dismissed EB-1A Case: Martial Arts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19336659 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAY 9, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a martial arts instructor , 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition . We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal 
and three subsequent motions. The matter is now before us on a fourth motion to reconsider. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibilit y for the requested benefit. See 
section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will dismiss the motion. 
I. LAW 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those indivi duals 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 recognition 
of his or her achievements in the field throug h a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationa lly 
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 materia l 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 indivi dual 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 counte d and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria , considered in the context of a final merits determ ination) ; 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) . 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) limits U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' authority 
to reconsider to instances where an applicant has shown "proper cause" for that action. Thus, to merit 
reconsideration, a petitioner must not only meet the formal filing requirements at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(iii) (such as submission of a properly completed and signed Form I-290B, Notice of 
Appeal or Motion, with the correct fee), but also show proper cause for granting the 
motion. Specifically, 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). In these proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,375 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
In our most recent decision, the dismissal of the Petitioner's third motion, we determined that the 
Petitioner did not show that we erroneously applied law or policy in deciding that he did not meet the 
awards criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and the membership criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
In addition, the Petitioner did not establish that we erred in reserving a determination on his intent to 
continue to work in his area of expertise under section 203(b )(l)(A)(ii) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). 
The review of any motion is narrowly limited to the basis for the prior adverse decision. Accordingly, 
we examine any new arguments to the extent that they pertain to our dismissing his third motion. 
Thus, the issue before us is whether we erred in determining that he did not establish that we 
incorrectly applied law or policy in dismissing his prior motion to reconsider. 
In the current motion, the Petitioner submits an almost identical brief from his third motion. See 
Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) (finding that a motion to reconsider is not a process 
by which the party may submit in essence, the same brief and seek reconsideration by generally 
alleging error in the prior decision). Here, our most recent decision thoroughly analyzed and explained 
why the indicated evidence and claimed arguments did not meet the regulatory requirements. Because 
he provides the same assertions with essentially the same brief, which we have previously and 
carefully addressed, the Petitioner did not establish that we incorrectly applied law or policy in our 
prior decision dismissing his third motion. Disagreeing with our conclusions without showing how 
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. Accordingly, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his current 
motion meets the requirements for a motion to reconsider under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Therefore, 
we will dismiss his motion to reconsider. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown that we incorrectly applied law or policy in our previous decision based 
on the record before us. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2