Representative Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) attempted to undermine First Lady Melania Trump’s EB-1 visa — commonly referred to as the “Einstein visa” — by suggesting she lacked the credentials typically required for that immigration category. However, the criticism overlooked key facts that were thoroughly addressed by The New York Times in a 2018 fact-check.
The EB-1 visa, introduced under the Immigration Act of 1990, is granted to individuals who demonstrate “extraordinary ability” in fields such as science, art, education, business, or athletics.
Crockett dismissed Melania Trump’s qualifications during a hearing, saying, “You’re supposed to have some sort of significant achievement,” and implying that modeling did not meet the standard.
But the criteria set by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) tell a different story. As noted in the Times article, applicants must fulfill at least three of ten outlined criteria.
These include having published material about them in major media, participating in high-profile exhibitions, and earning a high salary relative to others in the field.
Melania Trump, a professional model before her marriage to Donald Trump, had been featured in international publications like British GQ and Sports Illustrated. These appearances, alongside her reported modeling income, qualified her under the guidelines.
Legal experts interviewed by the Times, including immigration attorney Chris Wright, confirmed that Melania’s case met standard EB-1 thresholds. Wright stated that his firm had successfully petitioned for visas for models with similar — or even fewer — accomplishments.
Furthermore, the claim that the visa is reserved for Nobel laureates or Olympic champions is misleading. USCIS uses a flexible, two-step process: satisfying three of the ten criteria, followed by a subjective “final merits determination.”
Even individuals of global stature, such as Albert Einstein, might struggle under today’s standards — a fact highlighted by an experiment in which immigration lawyers unknowingly reviewed Einstein’s early work and judged it unlikely to qualify for an EB-1.
