dismissed O-1B Case: Culinary Arts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 14, 2023 In Re: 27773917 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability- 0) 
The Petitioner, a restaurant and bakery, seeks to classify the Beneficiary as a pastry chef of 
extraordinary ability . 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. The matter is now before us on appeal. 1 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo . Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec . 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
As relevant here, section 101(a)(l5)(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 define "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 
1 The Petitioner's appeal consists of the Fonn I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, a cover letter, a copy of the Director's 
decision, and a brief statement identifying the basis for an appeal. The Petitioner indicated on the Form I-290B that he 
would submit a brief and/or additional evidence to this office within 30 calendar days of filing the appeal. The record does 
not reflect the Petitioner's subsequent submission of a brief or evidence in support of this appeal filed on April 3, 2023 . 
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)(l5)(o)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii), (iv). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined 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 the Petitioner provided evidence relating to three criteria, the 
leading or starring participant in productions or events criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2( o )(3)(iv)(B)(]), the lead, starring, or critical role for organizations or establishments criterion 
under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(3), and the significant recognition for achievements criterion 
under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(5), but the Beneficiary did not meet any of them. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary has received a significant national or 
international award or prize under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A) and, alternately, that he satisfies two 
of the previously claimed criteria. 2 As discussed below, we find that the exhibits do not satisfy any of 
the evidentiary categories described at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A)-(B). 
A. Significant National or International Award 
As noted above, a petitioner may demonstrate that a beneficiary qualifies as an individual of extraordinary 
ability in the arts through evidence of his nomination for, or receipt of, a significant national or international 
award or prize like the Academy Award, an Emmy, a Grammy, or a Director's Guild Award. 8 C.F.R 
§ 214.2( o )(3)(iv)(A). The Petitioner did not specifically indicate before the Director whether it was 
2 On appeal, the Petitioner does not dispute the Director's finding that he had not established the Beneficiary's eligibility 
under the leading or starring participant in productions or events criterion at 8 C .F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iv)(B)( 1). Additionally, 
the Petitioner did not claim eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(2), (4), or (6) before the Director or on appeal. 
As the Petitioner provides no evidence or arguments addressing these four criteria on appeal, we consider these issues to 
be abandoned. See Matter ofR-A-M-, 25 l&N Dec. 657. 658 n.2 (BIA 2012) (stating that when a filing palty fails to appeal 
an issue addressed in an adverse decision, that issue is waived). See also Sepulveda v. US. Atty. Gen., 401 F.3d 1226. 
1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005). citing United States v. Cunningham, 161 F.3d 1343, 1344 (11th Cir. 1998); Hristov v. Roark, 
No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *l, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (finding plaintiffs claims abandoned as he 
failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
2 
claiming eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A). On appeal, it indicates it provided evidence of 
the Beneficiary's receipt of a bronze medal at the 2011 I Iand argues the award is 
"the premier international cooking competition and is regarded as the equivalent of the Oscars or the 
Grammy's in the culinary world." 
In support of this claim, the Petitioner references previously submitted documentation, including an award 
certificate indicatin the Beneficiar was the recipient of a bronze medal in the 'I Icategory 
of the 2011 (Continental Edition). The certificate indicates the 2011 
._______ --.-_____ ___._w=as""-=a"""'th..,.r..,,e..,.e....-d...a"'-'--e,._v...,e.,nt held by the World Association of Chef Societies 
(WACS) at the.__ ____________ _,, Costa Rica. The Petitioner also provided the 
Beneficiary's participation certificate for the event. 
The aforementioned award and participation certificates are not sufficient to demonstrate that the 2011 
I t bronze medal received by the Beneficiary is a 
"significant national or international" award or prize that rises to the level comparable to an Academy 
Award, an Emmy, a Grammy, or a Director's Guild Award, the examples provided in the regulations. 
The record contains insufficient evidence regarding the purpose of the award, the application, 
nominating, or selection process used by the issuing body, the eligibility criteria, or that the award has 
attracted significant recognition beyond the context of the event where it was presented. The winners 
and nominees of Emmy and Grammy awards, for example, receive significant national and 
international media attention as the result of their recognition, and the awards themselves are 
considered among the highest achievements attainable in the performing arts. 
Without evidence establishing that the Beneficiary's award has garnered national or international 
recognition similar to an Academy Award, an Emmy, a Grammy, or a Director's Guild Award, the 
Petitioner's exhibits do not satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A). 
B. Evidentiary Criteria 
Absent evidence the Beneficiary has been nominated for, or received, a significant national or 
international award or prize, the Petitioner seeks to demonstrate the Beneficiary's sustained acclaim 
and recognition of achievements through evidence corresponding to two of the previously claimed 
criteria at 8 C.F.R § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B). We will address these criteria below. 
Evidence that the alien has pe1formed, and will pe,form, 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. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(3). 
This regulatory criterion requires a petitioner to show the beneficiary's past and future lead, starring, 
or critical roles. We agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
the Beneficiary's eligibility for this criterion. Here, the Petitioner maintains that since 2005 the 
Beneficiary performed in a lead, starring, or critical role as co-owner, with his wife, of I I 
3 
~---~I a baked goods catering business inl ICosta Rica. 3 Within its initial submission, 
the Petitioner submitted the articles of incorporation for the Beneficiary's company. It also provided 
his resume, which indicates that as a pastry chef with his business he has been responsible for 
"preparing events, budgets, inventories, managing staff, solving unforeseen events, innovating in 
pastry products and breads for restaurants as special events." 
Within its response to the Director's request for further evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided a letter 
from the Beneficiary, in which he asserts that his business "continues to thrive as the prominent bakery 
inl !Costa Rica and nationwide" and is "the go-to for catering services, restaurants, clubs, as 
well as hotels." We acknowledge that the documentation submitted indicates the Beneficiary was 
employed in a critical or essential capacity for~---------~ However, the record does 
not contain the required documentary evidence in the form of articles in news a ers, trade journals, 
publications, or testimonials pertaining to the reputation of Although the 
Beneficiary's uncle, E-S-G-, an executive pastry chef with ~--~International, states that the 
Beneficiary has had his own company "for more than 16 years" and "is known for making innovative 
desserts of excellent quality for sale in hotels, restaurants, and clubs," his vague assertions regarding 
the company's renown are insufficient to establish the distinguished reputation of the establishment. 
In addition, the Petitioner must establish that the Beneficiary will, prospectively, provide services in a 
lead, starring, or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
Within the Petitioner's RFE response, it submitted a summary of the terms of the oral agreement 
between the parties dated December 13, 2022, which provides that the Beneficiary will "utilize his 
untouched and unique ability to create and offer distinctive pastries to be served in my restaurants as 
well as to develop a standalone establishment connected to [the petitioning organization.]" However, 
the summary of the terms of the oral agreement is dated December 13, 2022, after the date the petition 
was filed in August 2022. The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the 
immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through 
adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
Regardless, the record does not include evidence explaining how the Beneficiary's role as a pastry 
chef rises to the level of a lead, starring, or critical role for the petitioning restaurant and bakery. The 
submitted evidence does not describe how he will contribute to the petitioning business, or how his 
proposed positions fit within the hierarchy of the organization. Finally, the Petitioner did not provide 
any evidence demonstrating that it enjoys a distinguished reputation. As previously noted, the plain 
language of this criterion requires the submission of evidence in the form of newspapers, trade 
journals, publications, or testimonials. In light of the above, the Petitioner has not established that 
the Beneficiary satisfies the requirements of this evidentiary criterion. 
3 The Petitioner previously claimed that the Beneficiary also meets this criterion based on his roles between 1992 and 
Au ust 2022 the date the petition was filed, as a chief executive and cheffonlntemational; pastry chefforl I 
trainer for the National Chef Association ofl ~ulinary arts expert and lead chef for 
L-----r---------,__ ____ ...J On appeal, the Petitioner claims eligibility based on the Beneficiary's 
roles with~-------~ and the petitioning organization, and does not address these other roles in the culinaiy 
field. 
4 
III. CONCLUSION 
The record does not establish that the Beneficiary's nomination for, or receipt ot: significant national 
or international awards or prizes under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A). In addition, we find that the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary meets the criterion relating to lead, starring, or 
critical role for organizations or establishments at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(3). Although the 
Petitioner claims the Beneficiary's eligibility for an additional criterion on appeal, relating to 
significant recognition for achievements at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(5), we need not reach this 
additional ground, because it cannot fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of at least three criteria. 4 
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, renowned, leading, or well-known in the field of arts. See section 10l(a)(l5)(O)(i) 
of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii) and (iv). 5 Accordingly, we reserve these issues. 6 
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. 
4 Even if the Petitioner established on appeal that the Beneficiary met the lead, starring, or critical role and significant 
recognition criteria, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C. F .R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iv)(B)(l)-( 6). 
As stated, although the Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish the Beneficiary's eligibility under the 
leading or starring participant in productions or events criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iv)(B)(l ), the Petitioner does not 
address this criterion on appeal. 
5 See generally 2 USC1S Policy Manual, M.4(D), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
6 See Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25-26: see also L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 516, n.7. 
5