Shoe designer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met three initial criteria but failed final merits step. AAO held petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim and failed to contextualize accomplishments relative to other top designers.

Footwear designer filed as self-petitioner for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed four criteria met. AAO sustained appeal, finding all four criteria established and that totality of evidence demonstrates sustained national/international acclaim and position among very top of field.

Self-petitioner seeks EB-1A classification as a model. Claimed lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes. AAO found the competition not nationally or internationally recognized and did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or place among very top in field.

A fashion model from Australia sought EB-1A classification claiming ten evidentiary criteria. The AAO affirmed the service center's finding that she satisfied only one criterion (display at exhibitions). The record lacked evidence of nationally recognized awards, qualifying association membership, or the sustained national/international acclaim required for extraordinary ability status.