dismissed EB-1A Case: Kickboxing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 13832895 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR . 3, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a boxer and kickboxer, seeks classification as an individual 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 Nebraska Service Center initially denied the petition and subsequently affirmed 
his decision on motion, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only one of the initial evidentiary 
criteria for this classification, of which he must meet at least three . We dismissed the Petitioner 's 
subsequent appeal. 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 conclude that the Petitioner has not met 
that burden . Accordingly, we will dismiss the motion to reconsider. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A motion to reconsider must (1) state the reasons for reconsideration and establish that the decision 
was based on an incorrect application of law or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
policy, and (2) establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of 
proceedings at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) limits our authority to reopen or reconsider to instances 
where the Petitioner has shown "proper cause" for that action. Thus, to merit reconsideration, a 
petitioner must not only meet the formal filing requirements (such as submission of a properly 
completed Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with the correct fee), but also show proper cause 
for granting the motion . We cannot grant a motion that does not meet applicable requirements . See 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
II. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to aliens with extraordinary ability. 
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 they 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) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
III. ANALYSIS 
The issue before us is whether the Petitioner has established that our decision to dismiss his appeal was 
based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy. The Petitioner must specify the factual and 
legal issues raised on appeal that were decided in error or overlooked in our initial decision. 
A. AAO Decision 
The Director denied the petition after concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only one of the ten 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), related to judging the work of others. 
In dismissing the appeal, we determined that the Petitioner established that he had received nationally 
recognized awards or prizes in the sport of kickboxing and therefore met the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(i). We withdrew the Director's determination that the Petitioner had submitted sufficient 
evidence to satisfy the judging criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). We also addressed the 
Petitioner's claim that he met three additional criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), including the 
criteria related to memberships in associations that require outstanding achievements, published 
material in major media, and original contributions of major significance. We concluded that because 
the Petitioner satisfied only one criterion, he did not meet the initial evidence requirements for this 
classification. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that we misapplied the law, misinterpreted certain evidence, and 
incorrectly determined that the previously submitted evidence was insufficient to satisfy the criteria 
2 
relating to the membership, published materials and judging criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (iii) 
and (v). He does not contest our conclusion that he did not submit evidence to satisfy the original 
contributions criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). However, he requests that we reconsider the 
previously submitted letters of reference from experts in his field as comparable evidence under 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 1 
Documentation of the individual's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or .fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) 
In order to satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must show that membership in the association is based 
on being judged by recognized national or international experts as having outstanding achievements 
in the field for which classification is sought. 2 
On motion, the Petitioner maintains that he satisfies this criterion based on his receipt of the 
designation "Master of Sport in WTKA Kickboxing." 3 In our appellate decision acknowledged that 
the Petitioner submitted a certificate documenting his receipt of this title and a letter froml I I pf the I I World Traditional Kickboxing Association (WTKA). We noted that, 
whilel I described the achievements required for receipt of the designation, he "consistently 
refers to it as a title rather than a membership." We further emphasized that I I did not 
mention an association into which the Petitioner was granted entry as a result of being conferred this 
title. 
The Petitioner asserts that we erred in determining that his Master of Sports designation "is not an 
association that requires outstanding achievement," noting that our decision "appears to concentrate 
on the semantic meaning of the word 'association' and its alleged opposition to the designation of 
'title," which admittedly is used throughout the translation of the corroborating letter ofl I" 
The Petitioner contends that "the AAO misunderstands the plain meaning of the word 'association' as 
used in the statute" and states that ' [ c ]learly the statute does not require that the alien is an actual 
members of a formal 'association' with by-laws, statutes and officers." 
The Petitioner suggests that the meaning of the words "membership" and "association" should both 
be interpreted generously when evaluating whether a given individual is a "member of an association" 
in the field which requires outstanding achievements of its members. He refers to a non-precedent 
decision in which we determined that membership on a national team could satisfy the criterion at 8 
1 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable material if he or she is able to 
demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
2 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (providing an example of admission to membership in 
the National Academy of Sciences as a Foreign Associate that requires individuals to be nominated by an academy 
member, and membership is ultimately granted based upon recognition of the individual's distinguished achievements in 
original research). 
3 The Petitioner previously claimed eligibility under this criterion based on his membership in thd lsports Club. 
the World Traditional Kickboxing Association (WTKA) and the I I National Kickboxing Team. He has not 
pursued these claims on motion. 
3 
e.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). This decision was not published as a precedent and therefore does not bind 
users officers in future adjudications. See 8 e.F.R. § 103.3(c). Non-precedent decisions apply existing 
law and policy to the specific facts of the individual case and may be distinguishable based on the 
evidence in the record of proceedings, the issues considered, and applicable law and policy. 
Further, while we acknowledge that membership on a national team may, depending on the evidence 
presented in an individual case, be sufficient to satisfy this criterion, 4 the Petitioner has not adequately 
explained how his receipt of the "Master of Sport" title is equivalent to admission as a member to a 
national team or any recognized group or organization of athletes in his sport. There is insufficient 
evidence to support a determination that recipients of a "Master of Sport" title are granted membership 
to a group of any type. His claim that the athletes who have earned the "Master of Sport" title form 
"an association of people holding this title" is not corroborated in the record. 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that we misapplied the law or users 
policy in concluding that he did not meet this criterion. 
Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the individual's work in the field.for which class[fication 
is sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation. 8 e.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
In our previous decision, we observed that three of the four published articles submitted in support of 
this criterion reported on the competition results of groups of athletes from thd }region 
of who artici ated in boxin and kickboxin corn etitions. We noted that one of the articles, 
titled ~------------------------~(published by the 
website www.galsports.com), includes multiple introductory and concluding paragraphs describing 
the competition in general, and devotes one sentence each to the Petitioner and eight other athletes, 
describing their results in the competition. Finally, we emphasized that since none of the articles 
provide details about the individual athletes beyond reporting their competition results, the articles 
were not "about" the Petitioner or any other individual athlete. 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that our decision mistakenly relied on Noroozi v. Napolitano, 905 
F.Supp.2d 535, 545 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), in which the court determined that brief mentions of an athlete 
within articles about a team are not articles about the athlete. A review of our decision reflects that 
we did not indicate our reliance on Noroozi, although we acknowledged that the Director had cited to 
this district court case in his decision. Nevertheless, the Petitioner attempts to distinguish the articles 
submitted here from those mentioned in Noroozi, noting that the court emphasized that the articles 
submitted in that matter contained only a "brief mention" of the beneficiary or referenced him only 
"in passing." The Petitioner maintains that he was "afforded his own paragraph" in each of the articles 
but does not explain how a one-sentence paragraph reporting on his competition results supports his 
claim that these articles were "about" him. The submission of results from a sporting event without 
any discussion of the Petitioner and his work is not consistent with the meaning of"published material 
about the alien" pursuant to the plain language of the regulation at 8 e.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
4 See also USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra at 12 (stating that election to a national all-star or Olympic 
team mist serve as comparable evidence for evidence of membership in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii)). 
4 
We also acknowledged that the Petitioner submitted one article that satisfies the regulatory 
requirement that the article be "about" him and relating to his work in the field. The article focuses 
on his victory in a boxing tournament inl I in 2012, mentions the Petitioner in its title and 
includes two paragraphs in which his coach describes his fight and his prospects as a boxer. However, 
we determined that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to establish that the article, which 
was posted on the website www.sport.ifua, appeared in a professional publication, major trade 
publication or other major medium. We emphasized that comparative circulation or similar data is 
most relevant to determining whether a particular publication qualifies under this criterion, and that 
the Petitioner did lot provile comparative data showing this website's ranking in relation to similar 
websites based in or focused on sports. We also noted that the evidence he submitted 
indicates that www.sport.ifua is "a regional sporting Internet portal" and "targeted towards a smaller 
readership than media focusing on sports news at the national ... level." 
On motion, the Petitioner "repeats the assertion that the internet copies of articles fall under the 
category of 'other major media' required by the statute." He does not address the specific deficiencies 
we addressed in our decision, explain how we misapplied the law or USCIS policy in evaluating the 
article referenced above, or offer any support for his suggestion that any article published on the 
Internet qualifies as "major media." 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that our prior determination with respect 
to this criterion was based on a misapplication of law or USCIS policy. 
Evidence of the individual'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) 
In our prior decision, we withdrew the Director's determination that the Petitioner had submitted 
evidence to satisfy this criterion. We acknowledged that the Petitioner submitted certificates 
indicating that he was conferred a second category judge rank in WTKA kickboxing in November 
2015 and a first category judging rank in October 2016. While such evidence establishes that the 
Petitioner has been qualified to serve as a judge in this sport, it does not confirm or corroborate his 
participation as a judge in any specific WTKA event. 
The Petitioner also submitted the above-referenced letter from I I who discusses in detail 
the role of a judge in WTKA kickboxing matches and the different judging ranks or categories. 
However, we noted that certain statements he made regarding the Petitioner were not consistent with 
other information in the record. Specifically, he states that: (1) the Petitioner received his "first 
category" judging qualification in December 2017, more than a year after the date on his certificate; 
and (2) the Petitioner judged WTKA competitions beginning in 2012, three or more years prior to the 
issuance of his second category judging certification. Based on these unresolved inconsistencies and 
a lack of independent, objective evidence related to the Petitioner's judging activities, we found □ 
I 1 , Is letter insufficient to document the Petitioner's participation as a judge in WTKA 
competitions. 
On motion, the Petitioner acknowledges our de nova review of matters before us on appeal but asserts 
that "the decision to revoke a prior determination of the Director without allowing the Petitioner to 
respond to the alleged inconsistencies is patently inequitable." He argues that he "would have been 
5 
able to present additional evidence or explanation to rebut the alleged inconsistencies" if he had the 
opportunity. He farther contends that we erred by citing to Matter of Ho, I&N Dec. 582 (BIA 1988) 
in addressing the inconsistencies in the record, noting that "the holding of Matter of Ho with regard to 
inconsistencies and contradictions applies to situations where the prior record clearly indicates such 
problems and the Respondent is given opportunity to clarify them." With respect to the inconsistencies 
discussed in our decision, the Petitioner states: 
That the Petitioner began judging kickboxing competitions in 2012 but only received 
his judging certificate in 2015 can be explained simply and sufficiently be the fact that 
not all competitions reqtre judges to hold judge certificates. The erroneous date 
provided in the letter can be attributed to simple clerical error, however, 
without input from the letter writer ... the precise reason for this discrepancy remains 
unknown.'' 
The Petitioner maintains that the discrepancies we noted were minor, that he presented primary 
evidence of his qualifications as a judge, and that I I's letter is sufficient to establish "that 
the Petitioner did indeed participate as a WTKA kickboxingjudge and was not merely granted judging 
certificate." In the alternative, he requests that we remand this matter to the Director for issuance of 
a request for evidence would allow him to address this criterion and the inconsistencies addressed in 
our decision. 
As acknowledged by the Petitioner, we exercise de nova review of all issues of fact, law, policy, and 
discretion. See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). This means that we look at the 
record anew and are not required to defer to findings made in the initial decision. Furthermore, an 
application or petition that does not comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied 
by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial 
decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), 
affld, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003). The Petitioner has not established that we misapplied the law or 
any USCIS policy by withdrawing the Director's determination that he had met the judging criterion. 
While we acknowledge the Petitioner's new claim that "not all competitions require judges to hold 
judge certificates" this unsupported statement does not adequately resolve the apparent inconsistencies 
inl F's letter. Further, we note that, in addition to the inconsistencies discussed in our 
decision, we determined that the Petitioner did not meet this criterion, in part, due to a lack of other 
independent, objective evidence of his participation in any WTKA kickboxing or other events in his 
field of expertise. 
In response to the Petitioner's request that we remand this matter for issuance of a request for evidence 
so that he can supplement the record, we emphasize that a petitioner filing a motion to reconsider 
must establish that our decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the time of our 
initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). The Petitioner cannot meet this burden by requesting an 
opportunity to submit additional evidence. 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not established that our determination with respect to this 
criterion was based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy, or that our decision was 
incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the time of our decision. 
6 
Finally, we acknowledge the Petitioner's new claim that that "some of the enumerated categories do 
not readily apply to extraordinary ability in the field of boxing and kickboxing" and his request that 
we reconsider previously submitted testimonial evidence as "comparable evidence" under the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). The record reflects that the Petitioner did not previously claim 
that USCIS should consider comparable evidence in this matter and he does not argue that we 
overlooked such a claim in our prior decision. As he alleges no error or incorrect application of law 
or policy in our prior decision in this regard, his new comparable evidence claim does not meet the 
requirements of a motion to reconsider at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
Nevertheless, we note that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows for comparable evidence if 
the listed criteria do not readily apply to the Petitioner's occupation. 5 A petitioner should explain why 
he has not submitted evidence that would satisfy at least three of the criteria set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3) as well as why the evidence he has included is "comparable" to that required under 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 6 Here, the Petitioner initially claimed to meet at least five of the ten criteria at 
8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). General assertions that any of the ten objective criteria do not readily 
apply to an occupation are not probative. Similarly, claims that USCIS should accept witness letters 
as comparable evidence are not persuasive. 7 The fact that the Petitioner did not submit evidence that 
satisfies at least three criteria does not mean that it is impossible for a kickboxing or boxing athlete to 
do so. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that our previous 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 proceedings 
at the time of the decision. Accordingly, the motion to reconsider will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
5 See also USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 12. 
6 Id. 
7 Id. 
7