dismissed EB-1A Case: Martial Arts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
InRe : 19713820 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 19, 2022 
Form I-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 appeal , and three subsequent combined motions to reopen and to reconsider. 
The matter is now before us on a fourth combined motion to reopen and reconsider. On motion, the 
Petitioner submits new evidence regarding his recent activities and his social media presence . 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will dismiss the motion. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals with 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; 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 
can demonstrate international 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 he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three 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 the initial evidence requirements through either a one-time achievement or 
meeting three lesser criteria, 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 
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). A motion to reconsider must 
state the reasons forreconsideration and establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence 
of record at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). A motion that does not meet 
applicable requirements shall be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
Under the above regulations, a motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence of new facts, and 
a motion to reconsider is based on an incorrect application of law or policy. We may grant a motion 
that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
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 T-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. See8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
III. ANALYSIS 
The issue before us is whether the Petitioner has submitted new facts to warrant reopening the 
proceeding, or established that our decision to dismiss his third motion to reopen and reconsider was 
based on an incorrectapplicationoflaw or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy. 
A. Procedural History 
The Petitioner holds a black belt in the I style 
of karate, having competed at various levels since 2002. The Petitioner joinedl I national 
karate team in 2012, and claimed to still be a member of that team in 2018 although he had been in 
the United States since November 2017 as a B-1 visitor. He is vice president and head coach at 
I !Karate Academy in I California. 
2 
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 
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 in May 2019. 
The Petitioner then filed three combined motions to reopen and to reconsider. We dismissed these 
combined motions, in April 2020, November 2020, and May 2021, respectively. The matter is now 
before us on a fourth combined motion to reopen and to reconsider. 
B. 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 inconect application of law or 
users policy and was inconectatthe time of that decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5)(a)(3). 
The statement accompanying the Petitioner's latest motion does not meet this requirement. The 
Petitioner does not identify any inconect application of law or users policy in our May 2021 
decision, or make any specific claim that our May 2021 decision was inconect based on the evidence 
in the record at the time of that decision. Instead, the Petitioner describes newly submitted evidence. 
The new evidence submitted on motion was not in the record for us to consider at the time of the 
previous decision. We consider this new evidence in the context of a motion to reopen, below. 
The motion does not meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider, and therefore the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4) requires us to dismiss the motion. 
C. Motion to Reopen 
A motion to reopen must establish new facts. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). Nevertheless,noteverynew 
fact warrants reopening of the proceeding. The Petitioner must establish that he meets all eligibility 
requirements as of the date of filing, and continuing through the adjudication of the petition. 8 C.F.R 
§ 102.3(b )(1 ). Therefore, consistent with this proceeding, the Petitioner's new evidence must establish 
that he was eligible for the classification sought when he filed the petition in May 2018, and remains 
eligible now. 
On motion, the Petitioner states: 
In support of the Motion I am submitting evidence of my status as a verified person on 
the Facebook and the documentation from the Face book showing the criteria used to 
select and/or identify the individual as a "verified person." I am also submitting 
evidence of the number of followers I have on the Face book and Instagram. 
Previous decisions had not discussed the Petitioner's Facebook page, and the Petitioner does not 
explain why his "verified" status establishes that he is an individual of extraordinary ability. A 
submitted printout from Face book indicates that a verified page must "[r]epresent a well-known, often 
3 
searched person, brand or entity." The printout does not elaborate as to the minimum requirements to 
meet these vague and general standards. 
The Petitioner establishes how many followers he has on Facebook and Instagram, but he does not 
provide any context for those numbers. For instance, he does not provide figures for other athletes in 
his sp01i, to show that he has significantly more followers than most others in his field. With no basis 
for comparison, the figures provided by the Petitioner do not establish extraordinary ability. 
The printouts also do not show when Face book awarded the verification badge to the Petitioner's page. 
Therefore, even if the Petitioner had shown the badge to be strong evidence of eligibility, he has not 
demonstrated that his page had such a badge when he filed the petition in May 2018. Likewise, the 
Petitioner does not show how many followers he had at the time of filing. 
Because the Petitioner has not established the relevance of the Face book verification badge and social 
media printouts, he has not shown that their submission shows proper cause for reopening the 
proceeding. 
The Petitioner also states: 
I am also submitting documentation to show that my previous achievements as a 
professional athlete earned me and continue to earn the reputation of the professional 
athlete and now a coach and that my expertise in the field and performance techniques 
are well-recognized here in the United States. 
The Petitioner does not further elaborate as to the nature of this documentation or how it establishes 
his eligibility. Apart from Face book printouts, the new materials on appeal consist of the following: 
• Two letters, fromD 2021, describinJ the 
Petitioner's 
s activities as a coach and competitor at 
al I championship inl 2021 and his subsequent work with some of the 
athletes there; 
• Fourteen undated photographs of the Petitioner, sometimes alone and sometimes with other 
athletes, some of whom appear to be students of the karate academy where he now works; 
• A certificate from the U.S. Center for Safesport, indicating that the Petitioner completed a 
training program in June 2021; and 
• Three social media posts from showing photographs from the Petitioner's visit 
tol I 
One of the new letters is from the founder and president of the I Karate Academy, where 
the Petitioner is vice president and head coach. The letter describes events that took place after the 
petition's filing date in May 2018; the Academy was founded in 2019. The other new letter is from 
an individual who does not state any title, but who indicates that he is a franchisee ofl 
I land who recruited the Petitioner to act as head coach at the regional event in __ 
mentioned above. The letter indicated that the Petitioner pursued Safesp01i certification in order to 
coach "5 of [the writer's] daughters in the I National Championships and team trials." 
4 
As explained above, events that took place after May 2018 cannot establish that the Petitioner was 
eligible when he filed the petition. Because the Petitioner has not shown that he was eligible at the 
time of filing, consideration of newer evidence regarding his activities in 2021, such as his Safesport 
training, cannot suffice to show eligibility. The Petitioner has also not shown that his continued 
involvement in regional-level competitions establishes that he meets the very high eligibility 
requirements for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
The new evidence does not establish relevant new facts, and therefore does not constitute proper cause 
for reopening the proceeding. We will dismiss the motion to reopen because it does not meet the 
requirements for such a motion. 
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. We will therefore dismiss the 
motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
5