dismissed O-1B Case: Culinary Arts

Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
MATTER OF J&P I-, L.L.C. DATE: DEC. 23, 2015 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a Chinese restaurant and Asian produce grocery market, seeks classification for the 
Beneficiary as an alien of extraordinary ability in the arts. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) § 101(a)(15)(0)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(0)(i). The Director, California Service Center, 
denied the petition. We dismissed the subsequent appeal. The matter is now before us on a motion 
to reconsider. The motion will be denied. 
The Director found, and we agreed, that the Petitioner did not meet the evidentiary requirements 
necessary to demonstrate the Beneficiary's extraordinary ability in the culinary arts. On motion, the 
Petitioner submits a brief challenging our finding that it did not satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A), 
which calls for "[e]vidence that the [foreign national] has been nominated for, or has been 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." Specifically, the Petitioner 
states: 1) that we improperly imposed a higher standard than required under the regulations, and 
2) that we erred by characterizing some of the Beneficiary's awards as regional, as opposed to 
national, awards. 
I. LAW 
The regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 103 .5(a)( 1 )(iii)(C) provides, in pertinent part, that a motion must be: 
"Accompanied by a statement about whether or not the validity of the unfavorable decision has been 
or is the subject of any judicial proceeding and, if so, the court, nature, date, and status or result of 
the proceeding." A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported 
by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that our original decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 1 03.5(a)(3). A motion to reconsider contests the correctness of the original decision based on the 
previous factual record. !d. 
The classification the Petitioner seeks for the Beneficiary provides nonimmigrant status to an 
individual "who has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which 
has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim and who is coming temporarily 
to the United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability." 8 C.F.R. 
(b)(6)
Matter of J&P 1-, L.L. C. 
§ 214.2(o)(l)(ii)(A)(l). The regulation at 8 C.F.R § 214.2(o)(3)(iv) further states that, to establish 
extraordinary ability in the arts: 
[The foreign national] must be recognized as being prominent in his or her field of 
endeavor as demonstrated by the following: 
(A) Evidence that the [foreign national] has been nominated for, or has been 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 forms of documentation [listed under 
subparagraphs ( 1 )-( 6)]. 
II. ANALYSIS 
On motion, the Petitioner does not submit a statement indicating if the validity of our May 18, 2015, 
unfavorable decision has been or is the subject of any judicial proceeding. The regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4) requires that "[a] motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be 
dismissed." Regardless, as discussed below, the Petitioner has not otherwise shown the 
Beneficiary's eligibility for the classification. 
On motion, the Petitioner maintains that it documented that the Beneficiary won a qualifying award 
under prong (A) of8 C.F.R § 214.2(o)(3)(iv). Although the Petitioner previously asserted that it also 
met prong 
(B) of that regulation, it no longer advances this position and, accordingly , has abandoned 
it. See Sepulveda v. US. Att 'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir.2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 
09-CV-2731, 2011 WL 4711885 at *9 (E.D. N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011). 
The record contains evidence ofthe Beneficiary's receipt ofthe following: 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
In our dismissal, we noted that the Petitioner discussed only the 
appeal and we found that: 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A) specifically requires that the 
[B]eneficiary's awards be significant nationally or internationally in the field of 
2 
title on 
Matter of J&P 1-, L.L.C. 
endeavor, and jt is the [P]etitioner's burden to establish every element of this 
regulation. The record contains insufficient evidence establishing the significance 
and magnitude of the preceding competition and the extent to which the nominees or 
winners of such an award are recognized beyond the issuing body. The [P]etitioner 
did not provide general information about the competition (such as the eligibility 
criteria, the number of entrants, or the percentage of entrants who earned some type 
of recognition, including the number of chefs receiving the same title as the 
[B]eneficiary). · 
On motion, the Petitioner does not address the issues highlighted above. Instead, it references the 
definition of extraordinary ability provided at 8 C.P.R. § 214.3( o )(3)(ii): 
Extraordinary ability in the field of arts means distinction. Distinction means a high 
level of achievement in the field of 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 Petitioner indicates that the definition of extraordinary ability requires a showing of prominence 
in the field. It states that, to achieve prominence, an individual need not have received an award on a 
level similar to that of an Academy Award, an Emmy or a Grammy. It reasons that, by demanding 
an award of such stature, we imposed an impermissibly high standard. As noted above, however, 
8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A) explicitly lists the receipt of or nomination for "an Academy Award, 
an Emmy, a Grammy, or a Director's Guild Award" as examples of the kinds of evidence that satisfy 
prong (A). The phrase "such as" implies the awards must be of a similar kind or character.' The 
Petitioner has not pointed to any legal authority indicating that under the plain language of the 
regulation, we erred in requiring the Petitioner to establish the Beneficiary's receipt of or nomination 
for a national or international award of similar significance to the examples in the regulation. 
A basic tenet of statutory construction, equally applicable to regulatory construction, is that a text 
should be construed so that effect is given to all its provisions, that no part will be inoperative or 
superfluous, void or insignificant, and that one section will not invalidate another. AWPU v. Potter, 
343 P.3d 619, 626 (2d Cir. 2003) (citing Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, 51 P.3d 28, 
31 (3d Cir. 1995)). In accordance with this principle, we confirm that 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A) 
requires evidence showing receipt of or nomination for a national or international award or prize 
similar in significance to an Academy Award, an Emmy, a Grammy, or a Director's Guild Award. 
Even if we were to conclude that a "significant national or international" award could be of 
considerably less significance than the examples in the regulation, it still must be "significant," mid 
the Petitioner has not responded to our concern that the record lacks evidence that the 2013 award is 
significant. 
1 See www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/such (defining "such" as "of a kind or character to be indicated or suggested 
<a bag such as a doctor carries>"). 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of J&P I-, L.L.C. 
The second error the Petitioner alleges is that we incorrectly categorized some of the Beneficiary's 
awards as regional instead of national in scope. When discussing this concern, however, the 
Petitioner references awards that it did not raise on appeal as qualifying. Nevertheless, as we 
addressed the awards in our appellate decision, we will address the Petitioner's concerns on motion. 
·The Petitioner noted the was covered by the 
which it calls a "significant Swiss newspaper." The Petitioner reasons that this 
publication 's coverage of the event means the contest is nationally significant. The Petitioner did 
provide the circulation of this paper. Nevertheless, as noted in our previous decision, the Petitioner 
has not provided a complete certified translation as required under 8 C.F.R § 103.2(b)(3). 
Regardless, according to the summary translation, the article confirms only that the competition was 
held at the restaurant in Without additional information about the contest, 
including the credentials of the judges and the contest rules, the Petitioner has not established that 
the award is a significant culinary award. 
The Petitioner also states that the following two awards were not regional, but national, awards: 
• 
• 
According to the Petitioner, because the 
issued these awards and the provinces have a combined population of over 1 00 million, 
the titles should be considered national in scope. A motion to reconsider must be supported by legal 
authorities. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). The Petitioner did not provide any legal authority to support the 
proposition that the size of a region is relevant to whether the term regional equates to national. 2 
Even assuming these awards were national, we note that simply having received or being nominated 
for awards with a national or international scope would not satisfy the regulatory requirements of 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A). As discussed, a qualifying award must also be a "significant" 
national or international award. The Petitioner has not provided evidence to show that the 
Beneficiary's awards are of such stature. As a result, it has not satisfied the regulatory requirements 
necessary to demonstrate extraordinary ability in the arts. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown that its motion to reconsider should be granted, because it has not 
provided a sufficient basis for reconsideration. It has also not supported the filing with pertinent 
legal precedent or other legal authority establishing that our May 18, 2015, decision was based on an 
incorrect 
application of law or USCIS policy. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
2 Black 's Law Dictionary defines "national" as: " I. Of or relating to a nation <national anthem>. 2. Nationwide in 
scope <national emergency >." Black's Law Dictionary 1121 (9th ed. 2009). 
4 
Matter of J&P 1-, L.L.C. 
The motion will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter of J&P 1-, L.L.C., ID# 14875 (AAO Dec. 23, 2015) 
5