dismissed EB-1A Case: Self-Defense

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 30, 2025 In Re: 36171028 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Exceptional Ability) 
The Petitioner seeks first preference immigrant classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(l)(A). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that that he satisfied at least three of the ten required regulatory criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). We dismissed a subsequent appeal. The matter is now before us on combined 
motions to reopen and reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motion. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility 
for the requested benefit. See Matter of Coelho, 20 l&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that 
new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
On motion, the Petitioner submits several new pieces of evidence for the claimed criteria. Regarding 
the lesser award criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the Petitioner presented the Wikipedia page for 
the Republican Guard (Kazakhstan) and Wikipedia page for the State Security Service (Kazakhstan). 
These documents provide general information about the givers of the claimed awards. However, 
neither of these documents address the deficiencies we noted in our prior decision, namely that the 
Petitioner did not present sufficient documentation that the claimed awards were significant in the 
field or that the awards reflect national or international recognition. 
In support of the criterion regarding membership in an association requiring outstanding achievement 
of its members under 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), the Petitioner presented the "ABOUT US" page from 
the website detailing the members of the team, an Instagram page for 
I a letter of recommendation froml I and a webpage for the Kazakhstan 
Boxing Federation listing the members of their Judicial Commission. Again, this evidence does not 
I 
address the deficiencies in the record that we noted in our prior decision. The decision stated that the 
evidence provided did not establish that membership in the organizations required outstanding 
achievements or that membership was judged by experts in the disciplines. The Petitioner claims that 
the webpage contains a list of experts but does not explain how this evidence is 
relevant to the criterion requirements. The webpage lists a number of individuals with I I fighting 
training of various tenures but has no further information. We also observe that the webpage does not 
reference the I Iand their affiliation with the I I 
is unclear from the webpage. The letter from I Idoes not contain information on the 
requirements for membership. The Petitioner also cites to the Judicial Commission of the Kazakhstan 
Boxing's webpage to support his claim that thel Ihistory and leadership signify it is an esteemed 
institution. Nevertheless, he does not explain how the web page supports this contention as it only 
contains photos of four individuals and lists their titles, but has no further information, such as their 
names or any other details. 
Finally, we also note that some of the evidence for this criterion was not properly translated. Any 
document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full English language translation, and a 
certification from the translator that the English language translation is complete and accurate, and 
that they are competent to translate from the foreign language into English. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). 
The Instagram page has no accompanying English translation, and the letter froml does 
not include a proper certificate of translation. The certificate states that the translation was made from 
Kazakh and Russian into English but does not confirm that the translation is complete and accurate or 
that the translator is competent to translate in the relevant languages. Evidence not complying with 
the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) does not have any evidentiary weight and will not be 
considered. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated he meets the criterion's requirements. 
The Petitioner additionally claims that he has made original contributions of major significance in his 
field to meet the requirements of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). In prior filings, the 
Petitioner argued he qualified for eligibility based on his methodology and coaching. He averred that 
this was a major significance to the I I and the self-defense field. In the current motion, the 
Petitioner has presented evidence he argues demonstrates that his methodology has made a significant 
contribution in advancing the health and well-being of organ transplant recipients in his country. First, 
we observe that the letters from and the Instagram page from 
I I do not comply with the requirements for foreign language documents. The 
Instagram page has no accompanying English language translation. The certificates of translation 
accompanying the letters state that the translations were made from Kazakh and Russian into English 
but do not confirm that they are complete and accurate or that the translators are competent to translate 
in the relevant languages. Evidence not complying with the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § l 03.2(b )(3) 
does not have any evidentiary weight and will not be considered. 
The remaining evidence for this criterion consists of an article and a Facebook posting. The article 
discusses the I for organ transplant recipients and dialysis patients. The 
Facebook post discusses a roundtable talk held at the I Ion sports as part of organ transplant 
recipients' rehabilitation. However, neither mentions the Petitioner or his methodology. Thus, the 
Petitioner has not presented sufficient evidence to establish he qualifies for the criterion. 
2 
I 
Next, to support the Petitioner's claim that he has performed a leading or critical role for a 
distinguished organization or establishment under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) the Petitioner cited to 
several new documents. However, he did not explain any of the documents' relevancy or how they 
establish his claims that the organizations he was involved in were distinguished. Furthermore, several 
documents did not comply with the plain language requirements regarding foreign language 
documents under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). For instance, the Petitioner presented the letter from 
Iand the Instagram page for Iwhich we outlined previously did not comport 
with the regulations. He also submitted the Instagram page for I I but did not provide an 
English language translation. As noted previously, evidence not translated in accordance with the 
requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(3) does not have any evidentiary weight and will not be 
considered. As such, the Petitioner has not presented evidence sufficient to reopen the decision. 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior 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). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our 
latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and 
demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
On motion, the Petitioner contests the correctness of our prior decision. The motion states that the 
prior decision contained significant errors, and that it was "apparent from the language of the decision 
that Petitioner has been held to an inappropriately high standard." To support that statement, the brief 
points to our prior decision's use of the statement: "the reference letters do not offer sufficiently 
detailed information," which the Petitioner argues suggests "personal judgement and opinion, which 
signals the application of an unreasonably high bar." The language referenced from our prior decision 
is contained in the section regarding contributions of major significance criterion (8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(v)). It refers to reference letters provided in support of the criterion. We have reviewed 
the analysis in this section. It provides sufficient reasoning on why the letters were not determined to 
have adequate detail. We ascertain that the correct standard of proof was applied to this section. The 
Petitioner does not elaborate, beyond the above statement, where or how they view that such a standard 
was applied. Our review of the decision and the record finds no instances of us applying a stricter 
standard as the Petitioner asserts. 
Concerning the lesser award criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the Petitioner avers that the decision 
stated that a lack of evidence regarding media coverage or trade publication recognition constituted 
error, and that such statement was misguided as the USCIS Policy manual notes a different issue as 
the criterion's primary focus. The Petitioner's argument is misplaced as our prior decision did not 
make such a declaration. We observe that our prior decision states only that the Petitioner did not 
provide supporting evidence that demonstrated the awards' level of recognition, which could include, 
but is not limited to, media coverage. 
Regarding the remaining claimed criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (v) and (viii), the 
Petitioner's arguments on those criteria focus on his new evidence, as outlined above, and does not 
point to any error of law or policy made in the prior decision. 
3 
Although the Petitioner has submitted additional evidence in support of the motion to reopen, the 
Petitioner has not established eligibility. On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner has not established 
that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy at the time we issued 
our decision. Therefore, the motion will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
4