dismissed EB-1A Case: Hospitality

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
InRe: 5106104 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 28, 2020 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a hospitality and culinary branding specialist, seeks classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(A) . This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who 
can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and 
whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the record 
established that the Petitioner satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements, it did not establish, as 
required, that the Petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim and is one of that small 
percentage at the very top of the field. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to aliens with extraordinary ability 
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 into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement 
(that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, 
then they must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten 
categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as awards, published material 
in certain media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably 
true." Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner states that he "has occupied senior management and executive roles in concept branding 
and operations management" "in the high-end restaurant industry," including the following past positions: 
• Director of OperatiolJ.l.il.-=-==--=-r------'-, 2003-2005 
• Managing D,..-ai=re"""c=to=r"'"'L. __ ~___J 2005-2012 
• Consultant, 2012-2014 
• Chief Operating Officer ~------------' 2014-2016 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner was the restaurant manager for I 
intends to continue that work while also serving as the managing partner o~ 
I I Florida. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director found that the Petitioner met four of the evidentiary 
criteria, relating to: 
• (iii) Published material about the Petitioner; 
• (v) Original contributions of major significance; 
2 
• (viii) A leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments; and 
• (ix) High remuneration in relation to others in the field. 
The Director then proceeded to a final merits determination, and found that chronological gaps in the 
record precluded a finding of sustained acclaim. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director erred by examining each piece of evidence in 
isolation, rather than in the context of the record as a whole. We agree that the final merits 
determination is deficient in this regard, but there is a more fundamental issue. After reviewing all of 
the evidence in the record, we find that the Petitioner only satisfies two of the ten evidentiary criteria, 
and therefore the record does not warrant a final merits determination. Specifically, although we agree 
that the Petitioner has established his leading role for distinguished organizations and his relatively 
high remuneration, we do not agree with the Director regarding the two criteria discussed below. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien 's work in the field for which classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessa,y 
translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be 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. 
Several articles mention the Petitioner briefly or in passing, and therefore are not about him as the 
regulation requires: 
• Local publication Eater I I previewed 'IL -----.-------,_ ______ ---,11 
Spring 2018." The article includes two sentences about ~I _____ ~I and identified the 
Petitioner as one of two "key players." 
• Another local I I publication, Indulge, offered its own list of new restaurants. The four-
sentence segment aboutl I identifies the Petitioner as a managing partner and quotes him 
regarding one of the restaurant's dishes. 
• A five-sentence piece in The Caterer, with no author credit, reported that 
I 
O 
I' The final sentence identifies the Petitioner as the re~s-t-au_r_a_n-t'_s_n_e_w_g_e_n-er_a__,l 
manager. 
• Big Hospitaliti reportr on a fire at the Drestaur.mt in I I The article identifies the 
Petitioner as managing director" and quoted him regarding the fire's impact on 
customers. 
• The Spanish-language magazine Selecta published an article aboutl A four-
sentence passage in the 435-word article identifies him as a shareholder who "has been working 
with large groups ofrestaurants in all parts of the world for decades." 
The remaining two articles focus on the Petitioner, but the record does not show that these articles 
appeared in major media rather than local niche publications. An article in Haute Living states that the 
3 
Petitioner "has held a lead role in the hospitality industry for the past 25 years and has been transformative 
to the international culinary scene," and is "[c]onsidered the 'go-to guy' when restaurant brands are 
looking to internationalize a culinary concept." 
A printout in the record states: "Haute Livin is a leadin network of luxu lifest le publications, with 
bimonthly regional editions in,___~--------------------' The article about 
the Petitioner appeared in the .__ _ __,edition; the record does not establish that the article appeared in 
other editions, or otherwise show nationwide publication or promotion of the article. The same printout 
refers to "140,000 bimonthly editions," but this appears to refer to the total circulation of all local editions. 
The Petitioner did not establish that the I I edition of Haute Living qualifies as major media in its own 
right, or that the article about the Petitioner appeared nationally. 
A "Website Analysis Overview Report" indicates that Haute Living' s website has a "Global Rank" of 
314,311, and a "Category Rank" of 17,268. The Petitioner did not establish the rgnificrce of these 
figures, which appear to apply to Haute Living as a collective whole, rather than the edition. 
An interview with the Petitioner, with an introductory biographical sketch, appeared in Toys for Boys. 
The magazine's Instagram account shows the phrase "International Publication! I 
but there is considerable evidence that the article about the Petitioner L-----,-.,....----,--....,..r--7-..,..! 
appeared in a local edition. The printout of the article includes a copyright notice for "Toys for 
Boys~----,-~' and an advertisement for .__ __________ __,' Other background 
information refers repeatedly to LJ and no other location. "Social Media Analytics" compare the 
publication's Instagram following to those oflocall !publications. 
The "Website Analysis Overview Report" for Toys for Boys shows a "Global Rank" of 10,636,815, and 
less than 5000 monthly visits, resulting in a "Category Rank" that reads "N/ A." 
For the above reasons, we withdraw the Director's finding that professional or major trade publications 
or other major media have published material about the Petitioner. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient#fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions o_f major significance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
In order to satisfy this criterion, petitioners must establish that not only have they made original 
contributions, but also that those contributions have been of major significance in the field. For 
example, a petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely implemented throughout the 
field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance. The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. See 
Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1995) quoted inAPWU 
v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619,626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003). 
The Petitioner initially claimed to have met this criterion. The Director requested additional evidence, 
stating that the Petitioner's initial evidence was deficient. The Petitioner's response to the request for 
evidence did not address the "contributions" criterion, focusing instead on the other three claimed criteria. 
Nevertheless, in the decision notice, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had satisfied this criterion. 
4 
Further examination of the record does not show that the Petitioner has satisfied the requirements of the 
criterion. 
The Petitioner asserted that his "state of the art culinary and immersive, experiential dining experiences 
... have provoked widespread commentary, received notice and recognition from others working in the 
field, and been analyzed by experts who have detailed the impact of his work on subsequent 
establishments." Beyond the published articles discussed above, the submitted evidence of the 
significance of the Petitioner's contributions consists of letters from individuals who have worked with 
the Petitioner in various capacities. 
The owner of1 l states that the Petitioner oversaw "the creation ofl Is stunning 
decor, interactive dining experience, and distinctive open kitchen." The executive chairman of1 I I I states that the Petitioner's "strategic vision was incor orated into eve hase of 
1 6 dining experience ,, and that, durilng the retitioner' s tenrur~e~,__ __________ ____, 
emerged as the leadingc:::J restaurant in " while other~-~ restaurants "have emerged as the 
top culinary companies in their respective categories and have contributed significantly to the increase of 
our holding company's annual revenues." 
While employed byD the Petitioner arranged for that company to become a client of th~ I I I described as providing "Public Relations, Events, Marketing and Social Networking." The owner 
and public relations director of the I I offers general praise for the Petitioner's abilities, stating, 
for instance, that he is "a distinct expert in hospitality branding" whose "innovation, creativity and 
analytical skills build[] solid brands." 
Al I restaurateur, who has worked with the Petitioner "many times over the last few years," states 
that the Petitioner "has different approaches to brand development and structure and a deep understanding 
of the right measurement of brand equity, metrics, and identity systems. He is definitely a prominent 
'crafter' of specialized brand stories and positioning statements." 
The letters offer the general assertion that the Petitioner has unique talents that have contributed to the 
success of several restaurant ventures, but they do not show the impact that the Petitioner has had outside 
of his specific restaurant projects. The Haute Living article indicates that the Petitioner "has been 
transformative to the international culinary scene," but does not elaborate except to identify some of his 
successful restaurant projects. 
The success of those projects led the Director to conclude that the Petitioner has performed in a leading 
or critical role for organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation. Such roles fall under 
a separate criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), and the Director duly took account of the Petitioner's 
claims in that regard, but the satisfaction of any one given criterion does not imply that the Petitioner has 
met others as well. As such, success in the restaurant industry is not inherently an original contribution 
of major significance. 
The Petitioner has not identified specific, original contributions that have had an impact not only on his 
own restaurant projects, but on the wider hospitality field. 
5 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we 
have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
G