dismissed EB-1A Case: Modeling

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF J-0-0-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 26,2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a professional model, seeks classification as an individual 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 Petitioner did 
not satisfy, as required, at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and additional documentation, stating that she meets at least 
three of the· ten criteria. In addition, she maintains that she has established eligibility for the 
classification. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes visas available to qualitied foreign nationals 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 tield 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 bene tit prospectively the 
United States. 
.
Matter of J-0-0-
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 regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
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 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 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. USC IS, 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 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); R(jal 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 (?l 
Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a professional model. As she has not stated or established her receipt of a major, 
internationally recognized award, as initial evidence, she must present documents satisfying at least 
three of the ten criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt f?llesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field f?l endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner claims that she won two pageant titles in 2007: ' at the 
pageant, and ' · at the pageant in 
Albania. She also indicates that she was the second runner-up at the pageant in 
Germany in 2011. In support of these assertions, she submits photographs of herself and other 
contestants in pageant attire wearing crowns and sashes. 
The photographs alone do not satisfy this criterion. The Petitioner has not provided sufficient 
information on the events, the entities hosting the competitions , or other material to demonstrate that 
the prizes or awards are nationally or internationally recognized. Further, she has not submitted 
documentation outlining the number of awardees, the criteria by which awardees are selected , the 
selection process, the entities that granted the award, or evidence that addresses the reputation of the 
award within the field. In addition, she has not sufficiently demonstrated that the issuing entities 
2 
.
Matter of J-0-0-
were recognizing her excellence in the field of endeavor, rather than her participation in a particular 
event. 
The Petitioner also offers evidence in the form of press releases in local newspapers and 
Internet-based articles acknowledging her receipt of the aforementioned titles. She, however, 
provides no evidence to establish the popularity or reach of the newspapers or websites such that 
event coverage by these media outlets is indicative of the national or international recognition of the 
events. 
She also submits a photograph of her holding a certificate, which she claims is a 
awarded to her out of 42 contestants by the in Albania at the 
pageant. Other than the photograph, in which the 
actual certificate is not clearly 
depicted, there is no additional evidence in the record pertaining to this award, the meaning behind 
the award , or what the recognition associated with the awards might reflect. In addition, there is no 
evidence demonstrating that her receipt of this certificate constitutes a nationally or internationally 
recognized award in her field of endeavor. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that the Petitioner's awards be 
nationally or internationally recognized in the field of endeavor and it is her burden to establish that 
she meets every element of this criterion. In this instance, the record contains insufficient 
documentary evidence demonstrating that her pageant awards are recognized beyond the presenting 
organizations, or are nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the 
field. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title. date. and author <~lthe material. and any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Petitioner has ofTered a number of articles about her, relating to her receipt of the various 
pageant titles discussed above. She, however, has not submitted sufficient documents demonstrating 
that the articles appeared in professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
Specifically, she has presented articles that appeared in newspapers, magazines, such as 
and a number of websites and 
blogs . She, however, has not offered sufficient evidence demonstrating that these constitute 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
The record contains information on some of the publishers. For example, the Petitioner has 
presented articles from the websites of and which provide overviews of the 
publications. The article indicates that it is "one of the leading Newspapers in Nigeria 
today" with a daily print run of 130,000 copies. Other than self-promotional claims that appear on 
the publication's website, the Petitioner has not offered independent and credible corroboration 
.
Matter of.l-0-0-
verifying that the newspaper constitutes major media in Nigeria. In addition, the article 
does not identify its author. As stated above, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires 
that the published material include the identity of the author. Moreover, while states that 
it is Nigeria's "most authentic soft-sell magazine," the record does not include publication or 
circulation data or other documentation confirming its status as a major media. 
The Petitioner also submits numerous excerpts from Wikipedia, self-described as ·'the free 
encyclopedia that anyone can edit," as evidence of the circulation data of the other publications. 
There are, however, no assurances about the reliability of the content from Wikipedia, an open, user­
edited website. 1 See Badasa v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008). 
The record also contains copies of various blogs that discuss the Petitioner's awards, such as those 
by and as well as some web-based articles. There is 
no evidence, such as viewership information, demonstrating that these blogs and websites are 
qualifying publications under the criterion. 2 
In light of the above, specifically, the lack of sufficient documentation confirming that the 
newspapers, magazines, and websites qualify as professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien ·s participation. either individually or on a panel. as a judge of the work ol 
others in the same or an allied.field ofspecificationfor which class(jication is sought. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Petitioner states that she meets this criterion because she was on "the audition team (panel)'' for 
a Nigerian modeling agency. In support of this assertion, she submits a copy of an 
advertisement entitled ' " which identifies her as a member of the audition 
team for auditions held on October 26, 201 1. The Petitioner has also submitted a letter from 
dated October 30, 2011, thanking her for "judiciously interviewing and 
1 
Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer: 
WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY. Wikipedia is an online open-content 
collaborative encyclopedia; that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to 
develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an 
Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been 
reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable 
information . . . . Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The 
content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose 
opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields. 
http://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer, accessed on January 18, 2018 . a copy incorporated into the 
record of proceedings. 
2 
Although the Petitioner claims that blog is one of the top I 0,000 sites in the world, there is no independent 
evidence to support this assertion. 
4 
Matter of J-0-0-
assessing each model," and expressing satisfaction with the caliber of models she helped the agency 
select. As such, the Petitioner has satisfied this criterion. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence establishing that she meets at least 
three of the ten criteria.3 As a result, we need not provide the type of final merits determination 
referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we have reviewed the record in the 
aggregate, and conclude that it does not sufficiently demonstrate the Petitioner's sustained national 
or international acclaim or that her achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation. Accordingly, she has not established she is an individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of J-0-0-, ID# 868229 (AAO Jan. 26, 2018) 
1 The Petitioner's asserts that a decision denying a previous petition reached different conclusions than those set forth in 
the instant matter, and that we should follow the Director's previous determinations. We are not bound by a decision of 
a service center or district director. See La. Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E. D. 
La. Mar. 15, 2000).