dismissed O-1B Case: Culinary Arts

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarr~nted 
invasion of personal pnvac} 
PUBLlCCOPY 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Irrnnigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Date: 
DEC 2 2 2010 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker under Section 101(a)(15)(O)(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(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 
information 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 Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry 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 IOI(a)(l5)(O)(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 senior housing community, seeks to 
employ the beneficiary in the position of Executive Chef. The beneficiary was previously granted 0-1 status for 
employment with a different petitioner and the petitioner now seeks to extend his status for two additional years. 
The director denied the petition, concluding 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 failed to establish that the 
beneficiary meets the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iv)(A), and submitted evidence to satisfy 
only one of the six evidentiary criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iv)(B), of which three must be met to 
establish eligibility. 
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 contends that the beneficiary is "a 
nationally and internationally recognized acclaimed chef," and relies on previously submitted testimonial 
evidence from well-known chefs in support of this claim. Counsel further asserts that a Google search for the 
beneficiary's name returned 2,130 relevant links, and that the evidence submitted in support of the appeal 
confirms "that the beneficiary is an internationally recognized and acclaimed multi-talented chef in the culinary 
industry worldwide." 
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, fine 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: 
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 IS 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 (o)(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. 
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 (USCIS) 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 set forth 
in a 2010 decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Kazarian v. USCIS, 2010 WL 
725317 (9th Cir. March 4, 20 I 0). 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)." Id 
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)(I)(A)(i). 
Id. 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 
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 Soltane 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). 
As a preliminary matter, the AAO notes that the petitioner and counsel have repeatedly addressed the 
beneficiary's qualifications by referencing the evidentiary criteria applicable to aliens of extraordinary ability 
in the fields of science, education, business or athletics, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii). As the 
beneficiary's field of expertise and the proposed employment are in the field of culinary arts, the director 
correctly applied the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iv). Further, the petitioner indicated on the Form 1-129, 
Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, that it seeks to classifY the beneficiary as an alien of extraordinary ability in 
the arts. 
II. Discussiou 
A. Facts 
The beneficiary in this matter is a native and citizen of France. He received a Certificate of Professional 
France in 1988. The beneficiary 
and served in an apprenticeship 
restaurant in France. The beneficiary worked as a chef de 
Aptitude as a Chef (Classic Cuisine) from 
under 
partie (sauces and fish) from 1988 to 1989, and then moved to Israel, 
where he served as executive chef specializing in French Kosher cuisine for L'Alhambra, L'Entrecote, and 
Most recently, he was employed 
restaurant located in Las Vegas. 
The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as for the dining program at 
_, an age-restricted community located in Walnut Creek, California. The petitioner explains that the 
management of the community wishes to develop a "Kosher Culinary Dining and French kitchen program," 
as it is home to many residents from Israel, France and other parts of Europe. The beneficiary would be in 
charge of the kitchen and dining management and staff administration for the new dining program. 
B. The Beneficiary's Eligibility under the Evidentiary Criteria 
The petitioner claims that the evidence submitted in support of the petition satisfies at least three of the eight 
evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B) and establishes that the beneficiary is an alien of 
extraordinary ability in the culinary arts. As discussed above, the evidentiary criteria applicable to beneficiaries 
working in the field of culinary arts are set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iv). In denying the petition, the director 
determined 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. 
The AAO emphasizes that 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 IS, 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 indicates that the 
is equivalent to these awards in the field of culinary arts. However, the petitioner does not claim 
bellefici:rry 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 AAO will address each of these criteria below. 
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 does not specifically address this criterion, but instead claims that the beneficiary "has been 
employed in a critical or essential capacity for organizations and establishments which have a distinguished 
reputation," pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(7). The AAO notes that the petitioner's claims and the 
testimonial evidence submitted in this regard relate to the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R § 214.2(0)(3)(iv)(B)(3), 
which requires evidence that the beneficiary has performed and will perform in a lead, starring or critical role for 
organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iv)(B)(1) requires that the petitioner identifY with 
specificity the productions or events in which the beneficiary performed services in a lead or starring capacity, 
document the distinguished reputation of such productions or events, 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 petitioner has not documented the beneficiary's role as a lead or starring participant in ''productions or 
events" through submission of the required supporting evidence. The AAO notes that one of the individuals who 
provided expert testimony in support of the petition, states that the beneficiary 
"has prepared kosher food for many famous persons and presidents of many countries." However, testimonial 
evidence cannot be used to satisfY this criterion. Regardless, _id not identifY a specific 
production or event in which the beneficiary served as a lead or staffing partIcIpant. 
With the exception of the uncorroborated claims made in letter, the petitioner has primarily 
sought to establish the distinguished reputation of the organizations and establishments that have employed the 
beneficiary in the past, rather than establishing his role in specific productions or events. Such claims will be 
considered under the relevant criterion below. 
In addition, the petitioner has not provided evidence that the beneficiary will perform services as a lead or starring 
participant in productions or events which have a distinguished reputation. The beneficiary has been offered 
employment as the executive chef of the dining program at a senior living community. The petitioner has not 
identified the beneficiary's involvement in specific productions or events with a distinguished reputation as part of 
his proposed job responsibilities. As such, the AAO concurs with the director's conclusion that the criterion at 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(J) has not been met. 
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 director determined that the petitioner did not submit evidence to meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(2), noting that "no published materials by or about the beneficiary in major newspapers, 
magazines, tradejoumals or other publications were submitted." 
Upon review, the AAO notes that the petitioner did submit three published reviews of the Israeli restaurant 
_ where the beneficiary served as Executive Chef from 1991 to 1996. One review, titled _ 
~ccording to all the rules of the ritual," was published on the Israeli website Restaurants On ~ 
favorable review refers to the beneficiary as "the renowned French chef." The petitioner provided another 
revIew the source of the article was not provided. The 
favorable as one A third review of_ 
also appears to have been On Line web site. The 
article simply mentions that the beneficiary is the restaurant's chef. 
The petitioner also submitted a review of the restaurant the beneficiary worked from 1996 to 
1998. The review is favorable and mentions that "it is a restaurant underthe supervision of the Tel Aviv 
Rabbinate and under the expertise of the French chef The AAO notes that while the four 
preceding reviews were submitted with an English translation of the original Hebrew text, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 
103.2(b)(3), any document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS shall be accompanied by a full 
English language translation that the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's 
certification that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. The translations 
submitted by the petitioner are not accompanied by such certifications. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of an online profile of 
http://www.usmenuguide.com. which identifies the beneficiary as a 
from 
France and Israel's masters," and states that he "exhibits an extensive knowledge of French cuisine as well as a 
Page 8 
healthy approach to modern cooking." This evidence appears to be an online advertisement for the restaurant, 
rather than a review or article. 
Finally, the petitioner submitted an article titled appears to have been published in the 
"Dining Out" section of a magazine. The name of the magazine and the date of publication were not provided. 
The article discusses the md the French Kosher cuisine served there, and includes 
an interview with the restaurant's owner. The article also contains a quote from the beneficiary and includes the 
following mention of him: 
[The beneficiary] ... a French native of Jewish faith and tradition, attended culinary school in 
Nice, France. He developed his culinary skills at top restaurants and from working with world 
renowned master French 
of France. [The beneficiary] learned 
known dining venues u· lcruolmg 
dietary laws at well­
in Israel. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that "from the Google Search we can find many related links about [the beneficiary]. 
The petitioner submits "results 1-10 of about 2,130" derived from a Google search of the beneficiary's name. The 
petitioner did not provide copies of any articles. It is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the benefit 
sought by submitting documentary evidence relevant to the evidentiary criteria. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.c. 
§ 1361. The AAO will not conduct a Google search to determine whether there are published articles about 
the beneficiary available on the Internet that meet the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iv)(B)(2). 
The AAO notes that the results of the search conducted by the petitioner appear to include a review of the 
•••••••••••• published by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, and a reference to the beneficiary 
on the published on January 20, 2010, subsequent to the filing of the 
petItIOn. The at the time of filing the nonimmigrant visa petition. A visa 
petition may not be approved at a future date after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new 
set of facts. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm. 1978). The remaining results 
include a Facebook page, a LinkedIn page, a public profile on Plaxo, a help wanted ad, a review that was 
previously submitted, and an un-translated French website. Based on this minimal evidence, it does not 
appear that there are, in fact, more than 2,000 articles about the beneficiary on the Internet. 
Upon review, the AAO finds all of the above-referenced evidence deficient for several reasons. First, the AAO 
cannot find that a review of a restaurant that mentions the name of the restaurant's executive chef in passing 
provides evidence that the mentioned chef has achieved "national or international recognition for achievements" 
as required by the plain language of the regulations. Furthermore, the AAO cannot find that such restaurant 
reviews are "about" the chef. Rather, the reviews are about the restaurant and the overall dining experience. It is 
reasonable to believe that the executive chef of any fine dining restaurant would be able to submit evidence that 
his or her name has appeared in reviews of the restaurant. A favorable restaurant review, in and of itself, does not 
qualify as "recognition for achievements," in the same way, for example, that a profile of a chef in a national food 
magazine or major newspaper would. A favorable restaurant review establishes that the beneficiary successfully 
performs his duties as an executive chef but does not necessarily establish national or international recognition. 
Page 9 
Second, even if the submitted reviews could be considered "recognition for achievements," the petitioner has not 
provided the evidence needed for the AAO to determine whether any of the submitted articles have appeared in 
major publications, as required by the plain language of the regulations. Without such evidence, the AAO cannot 
conclude that publication of a review is one which would garner the beneficiary "national or international 
recognition." As noted above, while it appears that one of the submitted articles was published in a magazine, the 
name of the magazine, the date of publication, and the magazine's circulation figures were not provided. 
Similarly, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the publication of a review on the websites "U.S. Menu Guide" 
or "Restaurants On Line" is equivalent to publication of a review in a major newspaper, magazine or trade 
journal. While the regulation allows the petitioner to submit evidence in the form of "other publications," the 
petitioner still has the burden of establishing that the publication is "major." 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)). 
Therefore, while the AAO disagrees with the director that "no evidence" was submitted that pertains to the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iv)(8)(2), we concur that this criterion has not been met. 
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. 
As discussed above, the petitioner has not specifically addressed this or any other criterion applicable to aliens of 
extraordinary ability in the arts, but does claim that the beneficiary meets the similar criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2( 0)(3)(iii)(8)(7), applicable to aliens of extraordinary ability in the fields of science, business, education or 
athletics. 
The director determined that no evidence was submitted to satisfY the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(0)(3)(iv)(B)(3). As with the previous criterion, the AAO disagrees that "no evidence" was submitted. The 
record shows that the beneficiary has held the position of executive chef for at least two Israeli establishments, 
namely, He also served as executive chef for the Las Vegas-based 
;:y;::;;-;;:;;:;;; chef is considered a critical role within a restaurant or catering 
the petitioner submits evidence demonstrating that at least one of the organizations that employed 
the beneficiary has a distinguished reputation, then it will have met its burden to establish that the beneficiary'S 
previous employment meets this criterion. The AAO notes that the petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining 
to the distinguished reputation of the Michelin-star rated French rp<'"l1t",n" 
_where the beneficiary worked early in his culinary career. However, the record does not establish that 
his roles with these organizations, as apprentice and chef de partie (sauces and fish), respectively, were "critical" 
roles. In order to establish that the petitioner performed 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. 
The plain language of the regulation requires that the petitioner submit articles in newspapers, trade journals, 
publications or testimonials to meet its burden to establish that the beneficiary has performed in a critical role for 
organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation. The petitioner has submitted reviews for 
the above-named restaurants. However, as discussed above, the AAO has found them deficient to demonstrate 
that the beneficiary has received national or international recognition for his achievements. Based on the same 
deficiencies discussed above, the AAO finds the reviews alone insufficient to establish that one or more of the 
restaurants that have employed the beneficiary as executive chef have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner has submitted several testimonials in support of the petition, some of which specifically address the 
reputation of the beneficiary's former employers. In a letter dated January 21, 20 I 0, 
provides an outline of the beneficiary's employment history from 1988 to 2008, and states that "all of the above 
[restaurants] are the famous and top restaurants in the world." 
states that he credits the beneficiary with "eaming 
the restaurant _wonderful praise and acclaim throughoutthe industry." 
Any worldly experienced chef would be impressed by 
••••••••• the French Riviera as well as 
have an appreciation for _ accomplishments as I understand the high standards and 
reputation that the Alhambra name brings and [the beneficiary's] talents in the kitchen are a 
testament to the standards of excellence that are in place in the _organization. It is 
important that a chef challenge himself to learn from the best early in his career; and [the 
beneficiary] has done so by demonstrating extraordinary talent and creativiry in kitchens 
throughout France and Israel. 
editor and publisher of ____ .1 
to my attention with his refined fine 
W.'!;"""~' states that the beneficiary worked "under 
became Executive Chef at ~here he came 
"-L"W"I creations. II 
As noted above, the petitioner also submitted a letter from 
~in Las Vegas, who states: 
currently executive chef of 
[The beneficiary] brought benefits everywhere that he worked. Those restaurants' financial 
performance improved because of [the beneficiary's] extraordinary talents and technique in the 
culinary art. For example, the revenue o~[sic] in Tel Aviv, Israel increased to $1.2 
million after [the beneficiary] joined the chefs team. He is a reputable chef in the Kosher Food 
in the Las Vegas culinary field. Every one knows that Las Vegas has the most preeminent chefs 
in the worlds [sic]. ... 
Recently [the beneficiary] is working with [the petitioner] in Walnut Creek, California, a high­
class senior house with a nice restaurant. The most residents are Jewish native people who lived 
in the U.S. many years. However they still prefer to have kosher food, if possible the Kosher 
French cuisine. The management team tried hard to find a quality chef in kosher food. 
Finally, the petitioner submitted a letter owner of_ who states: 
Page 11 
[The beneficiary 1 has been employed in several famous restaurants in the past, for example, 
Israel, 
He also worked as the executive chef 
The AAO finds this expert testimony sufficient to establish that tbe _restaurants 
_enjoy a distinguished reputation. 
and 
In order to meet this criterion, however, the petitioner must also establish that tbe beneficiary "will perform in a 
lead, starring, or critical role for organizations and establishments tbat have a distinguished reputation." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(0)(3)(iv)(B)(3). While the AAO acknowledges tbat tbe beneficiary has been offered the critical role of 
Executive Chef, the petitioner has not provided evidence in the form of articles in major newspapers, trade 
journals or other publications to demonstra~program at The Heritage Point senior living 
community has a distinguished reputation. _ states that the petitioning company operates a 
"nice restaurant." This testimonial evidence is insufficient to establish that the beneficiary would be serving in a 
critical role for an organization or establishment that has a distinguished reputation. 
Counsel for the petitioner addressed the reputation of the petitioner's establishment in a letter dated April 12, 
20 I 0, submitted in response to tbe director's request for evidence: 
Please be informed tbat the Heritage Senior House is not a famous restaurant, but it is a famous 
retirement house in the United States. Senior people living there request a higher standard of the 
life quality. Most of residents are European native and Jewish native people. They are looking 
for a right chef for several years. 
Counsel concedes that the beneficiary has not been offered employment witb a "famous restaurant" and offers no 
documentary evidence in support of his claim tbat the beneficiary will be managing the restaurant and dining 
program of a "famous retirement house." 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. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N 
Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BJA 1980). The only documentary 
evidence submitted with respect to the petitioner includes copies of menus from the petitioner's restaurants, 
photographs of food prepared by the beneficiary, and an excerpt from the website of The Heritage Pointe, 
confirming that it advertises itself as a "premier active senior resort." Contrary to counsel's claims, the 
evidence submitted does not establish the petitioner's distinguished reputation in the culinary arts. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted evidence to satisfY each part of the plain language ofthis regulatory 
criterion. 
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. 
Page 12 
The director detennined that the petitioner failed to submit any evidence to meet this criterion and the AAO notes 
that counsel raises no specific objection to this finding on appeal. Upon review of the record, the petitioner has 
not submitted any published evidence of the beneficiary's commercial or critically acclaimed successes or 
occupational achievements, and thus has not established that the beneficiary can meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
214.2( 0)(3)(iv)(B)( 4). 
Evidence that the alien has received significant recogmtlOn 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 determined that the testimonial evidence in the record satisfies this criterion. The AAO concurs 
with this finding. ~tates that the beneficiary "is a pioneering as 
most of the French chefs do not prepare the food the kosher system and most of the kosher chefs do not prepare 
kosher food in French recipes." He recognizes the beneficiary as "one of those very few chefs in the world who 
are able to provide such kind ofcuisine."~also recognizes the beneficiary as "a prominent 
chef with French cuisine in kosher in Isra~e United States," and states that the beneficiary 
"played a leading role in French cuisine in the Kosher system," and "made great contributions to the combination 
of Kosher French cuisine." that the beneficiary "has made great contribution to the 
"recol~mzed as one of the greatest Kosher Chefs." Finally, 
beneficiary "has made extreme contributions to Middle Eastern, 
l\.o,sm:r culilnaryarts," and "is recognized as a toplchef in Kosher Fine-Dining art." 
All of these chefs appear to have sufficient knowledge of the beneficiary'S employment history and possess the 
required expertise to render their independent expert opinions. Therefore, the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(0)(3)(iv)(B)(5) has been met. 
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 
The petitioner has offered the beneficiary an annual salary of $50,000. According to petitioner's counsel, this 
salary is "much higher than the regular chefs." The petitioner offered no evidence pertaining to the salaries the 
beneficiary has received as compensation for any prior position with other employers. 
In denying the petition, the director acknowledged the proffered salary and observed that the petitioner failed to 
submit evidence that it represents "significantly high remuneration for services compared to others in the field." 
The director further noted that, upon review of sites and publications which indicate earnings for chefs and top 
chefs, it appears that the beneficiary is being offered a salary that is below average for an executive chef 
employed in California. The petitioner has not objected to the director's finding or otherwise addressed this 
criterion on appeal. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's determination that the petitioner has not met its burden to 
establish that the beneficiary'S salary is high in relation to others in the field. The petitioner's claim was based 
Page 13 
entirely on counsel's assertion that this salary is "higher than the other chefs." 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. 533, 534 
(BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. I (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 
506 (BIA 1980). Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to meet its burden to establish that $50,000 is a high 
salary in relation to that offered to other executive chefs. 
However, we will withdraw the director's conclusion that the beneficiary's proffered salary is "below average 
for an executive chef employed in California." The director failed to cite the specific source of the 
information that served as a basis for this conclusion and has not incorporated such information into the 
record of proceeding. When denying a petition, a director has an affirmative duty to explain the specific 
reasons for the denial pursuant to section 291 of the Act, 8 U.s.C. § 1361. See 8 C.F.R. § 103 J(a)(l )(i). 
B. Final Merits Determination 
~ets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered in the context of 
a final merits determination. 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 
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. § 214.2(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)(iv). 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 and garnered the respect of chefs who are nationally and internationally 
recognized and he has worked in establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 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 testimonial evidence from other chefs and from the 
beneficiary's prior employers. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner relies primarily on the opinions of 
_ to support the proposition that the beneficiary is "a and 
Page 14 
acclaimed chef." The opinions of these chefs were taken into consideration, and both the director and the AAO 
have determined that their testimonial evidence is sufficient to satisty the evidentimy criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(5). However, the petitioner cannot rely primarily on such letters to establish the beneficiary's 
eligibility for this classification. 
The favorable opinions of experts in the field, while not without evidentimy weight, are not a solid basis for a 
successful extraordinary ability claim.' Unusual in its specificity, section IOl(a)(15)(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 
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. 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(o)(3)(iv)(B) require the 
petitioner to submit various types of published materials to establish the beneficimy's recognition, such as critical 
reviews, advertisements, publicity releases, newspaper, magazine or trade journal articles. Therefore, it is 
significant that the petitioner has submitted little published evidence regarding the beneficimy with the exception 
of several restaurant reviews. Absent evidence that the regulatory criteria are not applicable to the beneficimy's 
occupation, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(C), the petitioner must submit some published materials 
"about" the beneficimy in order to establish his eligibility for this classification. It is not reasonable to include the 
beneficimy 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 evidentimy criterion separately is consistent with a 
review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even in the aggregate, the evidence does not distinguish the beneficiary 
1 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 ISIS (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., Matter 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 of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
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). Based on the evidence submitted, it can be 
concluded that the beneficiary has had his food favorably reviewed in several publications of unknown circulation 
and has garnered the respect of his peers in the culinary field, particularly due to his unusual specialization in 
Kosher French cuisine. By contrast, been selected for appearances on 
Food Network television shows such as and appear to be 
substantially more prominent in the culinary may trom other 
executive chefs with a shorter or less distinguished employment history, or those with a less unique culinary 
specialty, the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary is recognized based on his own reputation as leading, 
renowned or well-known in the culinary field. 
Nothing in the decision of the AAO should be seen as an attempt to minimize the accomplishments or 
obvious talent of the beneficiary or as a comment on the criteria used by the petitioner to select persons for 
positions. Further, the AAO once again emphasizes that the petitioner sought to establish the beneficiary's 
eligibility by addressing the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B), rather than the relevant criteria at 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(0 )(3)(iv)(B), and many of its claims simply failed on an evidentiary basis. 
Ill. Prior Approval and Conclusion 
The record does show that the beneficiary held 0-1 status authorizing employment with a different petitioner at 
the time the petition was filed. The prior approval does not preclude uscrs trom denying an extension and 
amendment 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). Each nonimmigrant petition filing is a 
separate proceeding with a separate record and a separate burden of proof. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.8(d). In making a 
determination of statutory eligibility, uscrs is limited to the information contained in that individual record of 
proceeding. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(ii). 
In the present matter, the director reviewed the record of proceeding and concluded that the beneficiary was 
ineligible for 0-1 classification for employment with the instant petitioner. rn 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 r&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. See section 291 of the Act. 
In 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.