dismissed O-1B Case: Culinary Arts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 23133704 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : DEC . 7, 2022 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability- 0) 
The Petitioner, a restaurant and catering business, seeks to classify the Beneficiary as a culinary 
director. To do so, the Petitioner pursues 0-1 nonimmigrant classification, available to individuals 
who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim 
and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(O)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(O)(i). 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish the Beneficiary's satisfaction of the initial evidentiary criteria applicable to individuals of 
extraordinary ability in the arts: nomination for or receipt of a significant national or international 
award, or at least three of six possible forms of documentation. 
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
As relevant here, section 101(a)(15)(O)(i) of the Act establishes 0-1 classification for an individual 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. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations defme 
"extraordinary ability in the field of arts" as "distinction," and "distinction" as "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." See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii). 
Next, DHS regulations set forth alternative initial evidentiary criteria for establishing a beneficiary's 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of achievements. A petitioner may submit evidence either of 
nomination for or receipt of"significant national or international awards or prizes" such as "an Academy 
Award, an Emmy, a Grammy, or a Director's Guild Award," or at least three of six listed categories of 
documents. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A)-(B). 
The submission of documents satisfying the initial evidentiary criteria does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for 0-1 classification. See 59 Fed. Reg. 41818, 41820 (Aug. 15, 1994) ("The 
evidence submitted by the petitioner is not the standard for the classification, but merely the 
mechanism to establish whether the standard has been met."). Accordingly, where a petitioner 
provides qualifying evidence satisfying the initial evidentiary criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of the record and the quality of the evidence shows extraordinary ability in the arts. See section 
10l(a)(15)(o)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii), (iv).1 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate the Beneficiary's nomination for, or 
receipt of, significant national or international awards or prizes under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A). 
In addition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner established the Beneficiary's eligibility for only 
one criterion, high salary under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(6). On appeal, the Petitioner contends 
that the Beneficiary satisfies four additional criteria. For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner 
did not establish that the Beneficiary meets at least three of the regulatory criteria. 
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. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(l). 
This regulatory criterion requires the beneficiary to have both previously performed and will perform 
services as a lead or starring participant in productions or events, which have a distinguished 
reputation. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(l). As evidence, the Petitioner must submit 
documentation of critical reviews, advertisements, publicity releases, publications contracts, or 
endorsements. Id. At initial filing, the Petitioner claimed that "[a]s [a] Culinary Director forl I 
[the Beneficiary] oversaw all culinary aspects of the dinners served" at various 
events or for individuals. In support, the Petitioner provided numerous flyers highlighting or 
advertising almost entirely but making no mention of the Beneficiary. For instance, the record 
contains a flyer for a "Fundraiser for !Research" reflecting that the event took place at 
without showing the Beneficiary's performance in a role at the event, let alone as a lead or starring 
participant. In fact, the record comprises of only three flyers specifically mentioning the Beneficiary: 
"Mother's Day Special Lunch," "Feast of the Favourites," and "Indian Grill by Alfresco." Although 
the flyers feature the Beneficiary, the Petitioner did not establish that these events have distinguished, 
eminent, or prestigious reputations consistent with this regulatory criterion. 
In response to the director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner stated that"[ w ]ith regard to the 
evidence previously submitted about events atl we respectfully withdraw those documents, 
which took place prior to [the Beneficiary] joining that illustrious restaurant" and "[t]hose events were 
included due to Law Office error." Further, the Petitioner resubmitted the flyers relating to the 
"Mother's Day Special Lunch" and "Feast of the Favourites" and offered an article from 919 Magazine 
1 See also Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010), in which we held that, ·'truth is to be determined not 
by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality." 
2 
regarding However, the article makes no mention of, or discuss, the "Mother's Day Special 
Lunch" and "Feast of the Favourites" events. Without evidence, such as a critical review of the events, 
the Petitioner did not establish that the "Mother's Day Special Lunch" or "Feast of the Favourites" 
represents a distinguished reputation. 
Moreover, the Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary "oversaw the planning and execution of 
numerous food festivals and events which took place at the I 
in I India]": Food Festival U 
and[ I Festival As it relates tol the Petitioner 
submitted several posts and articles announcing the upcoming festival. The material, for instance, 
indicates the Beneficiary as the chef and announces the dates, places, and course offerings. However, 
the Petitioner did not show how the evidence demonstrates the distin uished reputation of I I 
The evidence does not discuss or establish the status or stature of to show its distinguished 
reputation. Similarly, the Petitioner offered a letter from ____ a food critic for the Times 
of India, who stated that he attended! I many times, including during the Beneficiary's tenure, 
and congratulated him on his dish. Although I praised the Beneficiary, he did not comment 
on I reputation or standing, to reflect the distinguished nature of the festival. 
Likewise, the Petitioner provided posts and articles announcing the upcoming , and The 
documentation advertises the upcoming festivals, indicates the Beneficiary as the chef, and lists some 
of the dishes. However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how the evidence shows the distinguished 
reputations for any of the festivals. Besides announcing the upcoming events, the evidence does not 
discuss their respective reputations or otherwise show how they are considered to be distinguished. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary has performed services as a lead or 
starring participant in productions or events having a distinguished reputation. 
In regard to the Beneficiary's future services, the Petitioner did not initially make such a claim. 
However, in the RFE response, the Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary "will perform a Lead and 
Starring Role for events which will be held in the ballrooms of the Sheraton, Hilton, and other 
prestigious hotels and venues throughout the U.S." The Petitioner submitted contracts for 14 events; 
specifically, the evidence relates to catering services between the Petitioner and wedding parties. The 
evidence, however, does not mention the Beneficiary, nor does it show that he will perform services 
as a lead or starring participant at any of these wedding reception events. Furthermore, the Petitioner 
did not establish how the evidence reflects the distinguished reputation of the various wedding events. 
Although the Petitioner claims that "[o ]nly a distinguished catering service is regularly engaged to 
cater events for hundreds of guests at major hotels around the country for tens of thousands of dollars 
per event," the Petitioner does not support its assertions with probative, corroborating evidence. The 
Petitioner did not demonstrate, for instance, that wedding receptions held at recognized hotel chains 
automatically show the distinguished nature of the events or productions. 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal that "[a]s weddings typically do not accrue 'critical reviews, 
advertisements, publicity releases, publications contracts, or endorsements,' we rely on 'Comparable 
Evidence' to demonstrate they are 'distinguished events,' i.e., the prestige of the venue where the 
3 
event will take place, the number of guests and cost." 2 Because the Petitioner did not claim eligibility 
for comparable evidence at initial filing or in response to the Director's RFE, we will not consider this 
basis as it was not presented before the Director. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 
1988) (providing that if "the petitioner was put on notice of the required evidence and given a 
reasonable opportunity to provide it for the record before the denial, we will not consider evidence 
submitted on appeal for any purpose" and that "we will adjudicate the appeal based on the record of 
proceeding" before the Director); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). As 
such, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary will perform services as a lead or starring 
participant in productions or events having a distinguished reputation. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not demonstrate the Beneficiary's eligibility for 
this criterion. 
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. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(2) requires evidence of a beneficiary's national or 
international recognition for achievements evidenced by critical reviews or other published materials 
in major newspapers, trade journals, magazines, or other publications. Initially, the Petitioner 
provided articles from The Hindu, 919 Magazine, Daily Post India, and Yugmarg. In the RFE, the 
Director informed the Petitioner that the submitted articles published by the Daily Post India and 
Yugmarg were not legible and could not be considered. Moreover, Director pointed out that the article 
from The Hindu appeared to cover a different individual with the same name as the Beneficiary. 
Further, the Director determined that "the documents you provided demonstrating the circulation data 
for each of the article sources suggest that the respective publications are comparatively small and do 
not have the reach that could provide the beneficiary with the requisite national or international 
recognition," and "[m]any publications are capable ofreaching millions ofreaders daily, whereas the 
documents you provided each reflect a fraction of those numbers with their circulation figures." 
The RFE response letter stated "[o ]ur Law Office withdraws the article ... in the Hindu" "[a] s the 
Service noted, this article is not about the Beneficiary," and"[ w ]e regret submitting the article, which 
was due to Law Office error." In addition, the Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary "has been 
featured in articles in major media in India" and offered additional material with "About Pages" for 
the publications. 
2 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(C) provides that if the criteria do not readily apply to the beneficiary's 
occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence in order to establish the beneficiary's eligibility. Here, the 
Petitioner does not contend that the criterion does not apply to the Beneficiary's occupation as a culinary director; rather, 
the Petitioner claims that the regulatory documentation does not apply to wedding events. See generally 2 USCIS Policy 
Manual, M.4(D), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual (instructing that a general unsupported assertion that the listed 
criterion does not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation is not probative, and officers do not consider comparable 
evidence if the petitioner submits evidence in lieu of a particular criterion that is readily applicable to the beneficiary's 
occupation simply because the beneficiary cannot satisfy the criterion). 
4 
In denying the petition, the Director determined: 
The response received on February 10, 2022, also included the submission of 
promotional materials and what would appear to be local or regional articles regarding 
culinary events the beneficiary participated in . . . . However, the record as submitted, 
to include the response request, does not include sufficient independent, objective 
evidence demonstrating the significance of the published material submitted. USCIS 
does acknowledge the submission of background materials that originate from the 
publications themselves. However, this evidence alone, is not sufficient to establish 
the significance of a having a publicity release, advertisement or one's work discussed 
in these published sources. As noted in the request, you did not provide evidence 
showing that the articles you submitted are from major media sources or publications 
with the breadth of coverage and readership capable of conferring national or 
international recognition for achievements. In fact, the documents you provided 
continue to demonstrate that the circulation data for each of the article sources suggest 
that the respective publications are comparatively small and do not have the reach that 
could provide the beneficiary with the requisite national or international recognition. 
As noted in the request, many publications are capable of reaching millions of readers 
daily, whereas the documents you provided each reflect only a fraction of those 
numbers with their circulation figures. 
We adopt and affirm the Director's decision with the comments below. See Matter of P. Singh, 
Attorney, 26 I&N Dec. 623 (BIA 2105) (citing Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872,874 (BIA 1994); 
see also Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 7-8 (1st Cir. 1996) ("[I]f a reviewing tribunal decides that the facts 
and evaluative judgments rescinding from them have been adequately confronted and correctly 
resolved by a trial judge or hearing officer, then the tribunal is free simply to adopt those findings" 
provided the tribunal's order reflects individualized attention to the case). Although the Petitioner 
argues that the "About Pages" must be reliable, or the website/publication will lose its credibility, 
reputation and revenue," the Petitioner did not supplement the record with independent, objective 
evidence to support the publication or website's claims. Cf, Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO 
(C.D.C.A. July 6, 2007), aff'd 2009 WL 604888 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that self-serving 
assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status is not reliant evidence of a major 
medium). 
In addition, the Petitioner indicates that "[w ]hile some of the publications have a more local or regional 
circulation, those publications have arguably high circulation for those areas of the country." Even if 
a publication has high local or regional circulation numbers, the Petitioner did not establish how local 
or regional media coverage translates into national or international recognition. Furthermore, the 
record reflects that the Petitioner provided circulation data for only one of the publications, The New 
Indian Express from Wikipedia. As there are no assurances about the reliability of the content from 
this open, user-edited Internet site, we will not assign weight to information from Wikipedia. See 
Laamilem Badasa v. Michael Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008). Regardless, the Petitioner did 
not demonstrate the significance of the circulation figures, to demonstrate the major medium standing 
of the publication. 
5 
Finally, the Petitioner indicates that the Director did "not discuss the obvious merit of the New York 
Times, which published an article that discusses the Petitioner's enterprise." Again, this criterion 
requires evidence that the Beneficiary has achieved national or international recognition. The 
Petitioner did not explain or show how an article in the New York Times about the Petitioner, without 
any discussion or indication of the Beneficiary, shows the Beneficiary's national or international 
recognition. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary satisfies this 
criterion. 
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. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(6). 
In order to meet this criterion, a petition must show that a beneficiary 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. See 8 C.F.R. § 212.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(6). 
Although the Director determined that the Beneficiary satisfied this criterion, we will withdraw the 
Director's decision for this criterion, discussed below. 
At initial filing, the Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary "will receive $102,000 per year as Culinary 
Director with the Petitioner." The Petitioner submitted a letter stating: 
[The Petitioner] wishes to employ [the Beneficiary] as Culinary Director for both our 
restaurants and catering services. [The Beneficiary] will oversee all food preparation for 
our restaurants and our catering services, whether in-house or on-site at the event location. 
[The Beneficiary] will be responsible for creating menus and dishes with unique recipes, 
ensuring all ingredients meet ... standard, and will oversee our cooks and support staff as 
they cook and plate dishes. At all times, [the Beneficiary] will ensure the quality and 
artistic design of each menu item, using his trained palate, experience, and knowledge of 
Indian cuisine, with a view towards consistently enhancing our reputation as a premiere 
caterer. He will direct our cooks and other kitchen staff in crafting exquisite, delicious 
and appealing dishes, and serving the dishes in an impeccable and friendly manner to 
dining guests. 
According to the "Employment Agreement" between the Petitioner and the Beneficiary, the Beneficiary 
will be employed as a culinary director and: 
[The Beneficiary's] duties shall include creating unique menus and dishes for [the 
Petitioner's] two restaurants and catering services; [the Beneficiary] shall create new 
recipes in North & South Indian, Inda-Chinese, Street Food, Pan Asian cuisines and an 
exquisite array of desserts; [ the Beneficiary] shall oversee [ the Petitioner's] kitchen staff 
in cooking, plating and serving the dishes. [The Beneficiary] will be expected to exercise 
excellent managerial skills to ensure [the Beneficiary's] staff creates exquisite dishes as 
per the recipes, and serves the dishes in an impeccable and friendly manner to [the 
Petitioner's] dining and catering service guests. 
6 
The Petitioner also submitted wage data from the Foreign Labor Certification Data Center (FLCDC) and 
the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (USBLS) for the occupations of"Chefs and Head Cooks," defined as 
"[d]irect and may participate in the preparation, seasoning, and cooking of salads, soups, fish, meats, 
vegetables, desserts, or other foods. May plan and price menu items, order supplies, and keep records 
and accounts." 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner also claimed the Beneficiary's eligibility based on his 
current salary with as a a culinary director. The Petitioner submitted "Culinary Director Offer 
of Employment" to the Beneficiary reflecting: 
In the position of Culinary Director, [ the Beneficiary] will be expected to create unique 
menus for events, designing distinctive recipes for events, and overseeing the 
creation of these recipes for events. As the Culinary Director, [the Beneficiary] will 
be expected, through your trained palate and experience, to ensure the quality and artistic 
significance of all contributions made in restaurant. [The Beneficiary] will be 
expected to utilize knowledge of Indian cuisine and individualistic creativity to 
accomplish the task of conceptualizing and implementing food displays. 
The employment offer letter also indicates additional responsibilities: demonstrating leadership; thinking 
creatively; exceeding customer expectations; improving service; managing daily operations of the area or 
department; supervising associates; coaching and developing others; training and teaching others; making 
decisions and solving problems; and organizing, planning, and prioritizing. Further, the Petitioner 
submitted the same comparable salary data for "Chefs and Head Cooks" from the FLCDC and USBLS. 
Although the Petitioner claims the Beneficiary's eligibility for this criterion based on his previous and 
future salary as a culinary director, the Petitioner offered comparative wage data for chefs and head 
cooks. The Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary has either commanded a high salary or 
will command a high salary in relation to other culinary directors. Both precedent and case law support 
this application of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(6). Cf, Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 
(Assoc. Comm'r 1994) ( considering a professional golfer's earnings versus other PGA Tour golfers); 
see also Skokos v. US. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 420 F. App'x 712, 713-14 (9th Cir. 2011) (finding 
salary information for those performing lesser duties is not a comparison to others in the field); 
Crimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering NHL enforcer's salary versus 
other NHL enforcers); Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N. D. Ill. 1995) (comparing salary of 
NHL defensive player to salary of other NHL defensemen). In light of the different responsibilities 
and duties indicated above, the Petitioner did not show that the occupation of a culinary director is the 
same as a chef or head cook. Therefore, the Petitioner did not establish that the comparative salary 
data for chefs and head cooks is relative to the earnings of culinary directors. 
Because the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary has either commanded or will command a 
high salary in relation to other culinary directors, we withdraw the Director's favorable finding for this 
criterion. 
7 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary meets the criteria relating to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2( o )(3)(iv)(B)( I), (2), and ( 6). Although the Petitioner claims the Beneficiary's eligibility under 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(3) and (5), we need not address these grounds because it cannot fulfill 
the initial evidentiary requirement of at least three criteria. We also need not provide a totality 
determination to establish whether the Beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim, has 
received a high level of achievement, and has been recognized as being prominent in his field of 
endeavor. See section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii) and (iv).3 
Accordingly, we reserve these issues. 4 Consequently, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the 
Beneficiary's eligibility for the 0-1 visa classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. The 
appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 See generally 2 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, M.4(0). 
4 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 
n. 7. (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
8