dismissed EB-1A Case: Martial Arts

(b)(6)
DATEJUN 0 4 2013 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: PETITIONER: 
BENEFICIARY: 
U.S • .Department of Homeland Security 
lJ.S. Citizenship and Immigr ation Service! 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachus etts Ave., N.W ., MS 2090 
Washimrton. DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised 
that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.P.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
#ZL ft--Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition on June 23, 2011. Subsequently, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the 
petitioner's appeal on August 9, 2012. The matter is now before the AAO on a motion to reopen, 
filed on September 7, 2012. The petitioner's motion will be dismissed. The AAO, however, will 
reopen the proceeding for the limited purpose of considering two notarized letters relating to the 
petitioner's intent to continue working in her field in the United States. Notwithstanding the 
reopening, the petition will remain denied. 
I. Requirements of a Motion 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(iii) informs the public of the filing requirements for a 
motion and provides in subsection (C) that a motion shall be submitted on Form I-290B, Notice of 
Appeal or Motion, and it must be "[a]ccompanied by a 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." 
On motion, the petitioner has failed to submit a statement indicating if the validity of the AAO's 
August 9, 2012 unfavorable decision has been or is the subject of any judicial proceeding pursuant 
to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(iii)(C). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)( 4) requires 
that "[a] motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed." Accordingly, the 
petitioner's motion must be dismissed pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4) without 
regard to the claims contained within the motion. 
II. Motion to Reopen 
The petitioner's motion must also be dismissed because it does not meet the requirements for a motion 
to reopen. A party seeking to reopen a proceeding bears a heavy burden and "must state the new facts 
to be provided in the reopened proceeding and be supported by affidavits or other documentary 
evidence." 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). Based on the plain meaning of "new," a new fact is evidence that 
was not available and could not have been discovered or presented in the previous proceeding. 
See Matter of Singh, 24 I&N Dec. 331, 334 (BIA 2007). In short, a motion to reopen seeks a new 
hearing based on new or previously unavailable evidence. See Matter of Cerna, 20 I&N Dec. 399, 
403 (BIA 1991). Based on its discretion, "the INS [now the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS)] has some latitude in deciding when to reopen a case. [USCIS] should have the 
right to be restrictive. Granting such motions too freely will permit endless delay of deportation by 
aliens creative and fertile enough to continuously produce new and material facts sufficient to establish 
a prima facie case." INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 108 (1988). The result also needlessly wastes the time 
and efforts of the triers of fact who must attend to the filing requests. !d. 
On motion, the petitioner claims that she has provided evidence of a one-time achievement, that is, 
a major, internationally recognized award, under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). She further claims that she 
meets the membership in associations criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), the published 
material criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the participation as a judge criterion under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), the original contributions criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), the 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
display at artistic exhibitions or showcases criterion under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) , and the high 
salary or other significantly high remuneration criterion under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
On motion, the petitioner has provided the following evidence: (1) an August 23, 2012 letter from 
Chairman of the (2) an August 18, 2012 letter from 
, Vice Chairman of the ; (3) an August 20, 2012 letter from 
Vice Chairman of the (4) a March 
8, 2003 certificate of membership issued by the , (5) an August 21, 2012 
letter from Vice President of the (6) a July 8, 2010 letter 
from President of the (7) a June 30, 
2011 letter from _ of ; (8) an August 20, 2012 
online printout entitled "China Average Salaries and Expenditures"; (8) a July 5, 2011 letter from 
a business owner in Houston, Texas; (9) a July 8, 2011 letter from a 
resident in Sugarland, Texas; and (10) Chinese and Japanese documents that have not been properly 
translated into English. 
The petitioner's motion to reopen is dismissed for the following reasons. First, the foreign language 
documents the petitioner submitted on motion have no evidentiary value and will not be considered, 
because they have not been properly translated pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b )(3). 
Specifically, on motion, the petitioner has submitted foreign language documents purported to be 
publications relating to Chinese martial arts, the , the 
and , China. None of these 
foreign language documents are accompanied by a complete English translation or a certification of 
translation. The petitioner has provided no evidence showing that a translator who is competent to 
translate from the foreign language into English completely and accurately translated the foreign 
language documents into English. See 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Although these documents contain 
some English translation, the petitioner has not provided any information relating to the identity or 
the competency of the translator, or the completeness or accuracy of the translation. As such, the 
foreign language documents submitted on motion have no evidentiary value, and the AAO will not 
consider them. 
Second, the English documents submitted on motion do not constitute "new" facts or evidence, such 
that they were not available and could not have been discovered 
or presented in the previous 
proceeding. See Matter of Singh, 24 I&N Dec. at 334; see also Matter of Cerna, 20 I&N Dec. at 
403. Specifically, on motion, the petitioner has provided a July 2010 letter from and a 
June 2011 letter from . These documents predate the petitioner 's appeal filed on 
July 19, 2011 and were already part of the record of proceeding when the AAO dismissed the 
appeal. Specifically, the petitioner had previously submitted these documents in support of her 
petition, in response to the director's request for evidence (RFE) or in support of her appeal. The 
AAO, in its August 9, 2012 decision, considered these documents, and concluded that they do not 
establish the petitioner 's visa eligibility. As the petitioner has not challenged the AAO's findings in 
a motion to reconsider, the AAO will not again consider these documents in the present motion to 
reopen. 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
In addition, on motion, the petitioner has submitted: (1) a March 2003 certificate of membership, 
(2) an August 2012 letter from , (3) an August 2012 letter from (4) an 
August 2012 letter from (5) an August 2012 letter from and (6) an 
August 2012 online printout. The petitioner has failed to establish that these documents were not 
available and could not have been discovered or presented in the previous proceeding. See Matter 
of Singh, 24 I&N Dec. at 334; see also Matter of Cerna, 20 I&N Dec. at 403. Specifically, as the 
certificate of membership was issued in 2003, the petitioner could have submitted it previously. 
More specifically, although the four letters are dated August 2012, after the AAO issued its adverse 
decision, the petitioner has not shown that she could not have obtained these letters earlier. These 
letters discuss the petitioner's past accomplishments, including her participation in the 
, her participation as a judge, and her membership in the 
. The petitioner has provided no evidence showing that she could not have asked these 
individuals to author the letters when she filed her petition in August 2010, her response to the 
director's RFE in April 2011 or her appeal in July 2011. Indeed, the petitioner had previously 
submitted documents from the , the 
, and the . This shows that 
the petitioner could have obtained and presented the letters in the previous proceeding. 
Regardless, the letters are not consistent with the record. Specifically, while the letters claim that, 
like the Olympics, countries send their best athletes to the 
the record contains a list of participating teams, including the 
and the and two teams each from Singapore 
and Thailand, suggesting that the participating teams are clubs rather than national teams. As the 
petitioner did not provide a translation of the complete list of teams, the petitioner has not 
established that China sent only a single team of its best athletes as claimed. 
Furthermore, although the online printout "China Average Salaries and Expenditures" is dated 
August 2012, the petitioner had submitted the same document, dated July 12, 2011, on appeal. The 
AAO, in 
its August 9, 2012 decision, concluded that the petitioner may not raise the high salary or 
other significantly high remuneration criterion, a previously unclaimed eligibility criterion on 
appeal. Matter of Soriano , 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988). In short, none of the English 
documents submitted on motion constitute new facts or evidence, such that a motion to reopen is 
warranted. Regardless, the petitioner has provided evidence of average salaries for unrelated 
occupations. At issue under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) is whether the petitioner's salary or other 
remuneration was high "in relation to others in the field." 
Third, notwithstanding the petitioner's evidentiary deficiencies discussed above, the petitioner has 
not challenged or overcome the AAO's August 9, 2012 finding that she may not raise a previously 
unclaimed eligibility criterion on appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. at 766. Specifically, 
as the petitioner may not claim on appeal for the first time she has provided evidence of a one-time 
achievement, that is, a major, internationally recognized award, she may not now on motion 
advance the same claim. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Similarly, as the petitioner may not claim on 
appeal for the first time that she meets the high salary or other significantly high remuneration 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
criterion, she may not now on motion advance the same claim. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
Moreover, the AAO's August 9, 2012 decision found that the petitioner had abandoned the 
membership in associations criterion and the original contributions criterion. The petitioner does 
not contest that legal finding on motion. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (v); see also Sepulveda v. 
United States Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-
27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, 9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the United States District Court 
found the plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
Finally, on motion, the petitioner has failed to challenge the AAO's findings in the final merits 
determination or presented new facts or evidence showing (1) a "level of expertise indicating that 
the [petitioner] is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor"; or (2) "that the [petitioner] has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or 
her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); 
see also Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2010). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not filed a proper motion to reopen or reconsider the AAO's 
findings regarding her eligibility as an alien of extraordinary ability. The AAO, however, will 
reopen the proceeding for the limited purpose of considering two notarized letters relating to the 
petitioner 's intent to continue working in her field in the United States. In its August 9, 2012 
decision, the AAO concluded that the petitioner had not provided "two forms of evidence in the 
form of notarized letters," showing her intent to continue work in her field. In fact, on appeal, the 
petitioner did provide these two notarized letters - a July 2011 letter from and a July 
2011 letter from _ . She has again provided these two letters on motion. Accordingly, 
the AAO reopens the proceeding to consider these letters. Having now considered the two letters, 
the AAO concludes that the petitioner has established her intent to continue working in her field in 
the United States. 
In conclusion , the petitioner's motion to reopen is dismissed because the petitioner has failed to 
submit a statement regarding any judicial proceeding relating to the validity of the AAO's August 9, 
2012 unfavorable decision and because the petitioner's filing does not meet the requirements of a 
motion to reopen. The AAO reopens the proceeding for the limited purpose of considering two 
notarized letters, and concludes that the petitioner has demonstrated her intent to continue working 
in her field. 
ORDER: The petitioner's motion to reopen is dismissed; and the petition remains denied.