dismissed EB-1A Case: Water Polo Coaching

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10406687 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Pr ecedent Decision of the 
Administrati ve Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 24, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a water polo coach, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, and we subsequently dismissed the 
appeal. 1 The matter is now before us on a combined motion to reconsider and motion to reopen. 
In these proceeding s, it is the Petitioner' s burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will deny the motions. 
I. LAW 
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 recognition 
of his or her 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 he or she must provide 
sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria 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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not 
readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits detennination 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). 
( 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 final merits determination); see also 
1 See In Re: 4992052 (Jan. 7, 2020). 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
Further, a motion to reconsider is based on an incorrect application of law or policy, and a motion to 
reopen is based on documentary evidence of new facts. The requirements of a motion to reconsider 
are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3), and the requirements of a motion to reopen are located at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility 
for the requested immigration benefit. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Judicial Proceeding Statement 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(iii) requires the motion to be "[a]ccompanied by a statement 
about whether or not the validity of the unfavorable decision has been or is the subject of any judicial 
proceedings and, if so, the court, nature, date, and status or result of the proceeding." The Petitioner, 
however, did not include the required statement. Therefore, the Petitioner's motions do not meet the 
applicable requirements. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
At initial filing, the Petitioner claimed eligibility under six categories of evidence: awards under 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), memberships under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), published material under 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), judging under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), leading or critical role under 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), and high salary under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 2 In response to the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner maintained her eligibility for four criteria relating 
to memberships, judging, leading or critical role, and high salary. In addition, she claimed comparable 
evidence under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). In denying the petition, the Director discussed 
the eligibility claims and evidence and determined that the Petitioner did not satisfy any of the criteria. 
On appeal, as discussed in our decision, the Petitioner did not specifically identify any erroneous 
conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. Instead, the Petitioner submitted additional 
documentation indicating eligibility under three criteria: awards, memberships, and high salary. In 
fact, the Petitioner provided an "Index of Tabs" without any brief or statement that challenged any of 
the Director's determinations. 3 Accordingly , we discussed the evidence relating to awards contained 
in the record, including the evidence provided on appeal, and determined that she did not demonstrate 
her eligibility for the awards criterion. Since the Petitioner only offered evidence relating to three 
criteria on appeal and provided no arguments relating to any other criteria, we concluded that we did 
2 The Petitioner's initial cover letter cited to 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(i), a classification for outstanding professors and researchers , 
for some of the criteria. 
3 The "Index of Tabs" on appeal reflects: "Tab 19 - The USCIS on December 26, 20 I 8, Tab 120 [sic] - Support for the 
Criterion Membership in Association That Require Outstanding Achievements ," "Tab 21 - Support of Criterion of 
Significantly High Remuneration for Services ," and "Tab 22 - Nationally Recognized Award." The Petitioner's tabs from 
the initial filing and the RFE response were labeled Tab I - Tab 18. 
2 
not need to reach a decision on the membership and published material criteria as she could not meet 
at least three criteria. As such, we reserved determinations on those issues.4 
On motion, the Petitioner argues that we "analyzed one criterion (Awards)" and "erroneously 
concluded that [the] Petitioner only relied on two more criteria - Membership and High Salary" and 
"failed the de nova review standard by not looking at all criteria claimed by [the] Petitioner." We 
exercise de nova review of all issues of fact, law, policy, and discretion. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 
I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). This means that we look at the record anew and are not required to defer 
to findings made in the initial decision. Furthermore, our decision may address new issues that were 
not raised or resolved in the prior decision. However, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that our de 
nova review authority also requires us to evaluate and address all previous eligibility claims or other 
prior arguments that were not raised or not contested on appeal. 
Moreover, the Petitioner contends that she "never waive[d] any of her claims." However, the 
Petitioner waived those claims when she did not assert them on appeal. See Getty Oil Co. v. Andrus, 
607 F.2d 253, 255-56 (9th Cir.1979) (the court concluded that the law does not require the plaintiff to 
affirmatively waive claims; instead, he waives claims if he fails to assert them on appeal). Further, 
we generally do not address issues that are not raised with specificity on appeal. Issues or claims that are 
not raised on appeal are deemed to be waived. See, e.g., Matter of M-A-S-, 24 I&N Dec. 762, 767 n.2 
(BIA 2009). See also Sepulveda v. US. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov 
v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the court 
determined the plaintiff's claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish that we erroneously applied law or 
policy. Accordingly, we will dismiss her motion to reconsider. 
C. Motion to Reopen 
The Petitioner submits photographic copies of a plaque and monument and claims the evidence shows 
her eligibility under the awards criterion and as comparable evidence. Under the Petitioner's "Index," 
she asserts, "Tab 24 - Evidence of Monument and Plate in the city of~-----~ placed in 
2019 for raising status ofl I internationally and significant contribution in development of 
physical education and sport in the country (achieved prior to filing underlying Fmm I-140 petition)." 
She filed the petition on December 29, 2017, and the plaque indicates I 12019." Here, the 
evidence does not support her assertion that she received the award prior to the filing of the petition. 
The Petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the benefit request. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). 
Regardless, the plaque reflects issuance from the .__ ____________ _.' and signed by 
the mayor ot1 I The Petitioner did not establish that this local or regional award represents 
a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in the field. She did not provide 
supporting evidence showing the significance or recognition of the award in the field. In addition, as 
the Petitioner waived her claim of comparable evidence on appeal, we will not address it on motion. 
4 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach). 
3 
The documentation submitted on motion does not demonstrate that she meets the awards criterion, as 
well as at least three evidentiary criteria. Accordingly, we will deny her motion to reopen. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown that we inc01Tectly applied law or policy in our previous decision based 
on the record before us, nor does her new evidence on motion establish that she meets at least three 
criteria. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
4