Date of Decision: March 11, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Model Scout
Field: Model Management and Scouting
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Criterion 1: Evidence of high salary in relation to others in the field
Description: The petitioner has commanded a high salary, establishing that he meets this criterion.
Criterion 2: Evidence of participation as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field
Description: The petitioner served as a judge in modeling competitions and was involved in evaluating modeling talent on MTV’s show.
Criteria Not Met:
Criterion 1: Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media
Description: The petitioner provided articles and media appearances that did not meet the required standards of being about him and in major media.
Criterion 2: Evidence of the alien’s original contributions of major significance in the field
Description: The petitioner’s contributions to diversity and mental health awareness in the modeling industry were not proven to be of major significance to the field.
Criterion 3: Evidence of the display of the alien’s work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases
Description: The petitioner’s work was described as the promotion of models, not his own work displayed at exhibitions or showcases.
Criterion 4: Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation
Description: The evidence did not sufficiently establish the leading or critical nature of the petitioner’s roles within the organizations or the distinguished reputation of those organizations.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
N/A
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner submitted articles and media appearances but failed to provide sufficient documentation proving the material met the criteria of being about him in professional or major trade publications.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner’s advocacy for diversity and mental health awareness was recognized, but it was not proven to have a major significance in the field of modeling.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner served as a judge in modeling competitions and on MTV’s show, fulfilling this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
N/A
Authorship of scholarly articles:
N/A
Leading or critical role performed:
The petitioner claimed leading roles in several organizations, but the evidence was not sufficient to prove these roles were leading or critical within distinguished organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
The petitioner’s work was related to promoting models rather than displaying his own work.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner provided evidence of commanding a high salary compared to others in his field.
Commercial successes in the Performing Arts:
N/A
Supporting Documentation
- Evidence of High Salary: Documentation proving the petitioner commanded a high salary in the modeling industry.
- Judging Participation: Letters and screenshots proving the petitioner’s role as a judge in modeling competitions and on MTV’s show.
- Published Materials: Articles and media appearances submitted did not meet the necessary standards.
- Original Contributions: Letters of support and media coverage of the petitioner’s advocacy efforts were included but did not meet the criterion.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
Appeal dismissed. The petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence criteria of either a one-time achievement or documentation that satisfies at least three of the ten regulatory criteria.
Reasoning:
The petitioner provided evidence of commanding a high salary and participation as a judge, but failed to meet additional criteria such as published material about him in major media and original contributions of major significance in the field.
Next Steps:
Recommendations for the petitioner include gathering more substantial evidence that directly meets the regulatory criteria and possibly considering re-application with additional or enhanced documentation.
