How common is it for models or public figures to receive EB-1 visas and what precedents exist?
Executive summary
The EB-1 immigrant visa is a narrow, merit-based first‑preference category intended for “aliens of extraordinary ability,” outstanding researchers/professors, and certain multinational executives; adjudicators apply specific evidentiary criteria and a final merits determination to decide grants [1] [2]. While most EB-1 approvals cluster in academia, science, business and athletics, high‑profile artists, entertainers and models do sometimes obtain EB‑1s, but such cases are the exception rather than the rule and the public examples available are a small set of notable precedents rather than evidence of a broad pattern [2] [3] [4].
1. What the EB‑1 actually requires and why celebrities can qualify
The EB‑1A (extraordinary ability) track requires applicants to meet at least three of ten regulatory criteria—such as major media coverage, high salary, awards, or significant contributions—and then pass a totality‑of‑evidence merits review that looks for sustained national or international acclaim; the category uniquely allows self‑petitioning without a U.S. employer sponsor [1] [2]. Because those criteria are media‑ and recognition‑based, public figures and models who can document sustained, demonstrable impact in the arts or entertainment can, in principle, meet EB‑1A standards the same way Nobel laureates or leading researchers can [1] [5].
2. Precedents among models and entertainers: a short list
Reported or publicized individual cases include Milla Jovovich as an EB‑1 recipient noted for her acting and modeling career and other well‑known entertainers said to have used EB‑1 routes or related extraordinary‑ability paths—examples cited in public reporting include Charlize Theron, M.I.A., John Oliver and mentions of Shakira and Melania Trump in legal and media discussions [6] [4] [7]. Independent fact‑checking and reporting emphasize that models and entertainers have used EB‑1 or similar extraordinary‑ability visas, though the public lists are small and often tied to high‑visibility figures whose records are easier to document [3] [6].
3. How common is “common”?—numbers and patterns (what sources do and don’t say)
Available reporting and practice guides indicate the EB‑1 category is selective and has a relatively high denial rate for self‑petitioners, and commentators note adjudications favor fields with measurable benchmarks while sometimes undervaluing creative fields—sources do not provide a precise share of EB‑1 approvals that go to models or celebrities, and public legal commentary warns that only a small percentage of applicants reach the “top of the field” standard [7] [8] [2]. Multiple law‑firm and media pieces therefore describe celebrity/model EB‑1 grants as notable exceptions; none of the provided sources supply comprehensive statistics breaking approvals down by occupation, so claims about frequency beyond “rare but possible” cannot be substantiated from the supplied materials [9] [10].
4. Why some high‑profile cases generate controversy
Because the EB‑1A standard relies heavily on documented acclaim and often subjective final merits review, approvals involving public figures—especially those tied to political controversy—attract scrutiny and allegations of favoritism; reporting around Melania Trump’s classification and congressional questioning illustrates how a model’s EB‑1 approval can prompt debate over consistency and officer discretion [8] [7]. Fact‑checkers and lawyers stress that models can meet the criteria, but contend that decisions can appear arbitrary because much depends on how evidence is framed and which adjudicator reviews the petition [3] [2].
5. Practical takeaway for assessing these cases going forward
The correct reading of the precedent and guidance is straightforward: the EB‑1A is open to models and public figures who can document sustained international or national acclaim under USCIS criteria, and isolated celebrity approvals are real precedents—but the category remains selective, evidence‑driven and not commonly used by most models; definitive claims about how “common” such approvals are are not supported by the sources provided, which offer qualitative precedent and guidance rather than comprehensive statistics [1] [3] [11].