An O-1 Approval Did Not Establish EB-1A Eligibility: An Executive Sous Chef’s Appeal
Holding O-1 status and performing an important hotel role did not resolve the evidentiary requirements for this executive sous chef’s EB-1A petition. In In Re: 28426950, the AAO examined whether salary comparisons, published recipes and media appearances, and evidence about hotel food-and-beverage departments satisfied the claimed criteria. It recognized aspects of the chef’s professional record but found the required initial showing unproved. The prior O-1 approval was considered, rather than treated as irrelevant or binding.
The January 18, 2024 nonprecedent decision dismissed the appeal. Its reasoning shows why each regulatory element needs an evidentiary fit. It also distinguishes criteria expressly found insufficient from issues reserved because they could not change the numerical result.
Salary above a broad average did not establish the claimed comparison
The chef submitted a 2022 tax return and W-2 reporting $71,085, alongside a 2021 national mean of $56,920 for chefs and head cooks. The AAO found that a nationwide average across settings and geographic areas did not adequately compare his pay with that of hotel executive sous chefs. A later $82,000 salary assertion did not come with updated comparison data. See page 3 and footnote 4.
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) requires high salary or significantly high remuneration “in relation to others in the field.” The decision did not announce a fixed dollar threshold. The occupation, location, period, and measure used in the comparison mattered.
Recipes and promotional coverage were not enough to establish material about him
The materials included newspaper recipes, photographs, brief quotations, television stills, and coverage of hotel restaurants and events. The AAO found that they principally concerned recipes, employers, or promotional activities rather than the chef and his specific work as required by the claimed published-material criterion. Appearing in an article was not equivalent to establishing what that article was about. See pages 4–5.
The opinion does not hold that a chef’s recipe coverage can never qualify. It evaluates the submitted materials and their focus. The actual content of coverage, along with the other regulatory requirements, needs examination rather than reliance on a publication’s name or a photograph.
The role was critical, but the relevant reputation remained unproved
Letters and organizational charts established critical work within the restaurants and food-and-beverage departments. The missing element was the distinguished reputation of those units. Hotel-chain awards, amenities, corporate reports, and revenue projections did not adequately establish the reputation of the departments on which the claimed roles rested. See pages 5–6.
This distinction prevents two inaccurate summaries: the AAO did not reject the importance of the chef’s work, and it did not find that a hotel’s overall reputation automatically established that of every department.
Comparable evidence and omitted criteria did not change the result
The petitioner offered culinary experts’ letters as comparable evidence but did not sufficiently identify which criteria did not readily apply or explain the comparison. The AAO declined to treat the letters as a substitute on that unsupported basis. See page 6.
The Director had omitted discussion of awards and commercial success. The AAO reserved those issues because even favorable findings on both could not supply three criteria after the other three failed. Omission was not implicit acceptance. The artistic-display argument was treated as waived, and the AAO did not conduct final merits. See pages 2–3, footnote 1, and page 6.
Why O-1 status did not compel immigrant classification
The chef had held O-1 status since 2018. The AAO considered it a relevant indicator but did not have the earlier petition records to compare. It explained that the evidentiary defects in this EB-1A record remained unresolved despite the prior nonimmigrant approval. The appeal was dismissed. See page 7.
For another culinary petition, counsel should assess appropriate pay comparisons, the focus of media coverage, the exact organizational unit involved, and the documented basis for any comparable-evidence claim. O-1 and EB-1A records require their own assessment. This historical decision does not control every later case; special circumstances and applicable current law must be reviewed individually.
Legal Disclaimer. Originally published: 11/01/2026. This article provides general information only and is not legal advice for any particular matter. Laws, policies, procedures, fees and agency practices may change; their application depends on the facts and jurisdiction. Consult a qualified attorney about your circumstances before acting on this information. Reading this article or contacting Blumsack & Canzano does not, by itself, create an attorney-client relationship. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.
