dismissed EB-1A Case: Fashion Modeling

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 4729139 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 6, 2020 
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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), which include 
documentation of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award) or 
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). In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner fulfilled one of 
the initial evidentiary criteria, artistic display of his work at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii), but did not 
meet any of the other criteria. 
The Petitioner's submission on appeal consists of a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, and 
additional evidence. On the Form I-290B the Petitioner marked Box l(b) in Part 2, indicating that he 
would submit a brief and/or additional evidence to this office within 30 calendar days of filing the 
appeal. The record reflects that the Petitioner has not submitted a brief or any additional evidence 
since filing the appeal more than 11 months prior. Accordingly, the record will be considered complete 
as presently constituted . 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will summarily dismiss the appeal. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) provides, in pertinent part, that we "shall summarily 
dismiss any appeal when the party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of 
law or statement of fact for the appeal." The Petitioner has not specifically identified any erroneous 
conclusion of law or statement of fact as a basis for the appeal. The Petitioner has not provided a brief 
in support of the appeal. Moreover, the Petitioner did not provide with its appeal a separate statement 
regarding the basis of the appeal, as instructed at Part 3 of the Form I-290B. Rather, in Part 7of the 
form, the Petitioner lists the evidence provided in exhibits A-1, B-1, and C-1 of the appeal. A 
petitioner filing an appeal is required to provide a statement that specifically identifies an erroneous 
conclusion of law or fact in the decision being appealed. Here, the Petitioner has made no reference 
or objection to the specific findings set forth in the Director's previous decision. 
We acknowledge that the Petitioner provides a~ll!..l,=l..!.....!,"-L!..l~=....l.l'., He submits 
documentation regarding his participation in thet-----------.-,..i-::..==-===~"--.---_____.2018 
in Poland, including his entry form, a letter from.__ _____ __. o ~-----~-onfirming the 
Petitioner will represent Venezuela in the event, a press release from the event's producer,~ 
screenshots from various websites reporting on the pageant. He also includes an invitation to a L_J 
2018 event inl I hosted by the I I Influencer Program. Further, he provides 
screenshots from various websites showing that in 2018 he participated in the I I I I and the~---------~ Closing Gala. However, the aforementioned evidence 
relates to events occurring after the filing of the petition on April 7, 2017. The Petitioner must establish 
that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of filing 
and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). Moreover, this evidence does not 
specifically address the regulatory criteria, and does not explain and establish how the Director erred 
in determining that the Petitioner did not satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. 
As the Petitioner has not identified any flawed conclusion of law or statement of fact for appeal, we 
will summarily dismiss the appeal pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2