dismissed EB-1A Case: Martial Arts

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and lmmigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 - 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: MAY 2 1 2010 
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 U.S.C. 5 1 153(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 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 law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $585. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
,kl.k3A&ifld- (- erry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied this employment-based 
immigrant visa petition on November 20, 2008. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
dismissed the petitioner's appeal of that decision on October 19, 2009. The matter is now before 
the AAO on a motion to reopen. The motion will be dismissed, the previous decision of the AAO 
will be affirmed, and the petition will remain denied. 
On motion, the petitioner states that he filed the motion to reopen because "new evidences are 
present in support of [his] case." The petitioner submitted the following: 
1. 
 A recommendation letter, dated November 5, 2009, from = 
2. 
 A recommendation letter, dated November 1, 2009, from = 
A recommendation letter, dated October 24, 2009, from 
== 
4. 
 for first place in the long range weapon 
- 
spear at thon April 5, 265; 
5. 
 An Achievement Certificate for first ~rize at the First World Traditional 
WuShu Festival in - 
6. 
 A Certificate of Appreciation for the petitioner's participation at the 2nd 
International Traditional Kun Fu Wushu Tournament & Masters 
Exhibitions o d 
7. 
 An Achievement Certificate for the Second World Traditional WuShu 
Championship in - 
8. 
 A Certificate of Judging for the 17th Annual Chinese Martial Arts 
Tournament on 
9. 
 A Commendation Certificate for the petitioner's performance at the 2008 
Spring Festival Concert on and 
10. A certificate from the International Wushu Sanshou Dao Association 
awarded 4th degree black belt to the petitioner on - 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided and be supported by affidavits or 
other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. rj 103.5(a)(2). Based on the plain meaning of "new," a new 
fact is found to be evidence that was not available and could not have been discovered or presented 
in the previous proceeding. ' 
A review of the evidence that the petitioner submits on motion reveals no fact that could be 
considered "new" under 8 C.F.R. rj 103.5(a)(2). The petitioner failed to explain why he could not 
have previously submitted recommendation letters from - or - 
Furthermore, regarding items 4 - 6, the petitioner failed demonstrate why the documentation was 
' The word "new" is defined as "I. having existed or been made for only a short time . . . 3. Just discovered, found, or 
learned <new evidence> . . . ." WEBS.TER'S I1 NEW RIVERSIDE UNIVERSITY DICTIONARY 792 (1984)(emphasis in 
original). 
previously unavailable and could not have been submitted earlier as the evidence reflects events 
occurring prior to the filing of the petition. 
We note here regarding item 7, the Achievement Certificate is both in the English and Chinese 
languages. However, the athlete's name, event, and achievement are only in the Chinese language. 
The record fails to reflect that the petitioner received this award. Furthermore, the petitioner failed 
to submit a certified English language translation pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.2(b)(3), which requires that "[alny document containing foreign language submitted to 
USCIS shall be accompanied by a full English language translation which the translator has 
certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is 
competent to translate from the foreign language into English." Because the petitioner failed to 
comply with 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(3), the AAO cannot determine whether the evidence supports 
the petitioner's claims. Accordingly, the evidence is not probative and will not be accorded any 
weight in this proceeding. 
In addition, regarding items 8 - 10, the petition was filed on November 15, 2007. These items 
reflect events occurring after the filing of the petition. Eligibility must be established at the time of 
filing. Therefore, we will not consider these items as evidence to establish the petitioner's 
eligibility. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. 
Commr. 1971). A petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes 
eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r. 1998). 
That decision further provides, citing Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981), that 
we cannot "consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." Id. at 
176. 
The petitioner has been afforded three different opportunities to submit this evidence: at the time of 
the original filing of the petition on November 15, 2007, in response to the director's request for 
additional evidence on September 17,2008, and at the time of the filing of the appeal on December 
19, 2008. A review of the evidence that the petitioner submits on motion reveals no fact that could 
be considered "new" under 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5(a)(2) and, therefore, cannot be considered a proper 
basis for a motion to reopen. 
Motions for the reopening of immigration proceedings are disfavored for the same reasons as are 
petitions for rehearing and motions for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. INS v. 
Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992)(citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988)). A party seeking to 
reopen a proceeding bears a "heavy burden." INS 1). Abudu, 485 U.S. at 110. With the current 
motion, the petitioner has not met that burden. The motion to reopen will be dismissed. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed, the decision of the AAO dated October 19, 
2009, is affirmed, and the petition remains denied.