dismissed EB-1A Case: Modeling

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 26, 2024 In Re: 31381558 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not establish 
he satisfied at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo 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 in 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 a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award) or qualifying 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). 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or 
established receipt of 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). 
The Petitioner initially claimed to have satisfied five of these criteria, but the Director determined the 
Petitioner fulfilled only two: judging the work of others at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and display of 
his work at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets two 
additional categories of evidence. 1 
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 of the material, and any 
necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
USCIS first determines whether the published material was related to the person and the person's 
specific work in the field for which classification is sought. 2 The published material should be about 
the person, relating to the person's work in the field, not just about the person's employer and the 
employer's work or another organization and that organization's work. 3 USCIS then determines 
whether the publication qualifies as a professional publication, major trade publication, or other major 
media publication. 4 
The Petitioner submitted a 2015 article, entitled in 
______ of The Himalayan Times, but this material only briefly mentions him. The 
Petitioner also presented what he claims is a translated document from Press Council Nepal listing 
1 In his appeal brief, the Petitioner does not challenge the Director's determination that he did not meet the commercial 
successes in the performing arts criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). We consider the Petitioner's prior eligibility claims 
not raised or contested on appeal to be abandoned. An issue not raised on appeal is waived. See, e.g., Matter ofO-R-E-. 
28 T&N Dec. 330. 336 n.5 (BIA 2021) ( citing Matter ofR-A-M-, 25 T&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 (BIA 2012)). 
2 See generally 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.2(B)(l ), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
3 Id. 
4 Id. 
2 
multiple newspapers and categorizing them by district, type, level, and class, but this list does not offer 
specific circulation statistics for The Himalayan Times or its The 
Himalayan Times is listed at the top as being a national level Class A daily newspaper. The original 
Nepali language document, however, contains no identifiers indicating that it was issued by Press 
Council Nepal. Without further information and evidence, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that 
the I Iof The Himalayan Times is a form of major media. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided two articles in World of Women, entitled
I I 2015) and I I 2016), but their author was 
not identified, and they did not discuss his modeling work. Further, the Petitioner has not shown that 
World of Women qualifies as a form major media. 
For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
For this criterion, USCIS determines whether the person's salary or remuneration is high relative to 
the compensation paid to others working in the field. 5 
The Petitioner submitted letters from and 
attestin to his com ensation from 2013 until 2020. He also rovided his contracts 
with 
_____ and _______ for 2013 to 2020. The record, however, does not 
include tax records or other evidence to corroborate the Petitioner's receipt of the specified 
compensation. In addition, the Petitioner presented an article from SalaryExplorer.com, entitled 
"Fashion Model Average Salary in Nepal 2023," and an article from WorldSalaries.com, entitled 
"Average Fashion Model Salary in Nepal for 2023," but he did not submit evidence of comparable 
remuneration data from 2013 to 2020. Nor has the Petitioner demonstrated the validity of the 2023 
salary information from SalaryExplorer.com and WorldSalaries.com. To meet this criterion, the 
Petitioner must show that he received a high salary or other significantly high remuneration in relation 
to other models during the same time period. See Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. 
Comm'r 1994) (considering a professional golfer's earnings versus other PGA Tour golfers); see also 
Crimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering NHL enforcer's salary versus 
other NHL enforcers); Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N. D. Ill. 1995) (comparing salary of 
NHL defensive player to salary of other NHL defensemen). The nonsynchronous comparison of the 
Petitioner's modeling compensation is not sufficient to demonstrate that he has commanded a high 
salary or other significantly high remuneration for services in relation to others in the field. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that he fulfills this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
While the Petitioner meets the display and judging criteria, he has not established he satisfies the 
criteria relating to published material or high remuneration. Because the Petitioner's inability to meet 
5 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l). 
3 
three of the initial criteria is dispositive of his appeal, we need not provide the type of final merits 
determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. We therefore reserve this issue. 6 
Nevertheless, we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding it does not support a 
conclusion that the Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification 
sought. The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already 
at the top of their respective fields, rather than those progressing toward the top. Matter ofPrice, 20 
I&N Dec. at 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (concluding that even major league level athletes do not 
automatically meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual of "extraordinary 
ability,"); Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 131 (internal quotation marks omitted) (finding that the 
extraordinary ability designation is "extremely restrictive by design,"); Hamal v. Dep 't ofHomeland 
Sec. (Hamal 11), No. 19-cv-2534, 2021 WL 2338316, at *5 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021), aff'd, 2023 WL 
1156801 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 31, 2023) (determining that EB-1 visas are "reserved for a very small 
percentage of prospective immigrants"). See also Hamal v. Dep 't ofHomeland Sec. (Hamal 1), No. 
19-cv-2534, 2020 WL 2934954, at *1 (D.D.C. June 3, 2020) (citing Kazarian, 596 at 1122 (upholding 
denial of petition of a published theoretical physicist specializing in non-Einsteinian theories of 
gravitation) (stating that "[c]ourts have found that even highly accomplished individuals fail to win 
this designation")); Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914, 918 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (finding that "arguably 
one of the most famous baseball players in Korean history" did not qualify for visa as a baseball 
coach). Here, the Petitioner has not shown the significance of his work is indicative of the required 
sustained national or international acclaim or it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the 
field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 
203(b)(1 )(A) of the Act. 7 Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate the Petitioner has 
garnered national or international acclaim in the field, and he is one of the small percentage who has 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). The record does not contain sufficient evidence establishing the Petitioner among the 
upper echelon in his field. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the 
decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 T&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
7 For example, the record lacks evidence showing that the Petitioner has "sustained" national acclaim as a model after 
January 2020. His published material, judging participation, modeling displays, and contracts all pre-date January 2020. 
4