dismissed EB-1A Case: Fashion Modeling

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 5960528 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : DEC. 12, 2019 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a fashion model, seeks classification as an alien 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria , as required. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. 
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. Upon de nova review , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to aliens 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 in 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 a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement 
(that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, 
then they must provide sufficient qualifying 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner entered the United States in November 2016 as a B-2 nonimmigrant visitor for pleasure, a 
classification that does not permit employment in the United States. After filing the petition, she obtained 
employment authorization and has participated in various fashion shows. 1 
Because the Petitioner 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). The Director found that the Petitioner met one of the evidentiary 
criteria, relating to judging the work of others under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) (the Petitioner judged 
a regional pageant). The Petitioner claims also to have met three other evidentiary criteria, discussed 
below. After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner 
has only met the criterion relating to judging the work of others. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a three-page letter describing her career to date, including events that 
occurred after the petition's filing date. In this letter, the Petitioner does not directly address the 
evidentiary criteria or show how the Director's findings were in error. The Petitioner also submits 
photographs showing her participation in various projects. 
We have reviewed all of the evidence in the record, and conclude that it does not show that the 
Petitioner satisfies the requirements of at least three 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 won the title "Missl I' at the 2015 Missl lbeauty pageant. The Director 
found that the Petitioner did not establish that this title is a nationally or internationally recognized prize 
or award for excellence. We agree with this finding. On appeal, the Petitioner repeats the assertion that 
she won the "Miss I I' title, but she provides no new information to establish its recognition. 
1 Initially, the Petitioner identified herself as a fashion model and actor. Later, she stated: "My field of expe1tise is Fashion 
business and I am a Model. ... I will continue [to] work in Fashion business as [a] model," although the Petitioner expressed 
an intention eventually to resume acting. 
2 
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) 
This is the only criterion that the Petitioner specifically addresses on appeal. We agree with the 
Director that the Petitioner has not satisfied its requirements. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be about the petitioner and, as 
stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or international 
distribution. 
Al I magazine, identified only by itsl I name !Jomo!J, ran a feature on the Miss .... l __ _, 
2015 pageant, including a captioned, full-page photograph of the Petitioner. The translated caption is 
written in the first person, indicating that the Petitioner wrote it herself The Petitioner identified herself 
as a "professional actress and psychologist," listed her interests (such as dancing and writing novellas), 
and described her career goals (such as screenwriting, directing, and performing Shakespeare on 
Broadway). Due to the autobiographical nature of this caption and its lack of details regarding her work, 
this material has not been shown to be about the Petitioner's work in the field. The magazine piece relates 
to her participation in a pageant, and the Petitioner has not shown that competing in a pageant constitutes 
work in the field. 
A second magazine, with thel I name mo8o/Jo, appears to be a newsletter for customers ofc=J 
Bank. The Petitioner did not show that the magazine contains any articles about her, relating to her work 
in the field. Rather, the Petitioner stated that she is the "face ofOBank," and therefore appears in 
many of its promotional photographs. 
The Petitioner did not submit evidence to show that either of the submitted magazines are professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The Director found that the Petitioner had not shown that she was the subject of qualifying media 
coverage. On appeal, the Petitioner submits photographs showing her: 
• In advertisements for a mobile communications provider; 
• Appearing "in one of the most famous music video[s] ever released inl t'; 
• Reading poetry on an unidentified "mid Day talk Show" on !MEDI-TV; and 
• Participating in the 2015 Mis~ ~ pageant. 
The above evidence shows that the Petitioner has appeared on television, but the Petitioner has not 
established that these appearances were about the Petitioner, relating to her work in the field. Participation 
in an advertising campaign is not qualifying media coverage; the advertisements, by nature, are about the 
products advertised, and purchasing advertising space is not the same as attracting third-party coverage. 
The Petitioner appeared in a music video for the song 1 I' by ,..__ _____ _,. The creator of 
the video claimed that it was his most successful project, and the Petitioner calls it "one of the most 
3 
famous music video[ s] ever released inl I" but the record lacks documentary evidence to show the 
extent of its distribution. Furthermore, the music video is not about the Petitioner, relating to her work. 
Rather, she essentially played a character in a promotional film that exists primarily to advertise a record. 
Regarding the unnamed !MEDI-TV talk show, the Petitioner stated that she read a Shakespeare sonnet, 
and had "been invited to the show for being the contestant of Miss I O 12015 [ and] to talk about why 
beauty queen beside external beauty needs to be intellectual and talented as well." The Petitioner stated 
that she was also interviewed on Rustavi 2 by the "Executive Producer of Mis~ t and] Owner & 
General Manager ofO Model Management." The accompanying screen captures do not show any 
interview taking place, nor were any interview transcripts provided. In addition, the Petitioner claims that 
"Rustavi 2 is the most successful private television broadcasting company in I O I" but does not 
submit documentary evidence to show that the programs were nationally broadcast on major media. 
The Petitioner has established some degree of media presence in~I --~I but the submitted evidence 
does not meet the requirements spelled out in the regulation. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient#fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
In order to satisfy this criterion, petitioners must establish that not only have they made original 
contributions, but also that those contributions have been of major significance in the field. For 
example, a petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely implemented throughout the 
field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance. The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. See 
Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1995) quoted inAPWU 
v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619,626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003). 
The Director found that the Petitioner had not satisfied this criterion. The Director cited various letters in 
the record, offering general praise for the Petitioner, but the Petitioner does not appear to have specifically 
claimed to have satisfied the requirements for this criterion. 2 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the.field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) 
The Petitioner submitted two letters from the head of~ lfilm studio, stating that they address this 
criterion. One letter indicated that the Petitioner had worked with the company "several times on [a] 
number of commercial productions as well as feature films." Without further elaboration and 
corroborating evidence, this letter cannot satisfy the requirements of the regulation. Films and 
advertisements are not intrinsically artistic exhibitions or showcases, but generally serve a commercial 
purpose. We can give some consideration to the circumstances under which a given film is shown (such 
as film festivals), but the Petitioner has not provided information in that regard. 
2 On appeal, the Petitioner lists eight criteria she claimed to have met in responding to the Director's request for evidence, 
but she does not indicate which evidence was submitted to establish which criterion. 
4 
The second letter indicated that the Petitioner is an "Executive Producer of several movie projects ... in 
pre-production," and will "attend the American Film Market and Location Show ... from October 29 
thru November 9, 2018, to showcase [the] above mentioned projects." The Petitioner did not initially 
claim eligibility as a film producer, and the Petitioner does not explain how a "Market and Location 
Show" is an artistic exhibition or showcase, nor does she specify what work of hers was displayed there. 
(By definition, films in pre-production do not yet exist and cannot be displayed.) The show in question 
took place nearly a year after the Petitioner filed the petition in November 2017, and therefore cannot 
establish eligibility as of the filing date. The Petitioner must meet all eligibility requirements at the time 
of filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role/or organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
In general, a leading role is evidenced from the role itself: and a critical role is one in which the alien was 
responsible for the success or standing of the organization or establishment. 
The Petitioner claimed that she fulfilled the requirements for this criterion by appearing in advertisements 
for major brands. The Director acknowledged these appearances, but found that the Petitioner had not 
established that she performed in a leading or critical role for any named organization. 
We agree with the Director's finding. The Petitioner has worked for important clients, but has not shown 
that her appearances in advertisements have significantly contributed to the success or standing of those 
clients. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high sala,y or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) 
The Director found that the Petitioner had not satisfied this criterion. The Petitioner did not specifically 
claim to have satisfied it, although she submitted letters that specify the fees she received for appearing 
in various advertisements. The Petitioner did not provide any basis for comparison to show that these 
fees were high in relation to others in the field. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the peiforming arts, as shown by box office receipts 
or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x) 
As above, the Petitioner did not specifically claim to have satisfied this criterion. The Director 
acknowledged that the Petitioner had worked in the performing arts, but the record contains no 
documentation of the types described in the regulation. 
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. 
5 
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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6