dismissed EB-1A Case: Modeling

U.S. Department of Hameland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
,! , , 
n ,'. 
f .' . I 
f 4'" J 
I h'; 
c) &). , !.* 
FILE : - Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
WAC 98 070 52769 W? 17 2995 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
&- Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability. The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary 
to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph 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 in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the individual 
is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(2). 
The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or 
international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
9 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner 
must show that she has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a model. The regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through 
evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award). Barring the alien's 
receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien 
to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. The petitioner has 
submitted evidence that, she claims, meets the following criteria.' 
Published materials about fhe alien in professional or major trade publicafions or other major media, 
refuting to the alien's work in the Jield for which cla.ss$cation is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necesscrty @un.slation. 
I 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
The petitioner submitted two brief articles about the publication of her book, "Storm in a 'D' Cup," one brief 
article commenting on Princess Diana's statements about bulimia and one brief article about the petitioner's 
preference in dresses. The copies do not reflect the publications in which these articles appeared or the dates. 
The petitioner also appeared as a pinup glamour model in the British tabloid, The Sun as one of the Page 3 Girls. 
The Sun also ran a story about the petitioner's broken engagement. An unidentified newspaper ran a story about 
the petitioner's recovery from a dog bite six years previously. Gany BushelI, Show Business Editor for The 
Sun, asserts that the petitioner appeared on popular British morning shows to promote her book. 
The director concluded that the articles were not about the petitioner's work in the field as they did not critique, 
assess, rate or discuss the petitioner's work. The director further concluded that television appearances were not 
"published materials." 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the media coverage about the petitioner results "from her fame as a model." The 
petitioner submits two articles about her personal life published in Hello after the date of filing. 
First, it is inherent to the profession of modeling that one's image will appear in print or on television. Glamour 
shots and advertisements are not published materials about the petitioner; they are the result of being able to 
work in her field. That said, we acknowledge that the record contains articles about the petitioner beyond her 
advertisements and page three appearances. We understand the director's concern that these articles are 
frivolous and minimally relate to the petitioner's work as a model. Nevertheless, counsel is persuasive that even 
frivolous tabloid media coverage is indicative of some recognition among the general population. Modeling is 
not a field where published critical analysis of one's work can be expected even of the top supermodels in the 
field. Rather, the coverage of even the most renowned models is generally limited to their personal lives. 
As stated above, the petitioner has not demonstrated that her print media coverage, as of the date of filing, 
extended beyond The Sun. The articles in Hello do not establish the petitioner's eligibility as of the date of 
filing. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12); Mutter of Katigbuk, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg. Comm. 1971). We do not 
contest the national circulation of The Sun. Such limited coverage in the publication that is publishing her 
glamour shots in the first place, however, suggests that her recognition is limited to the fans of the Page 3 girls' 
pinup photographs. Exposure and recognition are not necessarily indicative of the type of sustained national or 
international acclaim for recognized achievements in the field as contemplated by the statute. 
More persuasive is the petitioner's alleged television appearances. We find that coverage by the major 
television media can be comparable evidence to meet this criterion. Mr. Bushell's statement regarding these 
appearances, however, is not supported by the television networks that purportedly broadcast the interviews 
with the petitioner. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes 
of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Treasure Crafr of California, 14 I&N Dec. 
190 (Reg. Comm. 1972). Even if we were to accept Mr. Bushell's unsupported statement and conclude that the 
petitioner meets this criterion, the evidence falls far short of meeting two other criteria. 
Evidence of the ulien's original scientijic, scholar@, urtistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major signijicance in thejeld 
Initially, counsel asserted that the petitioner had "contributed enormously" to the modeling profession by 
dispelling myths that models are "women who can only rely on their good looks and bodies to earn their living." 
Counsel notes that Mr. Bushell attests to the petitioner's ranking as "one of the top ten beauties in Great 
Britain," that the petitioner has written columns for The Sun, and that the petitioner authored a book. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated how her work had changed the field of 
modeling. On appeai, counsel asserts that the petitioner was the first model to write for a women's section on 
such topics as health, beauty and fashion. Counsel further asserts that the petitioner's book dispelled myths 
about the Page 3 girls. 
We concur with the director that the petitioner has not demonstrated her impact on the field of modeling. Mr. 
Bushell asserts, without supporting evidence, that on several occasions, the petitioner "was voted one of the top 
beauties in Great Britain." Counsel fails to explain how these votes, assuming they occurred, have dispelled the 
myth that models rely on their looks. The record lacks any evidence that the petitioner's authorship of a few 
articles prior to the date of filing and a book has led to the hiring of more models as writers. While the 
petitioner may have gone on a promotional tour for her book, we concur with the director that the record lacks 
evidence of any influence this book may have had on the modeling field. Not every book by an insider to the 
field constitutes a contribution of major significance to that field. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The record contains three articles published in The Stan credited to the petitioner. Specifically, she authored 
'"Dial Your Dream Bachelor Boy" profiling "the tastiest top ten fellas" in Great Britain; 'Wunks Who Give Our 
Page 3 Girls a Thrill" describing a photo shoot of John Huntley and the petitioner's own preferences in men; 
and "You Can't Bake It, Fake It" reporting the petitioner's opinion on various brands of tanning make-up. The 
record also includes a report credited to another journalist about the petitioner's method for relieving back pain. 
As stated above, the petitioner also authored "Storm in a 'D' Cup," a series of interviews with 12 Page 3 girls. 
The director concluded that these articles and the petitioner's book were not "scholarly" as required by the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 6 204.5(h)(3)(vi). On appeal, counsel continues to assert that the petitioner's writing is 
scholarIy, covering "health, beauty and fashion." Counsel references "articles that stated that [the petitioner] 
was on a book tour promoting her book and [that she] made appearances on shows such as Good Morning 
Britain." 
We affirm the director's conclusion that the petitioner's articles do not provide a scholarly analysis of the art of 
modeling. At best, they constitute her personal reflections on men and tanning creams. Characterizing these 
articles as addressing health and fashion issues is simply inaccurate. Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that this 
criterion does not apply to the field of modeling. As such, we will consider whether the petitioner's writing 
might be comparable evidence to meet this criterion. 
The petitioner's articles in 73e Sun not only lack a scholarly content, they do not focus on the field of modeling. 
Thus, they are not persuasive. While the petitioner began writing for the Santa Monica Observer after the date 
of filing, those articles do not reflect upon the petitioner's eligibility as of the date of filing. See 8 C.F.R. 
8 1 03.2(b)(12); Matter ofKatigbak, 1 4 I&N Dec. at 49. 
Counsel asserts that the petitioner's book was a British best seller. The assertions of counsel do not constitute 
evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 
503, 506 (BIA 1980). None of the articles submitted, including those that mention the petitioner's book, refer to 
the book as a best seller or mention the petitioner's promotional tour. The only reference to the book tour and 
television interviews is in Mr. Bushell's letter. Moreover, even assuming that the petitioner did tour to promote 
her book, such promotion does not guarantee that the petitioner's book sold well. 
Evidence of the display of the alien 17 work in fhe field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The record contains considerable evidence of the petitioner's work as a Page 3 girl and print advertising model. 
The director questioned whether these "displays" were designed to showcase the petitioner's talents. On appeal, 
counsel asserts that the petitioner's modeling of the fashion designs of JonValdi serves to meet this criterion. 
We do not agree that fashion shows are designed to exhibit the work of the models. Rather, their purpose is to 
exhibit the work of the fashion designers. The selection of participants for the show by its organizers is based 
on the talents of the designers, not the models. As such, we cannot conclude that fashion shows are artistic 
showcases or exhibitions of fashion models. Moreover, we must consider the evidence submitted as to whether 
it is indicative or consistent with national or international acclaim. Appearing in a fashion show is evidence that 
the model is capable of securing employment. Even in a competitive field like modeling, the ability to secure 
employment is not indicative of national or international acclaim. 
Regarding the petitioner's glamour shots and advertisements, they are not artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
Thus, they cannot serve to meet this criterion. Ultimately, we find that this criterion relates to visual artists, not 
modeling. The evidence submitted to meet this criterion is not comparable to the type of exclusive artistic 
exhibition or showcase contemplated by the regulations. 
Evidence that the alien has perfijrmed in a leading or criiical role for organizations or e.stubli.shmrnfs that 
have a distinguished reputation. 
The President of JonValdi, a design company that purportedly caters to "3 major celebrity clientele," asserts that 
the petitioner modeled their 1998 spring collection. The petitioner appeared on several covers of Puzzler, other 
puzzle publications and PracticuZ Photopphv. She has appeared in print advertisements for ICI, Interflora, 
Black and White, Adidas, St. Troy Lycra Sensations by Dupont, and others. After the date of tiling, the 
petitioner worked as a model for Clear Choice Satellite. According to Mr. Bushell, the petitioner represented 
The Sun on a trip to Hamburg, Germany "with many other celebrities." Mr. Bushell and another reference attest 
to the petitioner's appearance in television cnmmercials. 
Stephen Herzberg, Executive Producer at PrairieFire Productions, asserts that the petitioner is essential to a 
reality based soap opera he is developing entitled "Strippers." The record contains no evidence that, as of the 
date of filing or anytime after, this show enjoyed a distinguished reputation. After the date of filing, the 
petitioner also served as a managing editor for the Santu Monica Observer. The record also contains several 
letters from individuals at Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios (MGM) asserting that the petitioner is working on 
MGM's "EDAM" project. None of these letters provide the petitioner's job title or description of her duties. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated the leading or critical nature of her roies for the 
above organizations. On appeal, counsel reiterates prior arguments. 
We concur with the director. Advertising is obviously important to any company and major companies spend 
considerable sums of money on advertising. In addition, we do not contest that the modeling industry is 
competitive. We cannot conclude, however, that every model who appears prominently in a print advertisement 
played a critical role for the company featured in the advertisement. The petitioner has not submitted evidence 
that an increase in sales correlated with her appearance in the company's advertisements. 
Finally, we are not persuaded that a petitioner can demonstrate that she has performed a leading or critical role 
for a company for which she was never employed even as a contractor. The petitioner has not claimed that she 
played a critical role for a distinguished advertising agency or studio. The record lacks letters from studio 
officials claiming that their own success has increased overall as a result of their use of the petitioner or that 
their campaigns that do not involve the petitioner do not do as well. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the perform~ng arts, as shown by box office receipts or record, cassette, 
compact disk, or video sales. 
Counsel asserts that the petitioner's commercial success is demonstrated by her appearance in the 
advertisements for so many leading companies. The director concluded that the petitioner was not a 
"performing artist" and that she had not demonstrated that the organizations she represented enjoyed 
commercial success largely due to her efforts. On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner's promotion and 
advertisement for "such a plethora of varying products shows her tremendous commercial value for 
designers', manufacturers' and stores' products." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(x) makes very clear the type of evidence necessary to meet this 
criterion: box office receipts or sales of media featuring the petitioner's performances. We do not find that 
the petitioner's "commercial value" to marketers is comparable to the type of data evidencing commercial 
success specifically mandated by this criterion. Significantly, while a petitioner need not meet any particular 
criterion, we note that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(3)(ix), relating to a significantly high 
remuneration, is more relevant to the petitioner's field of modeling than commercial success in the 
performing arts. Yet, the petitioner does not claim to meet that criterion. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate that the 
alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage who has risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself as a model to such 
an extent that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the 
small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence indicates that the petitioner shows talent as a model, 
but is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set her significantly above almost all others in her field. 
Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the 
petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.