dismissed O-1B Case: Culinary Arts

• 'Identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of per;.onal \lf1Vacy 
y\JllLIC COP\: 
u.s. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Irmnigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: SEP:I 0 2010 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker under Section 10 l(a)(l5)(O)(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1101(a)(15)(O)(i) 
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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
infonnation that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Fonn 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $585. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
erry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to classifY the beneficiary as an 0-1 nonimmigrant 
pursuant to section 101(a)(l5)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), as an alien with 
extraordinary ability in the arts. The petitioner, which is self-described as a premier provider of casino branded 
seeks to employ the beneficiary in the position of French Specialty Chef, Master Cook at 
The petitioner has employed the beneficiary pursuant to an approved 0-1 classification 
petition since December 3 I, 2007 and seeks to extend his status for three additional years. 
The director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary is an alien of 
extraordinary ability in the culinary arts. The director determined that the petitioner established only one of the 
six evidentiary criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iv)(B). 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and forwarded 
the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that sufficient evidence was 
presented attesting to the beneficiary's distinction in the field, and suggests that the director placed undue 
emphasis on the beneficiary's current and past job titles rather than the beneficiary's actual qualifications. Counsel 
further asserts that the director failed to apply the preponderance of evidence standard when adjudicating the 
petition, particularly in light of the prior approval granting the beneficiary 0-1 status for employment with the 
petitioner. Finally, counsel suggests that the director erroneously concluded that only an executive chef could 
qualifY for 0-1 classification. Counsel submits a brief and additional evidence in support of the appeal. 
I. The Law 
Section IOI(a)(l5)(0)(i) of the Act provides classification to a qualified alien who has extraordinary ability in the 
sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim, whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation, and who seeks 
to enter the United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(ii) defines, in pertinent part: 
Arts includes any field of creative activity or endeavor such as, but not limited to, fme arts, visual 
arts, culinary arts, and performing arts. 
Extraordinary ability in the field of arts means distinction. Distinction means a high level of 
achievement in the arts evidenced by a degree of skill and recognition substantially above that 
ordinarily encountered to the extent that a person described as prominent is renowned, leading, 
or well-known in the field of arts. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iv) states, in pertinent part: 
I Subsequent to the filing of the petition in May 2009, the beneficiary received a promotion to the position of 
Chef Touman!. 
Page 3 
Evidentiary criteria for an 0-1 alien of extraordinary ability in the arts. To qualifY as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in the field of arts, the alien must be recognized as being prominent in his 
or her field of endeavor as demonstrated by the following: 
(A) Evidence that the alien has been nominated for, or the recipient of, significant national 
or international awards or prizes in the particular field such as an Academy Award, an 
Emmy, a Grammy, or a Director's Guild Award; or 
(B) At least three of the following fonns of documentation: 
(1) Evidence that the alien has perfonned, and will perfonn, services as a lead or 
starring participant in productions or events which have a distinguished 
reputation as evidenced by critical reviews, advertisements, publicity releases, 
publications, contracts, or endorsements; 
(2) Evidence that the alien has achieved national or international recognition for 
achievements evidenced by critical reviews or other published materials by or 
about the individual in major newspapers, trade journals, magazines, or other 
publications; 
(3) Evidence that the alien has perfonned, and will perfonn, in a lead, starring, or 
critical role for organizations and establishments that have a distinguished 
reputation evidenced by articles in newspapers, trade journals, publications, or 
testimonials; 
(4) Evidence that the alien has a record of major commercial or critically acclaimed 
successes as evidenced by such indicators as title, rating, standing in the field, 
box office receipts, motion picture or television ratings, and other occupational 
achievements reported in trade journals, major newspapers, or other 
publications; 
(5) Evidence that the alien has received significant recognition for achievements 
from organizations, critics, government agencies, or other recognized experts in 
the field in which the alien is engaged. Such testimonials must be in a fonn 
which clearly indicates the author's authority, expertise, and knowledge of the 
alien's achievements; or 
(6) Evidence that the alien has either commanded a high salary or will command a 
high salary or other substantial remuneration for services in relation to others in 
the field, as evidenced by contracts or other reliable evidence; or 
(C) If the criteria in paragraph (0)(3)(iv) of this section do not readily apply to the 
beneficiary'S occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence in order to 
establish the beneficiary'S eligibility. 
Page 4 
Additionally, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(2)(iii) provides: 
The evidence submitted with an 0 petition shall conform to the following: 
(A) Affidavits, contracts, awards, and similar documentation must reflect the nature of the 
alien's achievement and be executed by an officer or responsible person employed by the 
institution, firm, establishment, or organization where the work was performed. 
(B) Affidavits written by present or former employers or recognized experts certifying to the 
recognition and extraordinary ability ... shall specifically describe the alien's recognition 
and ability or achievement in factual terms and set forth the expertise of the affiant and the 
manner in which the affiant acquired such information. 
The decision of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USClS) in a particular case is dependent upon the 
quality of the evidence submitted by the petitioner, not just the quantity of the evidence. The mere fact that the 
petitioner has submitted evidence relating to three of the criteria as required by the regulation does not 
necessarily establish that the alien is eligible for 0-1 classification. 59 Fed Reg at 41820. 
In determining the beneficiary's eligibility under these criteria, the AAO will follow a two-part approach recently 
set forth in a decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Kazarian v. USCIS, 20 I 0 WL 
725317 (9th Cir. March 4, 2010). Similar to the regulations governing this nonimmigrant classification, the 
regulations reviewed by the Kazarian court require the petitioner to submit evidence pertaining to at least three 
out of ten alternative criteria in order to establish a beneficiary's eligibility as an alien with extraordinary ability. 
Cf 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Specifically, the Kazarian 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)." ld 
at *6 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 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 ofthe[ir] field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. § 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. § 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. § I I 53(b)(l)(A)(i). 
ld. at *3. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then, if qualifying under at 
least three criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination. The final merits determination 
analyzes whether the evidence is consistent with the statutory requirement of "extensive documentation" and the 
Page 5 
regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of 
the field of endeavor." 
The AAO finds the Kazarian court's two part approach to be appropriate for evaluating the regulatory criteria set 
forth for 0-1 nonimmigrant petitions for aliens of extraordinary ability at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii), (iv) and (v). 
Therefore, 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 So/lane v. DOJ, 
381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004)(noting that the AAO reviews appeals on a de novo basis). 
In the present matter, the petitioner has failed to submit evidence that satisfies three of the evidentiary criteria at 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iv)(B), and has not established that the beneficiary has a high level of achievement in the 
arts evidenced by a degree of skill and recognition substantially above that ordinarily encountered to the extent 
that he is prominent, renowned, leading, or well-known in the field of culinary arts. 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(0)(3)(ii). 
II. The Beneficiary's Eligibility under the Evidentiary Criteria 
The beneficiary in this matter is a native and citizen of the Philippines. 
The petitioner states that the evidence submitted in support of the petition satisfies at least four of the six criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iv)(B) and establishes that the beneficiary is renowned, leading and well-known in the 
field of culinary arts. In denying the petition, the director detennined that the evidence submitted meets only one 
of these criteria. After careful review of the record, it must be concluded that the petitioner has failed to 
overcome the grounds for denial. 
As noted above, simply submitting evidence to satisfY the evidentiary criteria will not automatically establish 
eligibility for this visa classification. The mere fact that the petitioner has submitted evidence relating to three 
of the criteria as required by the regulation does not necessarily establish that the alien is eligible for 0-1 
classification. 59 Fed Reg 41818, 41820 (August 15, 1994). 
If the petitioner establishes through the submission of documentary evidence that the beneficiary has been 
nominated for or has been the recipient of, significant national or international awards or prizes in the particular 
field pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iv)(A), then it will meet its burden of proof with respect to the 
beneficiary's eligibility for 0-1 classification. The regulation lists an Academy Award, an Emmy, a Grammy, or 
a Director's Guild award as examples of qualifYing significant awards or prizes. The petitioner does not claim that 
the beneficiary qualifies for 0-1 classification on the basis of his nomination for or receipt of such an award. 
Accordingly, the petitioner must establish the beneficiary's eligibility under at least three of the six criteria set 
forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( 0)(3)(iv)(B). The petitioner indicates that the beneficiary meets at least four criteria. 
Page 6 
Evidence that the alien has performed, and will perform services as a lead or starring 
participant in productions or events which have a distinguished reputation as evidenced by 
critical reviews, advertisements, publicity releases, publications, contracts, or endorsements. 
The petitioner states that the her.efici.rv 
role as an assistant chief cook 
and 
petitioner's restaurant. The AAO notes that the petitioner relies on essentially the same claims and evidence in 
support of this criterion and the criterion at 8 C.F.R § 214.2(0)(3)(iv)(B)(3). 
In its letter dated April 9, 2009, the petitioner stated the following in support of its assertion that the beneficiary 
satisfies this criterion: 
[The beneficiary] was previously Assistant Chief Cook 
where, in addition 
was further heil;htened 
his duties 
its distinguished reputation 
remllar CHems .... [The beneficiary] vibrantly performed 
As such, [the beneficiary] was actively engaged in Filipino 
menu service in conjunction with the coordination of VIP service and management. From his 
very first day at [the beneficiary's] skill and expertise in the field of 
culinary arts, allowed him to successfully provide excellent service for his clients and prepare 
various feasts of enormous magnitude. 
Upon classification as an 0-1 alien of extraordinary ability and as French Specialty Chef, Master 
Cook, [the beneficiary] will continue to further perform culinary services as a lead participant in 
events of distinguished reputation at [the petitioner's] restaurant. His responsibilities ... will 
include the direct supervision of his support staff. These services and events include preparing 
authentic French Cuisine for both French and non-French clientele, VIPs, and private parties in a 
In response to a request for additional evidence ") issued on August 11, 2009, counsel emphasized that the 
beneficiary'S former emlpl()yer, "regularly hosts celebrity clients and supports prestigious 
that the beneficiary, in his proposed role, will be responsible for "organizing festivals, 
other galas hosted by [the petitioner's] restaurant." 
Upon review, the evidence submitted does not establish that the beneficiary meets this criterion. The plain 
language of the regulation requires that the petitioner identiry with specificity the events or productions in which 
the beneficiary performed services in a lead or starring capacity, document the distinguished reputation of such 
events or productions, and provide evidence of the beneficiary'S role in such events in the form of critical reviews, 
advertisements, publicity releases, publications, contracts, or endorsements. 
The AAO acknowledges the distinguished reputation and the 
petitioner. These establishments may host celebrity and VIP clientele, well-publicized events, and entertainment 
Page 7 
productions that enjoy a distinguished reputation. However, the petitioner has neither identified nor documented 
through submission of the evidence prescribed by regulation, the beneficiary's lead or starring role in such events. 
The majority of the evidence in the record pertaining to the beneficiary's accomplishments is testimonial 
evidence, and does not include reviews, advertisements, publicity releases or publications that mention him by 
name. Moreover, the testimonial evidence provided also fails to mention the beneficiary's services as a lead or 
starring participant in any particular events or productions with a distinguished reputation. It is insufficient to 
establish that the beneficiary works and has worked for a distinguished establishment that regularly host events. 
The petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. The evidence submitted is more 
relevant to the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. e 214.2(0)(3)(iv)(B)(3) and will be discussed in more detail below. 
Evidence that the alien has achieved national or international recognition for achievements 
evidenced by critical reviews or other published materials by or about the individual in major 
newspapers, trade journals, magazines, or other publications 
The petitioner initially indicated that the beneficiary can meet this criterion based on his rec:ognitlion 
connpetiti(lO held at 
The director determined that the petitioner did not submit evidence to satisfy this criterion, noting that the 
plain language of the regulations clearly requires submission of published materials by or about the 
beneficiary in major newspapers, trade journals, magazines or other publications. The AAO agrees that the 
evidence submitted is not in the proper format. The petitioner has not submitted evidence of any critical reviews 
or any type of published materials by or about the beneficiary in any type of publication. 
Evidence that the alien has performed, and will perform, in a lead, starring, or critical role for 
organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation evidenced by articles in 
newspapers, trade journals, publications, or testimonials. 
The petitioner asserts that the beneficiary meets this criterion based on his current and previous employment with 
three restaurants that enjoy a distinguished reputation. As noted above, sufficient evidence has been 
submitted to establish that 
_ enjoy a question is whether the 
beneficiary has performed and will perform in a lead, starring or critical role with these establishments. The 
record of proceeding contains two letters from the beneficiary's prior employer, The first 
letter, dated December I, 2004, is from __ human resources manager, states that beneficiary 
was employed by the restaurant and held the following positions: Assistant Chief Cook (April I, 2004 -
November 30, 2004); Management Trainee (Kitchen) (August 16,2003 - March 30, 2004); and Cook III (April 
4,2003 - August 15,2003). 
Page 8 
This is to confinn that [the beneficiary] was employed 
_ His employment records with the company were as follows: 
I" employment 
2nd employment 
February 6, 2002 to November 30, 2002 
April 4, 2003 to November 30,2004 
With his loyal service to the company and diligence in the perfonnance of his duty, [the 
beneficiary] rose from the ranks until he reached the above stated position under the 
During his stint with the company, he has proven his honesty and 
integrity in doing his job. Furthennore, he has exhibited good customer service orientation 
towards internal and external customers. He has proven to be well-versed in his duties and 
responsibilities. 
His perfonnance has been consistently evaluated to be ranging from above average to 
outstanding. Moreover, [the beneficiary] has not committed any violation of the company policy 
and complied with the set technical standards of the restaurant operations. He has generally 
reached the expectations of the company. 
In a letter dated September 22,2009, counsel for the petitioner further stated: 
Prior to serving as Assistant Chief Cook [the beneficiary] received the opportunity to participate 
in the lead role of Cook III for the dis1tin~:uished 
Key to the fact that [the beneficiary's] duties as Cook III were that of a lead pru1icipant 
a supporting nature, is that while working [the 
beneficiary] had the pleasure of creating new dishes to be featured on the daily menu. It is no 
wonder then that just within a few months of undertaking this lead role, [the beneficiary] was 
promoted to Management Trainee. Once [the beneficiary] completed this exclusive management 
program, he was invited to partake in the lead role of Assistant Chief Cook at _ 
_ [The remained in this position and created only the finest culinary 
masterpieces alongside . [The beneficiary] excelled not only in his 
cuisine, but also in culinary design. As such, it is evident that [the beneficiary] has extraordinary 
ability in creating and presenting extraordinary dishes. 
Finally, the petitioner submitted a letter from acclaimed celebrity chef, who noted the 
distinguished reputation of the and stated that the beneficiary "rose through the ranks at 
this restaurant in a very short period" before continuing his culinary studies in the United States. 
Upon review, the evidence submitted fails to demonstrate that any of the beneficiary's roles at the _ 
_ were in a lead or critical role. In order to establish that the petitioner perfonned a leading or critical 
role for an organization or establishment with a distinguished reputation, the petitioner must establish the 
nature of his role within the entire organization or establishment and the reputation of the organization or 
establishment. 
While __ acknowledges the beneficiary's honesty, integrity, knowledge of his job duties and 
responsibilities, customer service orientation, and "above average to outstanding" evaluations, the AAO cannot 
equate her conclusion that he "generally reached the expectations of the company," with a finding that he was 
employed in a role that was leading or critical to the organization. The letters submitted from the prior employer 
provided little or no discussion of the beneficiary's role or responsibilities. Similarly, while_ stated 
that the beneficiary "rose through the ranks" at the his statement falls significantly short 
of establishing that the beneficiary achieved the role within the establishment. 
Counsel has provided her account of the beneficiary's duties, the beneficiary's close working relationship with 
the chef, and her opinion that the beneficiary "performed as lead 
parti(;ipanlt'" in the restaurant "above and beyond the call of his duties as Assistant Chief Cook," and served in 
a "lead" position as "cook III." However, it is unclear on what evidence counsel bases these statements, as 
they go well beyond the conclusions that can reasonably be drawn from the testimonial letters addressing the 
beneficiary's employment with this restaurant. Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the 
assertions of counsel will not satisfY the petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel 
do not constitute evidence. Matter oj Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter oj Laureano, 19 
I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter oJRamirez-Sanchez, 171&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). 
There is no evidence demonstrating how the beneficiary'S role as Cook III, Management Trainee, or Assistant 
Chief Cook differentiated him from others where he worked. For instance, the petitioner did not submit evidence 
such as an organizational chart which would demonstrate the beneficiary's position within the organization, or 
otherwise describe the hierarchy among the kitchen staff. Mere title, without specific information regarding the 
beneficiary's actual duties or explanation of relevance or importance of that position within the hierarchy of the 
organization, is not sufficient to establish the beneficiary'S leading or critical role. Typically, senior restaurant 
staff use a "chef" rather than a "cook" job title. While it is possible that the job title conventions are different in 
fine dining establishments this is a fact that should be established through evidence. The job 
title "Cook III" or "assistant no insight into the relative importance of this job when the 
hipr"rt,hv is unknown. While the AAO does not doubt that the beneficiary provided valuable services to the_ 
the petitioner has failed to support the proposition that he has performed a leading or critical 
role for that establishment. 
the beneficiary served as a chef intern at 
Counsel indicates that the beneficiary "worked alongside the 
very talented and passionate The petitioner submitted ample evidence to establish _ 
_ acclaim as a chef and the distinguished reputation of his restaurant, but did not provide a letter from the 
restaurant discussing the leading or critical role the beneficiary held within that organization as an intern. 2 
2 Counsel indicated in her letter dated September 22,2009 that the petitioner was submitting a letter from _ 
_ as part of Exhibit 26 in response to the RFE; however, that exhibit only contain~ biography. 
Upon careful review of the record of proceeding, the AAO was unable to locate a letter from_ 
Counsel does not further refer to the letter or its contents. 
Page 10 
__ states that he is aware of the beneficiary's current employment with the ~titi<:lI1<~ 
of an intemship at . He further indicates that he is acquainted "with both 
_ owners of these two restaurants" and that he can "unequivocally state that they could and would only select 
those at the top of their field to work for them." While statement indicates his expert opinion that 
_ would only hire the most highly skilled chefs to work in his kitchen, it does not speak to the nature of 
the beneficiary's role or level or responsibility as an intern at or how he played a leading or critical role 
for the restaurant. 
Counsel further states in her letter dated SelJtelmber berleficial:), ""ih,,"ntiv p,~rforrm,d in his lead 
role as Intern Chef She indicates that 
"despite his title, [the beneficiary] was actively engaged in classic preparations of French cuisine ranging from 
stocks to sauces; vegetable and meats; and desserts." As with counsel's statements referenced above, it is unclear 
how counsel arrived at her conclusion that the beneficiary's position as an intern was a "lead role" or how he was 
deemed "irreplaceable" by the executive chef at the restaurant, as there is virtually no independent evidence with 
respect to his role at this establishment. Counsel's statements cannot be accepted as testimonial evidence in 
support of this criterion. Again, without documentary evidence to support the 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. at 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. I (BIA 
1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 506 (BIA 1980). 
Based on the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary's role as an intern was of a leading 
or critical nature to •••••••• 
The petitioner further indicates that the beneficiary played a lead and critical role in the role of French 
Specialty Chef and Master Cook at the position he held at the time of filing and for 
approximately the previous two years. In its letter of support dated April 9, 2009, the petitioner stated that the 
position "is not simply that of an ordinary Chef, but rather one requiring artistic precision, experience and 
expertise in conjunction with direction and supervision." The petitioner emphasized that service of authentic 
French food is essential to the success of the business, and that the beneficiary's "product/ingredient 
knowledge, cooking style, taste and unique presentation of French cuisine are critical to the restaurant's 
success and customer loyalty." The petitioner particularly noted the beneficiary's skill and expertise in 
preparing hot appetizers. The petitioner stated that the beneficiary's daily duties include daily execution of 
station mis en place, service and menu item execution, working within guidelines established by the 
Executive chef and _ assisting in verifYing inventory rotations and daily orders, assisting in new 
menu idea development, assisting in new purveyor contacts and research for sourcing new products, assisting 
in the organization and execution for external functions, and overseeing the training and development of 
current and new staff. The petitioner stated that "chefs of the highest caliber such as [the beneficiary] playa 
leading and critical role in maintaining [the petitioner's] Culinary Department's competitive ]rowess." 
The testimonial evidence submitted in support of this claim includes letters from the petitioner's current and 
previous Executive Chefs and fro~ 
In a letter dated April 29, 2009,_ states: 
Page II 
[The beneficiary] is integral to our quest for the third Michelin star. [The beneficiary] is a 
chef whom I personally recognized based on his extraordinary ability in the culinary arts and 
he is a valuable asset to the culinary brigade. He is fully committed to our goals and exhibits 
his passion for tradition and the highest possible quality on a daily basis. Each chef and cook 
has a distinctive role in the culinary brigade and the brigade must work together flawlessly. 
Again, [the beneficiary] demonstrates this daily and plays a critical role in our kitchen and its 
internationally-recognized success. It is mastery of the art and consistency in the delivery 
that will earn its third Michelin star; [the beneficiary] understands this 
and puts it into practice with every service. For every table, every plate, every person, he 
delivers excellence. 
In a letter dated March 15, 2009,_current executive chef states: 
[The beneficiary] has been an integral member of the culinary brigade at our establishment 
for the past two years. During his time with us he has shown continual passion for the 
industry and a desire to evolve both professionally and personally. Never content with the 
status quo, [the beneficiary] demonstrates to all of our team that he is always searching to 
better himself and his work. The characteristics of dedication, professionalism, punctuality 
and focus are all apt descriptions of his work. [The beneficiary] has a genuine 
mcler:standing of the of cuisine has become renowned for in the world 
The subtleties utilization of only the finest seasonal 
ingredients, and perfection of technique are the foundation of our cuisine and the daily focus 
of the staff. [The beneficiary] is a true asset to our restaurant with regards to these elements. 
He takes direction well and is able to understand and execute what is required of the position 
he is working. His experience thus far has included multiple positions within the brigade, as 
well as experience in special functions and off premise quantity oriented events. As a 
management team, we rely heavily on [the beneficiary's] work and are confident in his 
abilities as a chef. He is a valuable asset and an essential element to the continued success of 
The record contains a letter dated November 3,2007 from 
petitioner's restaurant, who states: 
former executive chef for the 
My expertise allows me to comment on the work of [the beneficiary]. His abilities in the 
kitchen go beyond the ordinary and he excels in the responsibilities given to him. [The 
beneficiary] is highly regarded among chefs he has worked with, and his talent was 
recognized by master chef_ when he joined the culinary brigade in Las Vegas. 
_ restaurants are an institution in the culinary world, and it is with good reason that 
[the beneficiary] was picked to help continue his tradition in the United States. His 
professionalism, focus and dedication to the craft is a key element in the daily operations of 
the restaurant and are integral in assuring that quality and efficiency are unwavering. 
opmlOn 
noted that he is personally acquainted with_ and expressed his 
"could and would only select those at the top of their field" to work with him. 
Page 12 
Finally, counsel addressed the beneficiary's role as French Specialty Chef and Master Cook as follows: 
In light of his culinary prowess so efficiently displayed [the beneficiary] 
transitioned as lead and starring participant in the role of French Specialty Chef and Master Cook 
In this capacity, [the beneficiary] had exclusive responsibility in the 
creation of all appetizers, special and daily. Moreover, critical to insuring 
~aintained its high standards of perfection and distinction, [the beneficiary] hand-selected 
products and ingredients to create dishes that only a chef of his level of expertise could carry out 
to execute specialty appetizer's [sic] to please the palates of the most discriminating and up-
market food connoisseurs in the world. 
Counsel goes on to state that the beneficiary "worked very closely" In 
new menu idea development, "played a leading role in coordinating new purveyor contracts and researching for 
sourcing new products, and was "key to the prestigious culinary team in organizing festivals, Master Chef 
Dinners, Charity Events, and other galas." Finally, counsel noted that the beneficiary "oversaw the training and 
development of current and new staff, while researching new individuals for potential future openings." 
Finally, counsel stated in response to the RFE that the beneficiary had been promoted to the position of Chef 
Toumant while the petition was pending. The petitioner provided a copy of its standard position description for 
this role. According to the job summary for the position, the Chef Toumant is "responsible for the preparation of 
various entrees and side items required by station assignment," and "responsible for product ordering and 
inventory rotation as required by station assignment," and "covers other line stations for backup as needed." 
According to the job description, the position supervises master cooks/commis in their job responsibilities, and is 
supervised by a restaurant chef and/or sous chef, who monitor the chefs specific duties, procedures and products. 
Counsel noted that the beneficiary will be supervising one Master Cook and one Commis Chef, and stated that his 
new role elevates his overall position within the petitioner's culinary team. 
The director determined that the beneficiary does not meet this criterion, noting that while many individuals play 
an important role for a restaurant or kitchen, not every individual working in the kitchen can be credited with 
performing a lead or starring role. The director concluded that "an individual may satisJY this criterion only when 
employed in a starring, leading or critical role at a restaurant, such as executive chef." The director also declined 
to consider evidence of the beneficiary's promotion from Master CooklFrench Specialty Chef to Chef Toumant, 
noting that USCIS cannot consider facts that have come into being subsequent to the filing of the petition. The 
director cited to Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm. 1971), Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 
176 (Assoc. Comm. 1998), Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988) and Matter of Bardouille, 18 
I&NDec. 114(BIA 1981). 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director failed to give proper consideration to the opin ions 
erroneously applied her "non-expert opinion" that only an executive chef 
can hold a lead or critical role among a restaurant's kitchen staff. Counsel asserts that the definition of "arts" at 8 
C.F.R. § 2l4.2(0)(3)(ii) includes not only principal creators and performers but other essential persons. Therefore 
counsel asserts that in the same way that an instrumentalist in an orchestra can meet the same criteria for 0-1 
status as the conductor of that orchestra, or in the same way that a dancer in a performance can meet same criteria 
Page 13 
for 0-1 status as the choreographer, so, too, can a French Specialty Chef (Master Cook) and a Chef Tournant 
meet the same criteria for 0-1 status as an Executive Chef 
Counsel further asserts that the director improperly excluded evidence that the beneficiary was promoted while 
the petition was pending, noting that the petitioner did not provide the information "in order to prove that the 
beneficiary now qualified for 0-1 status." Counsel emphasizes that USCIS already found that the beneficiary 
qualified for 0-1 status when it approved his initial petition. 
Upon review, counsel's assertions with regard to the beneficiary'S promotion are persuasive In part. The 
beneficiary was promoted while the petition was pending, and the petitioner took the correct course of action by 
notifYing USCIS of this change in response to the RFE. The information provided confmns that, if the petition is 
approved, the beneficiary would continue to work in his claimed area of extraordinary ability, and the AAO 
cannot find that the promotion was a material change that would warrant the filing of a new amended petition. 
The AAO is also satisfied that the petitioner was not attempting to make changes to the petition in order to make a 
deficient petition confirm to USCIS requirements. Regardless, in order to satisfY this criterion, the petitioner must 
still establish that the beneficiary has been employed in a lead, starring or critical role with the petitioner's 
organization in the past, regardless of whether his role as Chef Tournant qualifies as such a role. 
Upon review, the petitioner has not established that the role of Master Cook, French Specialty Chef, was in a lead, 
starring or critical role. As noted above, at issue for this criterion are the position the beneficiary was selected to 
fill and the reputation of the entity that selected him. The distinguished reputation of the petitioner's restaurant 
has been established. Employment among the culinary brigade of this restaurant is evidence of a degree of 
recognition. However, the AAO cannot conclude that a "Master Cook" role in and of itself is a lead, starring or 
critical role within the restaurant. For instance, there is no organizational chart or other evidence documenting 
how the beneficiary's position fit within the general hierarchy of the restaurants culinary brigade. Although the 
petitioner indicates that the position is responsible for supervision of staff, the petitioner has not identified the 
number of types of employees the beneficiary supervised as a master cook. However, there is reason to believe 
that there are many higher-ranked roles within the hierarchy of the petitioner's kitchen. 
The AAO concurs with counsel that an executive chef is not necessarily the only lead or critical role within a 
restaurant, particularly in the case of a high-end fine dining establishment such as the petitioner's. The names of 
the petitioner's general manager, chef de cuisine, sous chef and pastry chef appear in reviews, articles and press 
materials about the restaurant. These are the types of roles that are typically attributed with responsibility for the 
success or standing of a restaurant to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading, starring or critical role." 
The AAO does not doubt that the lower-level chefs working in relative anonymity may contribute just as 
significantly to the final products presented to the restaurant's clientele, but the evidence does not establish how 
the beneficiary, as "master cook" served in a leading role that would place him among the top tier of chefs within 
the kitchen. 
The testimonial letters submitted establish that the beneficiary is considered to be a valuable employee and a 
highly-skilled culinary professional. According all culinary professionals hired by the petitioner's 
restaurant are extremely talented or they would not be offered employment with one of the country's finest 
restaurants. It does not follow that every talented culinary professional working in the petitioner's highly 
acclaimed kitchen is employed in a "leading, starring or critical" role in the company. For example,_ 
Page 14 
praises the beneficiary's culinary knowledge, technique, work ethic, professionalism, and punctuality, and 
describes him as a "true asset" and "essential element" to the restaurant's continued success. However, he also 
notes that beneficiary'S ability to take direction and notes that his experience has included "multiple positions." 
These statements are insufficient to establish that the beneficiary is employed in a leading or critical role. _ 
_ does not discuss the beneficiary's role or responsibilities with any specificity or differentiate the beneficiary 
from other master cooks within the kitchen. 
_statement also suggests that every employee in the culinary team is considered an "essential element" 
of the restaurant. He states that "the attention to detail and rigor of work ethic demanded of the culinary team at 
is a defining theme amongst everyone involved in the experience that our guests receive," 
that "every element in the chain must be faultless," and that "this is no more true than with regards to our 
employees. " 
the petitioner's former executive chef, similarly praises the beneficiary'S "professionalism, focus and 
dedication," states that the beneficiary'S abilities are "beyond the ordinary" and indicates that he excels in his 
responsibilities. However, he does not discuss the beneficiary'S role or the leading, starring or critical nature of 
that role, although he, too, concludes that the beneficiary "is a key element in the daily operation of the 
restaurant," and "integral in assuring that quality and efficiency are unwavering." 
Finally, the AAO recognizes that . states that the beneficiary is "a valuable asset to the culinary 
brigade," and "plays a critical role in our kitchen and its internationally recognized reputation." Again, the 
beneficiary'S value to the petitioning organization is not in question. _ statement indicates that "each 
chef and cook has a distinctive role in the culinary brigade and the brigade must work together flawlessly." 
Presumably, all of the chefs and cooks in their distinctive roles are considered to be critical to the success. _ 
_ does not discuss the beneficiary'S specific role as a master cook or how that role is considered to be 
leading, starring or critical relative to other kitchen staff. 
Overall, the documentation submitted by the petitioner does not establish that the beneficiary, as a master cook, 
was responsible for the success or standing of the petitioner's restaurant to a degree consistent with the meaning 
of "leading, starring or critical." Therefore the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary has been 
employed in a lead, starring or critical role as of the date the petition was filed, notwithstanding the petitioner's 
distinguished reputation. 
Nor can we conclude that the beneficiary'S new role as chef toumant would satisfy the requirement that he 
will be performing in such a role. The position appears to be one step higher in the hierarchy of the 
petitioner's culinary staff in comparison to the master cook position. However, as discussed above, the 
record is devoid of evidence that would illuminate where either position falls in the overall hierarchy of the 
restaurant's culinary staff. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
Furthermore, the plain language of the regulations require the submission of evidence in the form of published 
articles or testimonials in support of this criterion. The petitioner has submitted testimonial evidence, but all of the 
testimonials pre-date the beneficiary'S promotion to the position of Chef Touman!. As discussed above, the 
.. 
Page 15 
testimonials do not establish that the role of master cook is a lead, starring or critical role within the restaurant, 
such that it could be reasonably concluded that the new role is also a qualifYing role for the purposes of meeting 
this criterion. 
The AAO also acknowledges counsel's argument that the definition of "arts" does not only include "principal 
creators and performers." The definition at 8 c.P.R. § 214.2(0)(3 )(ii) provides many examples of "essential 
persons" who may quality under the arts category, however, the AAO notes that none of these examples are in the 
culinary arts field. While it is true that both an instrumentalist and a conductor, and a dancer and choreographer 
may be eligible for 0-1 status based on their prominence in their respective fields, the AAO cannot find that there 
is a similar relationship between a "master cook" and an "executive chef' or other high-level chef within a 
restaurant. Not every professional instrumentalist in a critically acclaimed orchestra or every dancer in a 
renowned ballet company can be considered to be in a lead, starring or critical role. Similarly, not every chef 
working in the kitchen of an internationally-recognized restaurant can be considered to be serving in a lead, 
starring or critical role. As discussed above, the AAO does not find that it is necessary for a beneficiary to be an 
executive chef in order to meet this criterion in the field of culinary arts, but it is the petitioner's burden to 
establish how lesser roles rise to the level of leading or critical within the individual organization. As discussed, 
the testimonial evidence submitted does not meet this burden. 
Therefore, we concur with the director that the beneficiary's role as master cook, while of great value to the 
petitioner in ensuring the consistency and highest quality in its cuisine, is not considered employment in a "lead, 
starring or critical role" as would be the position of the higher level chef positions to whom the restaurant's overall 
reputation is normally attributed. 
Evidence that the alien has a record of major commercial or critically acclaimed successes as 
evidenced by such indicators as title. rating, standing in the field, box office receipts. motion 
picture or television ratings. and other occupational achievements reported in trade journals. 
major newspapers. or other publications. 
The petitioner did not initially indicate that it was submitting evidence to meet this criterion. In response to the 
request for evidence, the petitioner stated that "the beneficiary earned the critically acclaimed success of 
bestowed with the title of 
petitioner submitted 
issued by the Hotel 
l1iliipPme;s, gIven to the beneficiary "in recognition of acceptable performance 
The director determined that such evidence does not satisfY this criterion. The AAO agrees. The plain language 
of this criterion specifically requires documentation of commercially or critically acclaimed success as reported in 
published format. There is no evidence that the beneficiary's or 
ServSafe certificate was memorialized in trade journals, major newspapers, or as 
noted by the director, the ServSafe certificate is awarded as a result of successful performance on an examination 
and is not an indicator of commercial or critical success. The director further noted that a single third-place finish 
in a cooking competition would be insufficient to evidence a "record" of acclaimed successes. 
, . 
Page 16 
Evidence that the alien has received significant recognitIOn for achievements from 
organizations, critics, government agencies, or other recognized experts in the field in which 
the alien is engaged Such testimonials must be in aform which clearly indicates the author's 
authority, expertise, and knowledge of the alien's achievements. 
The director detennined that the testimonial evidence in the record satisfies this criterion. The AAO notes 
that, with one exception, the letters submitted are from the beneficiary's own current and fonner employers and 
discuss his talents and work ethic rather than his achievements in the culinary arts field. While there is ample 
evidence can be considered recognized experts in the field, they wrote 
their letters as employers and did not discuss the beneficiary's achievements beyond confinning that he works for 
the petitioning establishment and perfonns his duties admirably. 
The only letter that was not provided by a former 
recognizes the beneficiary's employment with and the petitioner's restaurant, and his 
admission to the California School of Culinary Arts, as achievements in the field of culinary arts which establish 
that the beneficiary is at the top of the field with "culinary accomplishments that are world class." He also 
appears to have sufficient knowledge of the beneficiary's history and clearly has the expertise to 
render his expert opinion. Therefore, the AAO finds letter satisfies the plain language of this 
criterion. 
As discussed above, the beneficiary has also received recognition in the form of 
••••••••••••• competition held at the 2004 event. According to the evidence 
submitted, Chefs on Parade is an annual competition and Restaurant Association of the 
Philippines, and had nearly 2,000 participants in 2004. Counsel stated that prominent high 
profile chefs and figures from around the world including celebrity guest " The petitioner 
provided evidence regarding the event and _ While Chefs on appears to be a high-profile 
national event in the Filipino culinary industry, the record contains insufficient evidence regarding the specific 
"Market Basket" competition in which the the entry criteria for the 
competition, the number of competitors in the specific competition in which the beneficiary placed, or the total 
number of competitions held during the two-day event. The evidence submitted is also insufficient to support 
counsel's assertion that the beneficiary placed in 2,000 competitors. As none of 
the testimonials address the significance of this there is no published information 
regarding the beneficiary's award, the AAO cannot determine whether the certificate rises to the level of a 
"significant recognition," 
B. Final Merits Determination 
Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered in the context of 
a final merits detennination. However, as discussed above, the petitioner established eligibility for only one of 
the criteria, of which three are required under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iv)(B). 
Notwithstanding the above, a final merits determination considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or 
not the petitioner has demonstrated: (I) that the beneficiary has a high level of achievement in the arts evidenced 
• .. 
Page 17 
by a degree of skill and recognition substantially above that ordinarily encountered to the extent that he is 
renowned, leading, or well-known in the field of arts, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 2l4.2(0)(3)(ii); and (2) that the 
beneficiary is recognized as being prominent in his field, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii). See Kazarian, 
2010 WL 725317 at *3. 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is 
prominent to the extent that he could be considered renowned, leading or well-known in the field of culinary arts. 
The specific deficiencies in the documentation submitted by the petitioner have already been addressed in our 
preceding discussion of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iv)(B). The petitioner submitted 
documentation relating to the beneficiary's education, employment history, and achievements. Although the 
petitioner's evidence meets one of the six criteria, the submitted evidence is not indicative of the beneficiary's 
prominence in the field and there is no indication that his individual achievements have been recognized to the 
extent that he is leading, renowned or well-known in the field. 
The beneficiary has worked with chefs who are nationally and internationally recognized and he has worked in 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. As noted above, merely having the opportunity to work with 
such acclaimed chefs and establishments would be considered an achievement for most chefs and the fact that the 
beneficiary has had such opportunities confirms that he is a highly talented chef. However, this classification 
focuses on the beneficiary's individual achievements and recognition within the field. The petitioner has provided 
little evidence of such recognition beyond providing testimonials from the beneficiary's current and prior 
employers and has failed to establish that the beneficiary has already risen to the level where he is performing 
lead or critical roles for establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The favorable opinions of experts in the field, while not without evidentiary weight, are not a solid basis for a 
successful extraordinary ability claim.' Unusual in its specificity, section 101(a)(l5)(O)(i) of the Act clearly 
requires "extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. Again, USCIS may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 
at 795. However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's 
3 Letters may generally be divided into two types of testimonial evidence: expert opinion evidence and 
written testimonial evidence. Opinion testimony is based on one's well-qualified belief or idea, rather than 
direct knowledge of the facts at issue. Blacks Law Dictionary 1515 (8th Ed. 2007) (defining "opinion 
testimony"). Written testimonial evidence, on the other hand, is testimony about whether something occurred 
or did not occur, based on the witness' direct personal knowledge. Id. (defining "written testimony"); see 
also id at 1514 (defining "affirmative testimony"). 
Depending on the specificity, detail, or credibility of a letter, USCIS may give the document more or less 
persuasive weight in a proceeding. The Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) has held that testimony 
should not be disregarded simply because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Malter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 
1332 (BIA 2000) (citing cases). The Board also held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the 
introduction of corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." Id. If testimonial 
evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit 
corrobative evidence. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
.' . 
Page 18 
eligibility for the benefit sought. Id The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they 
support the alien's eligibility. See id at 795-796; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. at 500, n.2. Thus, the 
content of the experts' statements and how they became aware of the beneficiary's reputation are important 
considerations. Here, as noted above, all but one of the persons providing testimonial evidence are personally 
acquainted with the beneficiary, and have worked as his supervisor. Even when written by independent experts, 
letters solicited by an alien in support of a nonimmigrant petition are of less weight than preexisting, 
independent evidence of recognition in the field. 
The AAO emphasizes that four out of the six criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iv)(B) require the 
petitioner to submit various types of published materials to establish the beneficiary's recognition, such as critical 
reviews, advertisements, publicity releases, newspaper, magazine or trade journal articles. Therefore, it is 
significant that the petitioner has not submitted any evidence that the beneficiary's name has ever appeared in any 
publication. Absent evidence that the regulatory criteria are not applicable to the beneficiary's occupation, 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iv)(C), the petitioner must submit some published materials about the 
beneficiary in order to establish his eligibility for this classification. It is not reasonable to include the beneficiary 
among the group of chefs recognized in the field as leading, renowned or well-known if the petitioner does not 
establish that he has received some form of independent recognition based on his reputation or achievements. 
Therefore, the conclusion we reach by considering each evidentiary criterion separately is consistent with a 
review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even in the aggregate, the evidence does not distinguish the 
beneficiary as a chef who has achieved a level of distinction to the extent that he can be deemed to be 
renowned, leading, or well-known in the field of culinary arts. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(ii). The beneficiary, a 
master cook recently promoted to Chef Tourant, relies on the praise of his employers and the reputation of the 
acclaimed chefs and establishments with which he has worked. While the evidence may distinguish the 
beneficiary from other mid-level chefs working for less accomplished chefs in less distinguished establishments, 
the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary is recognized based on his own reputation as leading, renowned 
or well-known among all chefs. 
Nothing in the decision of the AAO should be seen as an attempt to minimize the accomplishments or 
obvious talent of the beneficiary, who was only 28 years old when the petition was filed, or as a comment on 
the criteria used by the petitioner to select persons for positions. Indeed, as many of the testimonial letters 
make clear, the beneficiary shows great promise and potential in the culinary arts and appears to be on a 
career path that would eventually lead him to the type of prominence required for this visa classification. 
III. Prior Approval and Conclusion 
The record does show that the beneficiary held 0-1 status authorizing employment with the petitioner at the time 
the petition was filed. In matters relating to an extension of nonimmigrant visa petition validity involving the 
same petitioner, beneficiary, and underlying facts, USCIS will generally give deference to a prior determination 
of eligibility. However, the mere fact that USCIS, by mistake or oversight, approved a visa petition on one 
occasion does not create an automatic entitlement to the approval of a subsequent petition for renewal of that visa. 
Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 148 (1st Cir 2007); see also Matter of Church Scientology Int'l., 19 
I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm. 1988). For example, if USCIS determines that there was material error, changed 
,~ . 
Page 19 
circumstances, or new material infonnation that adversely impacts eligibility, USCIS may question the prior 
approval and decline to give the decision any deference. The prior approvals do not preclude USCIS from 
denying an extension of the original visa petition based on a reassessment of the beneficiary's qualifications. 
Texas A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556,2004 WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 2004). 
[n the present matter, the director reviewed the record of proceeding and concluded that the petitioner was 
ineligible for an extension of the nonimmigrant visa petition's validity. In both the request for evidence and 
the notice of decision, the director clearly articulated the objective statutory and regulatory requirements and 
applied them to the case at hand. The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where 
eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, 
e.g. Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm. 1988). Despite any number 
of previously approved petitions, USCIS does not have any authority to confer an immigration benefit when 
the petitioner fails to meet its burden of proof in a subsequent petition. See section 291 of the Act. 
[n 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. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.