dismissed EB-1A Case: Mixed Martial Arts

(b)(6)
DATE: MAl 2 6 1015 
IN RE: PETITIONER: 
BENEFICIARY: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. 
If you believe we incorrectly decided your case, you may file a motion requesting us to reconsider our 
decision and/or reopen the proceeding. The requirements for motions are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. 
Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this 
decision. The Form I-290B web page (www.uscis.gov/i-290b) contains the latest information on fee, filing 
location, and other requirements. Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO. 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
REV 3/2015 www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. We subsequently dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The matter is now before us on a motion 
to reopen. We will dismiss the motion. 
I. Motion to Reopen 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(C) informs the public of the filing requirements for a 
motion and provides, in pertinent part, that a motion must be: "Accompanied by a statement about 
whether or not the validity of the unfavorable decision has been or is the subject of any judicial 
proceeding and, if so, the court, nature, date, and status or result of the proceeding." 
In the instant motion, the petitioner has not submitted a statement indicating if the validity of our 
October 29, 2014 unfavorable decision has been or is the subject of any judicial proceeding. The 
regulation at 8 C.P. R. § 103. 5(a)(4) requires that "[a] motion that does not meet applicable 
requirements shall be dismissed." We therefore will dismiss the motion on this basis. Regardless, 
the petitioner has not otherwise shown his eligibility for the petition. Accordingly, if we granted the 
motion to reopen based on the submission of new evidence, we would reaffirm our prior decision. 
While the petitioner did not indicate he was jointly filing a motion to reconsider, we note that the 
filing does not meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider. 
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. § 103.5(a)(2). A m otion to reconsider must state the reasons for 
reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that our original 
decision was based on an incorrect application of law or United States Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) policy. 8 C.P.R. § 103. 5(a)(3). A motion to reconsider contests the correctness of 
the original decision based on the previous factual record, as opposed to a motion to reopen which 
seeks a new hearing based on new or previously unavailable evidence. Compare 8 C.P.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(3) and 8 C.P.R . § 103.5(a)(2). 
In support of his motion, the petitioner has submitted: (1) a May 14, 2007 article entitled 
" posted on (2) a previo usly submitted online printout 
from and (3) a previously submitted online printout from entitled 
On motion, the petitioner asserts that he, as a mixed 
. martial arts (MMA) fighter, meets the criteria set forth under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204. 5(h)(3)(i), (iii) and (viii). 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.P.R. § 204. 5(h)(3)(i). 
On motion, the petitioner asserts that his 2013 wins at the 
Championships constitute evidence in support of this criterion. As we noted in a footnote in our 
previous decision, the record includes no evidence showing that the petitioner has participated in the 
Championships in 2013. Rather, the record shows that he participated in the events 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
in 2012. Moreover, the petitioner has not shown that he meets this criterion for the following 
reasons. 
First, the petitioner has not shown that his wins at the 2012 events are nationally or internationally 
recognized. The petitioner points to the reporting of the events on as evidence that the 
events are nationally and internationally recognized. The petitioner also asserts on motion that 
"covers solely nationally and internationally recognized fights hosted by recognized 
promotions, like etc." The petitioner, 
however, has not submitted sufficient evidence in support of this assertion. On motion, the 
petitioner submits a 2007 article, entitled ' This 
document shows that and entered into "a cross-promotional and content 
integration agreement." Neither the article nor any other evidence in the record shows that 
enters into cross-promotional and content integration agreements with websites that only cover 
nationally or internationally recognized MMA events. In fact, the article states that 
provides "news, information and analysis about 
This statement contradicts the petitioner's assertion that covers "solely 
nationally and internationally recognized fights." On motion, the petitioner also asserts that 
is one of the most well-known promotions for MMA- mixed martial arts." The petitioner, 
however, has not pointed to any evidence in the record in support of his assertion. Going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for the purposes of meeting the burden of 
proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (citing 
Matter ofTreasure Craft ofCalifornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
In addition, as we noted in our previous decision, which the petitioner has not challenged on motion, 
the evidence submitted to show the prestige and status of comes from 
We need not rely on the self-promotional material of the publisher when determining the status of a 
publication. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO, 2007 WL 9229758, at *1, 6-7 (C. D. CA 
July 6, 2007), aff'd, 2009 WL 604888 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that we did not have to rely on 
self-serving assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status as major media). As 
noted in our decision, although the website provides more specific details, such as the number of 
unique visitors per month (over 9.5 million), the petitioner has not demonstrated that this site reports 
only the results of nationally recognized matches rather than serving as a comprehensive source for 
results in all professional matches. Indeed, on motion, the petitioner states that "does 
in fact cover a large array of fights and competitions." The article 
similarly states that the website provides information ' 
Second, as we concluded in our previous decision, which the petitioner has not challenged on 
motion, the petitioner has submitted an uncertified English translation to show he won a match at the 
2012 This uncertified translation has no evidentiary weight 
because the petitioner has not provided a translation certificate that meets the regulatory 
requirements under 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(3). In the alternative, the uncertified translation does not 
indicate that the petitioner received any prize or award at the event. Rather, it shows that the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
petitioner was one of 13 people who each won a match at the event. The record includes no 
evidence that as the result of the win, the petitioner or any other winners received a prize or award. 
Similarly, evidence showing that the petitioner won a match at the 2012 
does not establish that he received a prize or award for excellence, as required 
under the plain language of the criterion. As discussed in our previous decision, the _ 2012 
event had eight winners, one from each match. The petitioner has not presented evidence showing 
that he or any of the other winners received any awards or prizes as the result of the win. 
Finally, as we concluded in our previous decision, which the petitioner has not challenged on 
motion, his participation in events that postdate the filing of his petition in July 2013 cannot be 
consider as evidence under this criterion. As explained in our previous decision, the petitioner 
cannot secure a priority date based on the anticipation of future receipt of qualifying awards or prizes 
under this criterion. See Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 160 (Reg'l Comm'r 1977); 
Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175-76 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (adopting Matter of Bardouille, 
18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981) for the proposition that USCIS cannot "consider facts that come into 
being only subsequent to the filing of a petition.") 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented documentation of his receipt of lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. The petitioner 
has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. Such 
evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 8 C.P. R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
On motion, the petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion because he has submitted "multiple 
articles on him from various Internet websites and Internet blogs." The petitioner has not shown that 
he meets this criterion. 
First, the petitioner has not shown that radarnoticias.com constitutes a professional or major trade 
publication or other major media. On motion, the petitioner asserts that is "a 
nationally recognized news site in Brazil, with over one thousand unique visitors every day." As 
discussed in our previous decision, which the petitioner has not challenged on motion, the evidence 
in the record indicates that website traffic is ranked number in the world 
and its google page rank is 0. The petitioner has not shown that these figures are indicative of the 
website's status as major media. In addition, as noted in our decision, the petitioner has not 
submitted certified English translations for the materials posted on the website. The uncertified 
English translations, therefore, do not have any evidentiary weight. See 8 C.P.R. 103. 2(b)(3). 
Moreover, on motion, the petitioner has not challenged our finding that the materials posted on 
are not about the petitioner as relating to his work in the field. Rather, the 
materials describe the Championship in _ 2012 and list the petitioner as one of 
the event participants. The focus of the materials is not the petitioner. Rather, the focus is the event. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
PageS 
Second, the petitioner has not shown that constitutes a professional or major trade 
publication or other major media. As noted, the vague, self-promotional materials about the website 
have limited evidentiary value. See Braga, 2007 WL 9229758 at *6-7. Moreover, as we found in 
our previous decision, which the petitioner has not challenged on motion, the petitioner's profile, 
posted on lacks information on the author or the date of the publication, as required 
under the criterion. Furthermore, on motion, the petitioner has not challenged our finding that 
materials from this website are not about the petitioner, relating to his work, because they merely list 
him as an MMA event participant who has won a match. These materials are not published 
materials about the petitioner as relating to his work, as required under the plain language of the 
criterion. These materials are about the events, not the participants. 
Finally, the petitioner has not shown that materials posted on meet this criterion. The 
record includes a printout entitled "Statis tics." As noted in our previous decision, the 
statistics relate to as a whole. Videos on this website can be uploaded by anyone who 
has internet access, and the level of viewership of each video uploaded ranges dramatically. In 
addition, as we concluded in our decision, which the petitioner has not challenged on motion, two 
links are to videos of fights in which the petitioner purportedly participated, without 
any additional information about the petitioner or his work, and they do not constitute "published 
material about [the petitioner] ... , relating to [his] work," as the phrase is used in the criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented published material about him in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media, relating to his work in the field for which classification is 
sought. The petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204. 5(h)(3)(iii). 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C. F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
On motion, the petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion because he is a member of the MMA-
and trains with many of the other MMA fighters, including 
a professional MMA fighter, at the On motion, the petitioner has 
submitted no additional evidence in support of this criterion. As such, he has not shown that a 
motion to reopen is warranted as relating to this criterion. In addition, on motion, the petitioner has 
not specifically stated that we erred in our previous decision as relating to this criterion, or shown 
that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy. See 
8 C.F.R. § 103. 5(a)(3). As such, he has not shown that a motion to reconsider would be warranted 
as relating to this criterion. 
In the alternative, as we concluded in our previous decision, the petitioner's evidence does not 
establish that he performs either a leading or a critical role for On motion, 
the petitioner asserts that he is "an asset to the facility." Even assuming that the petition is an 
"asset," without evidence that he also performs either a leading or critical role for the academy, as 
required under the plain language of the criterion, the petitioner has not shown that he meets this 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
criterion. Reference letters from the Chief Executive Officers and Presidents of the academy do not 
discuss the petitioner's role in the fighting team or provide details on how his role is either leading or 
critical to the team or 
_ 
As noted in our previous decision, evidence that the 
petitioner is a skilled and experienced MMA fighter, without more, is not sufficient to show he 
meets this criterion. Although a professional MMA fighter, states that the petitioner is 
"a huge part to the professional fight team," she does not provide the bases upon which she makes 
this conclusory statement. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for the purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 
I&N Dec. at 165. We need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney 
General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
On motion, the petitioner asserts that he "trains with many of the other MMA fighters in the 
academy" and that "training is critical for an MMA fighter." While we do not contest the 
importance of training in any athletic endeavor, to establish that he meets this criterion, the petitioner 
must demonstrate that he performs a leading or critical role for an establishment or organization that 
has a distinguished reputation. The petitioner's involvement in an MMA fighter's training does not 
constitutes his role in an establishment or organization. While training as a whole might be critical 
to MMA fighters, to meet this criterion, the petitioner must show where he is in the hierarchy of the 
academy or the impact he has had on the academy. Evidence that he trains with other MMA 
fighters, without more, does not show that he meets tills criterion. Although the reference letters 
state that the petitioner is a skilled and experienced MMA fighter who has also helped in the training 
of other MMA fighters, they do not show that the petitioner, as an MMA fighter, has performed a 
leading or critical role for or its fighting team. 
Furthermore, we concluded in our previous decision, which the petitioner has not challenged on 
motion, the evidence is insufficient to show that the or its fighting team 
constitutes an organization or establishment that has a distinguished reputation. The evidence 
submitted to show or its fighting team's reputation is from individuals 
associated with the training facilities and team. Such self-promotional evidence has limited 
evidentiary value. See Braga, 2007 WL 9229758 at *6-7. 
Finally, in our previous decision, we questioned the credibility and reliability of two of the 
petitioner's reference letters, because they contain identical language or virtually the same language 
when describing the petitioner's achievements and abilities, whlch suggest that the language in the 
letters is not the authors' own. Cf Surinder Singh v. Board of Immigration Appeals, 438 F. 3d 145, 
148 (2d Cir. 2006) (upholding an immigration judge's adverse credibility determination in asylum 
proceedings based in part on the similarity of some of the affidavits); Mei Chai Ye v. United States 
Dep 't of Justice, 489 F.3d 517, 519 (2d Cir. 2007) (concluding that an immigration judge may 
reasonably infer that when an asylum applicant submits strikingly similar affidavits, the applicant is 
the common source). On motion, the petitioner has not addressed our concerns or submitted 
evidence in support of the credibility and reliability of his references. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented evidence that he has performed in a leading or critical 
role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. The petitioner has not 
met this criterion. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
II. Conclusion 
In most administrative immigration proceedings, the petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the 
evidence that he or she is eligible for the benefit sought. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 
2010). The truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. /d. at 376. 
In this case, the petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that he is eligible for the 
exclusive classification sought. 
The petitioner has not shown that his motion should be granted, because he has not submitted a 
statement on motion indicating if the validity of our October 29, 2014 unfavorable decision has been 
or is the subject of any judicial proceeding. See 8 C.F.R. § 103. 5(a)(4). In the alternative, although 
the petitioner has submitted new evidence in support of a motion to reopen, he has not shown that he 
meets the eligibility for the classification sough. Therefore, even if we granted his motion to reopen, 
we would affirm our previous decision denying his petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). Had the 
petitioner also intended the instant motion to be a motion to reconsider, we would dismiss the 
motion to reconsider, because he has not stated any valid reason for reconsideration, nor has he 
sufficiently supported any valid reason for reconsideration with pertinent legal precedent or other legal 
authority establishing that our October 29, 2014 decision was based on an incorrect application of law 
or USCIS policy. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U. S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden 
has not been met. Accordingly, the motion to reopen will be dismissed. Had the petitioner also 
intended to file a motion to reconsider, we would dismiss that motion. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed, our October 29, 2014 decision is affirmed, and the petition 
remains denied.