dismissed EB-1A Case: Martial Arts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 12032700 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 27, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a martial arts athlete, 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 denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that he had received a major, internationally recognized award, or, in the 
alternative, met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for this classification. We dismissed 
the Petitioner's subsequent appeal of that decision. The Petitioner than filed a combined motion to 
reopen and motion to reconsider, which we also dismissed. 
The matter is now before us on a second combined motion to reopen and reconsider. On motion, the 
Petitioner submits a statement in which he asserts that he meets all requirements for this classification. 
He also submits new evidence along with copies of previously submitted evidence. 
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 combined motions. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be proved in the reopened proceeding and be supported 
by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). We interpret "new facts" to mean 
facts that are relevant to the issue(s) raised on motion and that have not been previously submitted in 
the proceeding, which includes the original petition. 
A motion to reconsider must (1) state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent 
precedent decisions to 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 reopening or 
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). 
By regulation, the scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision." 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Therefore, the filing before us is not a motion to reopen and reconsider the denial of the petition or the 
dismissal of the appeal. Instead, the filing is a motion to reopen and reconsider our most recent 
decision. 
II. LAW 
Section 203(b){l){A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to aliens with extraordinary ability 
who have earned sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been 
recognized in the field through extensive documentation; who seek to enter the United States to 
continue work in the area of extraordinary ability, and whose entry into the United States will 
substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
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 must submit evidence that 
either establishes a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award) or 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). 
Ill. ANALYSIS 
The issue before us is whether the Petitioner has submitted new facts to warrant reopening or established 
that our decision to dismiss his first motion to reopen and reconsider was based on an incorrect 
application of law or USCIS policy. 
A. Procedural History 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that he had received a major, internationally recognized award, or, in the alternative, that he 
2 
satisfied at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)(i)-(x). 
Specifically, the Director found that he met none of those criteria. After a de nova review of the 
record, we reached the same conclusions and dismissed the Petitioner's appeal. 
The Petitioner then filed a combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. We dismissed the 
motion to reconsider because the Petitioner did not submit a brief or other statement with his motion 
or otherwise contend that we had incorrectly applied the law or USCIS policy in our appellate decision. 
The Petitioner's motion to reopen was supported by new evidence related to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(i) and (vi), and a reference letter that attested to his sustained acclaim in his field. 
However, we determined that the new evidence did not establish his eligibility or overcome the 
conclusions we reached in dismissing his appeal. 
The Petitioner now submits a second combined motion to reopen and reconsider, which includes a 
brief, new evidence and copies of evidence that was previously submitted. He asserts that the new 
evidence establishes that he meets the criteria related to lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
awards, membership in associations which require outstanding achievements, published materials 
about him and relating to his work, and his performance in leading or critical roles for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)(i), (ii), (iii) and 
(viii). 
A. Motion to Reopen 
In support of his motion to reopen, the Petitioner submits a new letter from I I I I of the .---~...,.tional Karate Federation! ~ the national federation of the sport as 
recognized b the National Olympic Committee, and the World and European Karate 
Federations.,___ ____ ___, discusses the Petitioner's membership on thel I National Karate 
Team, notes some of the competitions in which he participated and asserts that his performance on the 
team was "leading and critical." Therefore, it appears that his letter is intended to address the membership 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) and the leading and critical roles criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.S(h )(3)(vi ii). 
The criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires a petitioner to provided evidence of membership in 
associations in the field which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. The Petitioner weviously 
submitted a letter fromDPresident,.__ ____ __.confirming his membership with thLJand 
the I I national karate team, but that letter did not elaborate on the requirements for these 
memberships and therefore did not establish that his membership on the I I national team satisfies 
the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). Instead, the Petitioner had relied on a letter from I I 
_____ V~i.....,ce President of the,___ _____ __. Karetedo Federation! I- While 
____ __.s letter provided some information regarding the procedures used by c=]to select the 
national karate team, we emphasized in our decision that I I is not a representative 
._o_f,r----,_a ..... nd that the record did not include official D rules or other documentation describing the 
selection process and the qualifications of those who determine membership. 
,._I ___ __,_____Jl's letter is more detailed than that previously provided from formerDPresidentD 
.... I ___ ___,I but not does elaborate on the selection process tori I national team members. 
3 
Therefore, it does not overcome our previous determination that the record lacks evidence that 
membership on the team requires outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or 
international experts. The Petitioner also re-submitcl Is letter and offers his own eJplanaton 
of thec=]s national team selection process. However, absent independent evidence from th the 
entity responsible for making selections, the Petitioner has not established that his membership on the 
team meets all elements of the meets the membership criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner also relies on the letter fromL.---__,,~ in support of his claim that he performed in 
a leading or critical role for thc=:land thd ..... __ ____.I national karate team. We previously determined 
that, while the Petitioner claimed to meet the leading or critical roles criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(viii), he had not submitted evidence from thg in support of his claim, nor had he 
submitted evidence to establish that thec=Jor thel ~nal karate team enjoys a distinguished 
reputation. 
In his letter) , , I states that the Petitioner's individual gold medal at the I I Karate 
World Championships," held in.___~--~-_. 2014, was critical to thd I team's bronze 
medal at this event. He also more generally states that the Petitioner's "performances have been 
contributing to the overall standing and ranking of the team during various competitions." While the 
record contains evidence related to the Petitioner's participation in a competition inl I 
2014, it does not suppor~._ ____ _.ts claim that this was a world championship event in karate, that 
the Petitioner won a gold medal at the event, or that the I I national karate team received a bronze 
medal at the event. 
The Petitioner submitted a certificate dated I , 12014 indicjting
1 
that he was "the champion of 
the private championships of boys for showing excellent results in the Tournament of Military Arts" 
held at thel I school in Japan. The certificate, which was in Japanese, was not accompanied by 
an acceptable English translation as the translator did not indicate that he translated the document from 
the Japanese language. 
The record also contains an article from the website of the....__ ______ _____. Karate-do New 
Zealand about the I I Anniversary Festival held in ~-.,___~ _ __. 
I I 2014. Accordina to this article, teams from 10 countries (including.___ _ ____.attended 
the festival, which included a [ I World Tournament" featuring individual and team 
competitions. There are no official results from the event and the article does not mention the performance 
of the I I team or the Petitioner. Therefore, the evidence does not suppor~ Is 
assertion that the Petitioner's performance led thel I national team to a bronze medal at this event 
or that this event was the "world championship" in his sport.1 The new evidence does not establish that 
the Petitioner has performed in a leading or critical role with the Dor thel !national karate 
team. Further, the new evidence does not address our determination that the Petitioner did not establish 
that thel !national karate team enjoys a distinguished reputation in the sport. 
1 The record includes a screenshot of the Petitioner's athlete profile from the World Karate Federation (WKF) which lists 
his results in events which award point values that contribute towards an athlete's WKF competitor rankin . This evidence 
shows that the Petitioner competed for I ~t the WKF's 2016 World Championships in amon other 
qualifying competitions) but he did not win any matches or place at that event. The 2014 .........,.. __ __.'world 
championship" mentioned byl I does not appear among the qualifying events listed. 
4 
In addition tol J J ~s letter, the Petitioner has submitted new evidence for consideration under 
the published materials criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Specificall , the Petitioner submits a letter 
froml I host of the I !television program'------...-----....----_.__._....., 
I lstates that the Petitioner was featured in an episode of the program that aired on~--~ 
Second channel in February 2020 and was watched by more than 125,000 viewers. His letter is 
accompanied by a transcript from the program. However, even if we considered this evidence sufficient 
to meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), we note that this television appearance occurred nearly 
two years after the date the petition was filed and cannot establish that the Petitioner met the eligibility 
requirements at the time of filing as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1).2 The Petitioner has not submitted 
any new evidence related to this criterion that pre-dates the filing of the petition and has not overcome 
our previous determination that he did not meet the published materials criterion. 
For the reasons discussed above, while the Petitioner has submitted new evidence in support of his motion, 
he has not submitted evidence that establishes his eligibility under any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Accordingly, we will dismiss the motion to reopen. 
C. Motion to Reconsider 
In order to warrant reconsideration, the Petitioner must establish that our decision to dismiss his previous 
combined motion to reopen and reconsider was based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy 
and was incorrect at the time of that decision. 
As noted, we dismissed the previous motion to reconsider because the Petitioner did not provide a brief 
or statement in support of his motion and therefore did not "state the reasons for reconsideration" as 
required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Although the Petitioner has submitted a statement in support of 
the current motion, he does not contend that we misapplied the law or USCIS policy in dismissing the 
previous motion to reconsider or in assessing the new evidence submitted in support of his first motion 
to reopen. 
The Petitioner cannot establish grounds for reconsideration by repeating prior arguments and assertions 
regarding his qualifications or by generally disagreeing with the denial of his petition. To warrant 
reconsideration, the Petitioner must establish errors of law or policy (as documented by any relevant 
precedent decisions or other cited law or policy) or errors of fact (through a showing the decision was 
incorrect based on the record as it stood at the time of the prior decision). The Petitioner's statement in 
support of the current motion does not directly address the conclusions we reached in our prior decision 
or provide reasons for reconsideration of those conclusions. 
As such, the motion does not meet all the requirements of a motion to reconsider, and 8 C.F.R. § 
103.5(a)(4) requires dismissal of the motion. 
2 Evidence from after the filing date can properly be viewed in the context of showing that a given petitioner remains 
eligible for the benefit sought, but we need not take such evidence into consideration if the record does not show that the 
petitioner was already eligible at the time of filing. 
5 
IV. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening or reconsideration 
and has not overcome the grounds for dismissal of the prior motion. The motion to reopen and motion 
to reconsider will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
6