dismissed EB-1A Case: Martial Arts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 17269097 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: May 25, 2021 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a martial arts instructor , seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(A) , 8 U.S.C. § l 153(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 denied the petition , concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for this classification, 
as required. The Director also determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he would 
continue to work in his area of expertise in the United States. We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal of 
the Director 's decision , as well as two subsequent motions to reconsider. The matter is now before us 
on a third motion to reconsider . 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361 ;MatterofChawathe, 25 I&N 
Dec. 369,375 (AAO 2010) . Upon review , we will dismiss the motion to reconsider. 
I.LAW 
Section 203 (b )( 1 )(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if an 
individual has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts , education, business , or athletics which has 
been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been 
recognized in the field through extensive documentation . 
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 
international recognition of their achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major , internationally recognized award). If a petitioner does not submit this evidence , then they must 
provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at leastthree of the ten criteria 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);Rijalv. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
To merit reopening or reconsideration, a petitioner must meet the formal filing requirements (such as, 
for instance, submission of a properly completed Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with the 
conect fee), and show proper cause for granting the motion. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l). 
A motion to reconsider must (1) state the reasons for reconsideration and establish that the decision 
was based on an inconect application of law or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
policy, and (2) establish that the decision was inconect based on the evidence in the record of 
proceedings at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). We cannot grant a motion that 
does not meet applicable requirements. See 8 C.F.R. § 103 .5(a)(4). 
III. ANALYSIS 
As a preliminary matter, we note that by regulation, the scope of a motion is limited to "the prior 
decision," which in this case was our dismissal of the Petitioner's second motion to reconsider. See 8 
C.F.R. § 103 .5(a)(l )(i). Therefore, the issue before us is whether the Petitioner has established that our 
decision to dismiss that motion was based on an incorrect application oflaw or USCIS policy. 
The Petitioner is an athlete, instructor, referee, and judge in several martial arts disciplines and seeks to 
continue working as a martial arts instructor in the United States. The Director denied the petition after 
concluding that the record did not establish that the Petitioner meets any of the initial evidentiaty criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), of which he must meet at least three. We dismissed the Petitioner's 
subsequent appeal after determining, on de nova review, thatthe Petitioner satisfied only one of the three 
criteria he claimed to meet, related to judging the work ofothers in his field, at8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Petitioner then filed a motion to reconsider, which we also dismissed. We concluded that the 
Petitioner had not demonstrated that we inconectly applied the law or USCIS policy in determining that 
he did not meet the evidentiary criteria which relate to receipt of nationally or internationally 
recognized awards and memberships in associations that require outstanding achievements, at 8 C.F.R 
§ 204.5(h)(3 )(i) and (ii). 
In his second motion to reconsider, the Petitioner reasserted his claim that he satisfied the criteria at 8 
C.F.R. § 204 .5 (h)(3 )(i) and (ii). He argued that we did not adhere to the preponderance of the evidence 
standard as required by agency policy and case law 1 and that we "unilaterally impose[ d] Petitioner to 
1 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted With Certain 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADl 1-14 4 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTMUPolicy Manual.html, citing to Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 
(Comm'r 1989). 
2 
provide additional evidence." In dismissing the motion, we articulated again why the evidence the 
Petitioner submitted did not meet his burden to establish that he met all elements of the evidentiaty 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and (ii). We emphasized that the submission ofrelevant evidence 
in support of a criterion does not automatically establish that a petitioner has met their burden of proof 
and demonstrated that all requirements have been met. We further determined that the Petitioner did 
not establish how our previous decisions had introduced novel evidentiary requirements beyond those 
included in the plain language of the regulatory criteria. 
With the current motion, the Petitioner maintains that he meets the awards and membership criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and (ii) and contends that we did not adequately address his argument that 
we applied an incorrect standard in evaluating his eligibility for the requested classification. 
Specifically, the Petitioner argues that while we acknowledged the preponderance of the evidence 
standard in our most recent decision, we did not explain how we properly applied that standard in our 
previous decisions. He asserts that our appellate decision relied on '"vague statements" and failed to 
explain how his evidence was insufficient to meet his burden of proof. 
To satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the Petitioner must demonstrate that he received 
prizes or awards, and that they are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in his field 
of endeavor. The Petitioner has consistently claimed that he meets this criterion based on his receipt 
of a gold medal at thel !Martial Artsl I Championship held inl I The 
"preponderance of the evidence" standard requires that the evidence demonstrate that the claim is 
"probably true," where the determination of "truth" is made based on the factual circumstances of each 
individual case. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010) (quotingMatter of E-M-, 
20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989)). The truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence 
alone but by its quality. Thus, in adjudicating the petition pursuant to the preponderance of the 
evidence standard, we must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and 
credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine 
whether the fact to be proven is probably true. Id. 
As noted in our prior decisions, the record includes what appears to be an official event photograph of 
the Petitioner with a medal, on which he is identified as the I I Gold Medalist" at the 
I I Martial Artsl l Championship. The limited information provided by this 
document indicates that the competition was sponsored byl I I I This evidence has sufficient probative value to establish that the Petitioner was the recipient 
of this award and that the award is in his field of martial arts. The Petitioner has not explained, 
however, how this documentation establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the medal he 
received is a nationally or internationally recognized award or prize for excellence in his field. 
Neither the regulations nor USCIS policy guidance indicate that providing evidence of a petitioner's 
receipt of an award or prize is sufficient to meet their burden of proof to establish that the award is 
also a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in a given field. Relevant 
considerations regarding whether the basis for grantingthe prizes or awards was excellence in the field 
include, but are not limited to, the criteria used to grant the prizes or awards, the national or 
international significance of the prizes or awards in the field, and the number of awardees or prize 
3 
recipients as well as any limitations on competitors. 2 Based on this guidance, submission of evidence 
of a receipt of a petitioner's prize or award alone, without any context or information regarding the 
award's significance, is not necessarily sufficient to meet the Petitioner's burden of proof to meet all 
elements of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The record does not contain any other evidence regarding thtj I Martial A1is~I ___ ___, 
Championship event, such as official results, a list of competitors, the event's entrance requirements 
or rules, media coverage of the event, or other information regarding the nature and scope of the event 
We cannot determine based on the name of this competition alone that any medal awardedatthe event 
is a nationally or intern~tionall} recognized prize or award. The Petitioner also submitted letters from 
two personal contacts i who mention his receipt of a gold medal at this event, but we did not 
find such letters to be probative of the national or international recognition of the prize in his field, as 
neither letter was from an individual who claimed any expertise in the martial aiis. For these reasons, 
we concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the medal he received at this event was a 
nationally or internationally recognized prize or award. 
While the Petitioner continues to disagree with this determination, he has not established that we 
inconectly applied the law or USCIS policy in dismissing his prior motion to reconsider or that we 
failed to apply the preponderance of the evidence standard to our evaluation of the evidence submitted 
in support of the awards criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
Regarding the criterion relating to his membership in associations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), the 
Petitioner asserts that we did not properly evaluate his evidence. In reference to our decision 
dismissing his second motion to reconsider, he states: 
The AAO now states that in particular [the Petitioner's] the [sic]~I _____ ___, 
Karate Association could not be considered because the record does not establish that 
membership in this organization requires outstanding achievement. However, the 
AAO states so right after acknowledging that the Central Executive Committee of the 
above organization has awarded honorary membership to [the Petitioner] precisely 
because of his "outstanding success and extraordinary achievement in the field of 
Martial Arts" .... The contradiction in the AAO' s reasoning could not be more evident 
and the criteria should have been considered met by [ the Petitioner]. 
The Petitioner further argues that the statements made in a letter from the secretary general of the 
I !Karate Association are sufficient to establish that his membership meets all elements 
of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), and that we imposed novel evidentiaty 
requirements beyond those found in the plain language of the applicable regulation by determining 
that additional evidence was necessary. 
To meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), a petitioner must demonstrate that the association 
in which they claim membership requires that members have outstanding achievements in the field as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in that field. Here, we acknowledged the 
contents of the letter from the secretary general of the I I Karate Association and 
2 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1,supra, at 6. 
4 
explained why it did not meet the Petitioner's burden to establish that he meets each element required 
by the plain language of the regulation. 
First, we noted that the referenced letter was not supported by independent evidence of this 
association's membership requirements. We observed that "the fact that the secretary general made a 
vague statement about the Petitioner's accomplishments in the field does not support a finding that all 
honorary members of the organization are required to have outstanding achievements." On motion, 
the Petitioner asserts that we improperly required that he establish not only that his membership was 
granted based on his outstanding achievements in the field, but also required him "to show that this 
was true for all members of the organization, which is evidence impossible to gather for applicants as 
it refers to other people." 
The Petitioner has misinterpreted the pmiion of our decision quoted above. It is the Petitioner's burden 
to establish that the association requires outstanding achievements as an essential condition of 
membership, a burden that can be met by fully documenting the association's formal membership 
requirements. We did not impose arequirementthatthe Petitioner gather evidence of the outstanding 
achievements of other honorary members of the same association. In this case, the letter from the 
secretary general of thel I Karate Association refers to portions of the association's 
constitution which presumably discuss its membership requirements. The relevant pmiions of this 
constitution have not been provided for review, the secretary general's letter does not clearly state 
what those membership requirements are, and the record lacks any other evidence related to the 
association's membership requirements. For these reasons, we determined that the letter did not meet 
the Petitioner's burden to establish that the association requires honorary members to demonstrate 
outstanding achievements as a condition of membership. 
Second, we acknowledged that the letter from thd !Karate Association's secretary 
general indicates that the Petitioner's honorary membership was approved by the organization's 
Central Executive Committee. However, we emphasized thatthis statement was not sufficientto show 
that the members of the committee who are responsible for judging or approving honorary membership 
are recognized national or international experts in the field as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner does not acknowledge or address this determination on motion and has not established 
how we misapplied the law or USCIS policy by requiring that he satisfy all elements of the criterion. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that we imposed novel evidentiaiy 
requirements with respect to this criterion, that we failed to apply the preponderance of the evidence 
standard, or that we otherwise incorrectly applied the law or USCIS policy in dismissing his prior 
motion to reconsider. 
Finally, the Petitioner argues that we have refused to address the Director's determination that he did 
not provide evidence that he will continue to work in his area of expertise in the United States, as 
required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). In our most recent decision dismissing his second motion, and in 
our two prior decisions, we noted that we need not address that issue since the Petitioner had not 
established that he met the initial evidentiary requirements under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) and therefore 
could not establish his eligibility for the requested classification. The Petitioner does not argue that 
5 
we misapplied the law or USCIS policy by reserving this issue. For the reasons discussed above, we 
will once again reserve this issue. 3 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reconsideration of our prior decision. Accordingly, the 
motion to reconsider will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3 Sec INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessa1yto the results they reach). 
6