dismissed EB-1A Case: Martial Arts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 18674323 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : SEP . 02, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a martial artist, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 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, and we dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, 
we dismissed a combined motion to reconsider and reopen and a subsequent motion to reconsider. 
The matter is now before us on a combined motion to reconsider and reopen . 
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 motions. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence . 8 C.F .R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must (1) state the reasons for reconsideration and establish that 
the decision was based on an incorrect application oflaw 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 reconsideration, a 
petitioner must not only meet the formal filing requirements (such as submission of a properly 
completed Form 1-290B, 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). 
II. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(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. 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 sustained acclaim and the recognition of their achievements in the field through a 
one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not 
submit this evidence, then they must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that 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). 
III. ANALYSIS 
As a preliminary matter, we note that by regulation, the scope of a motion is limited to "the prior 
decision." 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l )(i). The issue before us is whether the Petitioner has submitted new 
facts to warrant reopening or established that our decision to dismiss the previous motion was based on 
an incorrect application oflaw or users policy. 
A. Prior AAO Decisions 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he received a major, internationally 
recognized award and that he satisfied only one of the initial evidentiary criteria, judging at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv), of which he must meet at least three. In dismissing the appeal, we withdrew the 
Director's determination relating to the judging criterion and decided that the Petitioner did not fulfill 
any of the claimed criteria. We dismissed the first motion, concluding that the Petitioner requested us 
to reconsider our decision without showing how we erroneously applied law or policy. Further, while 
he provided additional documentation, we determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the new 
evidence demonstrated his eligibility for the judging criterion. 
In our most recent decision dismissing the Petitioner's motion to reconsider, we concluded that he did 
not show how we erroneously applied law or policy, as he submitted a brief mirroring his previous 
motion brief without any mention or discussion of our decision dismissing his combined motions. 
B. Judicial Proceeding Statement 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(iii) requires the motion to 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 
proceedings and, if so, the court, nature, date, and status or result of the proceeding." The Petitioner, 
2 
however, did not include the required statement. Therefore, the Petitioner's motions do not meet the 
applicable requirements. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
C. Motion to Reconsider 
As discussed previously, 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 proceeding at the time of the decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). On motion, the Petitioner 
submits a brief that is very similar to his previous motion brief. Although the current motion brief 
provides additional information about the Petitioner's admirable struggle against privation to 
successfully train and compete in martial arts, it makes the same arguments as the previous motion 
brief for the awards, published materials, judging, and leading or critical role criteria, without any 
mention or discussion of our decision dismissing his motion. Disagreeing with our conclusions 
without showing that we erred as a matter of law or pointing to policy that contradicts our analysis of 
the evidence is not a ground to reconsider our decision. Cf Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 
(BIA 2006). 1 ("[A] motion to reconsider is not a process by which a party may submit, in essence, 
the same brief presented on appeal and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior 
. . . decision. The moving party must specify the factual and legal issues raised on appeal that were 
decided in error or overlooked in our initial decision .... ") 
Further, although the Petitioner now asserts that "most of my medals and all information about me 
participating in all kinds of competitions was collected by my trainer" and "I lost the bulk of my 
diplomas and certifications as a result of his death," he does not explain how the claimed unavailability 
of unspecified additional awards establishes that our prior motion decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or policy and was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceeding at the 
time of the decision. 
As he did not demonstrate that we incorrectly dismissed his prior motion, the Petitioner did not 
establish that he meets the requirements of a motion to reconsider. Therefore, we will dismiss the 
current motion to reconsider. 
D. Motion to Reopen 
We will similarly dismiss the Petitioner's motion to reopen. As stated previously, a motion to reopen 
must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2) does not define what constitutes a "new" fact, nor does it mirror 
the Board's definition of"new" at 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(l) (stating that a motion to reopen will not be 
granted unless the evidence "was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the 
former hearing"). Unlike the Board regulation, we do not require the evidence of a "new fact" to have 
been previously unavailable or undiscoverable. Instead, 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. Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting 
1 O-S-G- relates to motions to reconsider before the Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board), governed by 8 C.F.R. 
§ 1003 .2(b )(1 ), which states: "A motion to reconsider shall state the reasons for the motion by specifying the errors of fact 
or law in the prior Board decision and shall be supported by pertinent authority." These requirements are fundamentally 
similar to those found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3), and therefore the same logic applies. 
3 
previously provided evidence does not constitute "new facts." In the current motion, the Petitioner 
offers previously submitted documentation. As this evidence does not qualify as "new" and we already 
evaluated it in earlier proceedings, we will not further consider it in this proceeding. 
The Petitioner also offers an additional letter of recommendation dated February 2016 from a 
representative of the I IGym inl I Thailand, indicating that the Petitioner trained at 
th~nd competed in a "fight i~ land for a "WMF pro world title in heavyweight division 
inl_______J' between 2013 and 2014. However, the Petitioner has not shown how this letter establishes 
his eligibility under any of the regulatory criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Accordingly, 
we will dismiss his motion to reopen. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner's motion to reconsider has not shown that our latest decision 
was based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy, and the evidence provided in support of 
the motion to reopen does not overcome the grounds underlying our previous decision. 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. 
4