dismissed EB-1A Case: Taekwondo

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF F-.1-G-R-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 8, 2018 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an International Taekwondo Federation (ITF) athlete and instructor, seeks 
classification as an individual of extraordinar)• ability in athletics. See Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act) sectiOt1 203(b)(I)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). This Jirst. preference classilication 
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 
Jield through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which he must meet at least three. The Petitioner appealed the matter to us, and we dismissed the 
appeal. 1 
The matter is now before us on joint motions to reopen and reconsider. With the motions, the 
Petitioner submits a letter and additional evidence, asserting that he meets at least three criteria. 
Upon review, we will deny the motions. 
I. LAW 
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. The requirements of a motion to reopen are 
located at 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5(a)(2), and the requirements of a motion to reconsider are located at 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants 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 tield through 
extensive documentation, 
1 
See Maller ofF-.1-G-R-. ID# 547045 (AAO Sept. 27, 2017). 
Mol/er of F-.1-Ci-R-
(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 two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is a major, 
internationally recognized award). Alternatively, he or she must provide documentation that meets 
at least three of the ten categories of evidence 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. 20 I 0) 
(discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a tina! merits detem1ination); see also 
Jlisinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 20 13); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.O. Wash. 2011 ). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually 
and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is 
probably true." Maller o(Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
As the Petitioner has not established that he has received a major, internationally recognized award, 
he must satisly at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In dismissing the 
appeal, we found that the Petitioner met the awards criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and the 
judging criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). On motion, the Petitioner maintains that he also 
meets the published material criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and the leading or critical role 
criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). He further argues that he qualities as an individual of 
extraordinary ability under section 203(b)( I )(A) of the Act. Upon review of all of the evidence, we 
conclude that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner meets the plain language requirements 
of at least three criteria, nor has he established the level of expertise required for the classification 
sought. · 
2 
.
Maller of F-J-G-R-
A. Motion to Reconsider 
Preliminarily, we acknowledge the Petitioner's reference to and reliance on evidence submitted for a 
previously filed petition For purposes of a motion to reconsider, the question 
is w hether our decision was correct based on the record that existed at the time o f adjudication. 
Therefore, while the Petitioner's references to his procedural history are noted, our review in 
adjudicating this motion will be limited to the instant record as constituted at the time of our 
appellate ad judication. . . 
With respect to the published material criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) , in addition to providing 
new evidence, which will be discussed as part of his motion to reopen, the Petitioner contends that 
he meets the criterion based on previously submitted evidence. Specitically, he asserts that our 
decision, which afforded little weight to th e published material b ased on the lack of complete 
English tra~slations,-was erroneous because said issue had never been raised by the Director. We 
disagree. 
The regulation requires t hat "[a]ny document containing foreign language submitted to [U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)] shall be accompanied ·by a full English language 
translation which the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's 
certification that he or she is· competent to translate from the foreign language into English." 
(Emphasis added.) 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The Director's denial, which focused primarily on the 
lack of evidence regarding circulation statistics of the publications , as well as the authors, dates, and 
names of publications in which the articles appeared, also noted that "[t]he petitioner must provide 
documentation which includes all of the information (e.g. name of publication , date it was published, 
complete translation ((applicable, and independent documentation to show that it qualifies as major 
media) on any published material si.1bmittcd to show that he meets this criterion." ( Emphasis added). 
Although the Petitioner was put on notice regarding the regulatory requirement for complete 
translations, he provided 31 articles and the transcript of a television interview on appeal to 
demonstrate his eligibility lor this criterion. As noted in our decision , most of those articles were in 
. Spanish and are accompanied by only summary or excerpt translations. An excerpt out of context 
does not allow a determination as to whether the published material i s, in fact, about the 
Petitioner. As the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § I 03.2(b)(3) requires the Petitioner to ensure that any 
foreign language document was "accompanied by a full English language translation," articles 
translated as excerpts have limited probative value. Consequently, we were unable to meaningfully 
determine at the time of adjudication whether the translated material was accurate and supportive. 
Moreover, vvc fo und that of the articles that were accompanied by f ull translations or written in 
English, only two mentioned the Petitioner. As noted in our decision, however, these articles were 
not about the Petitioner, but rather focused on events or organizations (i.e., the 1999 
tournament or taekwondo schools in Venezue la) . 
... 
.) 
.
Mauer 4F-.J-G-R -
Finally, although the Petitioner submitted evidence of his interview on we found that 
the record lacked the original source material and relevant publication information. Moreover, our 
review of the translated transcription of the interview demonstrated that it tocused on taekwondo 
training in general and nor the Peritioner. As such, the Petitioner has not shown t hat the evidence in 
the record at the time of our decision established he met the plain language of the criterion. 
Regarding the leading and critical role criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), the Petitioner asserts 
that we erred by not determinin g that hi~ roles· as the Director of Promotions for the 
as the president of the Chapter of and as 
the founder and president of the were 
leading or crirical as contemplated by the regulation. 
With regard to his roles as director of promotions and president of the Chapter of 
we determined that the letters submitted from the board of directors and the executi ve president of 
the organization did not demonstrate how the Petitioner, in these roles, fit into th e hierarchy of 
to show that they were leading or critical role. Specitica lly, we found that the letters 
described the Petitioner's roles in the o rganization in general terms, but did not establish the impact 
he had on the organization or its activities through corroborating evidence. On motion, the 
Petitioner assens that we erred in not affording the letters appropriate evidentiary weight. The 
Petitioner cites Maller oj'Skirh al/ Cultural Cent er, 25 l&N Dec. 799 (AAO 2012), which discusses the 
weight to be afforded to expert opinions in an unrelated nonimmigrant visa classification, stating: 
"USCIS may reject an expen opinion letter, or give it less weight, if it is not in accord with other 
intormation in the record or if it is in any way questionable. Maller <?l Caron International Inc., 19 
I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm' r 1988)." 
Contrary to the Petitioner's assertions, we did not find that evidence in the record explicitly cont~adictcd 
the letters. Rather, we found that t.hat the record lacked sufficient intonnation and evidence to support 
the conclusions in the letters. With respect to Matter of Skirha/1, that case involved a regulation that 
expressly requires the submission of affidavits from experts, holding that USCIS may not reject the 
tactual conclusions of experts if reliable, relevant, and probative. The regulation at issue in Maller of 
S kirb a/1 Cufwral Center, 8 C.F.R. § 2l4(p)(6)(ii), ex plicitl y req uires affi davits or letters from 
recognized experts attesting to the authenticity of the group. Conversely, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) does not specif)' that affidavits alone may satisfy this criterion. Expen testimony 
should "assist the trier of tact to understand the evidence or to detem1ine a tact in issue." Maller c!f 
D-R-, 25 l&N Dec. 445, 459 (BIA 2011 ). See also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 135 
(concluding that USCIS' decision to give limited weight to uncorroborated assertions from practitioners 
in the field was not arbitrary and capricious). 
In general , a leading role is evidenced from the role itself, and a critical role is one in which a 
petitioner was responsible tor the success or standing of the organization or establishment. Although 
the letters submitted praised the Petitioner's work for as both its director of promotions and 
the president ofhs Chapter, t he Petitioner has not shown error in our finding that the letters 
do not establish that the Petitioner's roles were leading or critical. 
4 
.
At/aller (~( F-J-C-R-
Moreover, the Petitioner asserts that we discounted its statements and numerous articles submitted in 
support of distingui shed reputation. Although the Petitioner claimed that 
repre sents Venezuela in international competitions, and numerous arti cle s were written abo ut the 
organization, the record at the time or adjudi cation contained little ev idence to demon strate that the 
government of Venezuela endorses or supports activitie s and that the organizati~n 
represents the country in international events. 2 Moreover, the articles sub mitted merely reference d 
in passing, and thu s arc insufficient to demonstrate that possesses a distinguished 
reputation . Con.sidered in the aggregate, the record failed to establish that has a 
distingui shed reputation at the time 9f adjudication. 
The Petition er also claimed that he played a leading and critical role as a to under and pres ident of the 
school, a marti al arts academy he began in 2009. We tound that the record lacked direc t 
evidence of the Petitioner's role in the tom1ation and management of the school. Upon 
review, however, the record as constituted demonstrates that the Petitioner played a leading role in the 
fonnation of the school and its ultimate operation. The Petitioner submitted copies of the school's 
articles of inco rporation and bylaws, which demon strate that the Petition er was appointed the entity's 
president at the time of incorporation . Further documentation demon strates that as the school' s director, 
he has monitored and overseen instructors and represented the school at various events, and has 
additionally provided instruction to students as needed. A letter from the school' s v ice-president 
outlines the Petitioner's roles and responsibilities, noting that he has. overseen the school's advertising, 
defined the school's mission and trajectory, and been responsible tor hiring and supervising staff as 
appropriate. 
This criterion , however, also require s that the organizations or establishments in which a Petitioner 
holds a leading or critical role must be recogni zed as having a distingu ished reputati on, which is 
marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence. 3 Here, even if the Petiti oner's role as a fo unde r and 
president of the School is considered leading or critical, the record at the time of our appellate 
decision did not contain evidence demonstrating that the school had a disting uished reputa tion. The 
Petitioner assened that is known in Venezuela as one or the best schools," 
and claims that the school has won numerous awards during its eight years of existence. In addition to 
the list of titles he claim s were· attained by the school , such as in various 
tournaments , the Petitioner submitted photograph s of tournament trophie s. Upon revie w, however, 
these photographs do not identi f)' the recipients or verify that the school received the 
awards , nor is there independent documentary evidence or compar ative statistics to corroborate the 
claimed wins or their significance . 
1 The Petitioner correctly notes on appeal that there is no req!Jirement that a government support an organization. 
However, our decision referenced lack of evidence of government endorsement not as a requirement for showing 
distinguished reputation, but in determining whether the record supported the Petitioner's statements that it represented 
the country at international events. 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADII-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https:/ 
/www .usc is.gov/sites/defai.J lt/ti les/ocomm/i I i nk/0-0-0-6423 .htm I. 
5 
.
Mauer (?fF-J-G-R-
The Petitioner also submitted numerous testimoni al letters, such as a letter from executive 
president ,
4 which states that is known by o ther members of the 
communit y as the best schoo l of in Venez uela." A letter from the school's vice president 
further claims that it is "widely renowned as one of the best schools in Venezuela," noting 
that its "countless awards" are the main indicator s of success in its field. The record, however, did not 
contain independent, objective evidence to substantiate these claims. For examp le, docwnentation in 
the record suggests that there are numerous other schools in Venezuela and abroad that 
routinely participate in the same com petitions as the schoo l. While the Petitioner asserts 
that its students routinely win medals and are top finishers in various events and tournament s, there is 
insufficient ev idence corroborating these claims, and notably there is no evidence to show how the 
Petitioner's compe titor schoo ls fare in these same competition s. Therefore , while the Petitioner 
present ed an article s tating that his students won 14 gold medals at the 
tournament and received the title of the significance of this o ne 
achievem ent alone does not estab lish that the school is marked by emine nce relative to other schools 
that may have also won similar medals and titles. 
The Petitioner did not establi sh that the school enjoy s a distingui shed reputa tion. 
Therefore , while the record may demon strate that the Petitioner held a leading role in the 
organization , and that it participated in numerou s competition s and other events, it does not establish 
that the schoo l's status is at a level of distinction. 
·, 
The argumen ts the Petitioner offe rs on motion do not estab lish that our appellat e fi nding s were based 
on an incorrec t application of the law, regu lation, or US CIS policy, nor does the motion demo nstrate 
that our latest decision was erroneous based on the evidence before us at the time of the deci sion. 
Ther efore, the motion to recon sider is denied. 
B. Motion to Reopen 
In support of his motion to reopen , the Petitioner offe rs further evidence for the pub lished materia l 
criteri on at 8 C.F. R. § 204.5( h)(3)( iii).5 Spec ifically, he submit s certified translations of all 
publi shed mate rial that was previous ly s ubmi tted on appeal. In add iti on, he submit s a transc ript o f a 
recent televis ion interview along with a CD which contains the actua l foo tage of the interv iew. 
Regardin g the telev ision interview, the Petition er submits docum entation demonstrating that he was 
interviewed by a televi sio n show broadc ast for one hour on Satu rdays and 
Sundays via var ious cable prov iders. Although he submitte d a transcr ipt of the interview, the 
evidence does not include the title, date, and author of the med ia interview. Moreover , while he 
4 
We note that executive president, claims to be the vice-president of the 
school. This statement directly contradicts a letter from who also claims to be the vice-
president ofthe 
5 The Petitioner docs not state and new facts or documentary evidence pertaining to the leading or critical role criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
6 
.
Maller ofF-J-G-R-
submitted a translation of webpage, the Petitioner has not offered supporting 
documentation establishing that the listed channel is major media. Finally, while the exact date of this 
interview was not provided, he acknowledges that this interview took place after liling. The Petitioner 
must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisf"l ed from 
the time of the tiling and continuing through adjudication. 8 C. F. R. § I 03 .2(b )( I). 
The translations of the previously submitted articles are likewise insufficient to demonstrate that the 
Petitioner has satisfied the published material criterion. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.2(b)(3) 
requires the Petitioner to include the title, date, and author of the published material. A review of the 
articles submitted indicates that at least half of the articles omit either the author, the date of 
publication, the name of the publication, or evidence such as circulation statistics to demonstrate the 
qualifying nature of the publication. Of those remaining, numerous articles mention the Petitioner 
by name as either a competitor or organizer of various competitions or exhibitions. These articles, 
however, are not about the Petitioner and his work in the field of endeavor. One article, appea ring in 
brictly discusses the Petitioner's career in martial arts; however, this article does 
not identify the author. 
As the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, or that. he meets at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3), the motion to reopen will be denied. 
III. CONCLUS ION 
In summary, the Petitioner's motion to reconside r does not demonstrate that our previous decision 
was incorrect and the evidence provided in support of his motion to reopen does not overcome the 
grounds underlying our previous decision. Specifically, the record does not include the required 
initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten 
criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Furtherm·ore, even if he had met a third criterion, the 
Petitioner's evidence is not sufticient to establish that he has s ustained national or international 
acclaim, or that he is one of the small percentage at the very top of his field of endeavor. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTH ER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter ofF-.J-G-R-, ID# 11 07933 (AAO May 8, 2018) 
7