dismissed EB-1A Case: Modeling

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-K-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 17,2018 
PETITION: . FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a model, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the arts. 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 
hav~ been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had shown that she met only one of the ten initial evidentiary 
criteria, of which she must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and contends that she meets three criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeaL 
L 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 M-K-
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-tim e achievement (that is a major, 
internationally recognized award). Alternatively, he or she must provide docum entation that meets 
at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (includin g items 
such as award s, member ships, and publish ed material in certain media). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits detennination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small perce ntage 
at the v ery top of the field of endeavor . See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0) 
(discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteri a, consider ed 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 . 20 II) . This two-step analysis is consistent with our holdin g that the "tru th 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 individ ually 
and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is 
probably true ." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I~N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a model. As the Petitioner has not establish ed that she has received a major , 
internationally recog nized award, ~he must satisfy at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director held that the Petitioner met the published materials at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she meets two additional criteria: 
membership at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) and leading role at 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 1 For the 
reasons discu ssed below , the record does not support a findin g that the Petitioner satisties at least 
three criteria. 
Documentation (?f !he alien's membership in associations in the .field for which classtfication 
is sought, which require oulstanding achievements of their members, a.~"judged by recognized 
national or international exp erts in their disciplines or field\'. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(ii). 
The Petitioner states that she is a member of and asserts that this is the "epicenter 
of international models." The Director held that this agency "appea rs to be a personal assis tant, 
, social group
, and facilitator for gym memb erships, language workshops, drivers, and other personal 
assistance." In a request for e vidence (RFE), the Director indicated that the Petitioner may submit, 
among other things, the section of the bylaws that discuss the criteria for 
membership in its organization. The Petitioner provided a letter from . the founder of 
stating that this organi zatio n "has high standards to accept new members" and that 
a candidate must be "worldwide distinguished agency signed model in The Director 
1 The Petitioner initially stated that she satisfied the high salary and commerci al success in the performing arts c riteria. 
See 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) -(x). On appeal , she no longer asserts those claims, so we will not consider them. 
2 
.
Mauer of M-K-
concluded that evidence in the record did not establish that 
achievem ents of its members. 
required outstanding 
On appeal, the Petitioner state s that bylaws are not required by French law and that the Director 
erred in requiring the Petiti oner submit this documentation. The regulati on at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii) does not identify specific evidence to establi sh eligibility, and we notes that the 
Director's RFE did not require that bylaws be submitted, only identified them as an example. The 
Petitioner does not provide corroborating evidence establishing the unavailability of the bylaws, nor 
does she offer other evidence to show that Model Spot Paris require s outstanding achieveme nts to 
become a memb er. See 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.2(b)(2). 
To demon strate that the achievements of those admitted to the organization are judged by recognized 
experts, the Petitioner states that those on the panel of included 
"who was responsible for discovering Top International super models such as 
The record lacks evide nce estab lishing 
association with the organization or establishing her nationa l or international 
recognition as an expert in the field. 
The Petitioner has not demon strated that require s outstanding achiev ements of its 
members, as judged by recogni zed experts in the field. Therefore, she does not meet this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating /o the alien's work in !he field for which classification is sough!. Such evidence 
shall include the Iitle, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Director indicated that the Petitioner meets this criterion for being featured in 
and and in online advertisements. While we note that the Petitioner was featured in 
these public ations , the record does not reflect that thi s published material i s about the Petitioner or 
that the se are professional or major trade ·publicati ons, or other maj or media. The record contain s 
document at ion of a photo shoot by photographer in which the Petiti oner is portrayed 
as the but the articles addressing this are not about the Petiti oner but provide 
specific details about the photo s hoot and what steps the produc er took to produce the overall 
images. This does not constitute published material about the Petitioner. Therefore, we withdraw 
the Director 's decision regardin g this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or crilical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
A leading role should be apparent by its position in the overall organizational hierarchy and through the 
role 's matching duties. A critical role should be apparent from the Petitioner 's impact on the 
organization or the establishment's activities. The Petitioner's perfonn ance in this role should establish 
whether the role was critical for the organization or establishment as a whole. 
3 
.
Matter of M-K-
The record contains a letter from , the general producer of 
who states that the Petitioner "played a big part in participating and organizing a charity auction 
project in the activity event in December 20 13. 
doe s not state exact ly what the Petitioner did at this event, and thus, does not establish that 
her role was leading or critical. Furthermore, the evidence submitted does not demon strate that 
has a distinguished reputation . 
On appeal , the Petitioner states that she played this role yearly, but provide s no evidence to support 
her contention. Her statement contradicts the letter submitted by dated June 2017, 
which refers to her role in December 2013 and does not indicate subsequent performance s . When 
the record contains inconsistencies, the Petitioner must resolve them with independent , objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Here, we find that the evidence in the record is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petition er has 
performed a leading or critical 
role for an organization that has a distinguished reputation. 
Therefore, the Petitioner 
does not meet this criterion. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner is not eligible because she has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a 
qualifying one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(1)-(x). Thus , we do not need to fully addre ss the totality of the materials in a 
final merits determination. Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 119-20. Neve rtheless, we adv ise that we have 
reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner 
has the level of expertise required for the classification sought. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of M-K-, ID# 1264856 (AAO May 17, 2018) 
4