dismissed EB-1A Case: Fashion Modeling

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 25052697 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR . 31, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (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 )(1 )(A), 8 U.S .C. § 1153(b )(1 )(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 meets the initial eligibility requirements for this classification, either through 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award or by satisfying at least three of the ten evidentiary 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537 , 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review , 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability, a petitioner (or anyone on the 
petitioner's behalf) must establish that they: 
• Have extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics; 
• Seek to enter the United States to continue work in their area of extraordinary ability; and 
• Their entry will prospectively substantially benefit the United States . 
Extraordinary ability must be demonstrated by evidence of sustained national or international acclaim 
as well as extensive documentation that the individual's achievements have been recognized in the 
field. Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. The implementing regulation further states that 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) . It also sets forth a multi-part analysis . First, 
a petitioner can demonstrate international recognition of their achievements in the field through a one-
time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not submit 
this evidence, then they must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of 
the ten criteria 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, 1121 (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 Amin 
v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 394 (5th Cir. 2022). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The record reflects that the Petitioner, a native of Australia, has been working as a model since 2012 
and is currently represented by agencies in Australia, New Zealand, and New York. Her modeling 
experience includes runway, print and commercial work, most notably Fashion Week appearances in 
New York, London, Milan and Paris, magazine covers and editorial shoots, and commercial and 
promotional work. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, she must show that she satisfies at least three of the ten regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner claims that she can meet all ten of the initial evidentiary 
criteria. The Director determined that she met only the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii), relating 
to the display of her work at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
After reviewing all the evidence in the record, and for the reasons discussed below, we conclude the 
Petitioner has not satisfied at least three regulatory criteria and therefore does not meet the initial 
evidence requirements for this classification. 
Documentation of the individual'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 provided evidence that she received the "STM I I Award" 1 at the 
Western Australian (WA) Fashion Awards in 2016, an event held as part oftheLJFashion Festival. 
The Director acknowledged the Petitioner's receipt of this award but determined that she did not 
provide sufficient evidence to establish that the award is a nationally or internationally recognized 
prize or award for excellence. In reaching this conclusion, the Director observed that the media 
coverage of the award ceremony appeared to be only local or regional in nature. 
1 The record reflects that "STM" refers to Sunday Times Magazine, a publication of The Sunday Times, a newspaper 
published in the state of Western Australia. 
2 
Relevant considerations regarding whether the basis for granting the prizes or awards was excellence 
in the field include, but are not limited to, the criteria used to grant the prizes or awards, the national 
or international significance of the prizes or awards in the field, and the number of awardees or prize 
recipients as well as any limitations on competitors. See generally, 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2 
Appendix, https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual (providing guidance for evaluating evidence in 
support of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x)). Prior to denying the petition, the Director 
issued a request for evidence (RFE), advised the Petitioner that these factors would be considered, and 
allowed her an opportunity to submit evidence such as the criteria used to grant the awards, national 
or international media coverage of the awards, information regarding the pool of nominees or 
competitors for the award, and any other relevant information. 
Although the Petitioner characterizes her STM Award as a "national award" we 
agree with the Director that the record contains insufficient evidence to establish that it satisfies this 
criterion. The record reflects that the media coverage of the WA Fashion A wards including the 
Petitioner's receipt of the STMI ward, appeared in Western Australian publications 
The West Australian, The Sunday Times and STM Magazine, as well as a few fashion biogs for which 
readership information was not provided. The Petitioner has not contested the Director's 
determination that media coverage of the award was local or regional in nature. 
We have also considered other relevant information pertaining to the Petitioner's award. The WA 
Fashion Awards event is described in the record as Western Australia's "only fashion industry awards 
night, run for the local industry by the local industry." While we do not question the prestige 
associated with the award, this description of the awards program as a "local industry" event does not 
offer support for the Petitioner's claim that the award is a nationally recognized award for excellence 
in Australia. 
As noted, both limitations on competitors and the criteria used to grant a prize or award are relevant 
considerations when evaluating the national significance of an award and whether a given award is a 
nationally recognized prize or award for excellence. Here, the evidence reflects that the pool of 
potential nominees for the STM ______ Award was limited to models who were signed 
with three modeling agencies based in Western Australia; this restriction further undermines the 
claimed national recognition and significance of the award in the field. The evidence indicates that 
these three agencies chose their own nominees based on unspecified criteria and that eight models 
nominated as finalists were then subjected to an online public vote by readers of the sponsoring 
publication, with the _____ being designated as a I I award. A submitted 
screenshot from the voting page indicates that the winner was selected byl I 
After considering evidence regarding the nature of the WA Fashion A wards event, the scope of the 
media coverage, the limitations on candidates or nominees for the award, and the method of selecting 
winners, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner's evidence does not establish that her STM 
I I Award qualifies as a lesser nationally or internationally recognized prize or award 
3 
for excellence in her field.2 Accordingly, we conclude that she did not meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
204.5(h)(3)(i). 
Documentation of the individual's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or .fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) 
To demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must show that the 
association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to membership, and 
that such achievements are judged by recognized experts in the field. Membership requirements based 
on employment in a certain occupation, minimum education or experience, or payment of dues or fees do 
not satisfy this criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding achievements. See generally, 
6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra at F.2, Appendix. 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner stated that she could satisfy this criterion, but did not provide evidence 
of her membership in an association. In the RFE, the Director provided the Petitioner an opportunity to 
submit evidence of her membership in an association in her field and advised that such evidence should 
be accompanied by evidence of the criteria for membership (such as the association's constitution or 
bylaws) and evidence to establish that the individuals who review prospective members' applications are 
recognized as national or international experts in the field. 
In response, the Petitioner indicated that she was submitting "material from Models.com" to satisfy this 
criterion and provided a screenshot of her main profile page on this website. In an accompanying letter, 
the Petitioner described Models.com as "a defining fashion industry news resource that highlights the 
models and the creative stars of the industry," and as a "daily must-read for fashion insiders, 
photographers, casting directors, agents, art directors, editors, models and model fanatics to stay up to 
date." 
The Director acknowledged this evidence but determined that the record did not establish that her 
membership or presence on Models.com satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
Specifically, the Director emphasized that the Petitioner did not provide evidence that membership is 
based on outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or international experts in the 
field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides letters from four individuals who maintain Models.com profiles, 
including a model, a makeup artist, and two casting directors. These individuals explain how the 
Models.com community significantly benefits their careers in the fashion and entertainment industry. 
In response to the Director's determination that the previously submitted evidence did not address 
membership criteria or requirements for Models.com, the Petitioner states that the website "is joining 
pretty much everyone who is anyone," noting that the Models.com community includes over 25,000 
2 The Petitioner's response to the RFE also included evidence that she received a ______ award and an 
I I award in 2013, both awarded by Alpha Models. The Petitioner's appeal contains no reference 
to these awards. Further, the record contains no further information or evidence relating to the awards and therefore does 
not establish that they satisfy all elements of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
4 
professionals, as well as 600 modeling and artist agencies and over 3000 members from verified brands 
or magazines searching for creative talent. 
The record does not establish that the Petitioner's membership in the Models.com community satisfies 
the plain language of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). It is the Petitioner's burden to establish 
that she is a member in an association in her field that requires outstanding achievements as a condition 
for membership and that the persons who judge the achievements of prospective members are 
recognized national or international experts in the field. While the evidence submitted on appeal 
establishes that Models.com is a valued community in the Petitioner's field that offers benefits to both 
models and those looking to cast models in their creative and commercial endeavors, it does not 
establish that membership in the community requires outstanding achievements or that eligibility for 
membership is judged by recognized national experts in the field. The record lacks evidence of the 
specific requirements for joining the Models.com community and therefore does not establish that it 
can be considered a qualifying association in the Petitioner's field. 
Accordingly, we agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not submit evidence 
that satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence of the individual's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge 
of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which 
class[fication is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner claimed that she could satisfy this criterion but did not submit 
evidence in support of her claim. In response to the RFE, she provided: 
• Undated correspondence, addressed to the Petitioner and attributed to the proprietor of 
I I Studio, inviting the Petitioner to participate as a judge and model for the 
20161 I Search to be held in August 2016; 
• An unsigned letter dated May 26, 2020, also attributed to the proprietor ofl I 
Studio. The letter states the Petitioner had been booked for several catwalk shows 
during the annual I I Search events and that she "has been a judge at our 
model search in 2016." 
• An article titled Search Launch" published by The West Australian 
newspaper inc=]2016, which covered the launch of the 2016 Search 
competition. The article mentions the Petitioner as one of the "local beauties" who 
participated in a previous edition of the competition. 
• Captioned photographs of the Petitioner taken at the 2015 I lsearch event 
which identify her as a "special guest" and "former winner." 
The record on appeal contains some additional evidence regarding the Petitioner's relationship with 
I I Studio. The evidence indicates that she was one of the winners the model search in 
2013, that she had a with this business, and that she performed work for 
them in the past. However, the record does not include additional evidence confirming her 
participation as a judge of the work of others in her field at the 2016 I I Search event or 
in any other capacity. As noted, the only evidence indicating her actual participation as a judge is a 
brief statement in a letter that does not bear the signature of the person to whom its attributed. If 
5 
testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for a petitioner to 
submit corroborative evidence. Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). Here, there is no 
additional evidence corroborating the Petitioner's participation as a judge. 
In addition, we note that the Petitioner's description of the I I Search competition 
indicates that competitors "must have had no prior modeling experience." Therefore, even if the 
Petitioner had sufficiently documented that she participated as a judge at this event, the record does 
not establish that she was required to judge the work of others "in the same field" or "in an allied field 
of specialization." Rather, the record reflects that the persons who participate in the competition are 
not models. The record also lacks evidence as to what the model search competition entailed and what 
criteria were considered by judges in selecting winners. Without this information, we cannot 
determine whether judging this event required judging "work" in the field. 
For all the reasons discussed, the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to establish that she 
meets the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
Evidence of the individual's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
To satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must not only identify and 
demonstrate their original contributions, but also establish their major significance in the field. For 
example, a petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely implemented throughout the 
field, have demonstrably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance. 
The Petitioner stated in her initial cover letter that she could meet this criterion but did not identify her 
original contributions in her field or indicate any specific evidence she was submitting to demonstrate 
her eligibility. The Petitioner's response to the RFE did not address this criterion, and therefore, the 
Director concluded that she did not establish that she meets it. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that she is submitting evidence of her "scholarly, artistic and athletic" 
achievements which have contributed to her success as a model. The newly submitted evidence 
documents her athletic achievements in martial arts and netball, her completion of a primary school 
course in first aid awareness, and various achievements she recorded during secondary school 
including certificates of French Language competence, certificates recognizing her participation in the 
arts, a certificate of completion for a peer support leadership course, and a Western Australian 
Certificate of Education which appears to be comparable to a high school diploma. 
Here, the Director reviewed the initial evidence, notified the Petitioner of deficiencies in an RFE, and 
advised her of what type of evidence she could submit in support of this criterion. As noted, the 
Petitioner did not address this criterion when responding to the RFE and now requests that we review 
additional evidence submitted on appeal. Where a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in 
the evidence and has been given an opportunity to respond to that deficiency, we will not accept 
evidence offered for the first time on appeal. Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); Matter 
ofObaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). 
6 
The Petitioner also maintains that she previously provided "letters from companies showing her major 
significance in the field with her contributions," but does not elaborate or reference any specific 
evidence that she intended to be considered under this criterion. We have considered the reference 
letters in the record but conclude that they do not demonstrate how the Petitioner has made original 
contributions of major significance in her field. Specifically, the record contains reference letters from 
modeling agencies, brand managers, photographers and designers. Letters that specifically articulate 
how the person's contributions are of major significance to the field and their impact on subsequent 
work add value. Letters that lack specifics do not add value and are not considered to be probative 
evidence that may form the basis for meeting this criterion. See generally, 6 USCIS Policy Manual, 
supra, at F .2 Appendix. 
The individuals who provided letters praise the Petitioner's professionalism, adaptability, work ethic, 
positive attitude, and her "high-end, international look," noting that these and other attributes have 
made her a sought-after model who "contributes to the sales of the companies she works with." 
However, general assertions that she contributed to sales of fashion or beauty products for individual 
companies do not demonstrate that the Petitioner has made an "original contribution" that has a 
broader impact or influence in her field of endeavor. While several authors note the Petitioner's 
creativity and stated that she "continues to lead the modeling industry in new directions," these letters, 
fall short of identifying any specific original contribution the Petitioner has made to the modeling 
industry or how she has made a contribution that impacted subsequent work by others in her field, 
such that it could be concluded that her contributions were of major significance. 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not established that she satisfies the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Evidence of the individual's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
This criterion contains multiple evidentiary elements the Petitioner must satisfy through the 
submission of evidence. First, the Petitioner must establish that she has authored scholarly articles in 
the field in which she intends to engage if she is granted status as a lawful permanent resident. We 
consider these articles within two distinct areas. The first area is within the academic arena in which 
a scholarly article reports on original research, experimentation, or philosophical discourse. The 
second area lies outside of the academic arena in which a scholarly article should be written for learned 
persons in that field. "Learned" is defined as "having or demonstrating profound knowledge or 
scholarship." Learned persons include all persons having profound knowledge of a field. See 
generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2 Appendix. 
The second element this criterion requires is that the scholarly articles appear in one of the following: 
(1) a professional publication, (2) a major trade publication, or (3) in a form of major media. Regarding 
the medium in which the articles appear, the Petitioner should establish that the publication's 
circulation statistics are high relative to similar publications and should also establish the publication's 
intended audience. Id. 
Although the Petitioner indicated at the time of filing that she can meet this criterion, she did not 
provide documentation of her authorship of scholarly articles. Her response to the RFE included 
7 
evidence that she served as a guest blogger for Style Voyeur magazine's website, participated in a 
for Oyster magazine, created a backstage diary for RUSSH magazine's website, 
and prepared a list of her top 10 career highlights in connection with her STM _____ 
award. The Director determined that the Petitioner had not established that her published work 
consisted of scholarly articles intended for learned persons in her field or that it appeared in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
On appeal, asserts that she submitted evidence regarding the social media following of the referenced 
magazines and provided sufficient evidence that her work appeared in qualifying media. However, 
the Petitioner does not contest the Director's determination that she did not provide evidence of the 
scholarly nature of her published work. We agree with the Director that the evidence does not meet 
all elements of this criterion. For example, the Petitioner provided copies of e-mails she received from 
Style Voyeur and Oyster magazines inviting her to participate in a guest blogger appearance and in a 
I I respectively. Style Voyeur asked her to include behind-the-scenes content from 
photo shoots and fashion shows, "cool pies of the city/cities you visit," candid pictures of the Petitioner 
with "other girls," and photographs of "casting outfits/selfies/your apartment/whatever." Oyster 
magazine similarly asked her to film an introductory video and suggested that she provide content that 
included videos of her getting ready for the day, traveling to a venue where she was working, "hanging 
backstage," and getting her makeup done. The Petitioner has not established that the content she 
created constitutes "scholarly articles" or that its intended audience was "learned persons" in the field. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that she meets the requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence that the individual 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) 
To meet this criterion, the Petitioner must establish that she has performed in a leading or critical role 
for an organization, establishment, or a division or department of an organization or establishment. In 
addition, it is the Petitioner's burden to demonstrate the organization or establishment, or the 
department or division for which she holds or held a leading or critical role, has a distinguished 
reputation. 
For a leading role, we look at whether the evidence establishes that the person is ( or was) a leader 
within the organization or establishment or a division or department thereof. A title, with appropriate 
matching duties, can help to establish that a role is (or was), in fact, leading. For a critical role, we 
determine whether the evidence establishes that the person has contributed in a way that is of 
significant importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities or those of a 
division or department of the organization or establishment. See generally, 6 USCIS Policy Manual, 
supra, at F .2 Appendix. 
The Director acknowledged the Petitioner's claim that she could meet this criterion but determined 
that her initial submission lacked an explanation or evidence in support of that claim. The RFE 
instructed the Petitioner to provide relevant evidence such as letters from prior employers with detailed 
information explaining how her role was leading or critical to an organization or establishment. 
8 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted: (1) e-mails and promotional materials confirming 
that the Petitioner's agency booked her to participate in a promotional photo shoot for the I I 
2014 charity event for the Western Australian I J (2) e-mail confirming she was booked in 
a runway show for thel !Foundation charity gala in 2018; (3) an e-mail addressed to the 
Petitioner inviting her to participate in a charity event for a Youth Focus group; and (4) e-mails from 
I I Models soliciting models from its roster to participate in its 2014 
charity event and in the Charity event. The Petitioner provided additional documentation 
confirming her participation in the events. 
The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner documented her participation as a model in various 
charity events but determined that the record lacked the requested evidence of her leading or critical 
role for an organization or establishment that has a distinguished reputation. 
Counsel's appellate brief emphasizes that the record contains casting and job confirmation emails, 
provides some additional background information regarding charity events in which the Petitioner 
participated, and mentions two additional events: a program launch event for the I I Fashion 
Festival and a I I Exhibition and Installation held in 2017. The brief also includes 
assertions that the Petitioner served as a I I at most or all of these events. Assertions of 
counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988) ( citing 
Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980)). Counsel's statements must be 
substantiated in the record with independent evidence, which may include affidavits and declarations. 
We agree with the Director's determination that the evidence does not establish the Petitioner satisfies 
this criterion. While the evidence confirms the Petitioner's participation as a model at some notable 
charitable and cultural events, it does not establish whether or how she served in a leading or critical 
role for a specific organization or establishment ( or division or component thereof). Further, it is 
unclear whether she claims to meet this criterion based on a leading or critical role as a model for the 
agencies that represent her or based on her participation in a leading or critical role for the charitable 
organizations that held the referenced events, which makes it difficult to discern the "organization or 
establishment" in question. In this regard, we note that serving as a I I for a one-day event 
would not necessarily establish a person's leading or critical role within the organization or 
establishment that sponsors the event. 
Although specifically requested by the Director, the record lacks letters from individuals representing 
the Petitioner's employers or clients who have personal knowledge of the significance of her roles and 
who can speak specifically to such roles. Further, the Petitioner did not otherwise provide detailed and 
probative information that specifically addresses how her role for an organization or establishment, 
was leading or critical. For the reasons discussed, we conclude that the Petitioner did not provide 
evidence demonstrating that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the individual 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 Petitioner initially claimed she could satisfy this criterion but did not submit evidence in support 
of that claim. The Director advised her in the RFE that she would need to submit documentation of 
her annual earnings and evidence that would allow USCIS to compare her earnings to that of others 
9 
working in the field . If a petitioner claims to meet this criterion, then the burden is on the petitioner 
to provide appropriate evidence of their earnings or remuneration and evidence such as geographical 
or position-appropriate compensation surveys. See generally, 6 USCJS Policy Manual at F.2 
Appendix . The Petitioner's response to the RFE included: 
• Copies of IRS Form 1042-S, Foreign Person's U.S. Source Income Subject to Withholding, 
indicating gross income of $14,740 in 2016 and $3906.66 in 2017. 
• Copy of her IRS Form 1040NR, U.S . Nonresident Alien Income Tax Return for 2016 showing 
$3,456 in business income; 
• Letters from __________ _,indicating that this U.S. agency paid the Petitioner 
gross modeling fees of $18,425 in 2016 and $4883 .33 in 2017. 
• Copies of year-end talent earnings statements from I I Models (Australia) for the fiscal 
years ended in 2016 through 2019, indicating annual earnings that ranged from a low of $1,845 
(2019) to a high of $11,061.15 (2017) . 
The Director acknowledged this and other evidence of the Petitioner's past earnings but determined 
that she did not provide supporting documentation to demonstrate that her salary is high, or that her 
total remuneration is significantly high, in relation to others. 
On appeal, the Petitioner concedes that the previously submitted evidence did not include 
"specification that shows what is high and low salaries" for models. She provides comparative wage 
data for models and fashion models in the United States and Australia from sources including 
CareerTrend.com, SalaryExplorer.com and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Where, as here, a 
petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an opportunity to 
respond to that deficiency, we will not accept evidence offered for the first time on appeal. Soriano, 
19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). Further, even if 
the Petitioner had submitted this evidence in response to the RFE, we observe that it does not support 
her claim that her salary "has far exceed[ ed] the average income of a working model in the United 
States." Rather, the record reflects that her documented U.S. and Australian earnings are below the 
average incomes reported in the newly submitted salary surveys. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that she satisfies this criterion . 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x) . 
This criterion focuses on volume of sales and box office receipts as a measure of a petitioner's 
commercial success in the performing arts. The evidence must show that the volume of sales and box 
office receipts reflect the person's commercial success relative to others involved in similar pursuits 
in the performing arts. 
The Petitioner provided evidence that she appeared in an online music video for Sly Magazine and in 
promotional campaign videos/television commercials for I I I This evidence included e-mails confirming booking as well as screenshots from 
these projects. On appeal, the Petitioner references the previously submitted evidence of these "media 
shoots" as well as evidence that she appeared in videos published on the websites of Sunday Times 
Magazine and Hoture. The Petitioner does not address the Director's determination that documenting 
her appearances in promotional videos and commercials is not sufficient, in and of itself, to establish 
that she satisfies this criterion. 
The Petitioner has not submitted the types of evidence required by the plain language of this regulatory 
criterion, articulated a claim that this criterion does not apply to her occupation, or indicated that she 
was seeking to meet the criterion through comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 203.5(h)(4). While 
the evidence established that the Petitioner has appeared in advertisements for various companies, she 
has not shown, for example, that the success of the clients was attributable to her specific work as a 
model in their promotional campaigns or that her commercial appearances have attracted substantial 
audiences or generated significant sales. Further, as noted, evidence in support of this criterion must 
show that the volume of sales and box office receipts reflect a petitioner's commercial successes 
relative to others involved in similar pursuits in the perfonning arts. The Petitioner has not submitted 
evidence of such relative success. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that she satisfies the plain language requirements of 
this evidentiary criterion or that the evidence on which she relies is comparable to the evidence 
required by the criterion. 
B. Summary and Reserved Issue 
The record does not establish that the Petitioner meets any of the eight initial evidentiary criteria 
discussed above. As such, the Petitioner has not met the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) . Detailed discussion of the two remaining criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(iii) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(vii) cannot change the outcome of the appeal. Therefore, we 
reserve and will not address these remaining issues. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 
(1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required to make findings and 
decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter of D-L-S-, 28 l&N Dec. 568, 576- 77 
n.10 (BIA 2022) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise 
ineligible). 
C. Prior 0-1 Approval 
We acknowledge that the Petitioner has been the beneficiary of an approved O-lB petition, a 
classification reserved for nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability in the arts. Although USCIS has 
approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner, the prior 
approval does not preclude USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based 
on a different statute, regulations, and case law. The nonimmigrant and immigrant categories have 
different criteria, definitions and standards for persons working in the arts. "Extraordinary ability in 
the field of arts" in the nonimmigrant 0-1 category means distinction. 8 C.F .R. § 214.2( o )(3)(ii). But 
in the immigrant context, "extraordinary ability" reflects that the individual is among the small 
percentage at the very top of the field. 
Finally, 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 
11 
bound by a decision of a service center or district director. See La. Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 
No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *3 (E.D. La. 2000), ajfd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001) 
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 do not need to provide the type 
of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise 
that we have reviewed the material in the aggregate, concluding that while we acknowledge the 
Petitioner has achieved success as an international fashion model, the record does not support a finding 
that she 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 that goal. 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 the significance of their 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 they are one of the small percentage who 
has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) 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. 
12