dismissed EB-1A Case: Fashion Model

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 4655582 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : NOV. 27, 2019 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a fashion model , seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C . § 1153(b)(l)(A). This first 
preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have 
been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the Form I-140 , Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker , 
concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only one of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of which she 
must at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and argues that she meets three of the criteria, as required. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C . § 1361; Matter ofSkirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec . 799, 806 (AAO 
2012). Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences , arts, education , business , or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation , 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States . 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he or she must 
provide documentation that meets at least three of the ten categories listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain media, and 
scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a fashion model featured in numerous advertisements, catalogs, and fashion 
editorials. Because she has not indicated or established that she has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). However, upon a review of the record in its entirety, we conclude that it does not 
support a finding that the Petitioner fulfills the requirements of at least three criteria. 
A. Regulatory Criteria 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the.field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner contends that she meets this criterion based upon her receipt of first prize "in the 
nationwide Brazilian modeling competition I I sponsored byl I modeling 
agency." Here the record reflects that the Petitioner won the I I competition in 2004. 
Specifically, it includes al 12006 article from Radar Ma azine confirming that "[i]n 2004, [the 
Petitioner] won the riz~ I run byL-...r----_._ .................. it identifies as a modeling 
agency located in photo raphs of her wearing a'.__ _____ __, sash, and letters fro me=] 
I I of .__ ________ __,which indicate that she was also signed to a modeling contract 
as a result of this award. However, the Petitioner does not submit rideuce srh as media, 
correspondence, or other materials, demonstrating that her selection as the,___ __ ____,is a nationally 
or internationally recognized award for excellence in the field of modeling. 
The Petitioner farther contends she meets this criterion as she was "selected in 2006 to join ther--7 
0' group of models and "walk the stages ofl I Fashion Weeki t' as part~ 
Brasil's "fourth edition of its national! I model search competition." She provides a brief 
article about I I and I I as well as her "official I I flyer with headshot and short 
2 
biography," which confirm her selection to this team. However, these documents do not demonstrate 
that her selection to thel I modeling group in and of itself is an award or prize. Rather, as 
noted in an undated and untitled article provided by the Petitioner, selection to this team is a 
requirement for participation in the I I model search competition that occurs during I I 
and "chooses the preferred new face of the event." 1 The Petitioner, therefore, has not provided. 
evidence demonstrating that she was granted an award or prize based upon her participation in this 
competition, as required. 
For the abovementioned reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that she meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Director previously determined that the Petitioner had not submitted sufficient evidence to satisfy 
this criterion. Upon review of the record in its entirety, we note that it contains a 2008 article published 
in Vogue Brasil about the Petitioner and her work as a model, as well as evidence demonstrating that 
Vogue Brasil is a major medium. Accordingly, we disagree with the Director's decision and find 
evidence in the record sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
As it relates to a leading role, the evidence must establish that a petitioner is or was a leader. A title, 
with appropriate matching duties, can help to establish if a role is or was, in fact, leading. 2 Regarding 
a critical role, the evidence must demonstrate that a petitioner has contributed in a way that is of 
significant importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities. It is not the 
title of a petitioner's role, but rather the performance in the role that determines whether the role is or 
was critical. 3 In addition, this criterion requires that the organizations or establishments must be 
recognized as having a distinguished reputation, which is marked by eminence, distinction, or 
excellence. 4 
The Petitioner contends that she meets this criterion through her roles as "principal catalog model and 
brand ambassador" for Brazilian fashion brands! l and I land submits several 
letters of recommendation in support of this assertion. While this correspondence describes the 
Petitioner's work as a model as outstanding, it does not contain detailed information specifically 
1 The Petitioner provided an untitled, undated document noting her selection as a member of the I I modeling 
team and describing the competition in this manner as part of her response to the Director's September 2018 request for 
evidence (RFE). 
2 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJJ-14 10 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
3 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 10. 
4 Id., at 10-11. 
3 
addressing how her role was critical to the outcome of these entities' activities. 5 For example, in 
discussing the Petitioner's "kej role" for their respective brands, bothl I producer at 
I I andl marketing coordinator atl I note that her performance was 
"absolutely noteworthy in all fashion photos and catalogues she worked on." They further assert that 
the Petitioner has "left traces in every brand she worked for" including for their respective 
organizations. However, this correspondence lacks specific examples of how her modeling 
performance was of significant importance to the outcome of each organization. Further, the Petitioner 
does not provide additional evidence to support these assertions. Letters that lack specifics and make 
broad, unsupported assertions do not add value, and are not considered to be probative evidence that 
may form the basis for meeting this criterion. 6 
Moreover, we note that the Petitioner has not submitted evidence sufficient to establish thatl 
I I or I 
O 
J are organizations having a distinguished reputation, as required. Here t~h_e_r-ec_o_r~d 
includes a memo from I I discussing each brand's reputation in Brazil,7 as well as 
printouts documenting the number of followers each organization has on Instagram. 8 In her memo, 
I I opines that these brands are distinguished as they "have powerful presences in the 
Brazilian fashion industry and provide customers with the latest trends for consumers." She references 
the number of stores located in Brazil and number of followers on Instagram in support of this 
assertion. However, the relative size of an organization is not in and of itself a determining factor of 
whether it has a distinguished reputation. Rather, it must be recognized for having such a reputation. 9 
~----~!further argues that coverage of "the stores' and brands' fashion shows and new clothing 
lines" by "major Brazilian news outlets and fashion biogs" demonstrates their distinguished 
reputations. She provides summaries of this coverage, but does not otherwise explain how it 
establishes their reputations. For example, with regard tol I she notes that in 2008, Brazil's 
newspaper Diario Do Grande ABC reported that it "hosts fashion shows on a regular basis." As it 
relates to I ts distinguished reputation,! I indicates, "distinguished Brazilian fashion 
editorl I featured the winter line of clothes for I I remarking that the new line 
brings together the rush of modem society and the values of slow fashion." The Petitioner does not 
provide corroborative evidence of this media coverage, such as the referenced biogs or media articles 
themselves, or other materials that demonstrate these firms' distinguished reputations. Moreover, 
USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. The US. Att)· Gen., 745 F. 
Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). Herel I states that this media coverage demonstrates each 
entity's distinguished reputation, but does not explain how it does so. Absent this explanation, her 
memo does not establish that each organization has a distinguished reputation, as required. 
5 While we discuss only a sampling of these letters, we have reviewed the record in its entirety. 
6 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 9. 
7 The Petitioner asse11s on appeal that the Director did not consider! I's memo and curriculum vitae in his 2018 
RFE when concluding that the record lacked "independent objective evidence" supporting "the distinguished reputation" 
of these organizations. Upon review of the record, we note that the Petitioner does not providPI ~s curriculum 
vitae. 
8 These printouts corroborate the number of Tnstagram followers for each brand asserted b~ I in her memo. 
However, the Petitioner does not establish how these statistics show that these brands have been recognized for having a 
distinguished reputation. See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 10-11 (noting that the organization 
must be recognized as having a distinguished reputation, and defining distinguished as marked by eminence, distinction, 
or excellence.) 
9 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 10. 
4 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not provided evidence establishing her eligibility 
for this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other sign[ficantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish her eligibility for this criterion. 
Specifically, he determined that, as she is claiming to be "among those in the top of her field," she 
must "submit documentary evidence of the earnings of those performing similar work at the top level 
of the .field." ( emphasis in original.) 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that she must demonstrate that she commands "a high salary or 
significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the .field .... " (emphasis in 
original.) We agree, and note that a comparison of the Petitioner's remuneration with top fashion 
models is more appropriate within the context of a final merits determination. 
The Petitioner further asserts on appeal that the record establishes "her rate of pay as $6,000 daily ( or 
$750 per hour), significantly higher than the average model." She notes that this amount is "more 
than 42 times higher than the Los Angeles level two hourly wage that the AAO found in 2005 to be 
significantly high remuneration." (emphasis in original.) Here she references a 2005 nonprecedent 
Administrative Appeals Office decision in which we determined that the petitioner, a fashion model 
in Los Angeles, met this criterion as the record established that she had commanded a salary that was 
significantly higher than others in her field. 10 Specifically, in that case we noted that the record 
contained evidence establishing both the petitioner's "gross wages for an eight-hour day as a fashion 
model" and the level two wage earned by models in Los Angeles. We determined that she met this 
criterion as, while "we normally require evidence comparing the petitioner's wage to a national wage," 
the evidence here showed that she commanded an hourly wage that was "so much higher than the level 
two wage (28 times)." As we discuss below, in the instant case the Petitioner does not establish the 
amount of her daily rate, nor does the record contain appropriate evidence of comparable 
remuneration. Furthermore, this decision was not published as a precedent and therefore does not bind 
USCIS officers in future adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c). Non-precedent decisions apply 
existing law and policy to the specific facts of the individual case, and may be distinguishable based 
on the evidence in the record of proceedings, the issues considered, and applicable law and policy. 
As it relates to her remuneration, the Petitioner provides translations of executed modeling contracts, 
translated job summary extracts froml I showing payment to the Petitioner, 
her modeling management contract withl O I and an itinerary of her fashion clients 
and engagements froml lshe also includes letters from I I booker and 
model agent atl I andl I a professional model and production and 
booking agent. 
10 The Petitioner provides the decision In re Petitioner [Identifj;ing Information Redacted by Agency], File WAC 03 005 
53414, 2005 (AAO Apr. 05, 2005) in her November 2018 RFE response. 
5 
The majority of the contracts document the Petitioner's remuneration as paid in Brazilian Real, as do 
all of the extracts from For example, an October 2017 contract between 
herself and rovides that she will be paid R$ 42,000.00 for two photo shoots, while the 
extracts from ~--------~confirm a disbursement of R$42,000 to the Petitioner for the 
shoots. However, the Petitioner does not submit wage statistics or comparable evidence of 
remuneration received by models in Brazil. Instead, she converts the remuneration to U.S. dollars, 
and asserts that this demonstrates that she has commanded significantly high remuneration compared 
to other models. Petitioners working in different countries should be evaluated based on the wage 
statistics or comparable evidence in that country, rather than by simply converting the remuneration 
to U.S. dollars and then viewing whether that remuneration would be considered high in the United 
States. 11 As the Petitioner does not provide wage statistics or comparable evidence for Brazil, she has 
not shown that her remuneration in Brazil is significantly high relative to other models there. 
As additional evidence of remuneration received, the Petitioner submits a November 2014 contract 
between the Petitioner and indicatin that she was to "pose forl I 
I I ... to perform photos of the catalogs of.__ _____ __.' and to receive $30,000 for "photos 
and licenses granted." The contract does not specify the hours or number of days that she will work, 
or otherwise establish an hourly or daily rate, or corroborate statements regarding her daily rate made 
by I I or I I in their letters. 12 Moreover, the Petitioner did not submit sufficient 
comparative evidence demonstrating that the contracted amount is significantly higher than the 
remuneration of other models. Instead, she provided documentation showing the hourly rates earned 
by models in the United States, including a screenshot from the U.S. Department of Labor's Foreign 
Labor Certification Data Center listing average hourly wages for models in the Miami-Miami Beach­
Kendall, FL Metropolitan Area. She also submits a printout titled "What Models Do" noting that the 
"median hourly wage for models was $11.01 in May 2017" and that "the highest percent [of models] 
earned more than $23.78," as well as other evidence. 13 As the contract does not show the Petitioner's 
hourly rate for modelling work in the United States, the evidence regarding median and high hourly 
wages in the industry does not demonstrate that the pay she received for work under the contract can 
be considered significantly high remuneration compared with other models. Accordingly, the 
Petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that she meets this criterion. 
B. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
We note that the record reflects that the Beneficiary received 0-1 status, a classification reserved for 
nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USCIS has approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant 
visa petition filed on behalf of the Beneficiary, the prior approval does not preclude USCIS from 
denying an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard - statute, 
11 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 11. 
121 lstates that the Petitioner "is quoted only for superior jobs at USO $ 6k per day," whilel I indicates, 
"a model earning $6,000 a day is not common and quite exceptional." 
13 The Petitioner also submits a summary report from O-Net OnLine, and articles titled "Pay Scale for Fashion Modeling" 
and "What Models Really Get Paid for Fashion Week (Spoiler: Not What You'd Guess)" which provide hourly rate 
estimates. While we have reviewed this material, we do not discuss it here as it only provides the hourly rates, which as 
we discuss, are not probative in the instant case. 
6 
regulations, and case law. Many Form 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approves 
prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 
2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. 
Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), ajj'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, our 
authority over the USCIS service centers, the office adjudicating the nonimmigrant visa petition, is 
comparable to the relationship between a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center 
director has approved a nonimmigrant petition on behalf of an individual, we are not bound to follow 
that finding in the adjudication of another immigration petition. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra 
v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we 
have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. USCIS has long held 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of her work is indicative of the required sustained national or 
international acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as 
contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b )(l)(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and she is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her eligibility 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. 
7