How common is an EB‑1 green card for models, and is there evidence Melania Trump used that category?

1. How rare is EB‑1 overall, and where do models fit in that universe?

The EB‑1 preference is explicitly limited and historically accounted for a tiny share of all green cards—thousands out of more than a million in some years—making it statistically rare compared with family‑ or employer‑based routes ^{[1] [2]}. USCIS adjudications of EB‑1 often favor fields with quantifiable awards and benchmarks (Nobel prizes, Oscars, Olympic medals), but the regulation’s language also covers “arts” and “extraordinary ability” broadly, which allows successful petitions from less‑conventional fields when evidence is framed to meet specific criteria ^{[3] [6]}. Immigration‑law observers note that models are an included category and that fashion models, especially those with international work and documented acclaim, have sometimes succeeded under EB‑1 or analogous O‑1 filings—though success depends heavily on how achievements are documented and on adjudicator discretion ^{[6] [5]}.

2. What the reporting says about Melania Trump’s EB‑1 approval.

Multiple mainstream contemporaneous reports and later accounts state Melania Knauss applied for an EB‑1 in 2000 and was approved in 2001; reporters cited State Department statistics showing she was one of just five people from Slovenia to receive an EB‑1 that year ^{[1] [3] [2]}. Legal and immigration commentary has reiterated that she was approved as an “individual with extraordinary ability” and that her modeling résumé—runway work, magazine spreads, and commercial gigs—was presented in support of her petition, though specifics of the petition are not in the public record ^{[7] [8] [5]}.

3. Evidence, limits of public record, and reasonable inferences.

The factual claims that she applied and received EB‑1 status are reported consistently across multiple sources ^{[1] [2] [4]}. However, the application materials that would document precisely which EB‑1 criteria were met are not publicly available, and immigration files are generally private; lawyers and analysts therefore rely on public reporting, legal standards, and patterns of adjudication to infer how a model might qualify ^{[5] [4]}. Commentators also point out EB‑1 approvals can hinge on curated documentation and influential testimonials—not an objective single metric—making approvals in subjective fields plausible without blockbuster awards ^{[3] [5]}.

4. Dispute and political context: merit, subjectivity, and motive.

Critics have questioned whether a working fashion model without trophy‑level awards meets the ordinary public image of “extraordinary ability,” and that debate has been amplified in political contexts where Melania’s immigration history intersects with her husband’s immigration rhetoric ^{[3] [9]}. Defenders, including practicing immigration lawyers, contend that the statutory criteria allow for non‑scientific accomplishments to qualify and that models with international recognition have precedent for approval—highlighting that EB‑1 decisions are comparative and dependent on documentary framing ^{[10] [11]}. Observers warn the controversy can reflect partisan agendas and media fascination with elite exceptions rather than new evidence of wrongdoing ^{[8] [10]}.

5. Bottom line: frequency for models and the evidentiary record about Melania.

EB‑1 approvals are uncommon overall and concentrated in traditionally measurable fields, but models are not categorically excluded and have won EB‑1 or similar approvals when their careers are documented to meet regulatory criteria ^{[1] [6]}. There is consistent reporting that Melania Trump obtained an EB‑1 green card around 2001, but the precise application materials and adjudicator rationale remain private—so the public record supports the claim she used EB‑1 while not providing granular proof of exactly which evidentiary boxes were checked ^{[1] [3] [5] [4]}.