sustained EB-1A Case: Culinary Arts

identifying data deleted to 
prrvent clearly unwarmntad 
iavaaien of personal privacy 
PUBLIC copy + 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and lmmigration Services 
Ofice ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: AU6 04 2010 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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 1 153(b)(I)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
Thank you, 
erry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 

Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska 
Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be sustained. 
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. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in the arts. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the 
requisite extraordinary ability through extensive documentation and sustained national or international 
acclaim. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement, 
specifically a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the 
regulation outlines ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). 
The petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of 
evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner meets at least three of the ten regulatory categories of 
evidence at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). For the reasons discussed below, we find that the petitioner meets 
the statutory and regulatory requirements for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
I. Law 
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 into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 

Page 3 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 10ISt Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). 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. 
Id. and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(3) requires that an alien demonstrate his or her sustained acclaim 
and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim and achievements must be 
established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award) or through meeting at least three of the following ten categories of evidence. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) 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; 
(iii) 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 
necessary translation; 
(iv) 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 allied field of specialization for which classification 
is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 

Page 4 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a petition 
filed under this classification, See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 11 15 (9fh Cir. 2010). Although the 
court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation of 
evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.' With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns 
about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have 
been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Id. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner 
failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at 1122 (citing to 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits determination" as the corollary to 
this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2), and "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim 
and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered "sustained 
national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary ability" visa. 
8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A)(i). 
Id. at 1119-1120. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits determination. In reviewing Service Center decisions, the AAO will 
apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO will conduct a 
new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step analysis rather than the 
two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 
F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), @flu', 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. 
DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo 
basis). 
11. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
I Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3)(vi). 

Page 5 
This petition, filed on July 14, 2008, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a Master Chef. We find that the petitioner's evidence meets the following categories of 
evidence under 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3). 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationully or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted evidence showing that, inter alia, he received gold medals at the 4th World 
or instance, the petitioner 
for his abalone dish. The 
petitioner also submitted evidence demonstrating the significance of his awards and that they were 
nationally or internationally recognized in his field. Accordingly, the petitioner has established that 
he meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in prqfessionul or mujor trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classijication is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
The petitioner submitted articles about him in and , In 
response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted independent circulation 
information indicating that these publications qualify as major media. Accordingly, the petitioner 
has established that he meets this criterion. 
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 ullied-field ofspecification for which class@cation is 
sought. 
the petitioner has established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high .salury or other signIJicantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the,field. 
The petitioner submitted copies of his 2007 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return and Form W-2 Wage 
and Tax Statements for 2007. The petitioner also submitted wage data from the Foreign Labor 
Certification Data Center Online Wage Library showing that his earnings are significantly high in 
relation to others in the field. Accordingly, the petitioner has established that he meets this criterion. 

Page 6 
In this case, the petitioner meets at least three of the ten categories of evidence that must be satisfied 
to establish the minimum eligibility requirements necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3). 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, we must next conduct a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien has sustained 
national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field 
of expertise." See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 
8 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 11 19-1 120. 
As indicated in our discussion of the evidence submitted under the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
tj 204.5(h)(3), the petitioner has submitted extensive documentation of his culinary achievements. 
The submitted evidence is sufficient to demonstrate the petitioner's sustained national or 
international acclaim as a Master Chef and that his achievements have been recognized in the 
culinarv industrv. In resDonse to the director's reauest for evidence. the ~etitioner submitted a letter 
from sumniarizing several of the petitioner's 
accomplishments: 
I have known Master Chef [the petitioner] since the early 1980's when I met him at an 
international cooking competition in Beijing, China, and subsequently we have participated 
together in many other culinary and charitable events in both China and North America. 
[The ~etitionerl is internationallv recorrnized for his extraordinarv skills in cooking abalone; 
he is ;nternatioially known as the - ~ecause- is 
very difficult to prepare and cook properly, only an extraordinary and skilled chef could be 
bestowed this title. 
[The petitioner] has been honored with many prestigious awards for his extraordinary ability 
in Chinese Culinary Arts, including the Gold Award for International Famous Chef awarded 
In 2004, biggest brands worldwide, invited [the 
petitioner] to display his extraordinary skills in Chinese cuisine at a series of culinary shows 
in Malaysia. He was chosen for this event due to his international notoriety and achievements 
in the Chinese culinary arts. Entrance to the demonstration was by invitation only and solely 
to culinarv ~rofessionals. In 2005. [the ~etitionerl was an~ointed Honorarv Chairman of the 

Page 7 
In addition, during the same year, he was invited to be the judging Member of the 
International Review committee for the 2005 International Golden Chef Competition in 
Mala sia. Also in 2005, [the petitioner] was appointed as- 
-where 1 am also a member. 
Since December 2000, [the petitioner] has been a member of the prestigious LCommanderie 
des Cordons Bleus de France ("Cordons Bleus"), the world's premier culinary organization 
of which membership is awarded to only a select group of expert chefs chosen from around 
the world. Cordons Bleus is a well-recognized cuisine authority worldwide, which grants 
"Cordons Bleus" awards to honor outstanding restaurants and individuals worldwide that 
make a significant contribution to the field of cuisine art. 
During his culinary career, [the petitioner] has been an Executive Chef at some of the most 
prominent hotels and restaurants in China, Hong Kong, and Australia including the Peninsula 
Palace Beijing, Beijing New Century Hotel, Nanhai Yucun Restaurant, and Regent Pearl 
F&B Amusement Co., Ltd. 
I have encountered numerous gifted chefs worldwide, but it is rare to come across an 
extraordinary chef such as [the petitioner] who masters the skills and is an artisan in the 
Chinese culinary arts. 
In this case, we find that the petitioner's achievements as a chef are commensurate with sustained 
national or international acclaim at the very top of his field. 
111. Conclusion 
In review, while not all of the petitioner's evidence carries the weight imputed to it by counsel, the 
petitioner has submitted evidence qualifying under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
and established a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who 
have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor" and "sustained national or international acclaim." 
His achievements have been recognized in his field of expertise. The petitioner has established that 
he seeks to continue working in the same field in the United States. The petitioner has established 
that his entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
Therefore, the petitioner has established eligibility for the benefit sought under section 203 of the 
Act. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1361. The petitioner has sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The decision of the director is withdrawn. The appeal is sustained and the petition is 
approved.