dismissed EB-1A Case: Modeling

MATTER OF J-0-0-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DA TE: SEPT. 5, 2018 
MOTlON ON ADMINlSTRA TIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a 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, as required, that the Petitioner had met any of the requisite three often evidentiary criteria. 
We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal, finding that she met one of the criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)((3 )(i)-(x). 
The matter is again before us on a motion to reopen. The Petitioner submits a brief along with 
additional evidence. 
Upon review, we will deny the motion. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence of new facts. The requirements of a motion 
to reopen are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). We may grant a motion that satisfies these 
requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner claims to meet the initial evidence requirements as an individual of extraordinary 
ability by satisfying the requisite three of ten evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x): 
lesser national or international awards; published material about her; and service as a judge of the 
work of others. After the Director found insufficient evidence in the record to meet any of these 
claimed criteria, we held on appeal that the evidence regarding the Petitioner's activity on the 
audition team panel for a Nigerian modeling agency was sufficient to meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(iv). However, we found the evidence regarding the basis for the awards received by the 
Petitioner at three beauty pageants, as well as the national or international recognition of the awards, 
.
Matter t~/J-0-0 
to be insufficient. We also found that the evidence submitted in support of the reputation, circulation 
and overall reach of the media which published material about the Petitioner did not establish that 
they could be considered to be major media. 
In her briet: the Petitioner makes assertions about the prestige of the three beauty pageants at which 
she received awards, and provides links to the websites of' the sponsoring organizations. 1 She states 
generally that some of these events involved competitions to select national representatives, but 
provides no corroborating evidence. Further, she contends that the pageants at which she received 
awards were televised nationally and internationally "as the case may be." The link to a YouTube 
video of the 2007 pageant provided in the motion brief lacks any further 
information about the broadcast of this event, nor does the record include information such as 
television transcripts or broadcast schedules, to support the Petitioner's contention. 
The Petitioner provides information from web sources identifying the winners and participants in the 
,2007 pageant. However, this evidence does not explain the selection 
criteria for the award she received. Thus, the Petitioner has not established 
that she received this award for excellence in the field of modelling. 
The Petitioner resubmits evidence regarding her other two awards, at the 2007 
pageant and second runner-up at the 2011 pageant. For 
example, the Petitioner claims that the pageant "was widely broadcast as it also 
attracted lovers of soccer from all over the world," but provided no new evidence to support this 
claim. While she provided a previously submitted letter from the sponsors of this pageant, it does 
not mention the event's broadcast and does not support her claim. Further, the Petitioner did not 
provide new evidence to overcome our finding that she had not established that these awards were 
for excellence in her field of endeavor. Therefore, the Petitioner has not provided new facts which 
would overcome our previous determination regarding these awards. 
We noted in our appeal decision that the Petitioner had submitted evidence in the form of newspaper 
clippings and articles from various Internet media in the form of press releases. While these 
materials help to establish the Petitioner's receipt of the claimed awards, we noted that the evidence 
lacked sufficient information regarding the national or international reputation or reach of the media 
in which they were published, which would support their qualification as major media under the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). The evidence submitted included self-promotional materials 
from the publishers of the various newspapers, including Vanguard and Encomium, as well as 
information about the newspapers from -Wikipedia, which we noted as an unreliable source of 
information. 
On motion, the Petitioner has included website addresses to pages which discuss the popularity of 
Nigerian newspapers. However, these websites do not provide independent circulation or 
distribution statistics or include the source of the information provided. For instance, an article titled 
1 The Petitioner does not mention the she claims to have received in her motion brief.. 
2 
.
Matier r!(J-0-0 
"TOP I 0: Your Guide to the Most Readable Newspapers in Nigeria" lists both Vanguard and This 
Day, sources cited by the Petitioner. However, the article did not clarify the term "readable" or 
identify the source of "the latest research" that it indicates was used in compiling the list. Another 
webpage rates Vanguard as the most popular daily newspaper in Nigeria, but uses the same 
previously submitted circulation figures provided on Vanguard's own website in arriving at that 
conclusion. Further, circulation figures are not provided for the other newspapers listed which 
would allow for comparison, making it unclear how this conclusion was reached. Without 
supporting evidence, the lists on these websites do not establish that the newspapers and magazines 
in which articles about the Petitioner were published qualify as major media. 
The Petitioner also included a website address for a list of the "Top IO Gossip and Entertainment 
Biogs in Nigeria," which includes two of the biogs which posted material about the Petitioner's 
second runner-up placing at the 20 I I pageant. As with the lists discussed above, 
this list does not provide comparative statistics and figures or verifiable sources to support the 
ranking, and therefore does not establish that these biogs are professional, major trade, or other 
major media. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
Upon consideration of the new facts presented in the Petitioner's motion to reopen, we do not find 
that they establish her eligibility under the requisite three of the ten evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3 )(i)-(x). . 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
Cite as Ma/fer of.l-O-O-, ID# 1482034 (AAO Sept. 5, 2018) 
3