dismissed EB-1A Case: Martial Arts

. identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
MAY 0 6 2.011 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Securit} 
l:.s. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Adillinislf<ltivc Appeals Office (AA()) 
20 Massachusctb Ave .. N.W .. MS 2090 
\\-ushington. 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)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act: 8 USc. ~ 1153(b)(I)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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 oflice that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that oflice. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching aLir decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered. you Illay tile a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 c.r.R. ~ 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the oflice that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee 0[$630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. ~ 103.5(a)( I )(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
,.I (Dii?Jillt [terry lfhew 
\Chief, Administrative Appeals Oflicc 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, on February 27, 2008. The director dismissed thc motion to reopen and the motion 
to reconsider on December 17, 2009, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act). 8 u.s.c. ~ 1153(b)(l )(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability as a martial arts instructor. At the time of the original filing of the 
petition on July 27, 2007, the petitioner claimed eligibility for the awards criterion pursuant to 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the membership criterion pursuant to the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). and the leading or critical role criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). On January 2. 2008. the director issued a request for additional 
evidence pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8). In response, the petitioner 
submitted additional documentation regarding the awards criterion. the membership criterion, 
and the leading or critical role criterion. 
In the director's decision on February 27. 2008. he discusse,j the petitioner's documentary 
evidence as it related to each of the three claimed criteria and found that the petitioner failed to 
establish eligibility for any of the criteria. On March 28. 2008. the petitioner filed a motion to 
reopen and motion to reconsider pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a) and again 
claimed the petitioner's eligibility for the a\\lards criterion. the membership criterion. and the 
leading or critical role criterion. In addition. the petitioner claimed for the lirst time his 
eligibility for the high salary criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 l'.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
On motion, the director addressed the petitioner's documentary cvidcnce as it related to each of 
the four claimed criteria and found that the petitioner fai led to overcome any of the grounds 
originally stated in his decision and that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for the high 
salary criterion. 
On appeal, rather than challenging any of the director's specitic findings. counsel summarized 
the documentation previously submitted as well as the petitioner's achievements for the awards 
criterion, the membership criterion. and the l,~ading or critical role criterion. For example, 
regarding the leading or critical role criterion. counsel stated: 
[The petitioner] has been a Taekwon-Do instructor since 1984. He has achieved 
the Fourth Degree Black Belt, the Master Instructor certification in the field of 
Taekwon-Do. He has worked as a Lead Instructor for of 
Taekwon-Do, establishing two schools. The of Taekwon-Do was 
recognized for outstanding achievcment and inspiration by the International 
School of Taekwon-Do. Students at of Taekwon-Do excelled and 
were top competitors at all regional and national competitions tncy attended. 
Counsel also cites to a federal district court case and several unpublished decisions of the AAO. 
In contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case law of a lJ nited States circuit court. the 
AAO is not bound to follow the published decision of a United States district court in matters 
even arising within the same district. See Maller oj K-S-. 20 l&i\i Dec. 715 (BIA 1993). 
Page 3 
Regarding the unpublished decisions of the AAO. counsel has provided no evidence to establish 
that the facts of the instant petition are analogous to those in the unpuhlished decisions. Further. 
while 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c) provides that AAO precedent decisions are hinding on all USCIS 
employees in the administration of the Act. unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. 
Regardless, counsel's general n:ferencc to case law and unpublished decisions is not sufficient 
basis for a substantive appeal, because it does not show how the director erred in this particular 
proceeding. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(I lev) provides that "[a]11 ollicer to whom an appeal is taken 
shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the party concerned liliis to identify specifically any 
erroneous conclusion of law or statement or ract for the appcf":' In this case. counsel has not 
identified as a proper basis for the appcal an erroneous conclusion or law or a statement of fact in 
the director's decision 
We note that counsel did not address or conte,l the decision or the director or offer additional 
arguments for the high salary criterion. The AAO. there lore. considers this issue to be 
abandoned. See Sepulveda v. u.s. Al(y Gcn .. 401 F.3d 1226. 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005). 
Moreover, counsel claimed for the lirst time on appeal the petitioner's eligibility for the judging 
criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.I-.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)( iv). As this issue was not raised 
before the director, the director could not have erred in his decision on this matter. 
Even if considered, counsel's assertion rcgarding the judging criterion is not persuasive. The 
plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) requires "re]vidcnce of the alien's 
participation, either individually or on a panel. as a judge of the \york of others in the same or an 
allied field of specification for which classification is sought." Although counsel stated that the 
petitioner "has instructed in the field of c,cad.WOll_Do at various prestigious schools and 
organizations since a young age" and "has coached and trained mcmbers of the Canadian Team 
for international Taekwon-Do competItIons. and refereed nalional and international 
competitions," counsel failed to demonstrate thal the petitioner", coaching and training equates 
to being "a judge of the work or others." In fact. counsel did not refer to any previously 
submitted documentary evidence or submit additional documentary evidence on appeal that 
demonstrates that the petitioner has participated as ajudge of the work ofothcrs. While a review 
of the record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner has instructed and trained individuals and 
teams, such as the Canadian Team. the record Ltlis far short in dcmonstrating that he has judged 
the work of others. Furthermore. although the petitioncr indicated on his resume that he 
"[r]efereed at national and international competitions in Canada anJ USA," the record of 
proceeding fails to reflect any evidence of such referee experience. Regardless, we note that if 
the petitioner acted as a referec and simply ent()rced the rules of a match and sportsmanlike 
competition, then his participation as d referee cannot be said to have involved evaluating or judging 
the skills or qualifications of the participants. Wid,\)ut further evidence such as that he awarded 
points or chose the ultimate winner. evidencc regarding officiating at a competition is insuJ1icient to 
meet this criterion. 
As stated in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. ~ I 03.J(aj( 1 i(v). an appeal shall be summarily dismissed 
if the party concerned fails to identify spccilically any erl'llncous conclusion of law or statement 
, > 
Page 4 
of fact for the appeal. As counsel did not contest any of the lindings of the director and offers no 
substantive basis for the filing of the appeal for any of the criteria. the regulations mandate the 
summary dismissal of the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.