dismissed EB-1A Case: Model Scout

U.S. Citizenship 
and Inunigration 
Services 
MATTER OF N-F-N-C-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 11, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a model scout, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(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 Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief, arguing that he meets at least three of the ten criteria. 
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 
.
Matter of N-F-N-C-
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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not 
readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
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). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually 
and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is 
probably true." Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
11. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a model scout and agent who has developed and worked with many high profile 
models. Because he has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner met two of the 
initial evidentiary criteria. The record contains evidence that the Petitioner has commanded a high 
salary in relation to others in the field. Accordingly, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner 
meets the high salary criterion. We have, however, reviewed all of the evidence in the record and 
conclude that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner fulfills the requirements of at least three 
criteria. 
A Regulatory Criteria 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the fi eld f or 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 Petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion based on his appearance on MTV 's in a 
television interview on and articles appearing in The Portugal News (TPN), on 
models.com , and on the "M.I.T. ME" blog. The record, however, does not demonstrate that the 
2 
.
Matter of N-F-N-C-
submitted materials constitute published material about the Petitioner in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media, which included the title, date, and author. 1 
As it relates to MTV' s the Petitioner submits screenshots of his appearance as a talent 
scout on Season 1, Episode 14, along with an IMDb printout dated February 6, 2018 containing a 
synopsis of this episode.2 According to the Petitioner, his appearance is in a professional role 
evaluating a cast member's modeling potential. The screenshots provided by the Petitioner identify 
him as an "executive model manager." While the record establishes that this program qualifies as 
major media, the Petitioner does not submit evidence documenting that the episode was about him, 
as required. 3 The synopsis he provided from IMDb does not mention the Petitioner. In addition, 
although the Petitioner provided a screenshot from IMDb regarding the episode, it did not contain 
the title and author of the material as required by this regulatory criterion. 
Regarding . the Petitioner provides screenshots of his appearance on this talk 
show. However, the Petitioner does not submit evidence, such as a transcript, demonstrating that 
this interview related to his work as a model scout or agent. 4 The Petitioner also fails to include 
documentation of the title, date, and author for the episode on which he appeared. Further, the 
Petitioner does not submit sufficient evidence that is a major medium. He 
provides a printout from the website IMDb titled' -~ _ which lists 
as 19th of 19 programs. This document alone is not sufficient to show that this 
ranking elevates it to major media relative to other television programs. 
The Petitioner also references articles appearing on models.com and m TPN. The article on 
models.com, - -
is an interview with the model and not about the Petitioner. The article 
in TPN, 1 includes a quote from the Petitioner 
about the subject of the article, but is not about him. Further, the Petitioner does not 
provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that TPN is a major medium. He includes a screenshot 
from TPN asserting that it is "the No. 1 English newspaper in Portugal." However, USCIS need not 
rely on the self-promotional material of the publisher. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO 
(C. D. CA July 6, 2007) aff'd 2009 WL 604888 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that self-serving 
assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status is not reliable evidence of major 
media). The Petitioner also provides a printout titled "Top Newspapers in Portugal" for 2016 
1 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 ADJ 1-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html., at 7 (indicating that the published material should be 
about the petitioner relating to his or her work in the field). 
2 The record also contains a news article about the television show but this material is not about the 
Petitioner. Articles that are not about a petitioner do not meet this regulatory criterion. See, e.g., Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 
2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles regarding a show are not 
about the actor). 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7. 
4 Id. 
3 
.
Matter of N-F-N-C-
showing that TPN is ranked 26th as well as a June 2018 article from Portugal Property Guides titled 
"A guide to newspapers in Portugal" describing TPN as "a weekly newspaper printed in English." 
However, this article does not discuss TPN' s ranking relative to other newspapers in Portugal. 
These materials are not sufficient to show that this ranking elevates it to major media relative to 
other newspapers. 
Finally, the Petitioner provides a certified translation of an article titled 
published on the blog "M.I.T. ME" at mitmebymayte.blogspot.com as evidence that he 
fulfills this criterion. While he is the subject of the article, the Petitioner does not provide sufficient 
evidence demonstrating that this blog is a major medium. He submits a biography of Carmen Garcia 
Huerta, the article's author, as evidence of this. However, this biography does not provide the 
circulation of this blog relative to other blogs, its intended audience, or other information that might 
demonstrate that the blog rises to the level of major medium. 
For these reasons the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is 
sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion based on his work as a judge for the 2011 
contest in Spain and the selection of for the 2012 
contest. 5 He also argues that he meets this criterion as a judge of an aspiring model on 
MTV's as discussed above. The Petitioner provides a letter from former 
president of confirming the Petitioner's selection as a judge in the 2011 
competition in Spain, along with screenshots of video demonstrating his 
participation in that role. We find this evidence sufficient to fulfill this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien'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). 
In determining that the Petitioner did not meet this criterion, the Director found that the Petitioner's 
achievements did not "amount to original contributions of major significance in the field." On 
appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director erred in disregarding "the press around the 
that [the Petitioner] helped draft." He further asserts that the Director did not consider the 
5 While the Petitioner additionally asserts eligibility based on his service as a judge in the 2004 
competition, he has not sufficiently documented this role. Specifically, the Petitioner provides a letter from the director 
of confirming his participation in the 2006 competition. However, this does 
not corroborate the Petitioner 's assertion that he served as a judge in the 2004 competition of the same name. The 
Petitioner must resolve this inconsistency in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth 
lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
4 
.
Matter of N-F-N-C-
testimonial letters "that demonstrate the significant impact of [the Petitioner]'s original contributions 
on the field as a whole." 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only 
has he made original contributions but that they 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 in the field. The Petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion based upon his advocacy 
for racial and gender diversity in the modeling industry, his efforts to "introduce fair work standards 
and a healthy diet for models," and by "raising awareness of mental health issues in the fashion 
industry." He provides letters of reference in support of this assertion, as well as media coverage of 
the 
As evidence of his advocacy for racial and gender diversity in the modeling industry, the Petitioner 
includes a letter from a transgender model. states "... while 
transgender people have started to become more recognized in society to varying degrees, 
transgender people were barely present (or welcome) in the fashion industry .... [B]y backing my 
career ... [the Petitioner] is clearly leading the way toward more acceptance in the fashion and 
advertising arenas." In another letter submitted by the Petitioner, director of 
states that the Petitioner has been "clearly pushing for gender diversity in the 
modeling industry, most notably in his management of Israeli model, ... In his 
management of modeling career in the United States, [the Petitioner] is in fact redefining 
'beauty' to include transgender models." While these letters demonstrate that the Petitioner is 
promoting the inclusion of within the industry, they do not demonstrate that this is an 
original contribution that has influenced the field of modeling as a whole. 6 Letters that specifically 
articulate how the alien's contributions are of major significance to the field and its impact on 
subsequent work add value. 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. 7 
Regarding the Petitioner's assertion that he is ra1smg mental health awareness, the Petitioner 
provides a letter from managing editor of stating that he is "a significant 
figure in the modeling and fashion industries as an agent who is raising awareness about mental 
health." notes that the Petitioner arranged for a model to appear on Vogue.com to discuss 
mental health issues just after opening a show for in 
She asserts that this shows the Petitioner's "commitment and leadership in bringing attention to 
mental health issues within the fashion industry" and "confirms that [the Petitioner]'s contributions 
have been significant." As noted above, letters that specifically articulate how the alien's 
contributions are of major significance to the field and its impact on subsequent work add value. 
While this letter mentions the Petitioner ' s role in providing a forum for a model to discuss mental 
6 While we only address a sampling here, we have reviewed all letters in the file. 
7 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 9. 
5 
.
Matter of N-F-N-C-
health issues, it does not specifically state how his role in doing so has been of major significance to 
the field of modeling. 
Finally, on appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director did not consider the press around the 
"that [he] helped draft." The record contains an article published on models.com 
about the launch of this charter. However, the article does not reference the Petitioner, and the 
record does not otherwise establish his role in the development of this document such that it rises to 
the level of an original contribution to the field of modeling. He provides a testimonial letter from 
who states that the Petitioner has "made contributions to the modeling and fashion 
industry through his input regarding the historic discusses in particular 
a February meeting where the Petitioner "proposed that agents should have structured training 
programs and an official, written code of conduct for working with models." continues, 
"[A]s the is scheduled to be updated, these are the types of comments ... that will 
continue to pave the way for a better working environment for fashion models." While this letter 
demonstrates that the Petitioner agreed with and supported the development of this charter, it does 
not discuss the contributions the Petitioner made directly to the creation or success of the Charter. 
Further, although the aforementioned article indicates that the launch of the Charter gained attention, 
the record lacks evidence establishing its impact on the field of modeling as a whole. For these 
reasons, the Petitioner has not established that he fulfills this criterion. 
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 record includes documentation of the work of models that the Petitioner has developed, as 
displayed "in advertising campaigns, fashion publications, catalogs, and the catwalk." However, the 
Petitioner has not established that it is his work being displayed in advertising campaigns, fashion 
publications, catalogs and on the catwalk. Rather he explains that "[T]hese are the venues in which 
[the Petitioner]'s models display their work .... " While the Petitioner may be responsible for 
selection and promotion of these models, it is their work which is displayed in these campaigns, 
catalogs, and the catwalk, by his own description. In order to demonstrate eligibility for this 
criterion, a petitioner must show that his work was on display, and the venues were artistic 
exhibitions or showcases. 8 Accordingly, he has not demonstrated that he meets this criterion. 
The Petitioner alternately asserts that the above-noted evidence should be considered as comparable 
evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows for 
comparable evidence if the listed criteria do not readily apply to his occupation. 9 A petitioner 
should explain why he has not submitted evidence that would satisfy at least three of the criteria set 
forth in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) as well as why the evidence he has included is "comparable" to that 
required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Here, the Petitioner has not shown why he cannot offer 
8 Id., at 9. 
9 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1 , supra, at 12. 
.
Matter of N-F-N-C-
evidence that meets at least three of the criteria set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 10 General 
assertions that any of the ten objective criteria do not readily apply to an occupation are not 
probative and should be discounted. 11 The fact that the Petitioner did not submit documentation that 
fulfills at least three is not evidence that a model scout or agent could not do so. For these reasons, 
the Petitioner did not show that he is eligible to meet the initial evidentiary requirements through the 
submission of comparable evidence. 
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). 
Although the Director determined that the Petitioner fulfilled this criterion, the record does not 
support that finding. 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. 12 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. 13 
The Petitioner contends that he has played a leading role for "top international modeling agencies." 
president of . explains that as a senior agent and scout for 
the Petitioner "clearly plays a senior role within the hierarchy of our New York 
agency" and is "the representative of who establishes partnerships with worldwide agencies." 
The record lacks evidence, such as the organizational structure for . which might 
establish the leading nature of the Petitioner's role within this agency including how his position 
relates, for instance, to any other senior agents and to executives such as 
The Petitioner also states that he held the position of "Scout and Senior Image Agent" with 
Here, the Petitioner did not substantiate this claim with independent evidence. 
Specifically, he did not offer corroboration that he held this position or the leading nature of this 
position within Further, the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to 
establish ~ distinguished reputation. 14 He provides a printout from models.com 
stating is respected worldwide as an industry leader in diverse beauty and we 
represent high fashion, curve and men." We note, however, that this screenshot contains a statement 
that "Models.com does not endorse or guarantee the accuracy of agency supplied biographies or 
content." Moreover, the documentation does not explain or provide examples supporting its 
assertion that ______ gained such worldwide respect. He also includes printouts from 
10 Id., at 12. 
11 Id. 
12 Id., at 10. 
13 Id. 
14 Id. at 10-11 (indicating that the organization or establishment must be recognized as having a distinguished 
reputation). 
,., 
.
Matter of N-F-N-C-
blogs identifying as one of many agencies in New York. In the case here, the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate how this evidence sets apart from the other 
modeling agencies in the field or otherwise demonstrates its distinguished reputation. 15 
The Petitioner also asserts that he has played a leading or critical role for "magazines and 
publications of distinguished reputation." He contends that "the advertising campaigns in which 
[his] models have been featured have generated major sales revenue ... for the publications who 
display them." 16 The Petitioner includes a letter of reference from bookings director 
of who states "[It] is the work of top fashion personnel like [the Petitioner] that has enabled 
to remain the most elite fashion publication in the world." However, this letter does not 
provide sufficient information to support the Petitioner's contention regarding the impact of his work 
on revenue, nor does it otherwise demonstrate how his role in providing models for 
advertising campaigns has had significant importance to the outcome of the organization's activities. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner provides no corroborative evidence to support or explain 
assertion. 
The Petitioner also asserts that he has played a critical role for and 
The record contains letters of reference provided by the Petitioner as evidence that he 
meets this criterion. 17 vice president of communications for 
notes that "[B]y providing us with the best modeling talent who are also able to convey the ideals of 
the label, [the Petitioner] absolutely plays an essential and critical role for our 
label by generating industry interest and ultimately boosting consumer sales." 
director of creative services for similarly states "[B]y providing us with the 
industry's top talent, [the Petitioner] absolutely plays a critical role in the success of our runway 
shows and to the bottom line revenue of However, the letters do not offer 
sufficiently detailed information, nor does the record contain adequate corroborating evidence to 
support these assertions. Repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the 
petitioner's burden of proof Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 
1989), ajfd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 
(S.D.N.Y.). 
of also notes that the Petitioner "brings close to a million dollars in 
revenue for the agency .... The agency receives commission through these jobs alone, and therefore, 
work is critical to overall revenue." The record includes a print-
out of what appears to be the Petitioner's bookings from January through December, showing 
invoices totaling $872,855.96, but this document does not indicate the year, or for which 
organization, these bookings were made. Further, the Petitioner does not submit evidence 
15 Id. at 11 (citing Merriam -Webster's Dictionary definition of "distinguished " as marked by eminence , distinction, or 
excellence). 
16 As evidence of these campaigns , the Petitioner submits "tear sheets" for magazine covers and editorials , advertising 
campaigns , catalog/e-commerce/lookbooks , and runway work that he has booked. 
17 Although we discuss a sampling of letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
.
Matter of N-F-N-C-
demonstrating the amount the agency receives in commissions from his bookings, or the significance 
of such amount to the overall revenue of to show that these revenues are critical to 
the agency's performance. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that he performs in a 
critical role for 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets this criterion. 
Accordingly, we will withdraw the Director's finding to the contrary. 
B. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
We note that the record reflects that the Petitioner 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 Petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude 
USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard -
statute, 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), affd, 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. For 
the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary qualifies for classification 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. In visa petition proceedings , it is the petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here , that burden has not been 
met. 
9 
Matter of N-F-N-C-
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofN-F-N-C-, ID# 2198666 (AAO Mar. 11, 2019) 
10