dismissed EB-1A Case: Taekwondo

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionofpersonalprivacy
PUBLICCOPY
U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO)
20 MassachusettsAve.,N.W., MS2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
8 U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: OFFICE:TEXASSERVICECENTER
JUL102012
IN RE:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien Workerasan Alien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct; 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind the decisionof the AdministrativeAppealsOffice in your case. All of the
documentsrelatedtothismatterhavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Please
beadvisedthatanyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadetothatoffice.
If youbelievetheAAO inappropriatelyappliedthelawin reachingitsdecision,or youhaveadditional
informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,youmayfile amotionto reconsideror amotionto reopen
inaccordancewiththeinstructionsonFormI-290B,NoticeofAppealorMotion,withafeeof $630.The
specificrequirementsfor filing suchamotioncanbefoundat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5.Do not file any motion
directly with the AAO. Pleasebeawarethat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresanymotionto befiled
within30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseekstoreconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscus.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION:TheDirector,TexasServiceCenter,deniedtheemployment-basedimmigrantvisa
petitiononJanuary27,2010.TheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)dismissedthepetitioner's
appealof that decisionon July 5, 2011. The matteris now beforethe AAO on a motion to
reconsider.Themotionwill bedismissed,thepreviousdecisionof theAAO will beaffirmed,and
thepetitionwill remaindenied.
In the decisionof the AAO dismissingthe petitioner'soriginalappeal,the AAO foundthat the
petitionerfailedto meetanyof thecriteriaundertheregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3),of which
at leastthreeare required. Specifically,the AAO distinctivelyand thoroughlydiscussedthe
petitioner'sevidenceanddeterminedthatthepetitionerfailedto establisheligibility for theawards
criterionpursuantto theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i),membershipcriterionpursuantto
the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii),the publishedmaterialcriterionpursuantto the
regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii),theartisticdisplaycriterionpursuantto theregulationat 8
C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii),andthe leadingor criticalrole criterionpursuantto the regulationat 8
C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii).Furthermore,theAAO determinedthatthepetitionerdidnotmeetthe
regulatoryrequirementsfor the submissionof comparableevidencepursuantto theregulationat 8
C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(4).Finally,pursuantto Kazarianv. USCIS,596F.3d1115(9thCir.2010),the
AAO conducteda final meritsdeterminationthatconsideredall of theevidenceandfoundthatthe
petitionerdid notdemonstrate:(1) a "level of expertiseindicatingthattheindividualis oneof that
smallpercentagewhohaverisentotheverytopof the[ir] fieldof endeavor,"8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2);
and (2) "that the alien has sustainednationalor internationalacclaim and that his or her
achievementshavebeenrecognizedin the field of expertise."Seesection203(b)(1)(A)(i)of the
Act,8U.S.C.§ l 153(b)(1)(A)(i),and8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).
Onmotion,thepetitionerclaims:
Perthedenial,lettersfrom andthe
arenot sufficientto prove
nationalor internationalacclaim.Thisis erroneous.Thefameof thesefederations
andthefactthatthePresidentsof this[sic]organizationsarewritingonbehalfof this
[petitioner]isenoughto satisfythisrequirement.
Documentationof the alien's memberships- we believethe decisionthat the
[petitioner]did not provethemembershiprequirementsto be flawed. "ITF' is the
A simple search would show this
organizationisheldto ahighstandard;thusits membersareof thehighestcaliberin
theirfieldof taekwon-do.
Publishedmaterials- Thedenialwishesto belittlethe[petitioner's]statusin written
articlesclaimingshewasonlylistedasanameor in 2 sentences.Thisis erroneous.
Any mentionof the [petitioner]andher achievementsareextraordinary- evenif
thoseaccomplishmentsarewithateam.
In orderto properlyfile a motion,the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(iii)requiresthat the
motionmustbe"[a]ecompaniedby a statementaboutwhetheror notthevalidityof theunfavorable
Page3
decisionhasbeenor is thesubjectof anyjudicial proceedingand,if so,thecourt,nature,date,and
statusor resultof theproceeding."Furthermore,theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(4)requires
that"[a] motionthatdoesnot meetapplicablerequirementsshallbedismissed.In this case,the
petitionerfailedto submita statementregardingif thevalidityof thedecisionof theAAO hasbeen
or is subjectof anyjudicialproceeding.
Notwithstandingtheabove,amotiontoreconsidermuststatethereasonsfor reconsiderationandbe
supportedby any pertinentprecedentdecisionsto establishthat the decisionwasbasedon an
incorrectapplicationof lawor U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS)policy. 8 C.F.R.
§ 103.5(a)(3).A motionto reconsiderconteststhecorrectnessof theoriginaldecisionbasedonthe
previousfactualrecord,asopposedto amotionto reopenwhichseeksanewhearingbasedonnew
or previouslyunavailableevidence.SeeMatterofCerna,20I&N Dec.399,403(BIA 1991).
A motionto reconsidercannotbeusedto raisea legalargumentthatcouldhavebeenraisedearlier
in the proceedings.Rather,the "additionallegalarguments"that may be raisedin a motion to
reconsidershouldflow from newlaw or a denovolegaldeterminationreachedin its decisionthat
maynothavebeenaddressedbytheparty. Furtheramotiontoreconsiderisnotaprocessby which
a partymay submit,in essence,the samebrief presentedon appealandseekreconsiderationby
generallyallegingerrorin thepriordecision.Instead,themovingpartymustspecifythefactualand
legalissuesraisedonappealthatweredecidedin erroror overlookedin theinitial decisionor must
showhowa changein law materiallyaffectstheprior decision.SeeMatterof Medrano,20 I&N
Dec.216,219(BIA 1990,1991).
In the casehere,the motionto reconsiderdoesnot allegethat the issues,as raisedon appeal,
involvedtheapplicationof precedentto anovelsituation,or thatthereisnewprecedentor achange
in law thataffectstheAAO's prior decision.Instead,thepetitionersimplydisagreeswith certain
findingswithin AAO's decisionregardingtheawardscriterion,themembershipcriterion,andthe
publishedmaterialcriterion. Moreover,thepetitionerdoesnotcontestthefindingsof theAAO for
the artistic display criterion, the leadingor critical role criterion, the comparableevidence
requirement,andthefinal meritsdetermination.TheAAO, therefore,considerstheseissuesto be
abandonedonmotion.SeeSepulvedav. U.S.Att'yGen,401F.3d1226,1228n.2 (11thCir.2005);
Hristov v. Roark,No. 09-CV-27312011,2011WL 4711885at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y.Sept.30,2011)
(thecourtfoundtheplaintiff's claimsto beabandonedashefailedto raisethemon appealto the
AAO).
Regardingthe issuesraisedby the petitioneron motion, the AAO thoroughlyaddressedand
analyzedall of thepetitioner'sdocumentaryevidence,includingthedocumentaryevidencereferred
by thepetitioneronmotion,anddeterminedthatit didnotmeettheplainlanguageof theregulation
at 8 C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(3)(i)-(iii).Thepetitionergenerallyclaimsthedecisionwas"erroneous"
without demonstratingthat the decisionwasbasedon an incorrectapplicationof law or USCIS
policy andwasnot supportedby anypertinentprecedentdecisions.As notedabove.a motionto
reconsidermustincludespecificallegationsastohowtheAAO erredasamatterof factor lawin its
priordecision,andit mustbesupportedbypertinentlegalauthority.Again,a motionto reconsider
is nota processby whicha partymayseekreconsiderationby generallyallegingerrorin theprior
decisionwithoutdemonstratingthatthe decisionwasbasedon anincorrectapplicationof law or
Page4
USCISpolicy. Themovingpartymustspecifythe factualandlegalissuesraisedon appealthat
weredecidedin error or overlookedin the initial decisionor must showhow a changein law
materiallyaffectstheprior decision.SeeMatterof O-S-G-,24 I&N Dec.56, 60 (BIA 2006).
Simply disagreeingwith a decisionbasedon a matterof opinion,as opposedto an incorrect
applicationof law,precedentdecision,or USCISpolicy,is insufficienttomeettherequirementsof a
motionto reconsiderpursuanttotheregulationat8C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(3).
Theburdenof proofin visapetitionproceedingsremainsentirelywiththepetitioner.Section291of
theAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1361.Here,thepetitionerhasnotsustainedthatburden.
ORDER: Themotionto reconsideris dismissed,thedecisionof theAAO datedJuly5,2011,
isaffim1ed,andthepetitionremainsdenied.