dismissed EB-1A Case: Karate

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10751846 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 5, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a karate athlete and trainer, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirements of this classification by 
demonstrating his receipt of a major, internationally recognized award or meeting at least three of the 
ten evidentiary criteria listed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). On appeal, the Petitioner asserted that he 
met three criterion in addition to the one criterion that the Director found he met. However, we 
disagreed with the Director and reversed his finding regarding that criterion, finding that it had not 
been met by the Petitioner. We also agreed that the Petitioner did not meet another criterion he had 
claimed, and reserved two additional criteria. The Petitioner now submits a motion to reopen 
supported by additional evidence regarding three of the evidentiary criteria. 
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 dismiss 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). 
A motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence of new facts. The requirements of a motion to 
reopen are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements 
and demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner initially claimed five of the evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) in his 
petition: 
• (i) - lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in the field of 
endeavor 
• (ii) - membership in associations in the field requiring outstanding achievement of members 
• (iii) - published material about the Petitioner and his work in professional, major trade or other 
major media 
• (iv) - participation as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field, and 
• (viii) - a leading or critical role for organizations having a distinguished reputation 
The Director found that the Petitioner met only the awards criterion based upon newspaper clippings. 
These articles concern tournaments in which the members of a karate team from the University of 
'-----------~ including the Petitioner, are said to have received awards. However, on 
appeal we reversed this finding, noting that the record lacked direct evidence of the Petitioner's receipt 
of an award, and that the name of the tournaments in these articles were inconsistent with that claimed 
by the Petitioner. 1 We also agreed with the Director that the Petitioner did not meet the criterion 
relating to published material about him, and reserved the fourth and eight criteria under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 2 On motion, the Petitioner submits new evidence relating to the first, fourth 
and eight criteria, which we will analyze below. 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the.field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
On motion, the Petitioner submits evidence from the website of the '------====::::!..:::K.:::a::.:r~a:.:..:;te 
Association! I showing that the.__ __________ prom~.......,CL.lU----1---_J 
is one of several events scheduled for 2020. Also submitted is a letter from , dated 
February 19, 2020, who identifies himself as the .__ _________ __.promotor and states that 
1 The Petitioner's index, and the translation of at least one of the articles, indicated that the tournament was the Pan 
American Games, a tournament amongst North and South American countries that includes the sport of karate but has 
never been held in 2 Other titles referred to in the articles included "Panamerican Karate Games," "Panamerican 
Champions of Karate. I" and "Panamerican Championship of Free Karate." The Petitioner continued 
to add to these discrepancies on appeal, referring to the tournament both as the "Panamerican Games" and the 
"International Panamerican Championship of Karate." 
2 As the Petitioner did not contest the Director's finding that he did not meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). we 
found that claim to have been abandoned. 
2 
the Petitioner won first place in the "Panamerican National" in the~I ---~I weight category in the 
years 1994, 1995 and 1996. 
However, we note that I statement contradicts an article published in Meridiano on 
December 1, 1996, quoting another participant as stating that the Petitioner received third in~I --~ 
in the "Panamerica Games of Karate" which took place in the preceding month. The Petitioner must 
resolve this discrepancy in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth 
lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). While other articles in the record which 
were previously submitted indicate that the Petitioner achieved first place, the unknown source and 
date of these articles, combined with the articles' inconsistent naming of the tournaments in which the 
Petitioner is claimed to have won these awards, significantly reduces their value in verifying~ 
I I statement or overcoming this inconsistency. Accordingly, this new evidence does not establish 
that the Petitioner received the awards as stated byl • I 
In addition, we found in our previous decision that even if the Petitioner were to establish his receipt 
of the claimed awards, the evidence did not establish that they are nationally or internationally 
recognized. On motion, the Petitioner submits additional information about the I I 
I I tournament from the website highlighting a section 
titled "Ratings." This section lists several associations, with the entries fo~,__ __ __, and the World 
Kenpo Federation indicating "5A World Tour" and "5A Sanctioned" respectively, but the mealing I 
and significance of this information is not explained. Further, the I I website lists the 
I ~ as one of 33 tournaments scheduled to have been held during 2020, and does 
not differentiate between them in terms of the level of competition or recognition. This evidence does 
not establish that the .__ _________ ____. is recognized by I I at the national or 
international level, or that it is recognized in the broader field of martial arts. 
For the reasons stated above, we find that the new evidence does not establish the Petitioner's receipt 
of lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which 
class[fication is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
The Director found that the Petitioner had not established his participation as a judge of the work of 
others, finding that the letters froml lwere insufficient. With his appeal, the Petitioner 
resubmitted a letter from! I that had been submitted in response to the Director's request for 
evidence (RFE). On motion, he submits new evidence consisting of two certificates, both including 
his name and "Official's Certificate." The first indicates that it was given during the "U.S. Open ISKA 
World Martial Arts Championships" inl !Florida in02008, while the second states only 
"U.S. Open" and provides no date or location. This evidence sufficiently establishes the Petitioner's 
participation as an official at a karate tournament in02008. 
The previously mentioned new letter from I I also includes evidence relating to this criterion, 
stating that "I have had the pleasure to work with him invitin him as a judge to the Pan American 
Tournament of martial arts, that takes place in the cit of around fall time for the last 23 years." 
In addition, the Petitioner also includes the 2020...__ _ ____.Rulebook with his motion, which explains 
3 
that judges at a karate competition award points, as well as penalties, to the competitors. This evidence 
establishes that the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner submitted certificates and reference letters which verify that 
he actively participated as a karate athlete forc=]from 1994 to 2001, and continued to participate 
with the school's karate program in later years. The Director found that this evidence did not establish 
that he played a leading or critical role fore=] or that the school had a distinguished reputation. The 
Petitioner resubmitted the same three reference letters on appeal, as well as a webpage from the 
website topuniversities.com which ranks! I inl I As noted above, we reserved 
this criterion on our decision, as we had already determined that the Petitioner could not meet the 
initial evidence requirements for the requested classification. 
On motion, the Petitioner submits the same certificates and reference letters showing his participation 
as an athlete forD as well as new evidence that he acted as an "Aerobic Instructor" forc=]for 
the Inter-School Sports Games 2003 Cup. However, the Petitioner does not yolail or provide 
evidence regarding the duties of this role, or how this apparently temporary role for was leading 
or critical for the school overall. He also does not introduce new facts regarding his earlier role as an 
athlete foi-17 s karate team.~as therefore not established that he played a leading or critical 
role fo~erall or for the L_Jkarate team. 
The Petitioner also submits new information about I I and its history from Wikipedia, and 
information about the Free (or Freestyle) Karate Club atc=]which appears to be from the school's 
website. Regarding Wikipedia, there are no assurances about the reliability of the content from this 
open, user-edited Internet site. Therefore, information from Wikipedia will be accorded no evidentiary 
weight. See Laamilem Badasa v. Michael Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008). 3 And the 
information about the Free Karate Club simply provides information about the sport and the club's 
history, without adding information about the club's reputation in the field of karate or the broader 
field of martial arts. Accrrdingt, even if the Petitioner had successfully shown that he played a 
leading or critical role for or its freestyle karate club, he has not established that either entity 
enjoys a distinguished reputation. 
In addition, the Petitioner submits additional evidence regarding his role with thel I Karate 
Organization. One certificate, dated November 28, 2015, states that it "Grants this recognition to the 
3 See also the online content from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: General disclaimer, accessed on*, and copy 
incorporated into the record of proceeding is subject to the following general disclaimer: 
WTKTPEDTA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY. Wikipedia is an online open-content 
collaborative encyclopedia. that is. a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to develop 
a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet 
connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed 
by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information ... 
. Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article 
may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond 
with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields. 
4 
Teacher [Petitioner] for his long career as an athlete, perseverance and dedication in the formation of 
martial artists of new generations." A second certificate from the organization, dated March 27, 2010, 
indicates that it recognizes the Petitioner "For his valuable contribution and commitment to all the 
activities of this organization ... " However, the record does not include evidence which provides 
further information about what exactly the Petitioner's role for this organization was or is, such as 
whether he was formally employed as a karate instructor or held a leadership position. In addition, 
the record lacks evidence to show that the I I Karate Organization has earned a distinguished 
reputation. 
For all of the reasons discussed above, we find that the new evidence provided on motion does not 
establish that the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Upon review of the new evidence submitted by the Petitioner with his motion to reopen, we find that 
he has shown that he meets the criterion relating to his participation as a judge of the work of others. 
However, he has not submitted new evidence to overcome our previous finding regarding published 
material about him. In addition, we find that the new evidence about his receipt of nationally or 
internationally recognized awards and his leading or critical role for associations is insufficient to 
demonstrate that he meets those criteria. Accordingly, he has not established that he meets the initial 
evidence requirement for this classification and that he qualifies as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
5