Date of Decision: August 27, 2024
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Omakase Chef
Field: Culinary Arts – Japanese Fine Dining
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
The petitioner claimed eligibility under five regulatory criteria but met only two as determined by the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO).
Criteria Met:
- Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations:
- The petitioner demonstrated that his omakase restaurant was listed in the Michelin Guide, which reflects a distinguished reputation in the culinary industry.
- High Salary or Other Significantly High Remuneration:
- The petitioner submitted evidence of earning a salary that exceeds others in the field, specifically citing income generated through his renowned restaurant.
Criteria Not Met:
- Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards:
- The petitioner argued that his restaurant’s inclusion in the Michelin Guide constituted a prize or award. However, the AAO concluded that being listed without receiving Michelin stars did not qualify as a recognized prize or award.
- Membership in Associations Requiring Outstanding Achievements:
- The petitioner claimed the Michelin Guide listing was akin to membership in an exclusive association. The AAO rejected this assertion, stating the Guide listing is not equivalent to formal association membership requiring outstanding achievements.
- Published Material About the Petitioner:
- Media coverage was predominantly regional and lacked sufficient circulation, prominence, or broader recognition to qualify as major media.
Key Points from the Decision
Michelin Guide Inclusion:
- While the petitioner’s restaurant was included in the Michelin Guide, it did not receive any stars. The AAO emphasized that a Michelin star significantly elevates a restaurant’s recognition, while inclusion without a star reflects quality but does not meet the acclaim required under EB-1 regulations.
Media Coverage:
- Articles and rankings primarily focused on local recognition, with limited evidence of national or international acclaim.
Director’s and AAO’s Conclusions:
- The AAO affirmed the Director’s findings that the petitioner met two criteria but failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or recognition as one of the small percentage at the top of the field.
Final Merits Determination:
- A final merits determination was not conducted, as the petitioner did not meet at least three regulatory criteria.
Supporting Documentation
Leading Role Evidence: Documentation of the petitioner’s restaurant inclusion in the Michelin Guide.
High Salary Evidence: Income records demonstrating significantly high earnings in the culinary field.
Awards and Media Coverage: Lists, rankings, and media articles, predominantly reflecting local recognition.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner met two regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). However, the evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition as one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of Omakase dining.
