dismissed O-1B Case: Culinary Arts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 24, 2024 In Re: 31953606 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability- 0) 
The Petitioner, a restaurant, seeks to classify the Beneficiary as an executive 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)(l5)(O)(i). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record 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. 
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)(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 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 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). 1 
TI. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
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 established the Beneficiary's eligibility for only one 
criterion, significant recognition under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(5). On appeal, the Petitioner 
maintains the Beneficiary meets four additional criteria. 2 In addition, the Petitioner submits new 
evidence. Because the Petitioner was put on notice and given a reasonable opportunity to provide this 
evidence, we will not consider it for the first time on appeal. See 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(11) (requiring 
all requested evidence be submitted together at one time); Matter ofSoriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 
(BIA 1988) ( declining to consider new evidence submitted on appeal because "the petitioner was put 
on notice of the required evidence and given a reasonable opportunity to provide it for the record 
before the denial"). For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner did not establish 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 criterion requires evidence of the beneficiary's past lead or starring participation in distinguished 
productions or events, and the beneficiary's prospective lead or starring participation in distinguished 
productions or events. 3 Regarding the Beneficiary's past services, on appeal, the Petitioner maintains 
the Beneficiary's eligibility based on his claimed participation in an Indian food festival held at the 
___________ in celebration of the annual festival ofl IIt asserts that the 
festival was "a significant cultural extravaganza drawing a massive crowd," and claims: 
1 See also 2 USCIS Policy Manual, M.4(D)(4), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
2 On appeal, the Petitioner does not dispute the Director's finding that it had not established the Beneficiary's eligibility 
for the commercial or critically acclaimed successes criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(4). We consider any 
previous eligibility claims not raised on appeal to be waived. See. e.g.. Matter ofO-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. 330, 336 n.5 (BIA 
2021) (citing Matter ofR-A-M-, 25 l&N Dec. 657,658 n.2 (BIA 2012)). 
3 See generally 2 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(D)(2)(appendix). 
2 
[The Beneficiary], in his role as the executive chef for this event, demonstrates 
exceptional event management skills, showcasing his culinary expertise in successfully 
catering to the entire festival. This festival not only showcased the rich tapestry of 
Indian cuisine but also highlighted [the Beneficiary] as a true luminary and leader in 
his field. Through his participation in this distinguished event, [the Beneficiary] 
solidified his position as a visionary chef, contributing significantly to the cultural and 
gastronomic landscape. 
To meet this criterion, the petitioner must submit evidence in the form of critical reviews, 
advertisements, publicity releases, publications, contracts, or endorsements. 4 In support of its claims, 
the Petitioner offered a co of an undated rint article from an unidentified source, titled I 
The article contains a photograph with the caption 
along with the team of the hotel." The article states that exclusive meals have 
been specially planned by the hotel's executive chef and master chef for the five-day festival, which 
will include specialty cooks from different parts of Bengal who will supervise a special vegetarian 
buffet, and performances of Baul music and modem Hindi and Bengali songs. The article shows the 
will host the event, but it does not mention the Beneficiary by name as a 
participant in the event and, therefore, does not identify or document his lead or starring role. 5 
As it relates to the Beneficiary's prospective services, the Director determined that the Petitioner did 
not establish that the Beneficiary would perform services as a lead or starring participant in 
productions or events with distinguished reputations. Although the Petitioner presented its signed 
employment offer with the Beneficiary, the document does not establish the Beneficiary will serve as 
a lead or starring participant in productions or events. 6 Nor does the agreement reflect productions or 
events with distinguished reputations. 7 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not show the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence that the beneficiary has achieved national or international recognition for 
achievements evidenced by critical reviews or other published materials by or about 
the beneficiary in major newspapers, trade journals, magazines, or other publications. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(2). 
4 See generally 2 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(D)(2)(appendix). 
5 Id. (providing that evidence may demonstrate a lead role by establishing that the person has a principal role in the events 
or production, and a starring role means a position of great prominence relative to others in the event or production). 
6 Id. (instructing that in evaluating whether the beneficiary's participation in a past or future event or production qualifies 
as a lead or starring, officers may consider, for example, whether the beneficiary's role is highlighted or featured in 
advertisements, publicity releases, critical reviews, or other materials, and the contractual terms offered to the beneficiary 
may also be relevant to establishing the lead or starring nature of the beneficiary's participation, especially with regard to 
a prospective event or production). 
7 Id. (providing that with regard to demonstrating the distinguished reputation of a prospective event, a petitioner may 
submit documentation such as advance publicity, endorsements, or other evidence regarding the level of anticipation of 
the relevant event or production; however, as the available evidence relating to the reputation of a prospective production 
or event will often be limited, officers may also consider factors such as the reputation of similar past events or productions 
by the same individuals or entities). 
3 
I 
To meet this criterion, the petitioner must provide evidence that demonstrates the beneficiary is 
recognized for achievements nationally or internationally, in the form of critical reviews or other 
published materials in major newspapers, trade journals, magazines, or other publications, which may 
include online publications or transcripts of radio or video coverage. 8 In determining whether the 
submitted evidence demonstrates that the beneficiary has achieved national or international 
recognition for achievements, officers consider both the content of the published material and the level 
of recognition enjoyed by the publication in which it appears. 9 For example, favorable coverage or 
publication of the beneficiary's work in major media, as demonstrated by high relative circulation, 
readership, or viewership figures, could establish national or international recognition of the 
beneficiary's achievements. 10 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary's book, I I 
published by the Petitioner on Amazon Kindle in 2023, 
satisfies this criterion. The book contains the Beneficiary's recipes and a biographical statement 
"About the Chef," which describes, in general terms, his past duties and claimed success in dining, 
banquet catering, and facility management. The Petitioner asserts that the book has achieved 
widespread reach and provides a screenshot of a Kindle Direct Publishing "Orders" report that shows 
the book has been downloaded 283 times. However, the orders report is dated January 2024, 
subsequent to the filing of the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(I). Nonetheless, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate the significance, if any, of 283 downloads on Amazon Kindle. 
In addition, the Petitioner provides an article dated I I 2023 and published in 
republicnewsindia.com about the Beneficiary and his work, including his above-mentioned book; 
however, the article is dated after the initial filing of the petition. Eligibility must be established at the 
time of filing the benefit request. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
Further, the Petitioner asserts that a "highly favorable review," written by a professor of tourism and 
hospitality management at "exemplifies [the Beneficiary's] expertise in the 
culinary field." However, the professor's email message to the Beneficiary indicates only that he has 
"downloaded the eBook and am eagerly looking forward to diving into its contents," and, therefore, 
does not constitute favorable coverage of the Beneficiary's work in a major medium. Finally, although 
the Petitioner also claims the Beneficiary's eligibility based upon his receipt of a certificate of 
appreciation from the the certificate is not 
published material by or about the Beneficiary. 11 
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). 
To demonstrate eligibility for this criterion, the petitioner should provide appropriate evidence 
establishing that the beneficiary's past or future compensation is or will be high relative to others working 
8 See generally 2 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(D)(2)(appendix). 
9 Id. 
10 Id. 
11 We note that on appeal and before the Director, the Petitioner provided a copy of a photograph of the Beneficiary holding 
a ce1iificate from the and an award plaque, but the writing on those items is illegible and bluny. 
4 
in the field. 12 At initial filing, the Petitioner indicated the submission of evidence to show the 
Beneficiary's eligibility based on his current salary with as a a culinary 
director. As evidence of the Beneficiary's compensation, the Petitioner submitted the Beneficiary's pay 
slip for August 2023 indicating a monthly salary of 102,300 INR as a culinary director. 
In addition, the Petitioner initially submitted the Beneficiary's resume, which described his past position 
of executive chef as creating menus and recipes; and managing all food production at restaurant and 
banquet functions and other outlets. For the Beneficiary's current position as culinary director, his resume 
indicated different responsibilities, such as: working to increase restaurant liquor sales; achieving 
budgeted revenues; controlling costs; maximizing profitability related to facility operations; preparing 
annual budgets for food and beverage operations; communicating financial information daily to the 
general manager; and conducting staff training and recruitment. 
Further, the Petitioner submitted salary data for chefs and executive chefs in India from jobted.in and 
monthly average wage data for executive chefs from In.indeed.com. 13 However, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary has commanded 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 
ofPrice, 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. ofHomeland 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); Grimson 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 executive chef. Therefore, the Petitioner did not establish 
that the comparative salary data for chefs and executive chefs is relative to the earnings of culinary 
directors. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary has commanded a 
high salary in relation to other culinary directors. 
B. Prior Approval 
As the Director noted, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has approved another petition 
previously filed by a different petitioner on behalf of the Beneficiary. We are not required to approve 
applications or petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals 
that may have been erroneous. See Matter ofChurch Scientology Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 593,597 (Comm'r 
1988); see also Sussex Eng'g, Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987). Furthermore, 
we are not bound to follow a contradictory decision of a service center. La. Philharmonic Orchestra v. 
INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *3 (E.D. La. 2000), ajf'd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001). 
12 See generally 2 USCIS Policy Manual. supra, at M.4(D)(2)(appendix). 
13 Although the Petitioner provides additional documentation on appeal (salary data for executive chefs from In.indeed.com 
based upon six salaries at Sodexo food services company), as discussed, we will not consider new eligibility claims or 
evidence for the first time on appeal. See Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. at 766. 
5 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not establish 
the Beneficiary meets any of the criteria discussed above. Although 
the Petitioner claims the Beneficiary's eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iv)(B)(3), we need not 
address this ground, as well as the favorable finding of the Director for 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(5), 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, 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). Accordingly, we reserve these 
issues. 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. 
6