dismissed EB-1A Case: Martial Arts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF H-J-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 10,2018 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
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, concludi.ng that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner had sustained national or international acclaim, or that she 
was coming to the United States to work as a martial artist. We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal on 
alternate grounds, finding that she had not satisfied at least three of the ten regulatory criteria set 
forth under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)((3)(i)-(x). We also denied a motion to reopen that did not meet the 
requirements under 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5(a)(4), but noted that the Petitioner submitted evidence that 
established that she intended to continue working in the United States as a martial artist. 
The matter is again before us on combined motions to reopen and reconsider. The Petitioner submits 
a brief along with two previously submitted reference letters, and asserts that the content of these 
letters was mischaracterized in our previous decision, and that the letters should have been 
considered as new evidence under 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5(a)(2) when they were submitted with the first 
motion. 
Upon review, we will deny both motions. 
l. LAW 
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. The requirements of a motion to reopen are 
located at 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5(a)(2), and the requirements of a motion to reconsider are located at 
8 C.F.R. § I 03.5(a)(3). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates 
eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
Maller of H-.!-
II. ANALYSIS 
In her initial filing, the Petitioner sought to establish eligibility through the following criteria: lesser 
national or international awards; membership; published material about her; judging the work of 
others; original contributions of major significance; and display of her work. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(v). In his denial, the Director found that she had satisfied the requirements of the 
lesser awards, judging the work of others and display of work criteria, but did not establish her 
sustained national or international acclaim. The Director also found that the Petitioner did not show 
that she was coming to the United States to continue working as a martial artist. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claimed she met the requirements for the classification through new 
grounds. Specifically, she indicated that she had received a major internationally recognized award 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), and that she commanded a high salary under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix). In our dismissal, we declined to consider the Petitioner's claim based upon a one 
time achievement as well as her claim to a high salary, and also reversed the Director's decision 
regarding the display criterion. In addition, we noted that the record lacked the claimed evidence of 
the Petitioner's prospective work in the United States. 
The Petitioner then filed a motion to reopen our dismissal, asserting eligibility under all of the 
previously identified criteria. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). We denied that motion, finding that 
the evidence submitted was not new or failed to establish eligibility. In response, the Petitioner tiled 
the joint motion to reconsider and reopen now before us. · 
A. Motion to Reconsider 
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). A motion to reconsider must be supported by a 
pertinent precedent or adopted decision, statutory or regulatory provision, or statement of U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) or Department of Homeland Security policy. 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that we erred by concluding that two letters submitted in support of 
her first motion did not qualitY as new evidence. She contends that case law cited in that decision, 
Matter of" Singh' and Mauer ol Cernc?, did not apply to her, as "they fail to take into account the 
special circumstances that exist in China, and that would apply to someone in my position." The 
Petitioner cites to no law or precedent decision in support of her claim. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not established that our prior decision was incorrect based on the 
evidence in the record. Despite finding the evidence submitted did not qualitY as new, we reviewed 
and discussed the letters, finding that they both lacked properly certified translations in accordance 
1 
24 I&N Dec. 331 (BIA 2007) 
2 20 I&N Dec. 399 (BIA 1991) 
2 
Malter of H-.!-
with 8 C.F.R. § I 03.2(b)(3), which requires that any document in a foreign language must be 
accompanied by a full English language translation. The translator must certify that the English 
language translation is complete and accurate, and that the translator is competent to translate from 
the foreign language into English. !d. Because the Petitioner did not submit properly certified 
English language translations of the letters, we cannot determine whether the translated material is 
accurate and thus supports the Petitioner's claims. On motion, she indicates that the authors of the 
letters provided their own English translations, which she contends should be considered original 
documents. However, the record lacks evidence supporting the Petitioner's claims regarding who 
translated the letters and no certification has been provided to comply with 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3), 
which would allow us to meaningfully consider the letters as evidence 3 
The Petitioner does not cite law or precedent decision in support of her claims, and she does not 
establish that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy, or that it 
was incorrect based upon the evidence in the record at the time of that decision. Therefore, her 
motion to reconsider is denied. 
B. Motion to Reopen 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 
I 03.5(a)(2). We interpret "new facts" to mean facts that are relevant to the issues raised on motion 
and that have not been previously submitted in the proceeding, which includes the original petition. 
Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not constitute 
"new facts." 
In support of her motion to reopen, the Petitioner resubmits the two letters referenced above. This 
evidence, already part of the record and discussed in the previous decision, does not state new facts. 
Therefore·, the filing does not meet the requirements for a motion to reopen. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown that her motion to reconsider should be granted, since her assertions 
arc not supported by pertinent legal precedent or other legal authority which would establish that our 
previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy. And upon 
consideration of the new facts presented in her motion to reopen, as well as her previous motion and 
appeal, we do not find that they establish her eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
3 On motion. the Petitioner also attempts to reconcile some of the inconsistencies between the letters and the record that 
we noted in our previous decision. The lack of properly certified translations of the letters prevents us l'rom addressing 
her arguments. 
3 
Mo/ler rif /-1-J-
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
Cite as Matter of H-J-, ID# 1159505 (AAO May I 0, 20 18) 
4