Fashion Modeling
AAO appeal decision on the EB-1A talent visa
Updated: Author: Alina Kanametova
This is a real, anonymized AAO appeal decision on the EB-1A immigrant visa, in the field of Fashion Modeling (Beauty), 2020. The appeal was appeal dismissed, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner did not clearly meet the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 0 were counted; not counted: Awards, Published material about you, Judging, Exhibitions, Commercial success, Comparable evidence.
What this case shows
Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. Of the 6 EB-1A criteria claimed, 0 were counted. It never reached the final-merits stage: that requires at least 3 counted criteria.
EB-1A criteria in this case
- Awardsnot counted
- Membershipnot claimed
- Published material about younot counted
- Judgingnot counted
- Original contributionnot claimed
- Scholarly authorshipnot claimed
- Exhibitionsnot counted
- Leading rolenot claimed
- High remunerationnot claimed
- Commercial successnot counted
- Comparable evidencenot counted
Why these criteria usually go uncounted
The through-line of the appeals base: in 81% of decisions the AAO names the same problem - assertions not backed by sufficient evidence - and 45% of cases are lost at the final-merits totality assessment. Below is how each criterion not counted here fares across the whole base.
Awards
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 677 cases and counted in 129 (19%). Typical AAO objection: "Awards not nationally/internationally recognized". Counted when the award shows national/international reach: rules, jury makeup, scale of the competition.
Published material about you
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 793 cases and counted in 286 (36%). Typical AAO objections: "Outlet not shown to be major media"; "Published material not ABOUT the person". Counts coverage specifically ABOUT YOU in independent major or trade outlets, with publication details.
Judging
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 659 cases and counted in 491 (75%). Typical AAO objection: "Judging not actually performed / proven". Counted when the judging actually happened: an invitation plus proof you reviewed others’ work.
Exhibitions
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 226 cases and counted in 149 (66%). Counts showing work at artistic exhibitions, with venue, dates and proof of participation.
Commercial success
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 81 cases and counted in 9 (11%). Counts commercial success in the performing arts with numbers: box office, sales, charts.
Comparable evidence
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 64 cases and counted in 1 (2%).
The Beauty field in the database: 19 appeals
Outcomes in this field: 1 sustained, 4 remanded, 14 dismissed. How the AAO ruled in this field on the criteria argued in this case:
| Criterion | In this case | Counted in the field | How objections were answered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Awards | not counted | 1 of 9 (11%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Published material about you | not counted | 2 of 14 (14%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Judging | not counted | 7 of 13 (54%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Exhibitions | not counted | 6 of 9 (67%) | breakdowns for this criterion (6) |
| Commercial success | not counted | 0 of 3 (0%) | - |
| Comparable evidence | not counted | 0 of 3 (0%) | - |
Counted over our base of published AAO decisions; all Beauty appeals.
From the AAO decision (source, EN)
The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the required evidentiary criteria (awards, published material, judging, artistic display, and commercial success) to demonstrate extraordinary ability in the field of fashion modeling. The evidence submitted was insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.
The quote summarizes a fragment of the decision; the table above reflects the FINAL status of the criteria across all stages of the case (including ones conceded before the appeal), so the wording may not match one-to-one.
Full AAO decision of June 2, 2020 (PDF, uscis.gov)AAO decisions archive on uscis.gov
FAQ on this case
- Which EB-1A criteria were counted in this case?
- Criteria claimed: 6, counted: 0; not counted: Awards, Published material about you, Judging, Exhibitions, Commercial success, Comparable evidence.
- How did this appeal end?
- The appeal was dismissed - the denial stands. Most EB-1A AAO appeals end this way (~80% of our base).
- Did the case reach the final-merits stage?
- No - the case did not reach final merits: fewer than the required 3 criteria were counted.
The criteria not counted here - typical objections and how to respond: