dismissed EB-1A Case: Sports Journalism

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9474140 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 28, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a sports journalist, 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, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required. 
We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal from that decision. The matter is now before us on a combined 
motion to reopen and reconsider. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. We will dismiss the motion. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be proved in the reopened proceeding and be supported 
by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must 
state the reasons for reconsideration and establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence 
of record at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). A motion that does not meet 
applicable requirements shall be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
Under the above regulations, 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. We may grant a motion 
that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
The regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) limits our authority to reopen or reconsider to instances 
where the Petitioner has shown "proper cause" for that action. Thus, to merit reopening or 
reconsideration, a petitioner must not only meet the formal filing requirements (such as submission of 
a properly completed Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with the correct fee), but also show 
proper cause for granting the motion. We cannot grant a motion that does not meet applicable 
requirements. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
By regulation, the scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision." 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(i). 
Therefore, the filing before us is not a motion to reopen and reconsider the denial of the petition. 
Instead, the filing is a motion to reopen and reconsider our most recent decision. 
IT. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to aliens with extraordinary ability 
if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals 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 sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of their achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that 
is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then 
they must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten categories 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as awards, published material 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 individual 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). 
III. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a broadcast journalist who is currently employed b ~----------~ 
'-------~ Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, 
internationally recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). At various times in these proceedings, the Petitioner claims to have met 
six criteria, summarized below: 
2 
• (i), Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards; 
• (iii), Published material about the alien in professional or major media; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles; and 
• (vii), Display at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
In the denial notice, the Director did not address the Petitioner's claims regarding the criterion numbered 
(vii), pertaining to artistic exhibitions or showcases; the Director determined that the Petitioner had not 
satisfied the other five claimed criteria. In our appellate decision, we determined that the Petitioner had 
satisfied criterion number (vii), but agreed with the Director that the Petitioner had not satisfied the other 
five. On motion, the Petitioner maintains that he has satisfied the criteria numbered (i), (iii), (iv), and (v). 
A. Motion to Reopen 
The Petitioner's motion includes copies of several documents, nearly all of which the Petitioner had 
submitted earlier. Re-submitted materials do not introduce new facts into the record, and therefore they 
do not provide a basis for reopening the proceeding. The onlG document that does not appear to have 
been submitted previously is a 2018 Media Kit forl Brazilian Ne1Vs, a Portuguese-language 
publication for Brazilian expatriates in the United States. The Petitioner's accompanying brief does not 
mention this particular document or explain its relevance to the motion. 
The Petitioner had previously claimed coverage inl las an example of published material about him 
in professional or major trade publications or 0. thlr major media, to satisfy the regulatory criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). In [ 12015, a article described the Petitioner as "without a 
doubt, one of the greatest reporters in Brazilian TV." The record shows that the Petitioner was previously 
a reporter forl I 
In our appellate decision, we determined that the Petitioner had not provided a basis for comparison to 
show that I Is website constitutes major media. The media kit indicates that the website attracts 
more than 400,000 users per month, but does not provide a basis for comparison with other United States­
based news sites. 
The Petitioner has not shown cause for reopening the proceeding by establishing that the information in 
thd lmedia kit would have changed the outcome of the appellate decision. The media kit introduces 
no relevant new facts into the record, and therefore the Petitioner's filing does not meet the requirements 
of a motion to reopen. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
In our appellate decision, we discussed the six evidentiary criteria that the Petitioner claims to have 
satisfied, and we explained why we determined that the Petitioner had met only one of those criteria. On 
motion, the Petitioner claims to have satisfied five of the six criteria (including the one we already 
granted), but does not address the specific points we raised in our decision. Instead, portions of the motion 
brief repeat, almost verbatim, sections of the earlier appellate brief 
3 
A motion does not entail de nova review of the full record of proceeding. The Petitioner cannot establish 
grounds for reconsideration by repeating or rewording prior arguments and assertions. To warrant 
reconsideration, the Petitioner must establish errors of law or policy (as documented by precedent 
decisions or other cited policy instruments), or errors of fact ( through a showing the decision was incorrect 
based on the record as it stood at the time of the prior decision). It cannot suffice for the Petitioner simply 
to state reasons why he believes his petition should be approved. We conclude that the Petitioner has not 
established grounds for reconsideration of our appellate decision. 
The motion to reconsider focuses on four of the evidentiary criteria, which we address below. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
The Petitioner had previously submitted evidence regarding several awards, and claimed other awards. 
The Director devoted more than a page of the original denial notice to a discussion of why the various 
awards did not meet the regulatory requirements, and determined that the Petitioner had not submitted 
supporting evidence regarding some of the claimed awards. 
On appeal, the Petitioner stated that he "has received many awards," but there were only two that he 
identified and discussed in any detail in the appellate brief: a Brazilian Tnternatiorl Press A ward 
(BIPA) and an award from the c=J.Association of Sports Writers of the State of ] We 
determined that the Petitioner did not establish that these awards are nationally or internationally 
recognized awards for excellence in the field of journalism." 
On motion, the Petitioner states that the BIP A "is one of the most important celebrations of Brazilian 
culture internationally," including "entries from Europe ... and Asia." In our appellate decision, we 
acknowledged international participation, but dete1mined that this does not establish the recognition 
of the award. The Petitioner does not explain how this conclusion was in error. 
Also on motion, the Petitioner lists other awards he received, or claims to have received. The Director 
addressed these other awards in the denial notice, but the Petitioner offered no specific defense of 
those awards on appeal. By not contesting the Director's conclusions on appeal, the Petitioner 
effectively abandoned those claims. 1 
With respect to certain claimed awards, such as the.__ _______ .....,Film Festival, the Director 
stated that the Petitioner submitted "no documentary evidence of these awards." The Petitioner did 
not dispute this particular finding on appeal. On motion, the Petitioner revisits this abandoned claim, 
1 See Matter of R-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 (BIA 2012) (stating that when a filing party fails to appeal an issue 
addressed in an adverse decision, that issue is waived). Sec also Sepulveda v. US. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 
(11th Cir. 2005), citing United States v. Cunningham, 161 F.3d 1343, 1344 (11th Cir. 1998); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-
CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *L *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (plaintiffs claims were abandoned as he failed to 
raise them on appeal to the AAO). See also Greenbriar, Ltd. v. City of Alabaster, 881 F.2d 1570, 1573 n.6 (11th Cir. 
1989) (stating that passing references to issues are insufficient to raise a claim for appeal, and such issues are deemed 
abandoned). 
4 
but rather than identify any evidence that he won an award at the festival, he asserts that the festival 
"is the premier event of its kind in North America," and that he "was recognized as having a significant 
impact and participation in [a prize-]winning documentary." Involvement in an award-winning film 
is not the same as receipt of a prize or award, which is what the regulation requires. 
The Petitioner has not established that we e1red in our appellate decision. 
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 classffication is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
In our appellate decision, we acknowledged the Petitioner's submission of published material about 
him, but we dete1mined that evidence to be deficient for various reasons: 
• An article about him on the website ofl I as submitted, did not include the title and author 
required by the regulation. As noted above, we determined that the Petitioner did not establish 
thad Is website constitutes major media. 
• A second onlinel I article was written by, rather than about, the Petitioner. 
• A 2018 podcast is deficient for several reasons: it occun-ed after the filing date; the partial 
transcript in the record did not clarify whether the podcast was about the Petitioner, as required, 
or instead the Petitioner participated in the podcast by providing commentary on a tennis 
match; and the Petitioner did not establish that the podcast constitutes major media. 
• Photographs of the Petitioner on celebritypictures.wiki, presented without comment, are not 
published materials about him, and the Petitioner did not establish that the website constitutes 
major media. 
On motion, the Petitioner repeats language from the earlier appellate brief, which does not establish 
en-or in the appellate decision that already addressed that brief. The Petitioner also quotes some of the 
materials submitted previously, but because our appellate decision did not dispute the content of the 
materials, quoting them does not establish en-or in that appellate decision. 
Evidence of the alien 's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for 1vhich classification is 
sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
In the denial notice, the Director acknowledged the Petitioner's claim to have been "the moderator for 
the~-----------~Intemational Press Awards andLJBrazil debates," but the 
5 
Director determined that the Petitioner submitted "no documentaiy evidence" to support these claims, 
and had not shown that the claimed work as a moderator entailed judging the work of others. 
On appeal, the Petitioner abandoned this claim, discussing instead his claim to have acted as "a judge 
for the 1994 I I Award."' We determined that the Petitioner had not established this 
judging activity was in the same or an allied field for which the Petitioner seeks classification. 
On motion, the Petitioner does not dispute our conclusion in the appellate decision. Instead, the 
Petitioner returns to th~ !events that he abandoned on appeal. The Petitioner provides no new 
information about these events, and no basis for concluding that our prior decision was in error. 
Evidence of the a lien's original scienttfic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
In the denial decision, the Director acknowledged the Petitioner's submission of letters from various 
athletes and journalists, attesting to the Petitioner's skills as a sports journalist. The Director 
concluded that the letters did not establish that the Petitioner has made original contributions of major 
significance to the field of journalism. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserted: "His contributions can be seen in his aiiistic style of reporting in 
most international sports events such as the.__~~--------.....," but did not elaborate. The 
Petitioner also highlighted his involvement in two short documentary films: ,__ _____ _.and 
I ~ 
In our appellate decision, we discussed the two documentary films and determined that the Petitioner 
had not shown them to be of major significance. 
On motion, the Petitioner again quotes from letters in the record, in which various individuals attest 
in general terms that the Petitioner is a talented and respected member of his field. As the Director 
already noted in the denial notice, general praise of this type does not identify specific contributions 
or show how they are of major significance in the Petitioner's field. 
The Petitioner does not address or rebut the specific conclusions in our appellate decision, and 
therefore, he has not shown that we erred in that decision. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening or reconsideration 
and has not overcome the grounds for dismissal of the appeal. The motion to reopen and motion to 
reconsider will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
6