dismissed EB-1A Case: Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 12637549 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 2, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a Brazilian jiu-jitsu competitor , seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary 
ability . This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can 
demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose 
achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, and we subsequently dismissed the 
appeal. 1 The matter is now before us on a motion to reconsider. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will deny the motion. 
I. LAW 
The term "extraordinary ability " refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. " 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(2) . The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First , a petitioner can demonstrate sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement 
(that is, a major, internationally recognized award) . If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, 
then he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten 
categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material 
in certain media, and scholarly articles). Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements , 
we then consider the totality of the material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether 
the record shows sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is 
among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 
1115 (9th Cir. 2010). 
Further, a motion to reconsider is based on an incorrect application of law or policy, and a motion to 
reopen is based on documentary evidence of new facts. The requirements of a motion to reconsider 
are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3) . We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and 
demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
1 See In Re: 6619081 (May 1, 2020) . 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that she received 
a major, internationally recognized award and that she satisfied only two of the initial evidentiary 
criteria, awards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and published material at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), of 
which she must meet at least three. In dismissing her appeal, we also determined that the Petitioner 
did not fulfill the one-time achievement and did not establish eligibility for any additional criteria. 
A. Judicial Proceeding Statement 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(iii) requires the motion to be "[a]ccompanied by a statement 
about whether or not the validity of the unfavorable decision has been or is the subject of any judicial 
proceedings and, if so, the court, nature, date, and status or result of the proceeding." The Petitioner, 
however, did not include the required statement. Therefore, the Petitioner's motion does not meet the 
applicable requirements. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our decision was based on an incorrect application of law 
or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceeding at the 
time of the decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). On motion, the Petitioner submits a brief claiming 
that he~ !World Championships qualify as one-time 
achievements. In our prior decision, we specifically addressed her arguments and evidence and 
explained why her claims and documentation did not establish eligibility of I I World 
Championships as major, internationally recognized awards. On motion, the Petitioner did not explain 
or demonstrate how we erred or incorrectly applied law or policy. 
In addition, the Petitioner argues that she meets the "three-out-ten-rule" because she satisfied the 
membership criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) and generally references claims and material that 
we previously evaluated. Again, the Petitioner does not specifically point to how we improperly 
applied law or policy rather than generally alleging error. Our decision detailed why the Petitioner 
did not sufficient!] document how her memberships with thel I Hall of Fame and the I I I world Clampiorhip Cluh I . ,I fulfilled the membership criteriou. 
Specifically, as it relates to the Petitioner made assertions and assumptions that were not 
supported in her documentation, and she did not establish I ts membership requirements. 
Regarding .__ ____ ___. we explained how automatic membership, without being judged by 
recognized national or international experts, does not meet the regulatory requirements for the 
membership criterion. 
The Petitioner does not address any of these issues on motion, nor did she demonstrate how we 
incorrectly or improperly adjudicated her appeal. Disagreeing with our conclusions without showing 
that we erred as a matter of law or pointing to policy that contradicts our analysis of the evidence is 
not a ground to reconsider our decision. See Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) 
(finding that a motion to reconsider is not a process by which the party may submit in essence, the 
same brief and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior decision.) 
2 
As she did not demonstrate that we incorrectly dismissed her appeal, the Petitioner did not establish 
that she meets the requirements of a motion to reconsider. Therefore, we will deny her motion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown that we incorrectly dismissed her appeal based on the record before us. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
3