dismissed EB-1A Case: Martial Arts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9809356 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 11, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a martial artist, 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 Petitioner had 
satisfied only one of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of which he must meet at least three. We 
dismissed the Petitioner's appeal from that decision. The matter is now before us on a combined 
motion to reopen and 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 dismiss the combined motion. 
I. LAW 
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), and the requirements of a motion to reopen are located at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). 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 
proceedings at the time of the decision. 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 
1 The Petitioner did not include the required "statement about whether or not the validity of the unfavorable decision has 
been or is the subject of any judicial proceeding and, if so, the court, nature, date, and status or result of the proceeding ." 
8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(iii). A motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed . 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
II. ANALYSIS 
In dismissing the appeal, we determined that the Petitioner did not satisfy any of the initial evidentiary 
criteria. In the Petitioner's motion to reconsider, he argues that he submitted evidence showing that 
he satisfied the following four criteria: lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), published material at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), judging at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv), and leading or critical role at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). In his motion to reopen, 
the Petitioner presents additional documentation relating to the judging criterion. For the reasons 
discussed below, the Petitioner's motion to reconsider does not establish that we erred in our prior 
decision. Further, the new evidence submitted in support of the motion to reopen does not demonstrate 
that the Petitioner satisfied at least three of the ten categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)- (x). 
A. Motion to Reconsider 
The Petitioner contends that he meets four criteria. He does not, however, specifically argue that our 
decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. Disagreeing with our conclusions 
without establishing that we erred as a matter oflaw 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). We 
will address the Petitioner's submission of new evidence under the motion to reopen section. 
In reference to the awards criterion, in our prior decision we determined that the record reflects that 
the Petitioner received several martial arts awards, including first lace in the at the 
2013 World Association of Kickboxing Or anizations (W AKO) Cup, second place at 
the 2014 World Kickboxing Federation secon ace at t e 20161 I 
I I Muaythai Championship, first place in the at the ~----.====. 
I IMuay Thai, I I, and first place in the.___ ______ ____. at the ._I-...,......,...,---,---, 
Cup of Kickboxing. However, we concluded that the evidence submitted is insufficient to establish 
that any of these are awards are nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in the 
Petitioner's field. Specifically, although the Petitioner submitted documentation, including from the 
WAKO General Rules and the World Kickboxing Federation Official Amateur Rulebook, that 
provides general criteria for the awards he received, such as how points are awarded and how team 
wins are determined, it does not demonstrate the national or international significance of the awards 
won. 2 On motion, the Petitioner acknowledges that he is "not enclosing any new evidence in support 
of this criterion" but argues that he "presented extensive evidence" in support of this criterion, 
including a "detailed description of the awards, their significance and the awarding organization." The 
Petitioner, however, does not cite to any legal precedent decisions or other authority establishing an 
error on our part in our previous determination regarding this criterion. 
Regarding the published material criterion, in our prior decision, we concluded that the articles l I I t and i I do not reflect published 
2 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-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 (noting relevant considerations in determining if the 
award or prize meets this criterion, among others, are its national or international significance in the field.) 
2 
material about the Petitioner in professional or major trade publications or other major media, which 
include the title, date, and author. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.2.fhlQl(iii). 3 Instead, the first article focused 
on the recent success ofrepresentatives of the Fight ClulL__J only briefly mentioned the Petitioner, 
and did not include the author, while the second article summarized all of the fights taking place during 
the amateur I I competition, of which one involved the Petitioner. We also determined that 
while the Petitioner provided online circulation statistics for the websites on which those articles 
appeared, he did not establish that these sites are major media or professional or major trade 
publications. 
We further concluded that although the Petitioner provided additional articles that are about him 
related to his work from Simya i Dim, Ljubart Chronicles, Martial Arts. Keys to Excellence, 
volyn.tabloyid.com, and www.volynpost.com, and included print or online circulation statistics for 
each of those publications, the Petitioner did not submit comparative evidence establishing that these 
statistics are high relative to other circulation statistics, or otherwise show that the newspapers or 
websites are professional or major trade publications. 4 In addition, except for the Simya i Dim article, 
all those articles did not include the name of the author, as required. On motion, the Petitioner states 
"I request that AAO reconsider its decision regarding this criterion." However, as indicated 
previously, disagreeing with our conclusions without establishing that we erred as a matter of law or 
policy or pointing to precedent decisions that contradict our analysis of the evidence is not a ground 
to reconsider our decision. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that our appellate decision was 
incorrect. We conducted a de novo review of the record on appeal, thoroughly analyzed the evidence, 
and ultimately concluded that the Petitioner did not satisfy at least three regulatory criteria. Here, the 
Petitioner did not show how we erred or misapplied law or policy. Accordingly, the Petitioner did not 
meet the requirements for a motion to reconsider. 
B. Motion to Reopen 
In reference to the judging criterion, we noted that the Petitioner claims eligibility through his 
participation as "a professional referee in Muay Thai" at regional, national, and international 
championships. In support, the Petitioner provided a copy of his credentials for the 2016 I I 
World Muay Thai Championship, photographs of himself at that championship, a letter from I I 
'---------------------------' t the World Muay Federation (WMF), 
a certificate from the WMF identifying him as an "International Referee & Judge C Class" and 
confirming his completion of the "Referees and Judges Course" during the aforementioned 
championship, and his work schedules as a referee for the 2015 
WKPA." 5 We determined that the evidence supports the Petitioner's assertion that he has served as 
a professional referee at numerous martial arts events. Specifically, the WMF certificate establishes 
his qualifications as such and confirms that he completed the "referees and judges course" during the 
3 See also USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra at 7. 
4 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra at 7 (instructing that evidence of published material in 
professional or major trade publications or in other major media publications about the individual should establish that the 
circulation ( on-line or in print) is high compared to other circulation statistics and show the intended audience of the 
publication). 
5 We noted that the Petitioner did not provide the full name of this organization. 
3 
20161 lworld Muay Thai Championship, his credentials for this event clearly identify him 
as a coach and referee for that event, the photographs are sufficient to demonstrate that he participated 
in that role,I rs letter, provided by the Petitioner as evidence of his qualification as a referee, 
confirms that she saw him act in this role, 6 and his work schedules for the 2015 Kickboxing 
I I confirm that he worked as a referee for numerous fights during that event. 
We farther concluded that the Petitioner did not provide a description of his duties as a referee to 
demonstrate whether they involve evaluating or judging the work or skills of competitors as opposed 
to enforcing the rules of a match and ensuring sportsmanlike competition. In addition, we determined 
the record lacks other evidence, such as official competition rules for either event, showing that serving 
as a referee in those instances equates to participating as a 'judge" of the work of others. 7 Without 
farther documentation, such as evidence that he awarded points or exercised his judgment in choosing 
the ultimate winner at those events, the evidence regarding serving as a referee at martial arts events 
is insufficient to meet this criterion. 8 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that "I served as a judge and not as a referee." He submits a screenshot 
from www.muaythai.sport/muaythai-rules/ that includes an excerpt of the Rules and Regulations of the 
International Federation of Muaythai Associations, the governing body of the sport, which provides as 
follows: 
10. Referees & Judges 
10.1 Referee: In the World Championships, World Cup, Continental Championships, 
continental Cup and other International tournaments each contest shall be controlled by 
an IFMA or Continental approved referee who shall officiate in the ring but shall not mark 
a sconng paper. 
10.2 Judges: Each contest shall be marked by either five or three IFMA Judges who shall 
be seated separately from the public and immediately adjacent to the ring. 
Here, the documentation submitted on motion does not detail what duties the Petitioner performed as 
a referee in the aforementioned competitions. For example, the Petitioner did not submit official 
competition rules showing that his activities in those competitions constituted participation as a judge 
of the work of others. As discussed in our appellate decision, if the petitioner's duties involved simply 
enforcing the rules of a match and sportsmanlike competition, then his participation as a judge cannot 
be said to have involved evaluating or judging the skills or qualifications of the participants. Without 
farther evidence that he judged the work of others, such as evidence that he awarded points or 
6 We noted that whild I indicates that she was "pleased to see [ the Petitioner] as an International Judge and Referee 
at this event" this is discrepant with the Petitioner's own representation of his role at this event in the initial petition. 
Moreover, as noted in the brief accompanying the initial petition, the Petitioner provided this letter to demonstrate his 
ceitification as a referee. 
7 Our prior decision noted that while the Petitioner provided a document titled "World Muay Federation" it does not 
describe the duties ofreferees and judges participating in World Muay Federation sanctioned events. 
8 Our appellate decision noted that the record includes a copy of the "Official Amateur Rulebook" from the World 
Kickboxing Federation, which indicates that judges are responsible for scoring matches and referees mainly serve to 
enforce rules (sections 2.1.14 and 2.1.15.) The record does not include similar evidence regarding the WMF or the WKPA, 
the associations for which the evidence establishes that the Petitioner served as a referee. 
4 
exercised his judgment in choosing the ultimate winner, evidence regarding officiating at a match is 
insufficient to meet this criterion. Based on the foregoing, the Petitioner has not overcome our findings 
regarding the judging criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
For the reasons discussed above, the new documentation submitted on motion does not overcome our 
original decision, concluding that the Petitioner did not satisfy any of the initial evidentiary criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The assertions made by the Petitioner on motion do not establish that our previous decision was 
grounded in an incorrect application of law or policy. In addition, the new evidence submitted on 
motion does not overcome the grounds underlying our previous decision or demonstrate his eligibility 
for this classification. 
Although on motion the Petitioner maintains that he meets the requirements of one additional criterion, 
relating to leading or critical role at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(viii), we need not reach this additional 
ground. As the Petitioner cannot fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), we reserve this issue. 9 In addition, because the Petitioner has not established 
that he meets at least three of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), we need not 
conduct a final merits determination to consider whether he has sustained national or international 
acclaim and is one of the small percentage at the very top of his field. 10 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
9 See 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 unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 
n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
1 o See Kazarian v. USC IS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). 
5