remanded EB-1A Case: Culinary Arts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 22, 2024 In Re: 31032107 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in culinary arts. 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. Although the Director addressed criteria 
pertinent to the requested classification in a prior request for evidence (RFE), the Director addressed 
eligibility criteria for a separate classification in the decision denying the benefit request. The matter 
is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will remand the appeal. 
The Petitioner indicated on the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, that he requested 
classification as an individual of extraordinary ability, as contemplated by section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the 
Act. The Petitioner did not indicate on the Form 1-140 that he requested classification as a member of 
the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts 
or business, and a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is attached to this EB-2 
immigrant classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2)(B)(i). 
In a prior RFE, the Director acknowledged that the Petitioner requested classification as an individual 
of extraordinary ability. Furthermore, in the RFE the Director addressed eligibility criteria particular 
to the extraordinary ability classification. Nevertheless, in the decision the Director addressed whether 
the record satisfies the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent 
decision Matter ofDhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), ultimately concluding that the Petitioner 
"is not eligible for, and does not merit, a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion." However, 
the Director did not address whether the Petitioner is eligible for classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability, as he requested on the Form T-140. Moreover, the record does not clarify why 
the Director addressed eligibility criteria other than that which the Petitioner requested. 
On appeal, the Petitioner objects to the Director's misapplication of national interest waiver criteria to 
the Petitioner's request for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability, asserting that it 
"demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the distinct requirements for each classification." 
The Petitioner reasserts on appeal that he is eligible for the classification he requested. 
Because the Director did not address whether the record satisfies eligibility criteria for the 
classification the Petitioner requested when denying the benefit request, there is not a sufficient 
adverse decision for our adjudication on appeal. See generally 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i) (requiring 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to explain in writing the specific reasons for denying a 
benefit request). 
Based on the foregoing, we will remand the matter for the entry of a new decision. The Director may 
request any additional evidence considered pertinent to the new determination regarding whether the 
Petitioner qualifies for the requested classification. As such, we express no opinion regarding the 
ultimate resolution of this case on remand. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
2