This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary met at least three of the six regulatory criteria required for O-1 extraordinary ability in the arts. The AAO also reversed the Director's favorable finding on the high salary criterion.
3 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.
The petitioner, a restaurant and catering business, sought O-1B classification for a beneficiary it wanted to employ as a culinary director. The Vermont Service Center denied the petition, finding only one of six required criteria met (high salary). On appeal, the AAO reviewed all contested criteria de novo and found none satisfied: event flyers and festival materials failed to establish distinguished reputations, media coverage was from publications too small or local to confer national or international recognition, and the high salary comparison used data for chefs and head cooks rather than culinary directors. The AAO reversed the Director's favorable high salary finding and dismissed the appeal. Because fewer than three criteria were met, no totality-of-the-evidence analysis was conducted.
What failed: 1. Published materials criterion failed because the submitted articles were either about a different person, illegible, or from local/regional publications without sufficient reach to confer national or international recognition. 2. Lead or starring participant criterion failed because event flyers and festival materials did not establish the distinguished reputation of the events, and future wedding catering contracts did not mention the beneficiary or prove event prestige. 3. High salary criterion failed because the petitioner compared the beneficiary's salary to chefs and head cooks rather than to other culinary directors, who hold different responsibilities.
Takeaway: Petitioners must use occupation-specific wage comparisons — not broader or related job titles — when asserting a high salary, and must submit independent, objective evidence (such as third-party reviews or circulation data from reliable sources) to establish both the prominence of the publications covering the beneficiary and the distinguished reputation of events where the beneficiary performed.
Cases like this are frequently used by attorneys when responding to RFEs or building initial petitions. The evidence patterns that worked (or failed) here directly reflect what USCIS officers look for when evaluating O-1B criteria.
● Evidence that moved the needle
- See summary above for details.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- Published materials criterion failed because the submitted articles were either about a different person, illegible, or from local/regional publications without sufficient reach to confer national or international recognition
- Lead or starring participant criterion failed because event flyers and festival materials did not establish the distinguished reputation of the events, and future wedding catering contracts did not mention the beneficiary or prove event prestige
- High salary criterion failed because the petitioner compared the beneficiary's salary to chefs and head cooks rather than to other culinary directors, who hold different responsibilities.
Event flyers that did not mention the beneficiary or establish distinguished reputation of the events
Articles from Daily Post India and Yugmarg that were not legible
Article from The Hindu that covered a different individual with the same name as the beneficiary
Local and regional publication articles that lacked the reach to confer national or international recognition
Circulation data sourced from Wikipedia, which lacks reliability assurances
New York Times article about the petitioning company that did not mention the beneficiary
Catering contracts for wedding events that did not name the beneficiary or establish the distinguished reputation of the events
Wage data from FLCDC and USBLS for 'Chefs and Head Cooks' rather than culinary directors
Food critic letter that praised the beneficiary's dish but did not address the reputation or standing of the festival
Comparable evidence argument raised for the first time on appeal and not presented to the Director
Director incorrectly found the high salary criterion met because the petitioner compared the beneficiary's salary to chefs and head cooks rather than to other culinary directors, who have different responsibilities and duties
Director's favorable finding on high salary was based on inapt occupational comparison data
Completed
I-129 filed
Culinary director overseeing food preparation, menu creation, and kitchen staff for restaurants and catering events
Completed
Vermont Service Center — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2022-12-07
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary met at least three of the six regulatory criteria required for O-1 extraordinary ability in the arts. The AAO also reversed the Director's favorable finding on the high salary criterion.
If you're appealing a similar decision, I-290B must be filed within 30 days of personal service of the denial, or 33 days if mailed.
Find this useful? A coffee helps keep Case Reviewer free and ad-free.
Buy me a coffee