim and that his or her achievementshave been recognized in the field of
expertise."8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3).Only alienswhoseachievementshavegarnered
"sustainednationalor internationalacclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary
ability"visa.8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i).
Id. at1119-20.
Thus,Kazariansetsforth a two-partapproachwherethe evidenceis first countedandthen
consideredin thecontextof afinal meritsdetermination.In reviewingServiceCenterdecisions,the
AAO will applythetestsetforthin Kazarian.As theAAO maintainsdenovoreview,theAAO
2Specifically,thecourtstatedthattheAAO hadunilaterallyimposednovelsubstantiveor evidentiaryrequirements
beyondthosesetforthin theregulationsat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Page5
will conductanewanalysisif thedirectorreachedhisorherconclusionbyusingaone-stepanalysis
ratherthanthe two-stepanalysisdictatedby theKazarian court. SeeSpencerEnterprises,Inc. v.
UnitedStates,229F. Supp.2d.1025,1043(E.D.Cal.2001),affd, 345F.3d683(9thCir. 2003);
seealso Soltanev. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143,145(3d Cir. 2004)(notingthat the AAO.conducts
appellatereviewonadenovobasis).
II. Analysis
A. EvidentiaryCriteria
This petition, filed on July 17, 2009, seeksto classify the petitioner as an alien with
extraordinaryability asa "Culinary Artist of PeruvianCuisine." Thepetitionerhassubmitted
documentationpertainingtothefollowingcategoriesof evidenceunder8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).3
Documentationof the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally
recognizedprizesor awardsfor excellencein thefield of endeavor.
The etitioner submitteda certificateissuedto him by his alma mater, the
stating: "For obtainingthe Third Placein the I Competition
Art andPassionCulinaryContest- PeruvianTalents,takenplacein the installationsof our
schoolon the 05 of December2003." Thereis no documentaryevidenceshowingthat the
petitioner's2003third placeawardis a nationallyor internationallyrecognizedprize or award
for excellenceratherthananinstitutionalhonorlimitedtoculinarystudentsathisschool.
The petitionersubmitteda secondcertificateissuedto him by the
stating: "We congratulateour student[thepetitioner]for obtainingthe First
Placein the Competitionof CreativeGastronomicUsing BiodiversityPeruvianProducts,
organizedby the takenplaceon the218'of May of
2004." Thepetitioneralsosubmitteda May 26, 2004con ratulator letterfrom theDirectorof
Administration, School,
stating: "We are very proud of your unfoldingthroughoutthe tournament,in which you
demonstratedyour professionalquality and understandingof learnedtëchniques,leaving the
nameof ouracademicinstitutionin highstanding."
. nd Peu s at g:11,2010letterfrom
As a representativeof the slow food movementin Peru,I have had the pleasureof
working with [the petitioner] when he participatedin our contestof gastronomic
creativityfeaturinglocalPeruvianingredients.in2004.
3ThepetitionerdOCSDOtClaimtomeetOrSubmitevidencerelatingtOthecategOriesOfevidencenotdiscussedin this
decisiOn.
Page6
Thecontestbroughttogetherthetop Chefsof thecountry,eachonerepresentingoneof
the top culinaryschoolsin Peru. EachChef contestantwas askedto uselocal Indian
Peruvianingredientsin personalandinnovativeinterpretationsof hautecuisine. [The
petitioner]surprisedusby not only usingfamiliar ingredientssuchasquinoa,amaranth,
oca,mashuaandkaniwuain hiscuisine,buthealsoincorporated"atajo"aplantusedby
ancientPeruviansin timesof famine,tobringuniqueandpowerfulflavorstohisdishes.
The knowledgeandexpertise[the petitioner]displayedwasso impressive,that he was
theoverwhelmingfavoriteandwinnerof theprestigiousevent.[Thepetitioner]wasthen
chosento representPeruatthe in Turin,Italy . . . .
Theletterssubmittedby thepetitionerfail to demonstratethenationalor internationalrecognition
of his 2004first placeawardin theCompetitionof CreativeGastronomicUsingBiodiversity
PeruvianProducts. Theplain languageof theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)specifically
requiresthat the petitioner'sawardsbe nationallyor internationallyrecognizedin the field of
endeavorandit is hisburdentoestablisheveryelementof thiscriterion.In thisinstance,thereis no
documentaryevidencedemonstratingthat the petitioner's 2004 first place award garnered
significantrecognitionbeyondthe eventorganizersand thereforewas commensuratewith a
nationallyor internationallyrecognizedprizeor awardfor excellencein thefield.
Evenif thepetitionerwereto establishthathis2004first placeawardmeetstheelementsof this
regulatorycriterion, which he has not, the plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(i)requiresthe petitioner'sreceiptof qualifying "prizesor awards"in the plural.
Theuseof thepluralis consistentwith thestatutoryrequirementfor extensiveevidence.Section
203(b)(1)(A)(i)of the Act. Significantly,not all of the criteriaat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)are
wordedin theplural. Specifically,theregulationsat 8 C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and(ix) only
requireserviceon a singlejudgingpanelor a singlehigh salary. Whena regulatorycriterion
wishesto includethesingularwithin theplural,it expresslydoessoaswhenit statesat8 C.F.R.
§204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B)thatevidenceof experiencemustbe in the form of "letter(s)." Thus,the
AAO caninfer that the plural in theremainingregulatorycriteriahasmeaning. In a different
. context,federalcourtshaveupheldUSCIS' ability to interpretsignificancefrom whetherthe
singularor plural is usedin a regulation. SeeMaramjayav. USCIS,Civ. Act. No. 06-2158
(RCL) at 12(D.C.Cir. March26,2008);Snapnames.comInc. v. Chertoff,2006WL 3491005at
*10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006)(upholdingan interpretationthat the regulatoryrequirementfor "a"
bachelor'sdegreeor "a" foreign equivalentdegreeat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(1)(2)requiresa single
degreeratherthana combinationof academiccredentials).Therefore,thepetitioner'sreceiptof
a single nationally recognizedawarddoesnot meet the plain languagerequirementsof the
regulationat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i).
In light of theabove,thepetitionerhasnotestablishedthathemeetsthisregulatorycriterion.
Documentationof the alien'smembershipin associationsin thefield for which
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievementsof their
members,as judged by recognizednational or international expertsin their
disciplinesor fields.
Page7
In order to demonstratethat membershipin an associationmeetsthis criterion, a petitioner must
show that the associationrequiresoutstandingachievementas an essentialcondition for
admissionto membership. Membershiprequirementsbasedon employmentor activity in a
given field, minimum educationor experience,standardizedtest scores,gradepoint average,
recommendationsby colleaguesor currentmembers,or,paymentof dues,do not satisfythis
criterionassuchrequirementsdonot constituteoutstandingachievements.Further,theoverall
prestigeof a givenassociationis not determinative;theissuehereis membershiprequirements
ratherthantheassociation'soverallreputation.
Thepetitionersubmittedlettersfrom the GeneralDirectorandthe ExecutiveDirectorof the
statingthat the petitionerbecamean "investigator"of Peruvian
cuisineat their institutionin 2005. The petitioneralsosubmitteda letterfrom the Director
Generalof the statingthat thepetitionermentoredstudentsat
theinstitute.Thepetitionerhasnotestablishedthathisrelationshipwith theseinstitutionsasan
investigatorandasa mentorconstituteshis"membershipin associationsin thefield" (emphasis
added)asmandatedby theunambiguouslanguagein theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii).
Regardless,the submittedevidencedoesnot establishthat the Centerof RegionalCuisineand
the requireoutstandingachievementsof their members,as
judgedby recognizednationalor internationalexpertsin thepetitioner'sfield.
The petitioner submitted a letter from
statingthat thepetitioneris a memberof
thesociety. On appeal,thepetitionersubmitsa letterfrom
verifying the petitioner'smembershipin the societysinceApril 2008
andstating: "Membersof the areleadersin the community,who havedistinguished
themselvesby their accomplishmentsboth in Peru and acrossthe World." Thereis no
documentaryevidence(suchasbylawsor rulesof admission)showingthatthe requires
outstandingachievementsof its members,asjudgedby recognizednationalor international
expertsin thepetitioner'sfield.
In light of theabove,thepetitionerhasnotestablishedthathemeetsthisregulatorycriterion.
Publishedmaterial about the alien in professional or major tradepublications or
othermajormedia,relatingto thealien'sworkin thefieldfor whichclassificationis
sought.Suchevidenceshallincludethetitle, date,andauthorof thematerial,and
. anynecessarytranslation.
TheAAO withdrawsthedirector'sfindingthatthepetitionermeetsthisregulatorycriterion. In
general,in orderfor publishedmaterialto meetthis criterion,it mustbe primarilyaboutthe
petitionerand,asstatedin theregulations,beprintedin professionalor majortradepublicationsor
othermajormedia.To qualifyasmajormedia,thepublicationshouldhavesignificantnationalor
internationaldistribution. Somenewspapers,suchas theNew York Times,nominallyservea
Page8
particularlocality but would qualify asmajormediabecauseof significantnationaldistribution,
unlikesmalllocalcommunitypapers.4
ThepetitionersubmittedanOctober14,2005articleabouthimby
entitled"A kitchenplacedon low heat,"butthereis no circulationevidenceshowing
that qualifiesasaform of majormedia.
The petitionersubmittedmaterialfrom an October2004 repor.tpreparedby the·Peruvian
. delegationfor theevententitled in Torino,Italy, but thematerial
wasunaccompaniedby anEnglishlanguagetranslationasrequiredby theregulationsat8 C.F.R.
§§103.2(b)(3)and204.5(h)(3)(iii).Regardless,thepetitioneris not mentionedin thematerial
andthereis no evidenceshowingthat the precedingeventreportqualifiesas a majortrade
publicationorsomeotherformof majormedia.
The petitioner submittedan article abouthim entitled ' printed from
www.perudotcom.com,but thearticle'sdateof publicationwasnot providedasrequiredby the
plain.languageof this regulatorycriterion. Further, there is no documentaryevidence
demonstratingthattheprecedingwebsitequalifiesasaform of majormedia.
Thepetitionersubmittedrestaurantreview of in the September28, 2007
ChicagoSun-Times.Therestaurantreviewis accompaniedby aphotographof thepetitioner,but
the article is aboutthe restaurant'sfood and ambianceratherthan the petitioner himself. The
plainlanguageof theregulationat8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iii)requiresthatthepublishedmaterialbe
"aboutthealien." See,e.g.,AccordNegro-Plumpev. Okin,2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJat *1,*7 (D.
Nev.Sept.8,2008).(upholdingafindingthatarticlesaboutashowarenotabouttheactor).Further,
thereis nocirculationevidenceshowingthattheChicagoSun-Timesqualifiesasaformof major
media.
Thepetitionersubmittedan August2006articlein TimeOut Chicagoentitled
about and its owner but the article only briefly mentionsthe
, petitionerin passing.Further,thereis no documentaryevidenceshowingthatTimeOutChicago
qualifiesasaformof majormedia.
In responseto thedirector'srequestfor evidence,thepetitionersubmittedthefollowing:
1. Material indicating that the petitioner's "Peruvian. Sweet Corn Cake Dessert"
appearedin theNovember/December2009issueof
2. An August21, 2009articlepostedat entitled' It's
thatprofilesthepetitioner'sSweetCornCakedessert;
3. A July 23, 2009restaurantreviewof in Chicago
Readerthatis abouttherestaurantratherthanthepetitionerhimself;
4 Evenwith nationally-circulatednewspapers,considerationmustbe givento the-placementof thearticle. For
example,anarticlethatappearsin theWashingtonPost,butin a sectionthatis distributedonly in FairfaxCounty,
Virginia,for instance,cannotserveto spreadanindividual'sreputationoutsideof thatcounty.
Page9
4. A December2009articlein Dining Chicagoentitled thatincludes
only onesentencementioningthepetitioner;
5. An August 26, 2009 blog article postedat entitled
Asia meetsSouthAmericain cool fish dish" thatprofilesa recipeof the
petitioner.
The precedingarticleswerepublishedsubsequentto the petition's filing date. A petitioner,
however,mustestablishhiseligibility atthetimeof filing. 8 C.F.R.§§103.2(b)(1),(12);Matter
of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). Accordingly,the AAO will not
considermaterialpublishedafterJuly 17,2009in this proceeding.Nevertheless,noneof the
precedingarticlesmeetall theelementsof theregulationat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iii).
Thepetitioner'sresponseto the director'srequestfor evidenceincludeda September25, 2005
article in entitled"A rhythm of slow food," but the article includesonly a few
sentencesabout the petitioner. Further, there is no circulation evidenceshowing that
qualifiesasaform of majormedia. .
Th itioner's responsealsoincludedan October25, 2008in ChicagoReaderentitled"The
The article is about andhis restaurant
business,andonly br y mentions e petitionerin passing..Further,thereis no documentary
evidenceshowingthatChicagoReader'slocalcirculationqualifiesthefreeweeklynewspaperas
aformof majormedia.
Thepetitioneralsosubmittedaprofileof in ChicagoDiningOut,butthedate
andauthorof thematerialwerenotidentifiedasrequiredby theplainlanguageof thisregulatory
criterion. Further,the materialonly mentionsthe petitionerin passingand there is no
documentaryevidenceshowingthatChicagoDiningOutqualifiesasaformof majormedia.
The petitioner'sresponseincludedan April 9, 2008blog article postedon the websiteof the
entitled' but the
authorof thearticlewasnot specificallyidentified. Moreover,thereis no evidenceindicating
thattheprecedingblog postingconstitutespublicationin a majortradepublicationor in some
otherform of majormedia.
The petitioner'sresponsealsoincludeda duplicatecopy of the October14,2005articleby
postedat .com, but there is no documentaryevidence
showingthattheprecedingwebsitequalifiesasaform of.majormedia.
Moreover,evenif thepetitionerwereto submitcirculationevidenceshowingthat the October
14,2005articleaboutinMeets theelementsof thiscriterion,whichhehasnot,the
plainlanguageof theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iii)requiresmaterialaboutthealienin
"professionalormajortradepublicationsorothermajormedia"in theplural. Therefore,published
materialaboutthe petitionerlimited to only onemajor publicationdoesnot meetthe plain
languagerequirementsof thisregulatorycriterion.
Page10
In lightof theabove,thepetitionerhasnotestablishedthathemeetsthiscriterion
Evidenceof thealien's original scientific,scholarly,artistic, athletic,or business-
relatedcontributionsof majorsignificancein thefield.
Thepetitionersubmittedseveralreferencelettersdiscussinghistalentasachef,culinarytraining,
andactivitiesin thefield. Talentandtheabilityto secureemploymentin one'sfield,however,are
notnecessarilyindicativeof originalartisticcontributionsof majorsignificancein theculinaryfield.
Therecordlacksevidenceshowingthatthepetitionerhasmadeoriginalartisticcontributionsthat
havesignificantlyinfluencedorimpactedhisfield.
restaurantin Chicago,praisesthe petitionerfor his
"uniquetalentandreputationfor masteryof thenouveauandinoethniccuisine,"buthedoesnot
providespecificexamplesof how thepetitioner'soriginal work hasimpactedthe field at large
suchthathis work risesto thelevelof artisticcontributionsof majorsignificancein thefield.
Vague,solicitedlettersfrom colleaguesthatdonotspecificallyidentifycontributionsor provide
specificexamplesof how thosecontributionsinfluencedthefield areinsufficient. Kazarianv.
USCIS,580F.3d1030,1036(9thCir.2009)aff'd inpart 596F.3d1115(9thCir.2010). .
Lima,Peru,states:
[Thepetitioner]enhancedhisfamilial trainingin thepreparationof TraditionalPeruvian
Cuisineby enrollingin the wherehecontinuedhis studiesof bio-
diverseingredients,ancientherbsandtheartof "slow cooking."
In additionto hiseducationaltraining,[thepetitioner)hasdevelopedhistalentonthejob.
I employed[thepetitioner]asanAssistantExecutiveChefat from November
2004throughFebruary2006. I witnessedfirsthand[thepetitioner's]superbtalentfor
preparingTraditionalPeruvianCuisine. He possessesa keenunderstandingof local
produce,ingredientsand culinary techniques.[The petitioner] has demonstratedan
unmatchedflare for combiningflavorsthatwould normallybe incompatibleto create
dishesthatareground-breakingandenjoyableat everybite, yet rootedin Peru'sculinary
traditions.
* * *.
[The petitioner's] impeccabletalent led to his appointmentas an Investigatorwith the
in April 2005,whereI serveastheGeneralDirector. In this
position,[the petitioner]is responsiblefor enteringvariousindigenouscommunitiesto
examinetheir culinarystyles,aswell astheir useof local ingredients.[Thepetitioner]
not only raisesawarenessin Peruof the incalculablearrayof culinarytraditiönsby
demonstratingtheindigenousculinarytraditionsto thepublic,healsoexperimentswith
theindigenousculinarydishesandtechniquesto developmoderncuisine. Hereturnsto
thesecommunitiesto presenthis findings. [Thepetitioner's]extraordinaryability to
studytraditionalforms of Peruvian,experimentwith indigenousdishesand instruct
Page11
othershasprovedinvaluableto thepreservationof TraditionalPeruvianCuisineandthe
developmentof the culinary art.
* * *
Basedon my . . . collaborationwith [the petitioner]at andthe Centerof
RegionalCooking,I haverealizedthathis ability to createTraditionalPeruvianCuisine
is unparalleled.His dishesaretruly innovativeandexquisite.As a result,heis oneof
Peru'smost ïnfluential andprominentchefsin a culinaryart that requiresa thorough
knowledgeof Peru'sbiodiversity,aswell asthehistoryof Peruviancuisine.
opinesthatthepetitioner"is oneof Peru'smostinfluential andprominent
chefs,"but shefails to identifytheoriginaldishesor culinarytechniquesthatearnedhim this
distinction.USCISneednotacceptprimarilyconclusoryassertions.1756,Inc. v. TheAttorney
Generalof the UnitedStates,745F. Supp.9, 15 (D.C.Dist. 1990). also
assertsthat the petitioner's work "has proved invaluableto the preservationof Traditional
PeruvianCuisineandthe developmentof the culinaryart," but shedoesnot providespecific
examplesof how thepetitioner'swork hasinfluencedthe field at largeor otherwiseequatesto
originalcontributionsof majorsignificancein thefield.
of Peru,states:
[The petitioner)is a youngman known not only known for his reputablecareerin
cookingin ourcountrywith anironwill to makehis careera form of art,andexquisite
culinarystyle,butmostimportantlyhisuniqueability to innovateandto incorporatethe
legacyof hisPeruvianheritage.
* * *
In 2005, of Peruwasoneof the sponsorsof the Peruviandelegationwhom
representedPeruin the that took placein Santiago,
Chile.. At that event [the petitioner] was appointed head cook of one of the
demonstrationsthe Peruviandelegationembodied,appealingto all presentwith his
creativestylegaveanewconceptandvalueto theregionalcookingof theAndes.
As representativeof of Peru,I vouchfor [thepetitioner's]impeccablework of
which I hadthe opportunityandpleasureto witnessduringthe Conferencementioned
previouslyaswell asothereventsthathavetakenplacein conjunction.
fails to explainhowthepetitioner'scookingdemonstrationattheregionalconference
differentiatedhim from theotherparticipatingchefsor wasotherwiseindicativeof anoriginal
artisticcontributionof majorsignificancein theculinaryfield.
Peru,states
thatthepetitioner"hasprovento be a highly capableinvestigatorin thestudyof gastronomy
Page12
(culinary),exemplifyingqualitiesof honor,capability,proactivity,efficiencyanda highregardfor
teamwork,"bu fails to providespecificexamplesof how thepetitioner'swork
hassignificantlyimpactedthe field at largeor otherwiseconstitutesoriginalcontributionsof
majorsignificancein theculinaryfield.
states: ..
Thisletteris to bringto yourattentionthat[thepetitioner],graduatedfrom thecareerof
Hautecuisinein ourinstitution,waschosenby theAcademicDirectionto representusin
the " organizedby the
* * *
After a week of testingand refinementof the dish, the perfectcombinationbetween
nationalinputs and Peruvianculinary creativity was created,which gave rise to the
followingdishes.His entrywasa guineapig with chicharronpressingrecotoconfit and
amaranthandKañiwacookie.And his main coursewas alpacaloin with crispyrosti
Andeantuberstabulatedwith quinoawith tomatosauceandAguaymantosacha.After the
final assessmentannouncedthewinnerof first place,[thepetitioner]representativeof
School,alsounveiledtheawardthathe
deserved,a trip to Turin-Italyasa delegateof Peruin themajorEuropeanevent"The
wherehewouldprepareadishof Peruvianinputs. . . .
Regarding comments,the AAO notes that the petitioner's award from the
"GastronomicCreativityContestBiodiversity"hasalreadybeenaddressedundertheregulatory
criterionat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i). Hereit shouldbe emphasizedthattheregulatorycriteria
are separateand distinct from one another. Becauseseparatecriteria exist for awardsand
originalcontributionsof major significance,USCISclearlydoesnot view the two as being
interchangeable.To hold otherwisewould rendermeaninglessthe statutoryrequirementfor
extensive evidence or the regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at least three separate
criteria.
In a lettersubmittedin responseto the director'srequestfor evidence,
SanAntoniocampus,states:
[Thepetitioner]is a highly recommendedchefandis very recognizedassuchby chef
colleaguesin Peru.
I hadthe pleasureto meet[the petitioner]while in Chicagolast May. I was a key
memberof culinaryteamthatpreparedthe2009Ivy
Award Dinner,for Restaurant& Institutionsmagazine.The focusof the food was
MexicanCuisine,of whichI amoneof theCIA's experts.I called[thepetitioner],and
hewasableto assistusduringthisevent.
Page13
I wasableto seehis extraordinaryculinarytalents,heis alsovery.attentive,creativeand
dedicated.[Thepetitioner]is ableto work in teamsandhequicklybecameastrongteam
supporter.
In asubsequentlettersubmittedonappeal, states:
I believethat[thepetitioner]is anexcellentchefwhoseabilitieshavebeenandcontinue
to receiverecognitionboth in the U.S., Peru,andotherSouthAmerica countries. He is
anexceptionalcookwith aclearandrefinedvision.
I know[thepetitionerfor acoupleof yearsandweworkedtogetherin theGaladinnerin
Chicagofor the at the showlast year.
WhereI sawhim in action,I wasimpressednot only by his total commitmentto his
professionbut his knowledgeregardingall thingsPeruvian.I knowfor fact thathehas
workedin Peruwith thebestchefsacquiringadeeperknowledgeandpractice.
Thetwo lettersfrom indicatethatthepetitionerassistedherat the2009
dinnerandthatshewasimpressedby hisknowledgeandculinarytalents,but she
doesnotprovidespecificexamplesof howthepetitioner'swork hasimpactedthefield at alevel
indicativeof originalartisticcontributionsof majorsignificance..
states:
I met[thepetitioner)whenhewasaculinaryStudentat " -
of Peru. Fromthevery beginning,[thepetitioner]displayeda talentandaptitudefor
preparingPeruvianCuisine,andsoondistinguishedhimselfasthe beststudentof the
school. Not only doeshehaveextensiveknowledgeof traditionaldishes,but alsothe
capacityto integratethosedisheswith otherinfluencesto createauniqueinterpretationof
hautecuisine.
During his time at school,[the petitioner] also impressedme with his knowledgeof
ancientPeruvianIngredientsandotherwiseforgottenfoodsof thenativepeoplesof the
Andeanregion. In particular,[thepetitioner]researchedthe"route gastronomique"of the
potatoin the MantaroValley a lusciousareaof Peru,home to different varietiesof
potato.The "route gastronomique"can be looselytranslatedas the life cycle. [The
petitioner] studiedevery aspectof the potato'sjourney, from earthto plate and back
agam.
[Thepetitioner's]work impressedmesomuchthatI askedhim to leadtheresearchfor
mybook, In mybook,I explorethewide
varietiesof Peruvianbread,and the social and religiousaspectof breadin Andean
culture.' [The petitioner's]contributionsto my book exemplifieçlhis extraordinary
knowledgeof PeruvianCuisine.
Page14
I will forevervalvehis contributionsto my book,a winnerof the
Awardfor theworld's bestbookin its category.
assertsthatthepetitionerperformedresearchat the
of Peru,but there is no documentaryevidencedemonstratingthat his potato researchwas
recognizedbeyondthe schoolsuchthat his work constitutesoriginal contributionsof major
significancein the field. The plain languageof t,heregulationat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(v)
requiresthatthepetitioner'soriginalcontributionsbe "of ma'orsi ificancein thefield" rather
thanlimited to a singleresearchinstitutionor employer. alsostatesthat the
petitioner"leadtheresearch"for hisbook, The
record,however,doesnot includea copy of the book or excerptsfrom the book listing the
petitionerasacoauthoror contributor.Further, doesnotspecificallyidentifythe
petitioner'soriginalcontributionsto his book,nor is therean explanationindicatinghow any
suchcontributionsof thepetitionerwereof majorsignificancein theculinaryfield. Moreover,
theAAO notesthattheregulationscontainaseparatecriterionregardingtheauthorshipof scholarly
articles.8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(vi).TheAAO will notpresumethatevidencerelatingto or even
meetingthescholarlyarticlescriterionis presumptiveevidencethatthepetitioneralsomeetsthis
criterion. Becauseseparatecriteria exist for authorshipof scholarlyarticlesand original
contributions of major significance, USCIS clearly does not view the two as being
interchangeable.
Thereferenceletterssubmittedby thepetitionerdiscusshis culinarytraining,work experience,
andtalentasa chef,but they.do not specifyexactlywhat his original contributionshavebeen,
nor is thereanexplanationindicatinghow anysuchcontributionswereof majorsignificancein
his field. It is not enoughto bea talentedchefandto haveothersattestto thattalent. An alien
musthavedemonstrablyimpactedhisfield in orderto meetthisregulatorycriterion. According
to theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(v),analien'scontributionsmustbenot only original
butof "major significance"in thefield. Thephrase"major significance"is not superfluousand,
thus,it hassomemeaning.Silvermanv.EastrichMultipleInvestorFund,L.P.,51 F. 3d 28,31
(3'dCir. 1995)quotedinAPWUv.Potter,343F.3d619,626(2"dCir.Sep15,2003). Whilethe
petitionerhasearnedtheadmirationof hisreferences,thereis no evidencedemonstratingthathe
has made original artistic contributions of major significance in the field. For example, the
recorddoesnot indicatethe extentof thepetitioner'sinfluenceon otherchefsin theculinary
industry,nor doesit showthat thefield asa whole hasspecificallychangedasa resultof his
work.
The referenceletters submittedby the petitioner are not without weight and have been
consideredabove.USCISmay,in its discretion,useasadvisoryopinionsstatementssubmitted
asexperttestimony.SeeMatter of Caron1nternational,19I&N Dec.791,795(Commr.1988).
USCIS is ultimately responsiblefor making the final determinationregardingan alien's
eligibility for the benefitsought. Id. The submissionof lettersfrom expertssupportingthe
petitionis not presumptiveevidenceof eligibility; USCISmay evaluatethe contentof those
lettersasto whethertheysupportthealien'seligibility. Seeid. at 795-796;seealsoMatter of V-
Page15
K-, 24 I&N Dec.500,n.2 (BIA 2008)(notingthatexpertopiniontestimonydoesnot purportto
beevidenceasto "fact"). Thus,thecontentof theexperts'statementsandhowtheybecameaware
of the petitioner'sreputationareimportantconsiderations.Evenwhenwritten by independent
experts,letterssolicitedby analienin supportof animmigrationpetitionareof lessweightthan
preexisting,independentevidencethat one would expectof a soccerplayer who has made
original contributionsof "major significance." Without extensivedocumentationshowingthat
thepetitioner'sworkequatesto originalcontributionsof majorsignificancein hisfield, theAAO
cannotconcludethathemeetsthisregulatorycriterion.
Evidenceof the display of the alien's work in thefield at artistic exhibitionsor
showcases.
The directordiscussedthe evidencesubmittedfor this criterion andfound that the petitioner
failed to establishhis eligibility. On appeal,the petitioner doesnot contestthe director's
findingsfor this criterionor offer additionalarguments.The AAO, therefore,considersthis
issuetobeabandoned.Sepulvedav. U.S.Att'y Gen.,401F.3d1226,1228n. 2 (11thCir. 2005);
Hristovv.Roark,No.09-CV-27312011,2011WL 4711885at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y.Sept.30,2011)
(thecourtfoundtheplaintiff's claimsto beabandonedashefailedto raisethemon appealto the
AAO). Accordingly,thepetitionerhasnotestablishedthathemeetsthisregulatorycriterion.
Summary
TheAAO concurswith thedirector'sdeterminationthatthepetitionerhasfailed to demonstrate
his receiptof a major,internationallyrecognizedaward,or thathemeetsat leastthreeof theten
categoriesof evidencethatmustbe satisfiedto establishtheminimumeligibility requirements
necessaryto qualifysasanalienof extraordinaryability. 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).A final merits
determinationthatconsidersall of theevidencefollows.
B. Final MeritsDetermination
TheAAO will nextconducta final meritsdeterminationthatconsidersall of theevidencein the
contextof whetheror notthepetitionerhasdemonstrated:(1) a "level of expertiseindicatingthat
the individualis oneof that smallpercentagewho haverisento thevery top of the[ir] field of
endeavor,"8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2);and(2) "that thealienhassustainednationalor international
acclaimandthathis or herachievementshavebeenrecognizedin thefield of expertise."Section
203(b)(1)(A)of theAct; 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).SeealsoKazarian,596F.3dat 1119-20.In the
presentmatter,manyof thedeficienciesin thedocumentationsubmittedby thepetitionerhave
alreadybeenaddressedin our precedingdiscussionof the categoriesof evidenceat 8 C.F.R.
§§204.5(h)(3)(i)- (iii),and(v).
In regardtothedocumentationsubmittedfor thecategoryof evidenceat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i),
this decisionhas alreadyaddressedwhy the submittedawardsdo not rise to the level of
nationallyor internationallyrecognizedawardsfor excellencein the field. The petitioner's
evidenceis alsonot indicativeof or consistentwith sustainednationalacclaimor a level of
expertiseindicatingthatheis oneof thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento theverytopof his
Page16
field. TheAAO cannotconcludethatwinninga competitionlimited to culinaryschoolstudents
is anindicationthathe"is oneof thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento theverytopof thefield
of endeavor."See8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2).USCIShaslongheldthatevenathletesperformingat
themajorleagueleveldonotautomaticallymeetthestatutorystandardsfor immigrantclassification
asanalienof "extraordinaryability." Matterof Price,20 I&N Dec.953,954(Assoc.Commr.
1994);56 Fed.Reg.at 60899. Likewise,it doesnot follow that a chefwho hasonly received
awardsin studentlevel competitionshouldnecessarilyqualifyfor approvalof anextraordinary
abilityemployment-basedimmigrantvisapetition.TheAAO notesthatin Matter of Racine,1995
WL 153319at*4 (N.D.Ill. Feb.16,1995),thecourtstated:
[T]heplain readingof thestatutesuggeststhattheappropriatefield of comparison
is not a comparisonof Racine'sability with that of all thehockeyplayersat all
levelsof play; but rather,Racine'sability asa professionalhockeyplayerwithin
the NHL. This interpretationis consistentwith at leastoneothercourtin this
district,Grimsonv. INS,No. 93 C 3354,(N.D. Ill. September9, 1993),andthe
definitionof theterm8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2),andthediscussionsetforth in the
preambleat56Fed.Reg.60898-99.
The court's reasoningindicatesthat USCIS' interpretationof the regulation at 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(2)is reasonable.To find otherwisewouldcontravenetheregulatoryrequirementat
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) that this visa category be reservedfor "that small percentageof
individualsthathaverisento theverytopof theirfield of endeavor."
With regard to the documentationsubmittedfor the categoryof evidenceat 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(ii),thereis noevidenceshowingthat66 thePeruvian
and requireoutstandingachievementsof their members,as
judgedby recognizednationalor internationalexpertsin thefield. Further,thepetitionerhasnot
establishedthat his membershipsare indicativeof or consistentwith sustainednationalor
internationalacclaim,or a levelof expertiseindicatingthathe is oneof thatsmallpercentage
whohaverisento theverytopof hisfield.
Regardingthedocumentationsubmittedfor thecategoryof evidenceat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii),
all of thepetitioner'ssubmissionsweredeficientin at leastoneof the regulatoryrequirements
such as not including an author, not being about the petitioner, or not being accompaniedby
evidencethattheywerepublishedin majormedia. Thepetitionerhasfailed to demonstratethat
thepublishedmaterialabouthim is indicativeof or consistentwith sustainednationalacclaimor
a levelof expertiseindicatingthatheis·oneof thatsmallpercentagewho haverisento thevery
topof thefield.
In regardtotheevidencesubmittedfor thecategoryof evidenceat8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(v),there
is no documentaryevidencedemonstratingthatthepetitioner'sworkhadmajorsignificancein
thefield, let alonean impactconsistentwith beingnationallyor internationallyacclaimedas
extraordinary.Asidefrom thepetitioner'sfailureto submitevidencedemonstratingthathehas
madeoriginalartisticcontributionsof majorsignificancein thefield, theAAO notesthathis
claim is basedprimarily on referenceletters. While referenceletterscan provide important
Page17
detailsaboutthepetitioner'sculinaryexperienceandactivitiesin thefield, theycannotform the
cornerstoneof a successfulextraordinaryability claim. Thestatutoryrequirementthatan alien
have"sustainednationalor internationalacclaim"necessitatesevidenceof recognitionbeyond
the alien's educationaland professionalcontacts. See section203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act,
8'U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i),and 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3). The commentaryfor the proposed
regulationsimplementingsection203(b)(1)(A)(i)of theAct providethatthe "intent of Congress
thataveryhighstandardbesetfor aliensof extraordinaryabilityis reflectedin thisregulationby
requiring the petitionerto presentmore extensivedocumentationthan that required" for lesser
classifications.56 Fed.Reg.30703,30704(July5, 1991). Evenwhenwrittenby independent
experts,letterssolicitedby analienin supportof animmigrationpetitionareof lessweightthan
preexisting,independentevidencethatonewouldexpectof achefwhohassustainednationalor
internationalacclaimattlie verytopof thefield. Moreover,thelettersof support,whileindicating
that the.petitioneris a talentedchef, do not consistentlyestablishhis sustainednationalor
internationalacclaimat theverytopof thefield. Talentaloneis notthestatutorystandardfor the
classificationsought.Rather,Congressmandatedthateligibilitywouldbeestablishedby extensive
evidenceof nationalor internationalacclaim. Section203(b)(1)(A)(i)of the Act. Congress
expressedits intentthatthisclassificationbelimitedto thosewho coulddemonstratea one-time
achievement(notclaimedin thiscase)or acareerof acclaimedwork. H.R.Rep.No. 101-273,59
(Sept.19,1990). The documentationsubmittedby thepetitionerfor thecategoryof evidenceat
8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(v)is not indicativeof or consistentwith sustainednationalacclaimor a
levelof expertiseindicatingthatheisoneof thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento theverytop
of hisfield.
In this matter,thepetitionerhasnot establishedthathis achievementsat thetime of filing were
commensuratewith sustainednationalor internationalacclaimasaculinaryartistor chef,or being
amongthatsmallpercentageat thevery top of thefield of endeavor.Thesubmittedevidenceis
notindicativeof a"careerof acclaimedworkin thefield" ascontemplatedbyCongress.H.R.Rep.
No. 101-723,59 (Sept.19,1990).TheconclusiontheAAO reachesby consideringtheevidence
to meeteachcategoryof evidenceat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)separatelyis consistentwith areview
of theevidencein theaggregate.Ultimately,theevidencein theaggregatedoesnotdistinguishthe
petitionerasoneof thesmallpercentagewho hasrisento theverytopof thefield of endeavor.
8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(2).While the petitionerneednot demonstratethat thereis no one more
accomplishedthanhimselfto qualifyfor theclassificationsought,it appearsthattheverytopof
his field of endeavoris far abovethe level he.hasattained.
C. Prior0-1NonimmigrantVisaStatus
Therecordreflectsthatthepetitionerwasthebeneficiaryof anapproved0-1 nonimmigrantvisa
petitionfor an alien of extraordinaryability in the arts. Althoughthe words"extraordinary
ability" areusedin theAct for classificationof artistsunderboththenonimmigrant0-1 andthefirst
preferenceemployment-basedimmigrantcategories,the statuteandregulationsdefinethe term
differentlyfor eachclassification.Section101(a)(46)of theAct states,"The term 'extraordinary
ability' means,for purposesof section101(a)(15)(O)(i),.in thecaseof thearts,distinction." The
O-1regulationreiteratesthat"[e]xtraordinaryabilityin thefieldof artsmeansdistinction."8 C.F.R.
§214.2(o)(3)(ii). "Distinction" is a lower standardthan that requiredfor the immigrant
Page18
classification,which definesextraordinaryability as "a level of expertiseindicatingthat the
individual is oneof thatsmall.percentagewho haverisento theverytop of thefield of endeavor."
8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2).Theevidentiarycriteriafor thesetwoclassificationsalsodiffer in several
respects,for example,nominationsfor awardsor prizesareacceptableevidenceof O-1eligibility,
8C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A),buttheimmigrantclassificationrequiresactualreceiptof nationally
or internationallyrecognizedawardsorprizes.8 C.FR. §204.5(h)(3)(i).Giventheclearstatutory
and regulatorydistinctionbetweenthesetwo classifications,the petitioner'sreceipt of O-1
nonimmigrantclassificationisnotevidenceof hiseligibilityfor immigrantclassificationasanalien
with extraordinaryability. Further,theAAO doesnotfindthatanapprovalof anonimmigrantvisa
mandatestheapprovalof asimilarimmigrantvisa.Eachpetitionmustbedecidedonacase-by-case
basisuponreviewof theevidenceof record.
It mustbe notedthat many I-140 immigrantpetitionsare deniedafter USCISapprovesprior
nonimmigrantpetitions.See,e.g.,Q Data Consulting,Inc. v.INS,293F. Supp.2d 25 (D.D.C.
2003);IKEA USv. USDept.ofJustice,48 F. Supp.2d 22 (D.D.C.1999);FedinBrothersCo.
Ltd. v.Sava,724F.Supp.1103(E.D.N.Y.1989).BecauseUSCISspendslesstimereviewingI-
129nonimmigrantpetitionsthanI-140 immigrantpetitions,somenonimmigrantpetitionsare
simply approvedin error. Q Data Consulting,Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp.2d at 29-30;seealso
TexasA&M Univ.v. Upchurch,99Fed.Appx.556(5thCir.2004)(findingthatpriorapprovalsdo
not precludeUSCISfrom denyinganextensionof theoriginalvisabasedon a reassessmentof
thealien'squalifications).
The AAO is not requiredto approveapplicationsor petitionswhereeligibility hasnot been
demonstrated,merelybecauseof priorapprovalsthatmayhavebeenerroneous.See,e.g.,Matterof
ChurchScientologyInternational,19I&N Dec.593,597(Comm'r1988).It wouldbeabsurdto
suggestthatUSCISor anyagencymusttreatacknowledgederrorsasbindingprecedent.Sussex
Engg.Ltd.v.Montgomery,825F.2d1084,1090(6thCir.1987),cert.denied,485U.S.1008(1988).
Furthermore,the AAO's authorityover the servicecentersis comparableto the·relationship
betweena courtof appealsanda districtcourt. Evenif a servicecenterdirectorhasapproveda
nonimmigrantpetitionon behalfof the alien, the AAO would not be.boundto follow the
contradictorydecisionof a servicecenter.LouisianaPhilharmonicOrchestrav.INS,No. 98-2855,
2000WL 282785,*1, *3 (E.D.La.),affd, 248F.3d1139(5thCir. 2001),cert.denied,122S.Ct.51
(2001).
III. Conclusion
Reviewof therecorddoesnot establishthatthepetitionerhasdistinguishedhimselfto suchan
extentthathemaybesaidto haveachievedsustainednationalor internationalacclaimandto be
within thesmallpercentageattheverytopof hisfield. Theevidenceis notpersuasivethatthe
petitioner'sachievementssethimsignificantlyabovealmostall othersin hisfield atanationalor
internationallevel. Therefore,thepetitionerhasnot establishedeligibility pursuantto section
203(b)(1)(A)of theActandthepetitionmaynotbeapproved.
Page19
An applicationor petitionthatfails to complywith thetechnicalrequirementsof thelaw maybe
deniedby theAAO evenif theServiceCenterdoesnot identify all of thegroundsfor denialin
the initial decision. SeeSpencerEnterprises,Inc. v. UnitedStates,229 F. Supp.2d at 1043,
affd, 345F.3dat 683;seealsoSoltanev.DOJ, 381F.3dat 145(notingthattheAAO conducts
appellatereviewonadenovobasis).
Thepetitionwill bedeniedfor theabovestatedreasons,with eachconsideredasanindependent
andalternativebasisfor denial.In visapetitionproceedings,theburdenof provingeligibility for
thebenefitsoughtremainsentirelywith thepetitioner.Section291of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361.
Here,thatburdenhasnotbeenmet.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.