dismissed O-1A Case: Taekwondo

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 9594554 
Motion on Administrate Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : SEPT . 24, 2020 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability- 0) 
The Petitioner , a taekwondo school , seeks to extend the Beneficiary's classification as an 0-1 
nonimmigrant, a visa classification available to foreign nationals who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have 
been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. 1 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center (VSC) denied the petition, concluding that the Beneficiary 
did not satisfy, as required , the alternative evidentiary criteria applicable to individuals of 
extraordinary ability in athletics , either a major, internationally recognized award or at least three of 
eight possible forms of documentation . We subsequently dismissed the Petitioner's appeal. 2 
The matter is now before us on a motion to reconsider. Upon review, we will deny the motion . 
I. LAW 
As relevant here, section 101(a)(15)(O)(i) of the Act establishes 0-1 classification for an individual who 
has extraordinary ability in the sciences , arts, education , business , or athletics that has been demonstrated 
by sustained national or international acclaim, whose achievements have been recognized in the field 
through extensive documentation , and who seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area 
of extraordinary ability. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations define "extraordinary 
ability in the field of science, education, business , or athletics" as "a level of expertise indicating that the 
person is one of the small percentage who have arisen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(ii). 
Next, DHS regulations set forth alternative evidentiary criteria for establishing a beneficiary's 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of achievements. A petitioner may submit evidence either 
of "a major, internationally recognized award, such as a Nobel Prize," or of at least three of eight listed 
categories of documents . 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A)-(B). 
1 The Petitioner seeks to continue to employ the Beneficiary as a taekwondo headmaster. 
2 See Matter of P-G-T- Inc., ID# 4426688 (AAO Oct. 16, 2019) . 
The submission of documents satisfying the initial evidentiary criteria does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for 0-1 classification . See 59 Fed. Reg. 41818, 41820 (Aug. 15, 1994) ("The 
evidence submitted by the petitioner is not the standard for the classification, but merely the 
mechanism to establish whether the standard has been met.") Accordingly, where a petitioner 
provides qualifying evidence satisfying the initial evidentiary criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of the record and the quality of the evidence shows sustained national or international acclaim 
such that the individual is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 
section 101(a)(15)(o)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii), (iii).3 
Further, a motion to reconsider is based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The requirements 
of a motion to reconsider are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). We may grant a motion that satisfies 
these requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
II. BACKGROUND 
The record reflects that the Beneficiary initially received 0-1 nonimmigrant classification in 2002,4 
along with ten extensions of his status from 2004 to 2018. 5 However, the Director determined in the 
Petitioner's last extension request that it did not establish that the Beneficiary received a major, 
internationally recognized award or satisfied any of the eight categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l)-(8) as an athlete, instructor, or both. Specifically, the Director concluded the 
Petitioner provided evidence relating to four categories of evidence: awards under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l), memberships under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(B)(iii)(2), published material 
under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(B)(iii)(3), and judging under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(4), but the 
Beneficiary did not meet any of them. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argued that the Director denied its petition "after reviewing the case based 
on the recently published memorandum" that "rescinded the guidance regarding deference to prior 
approvals of petitions for extension of nonimmigrant status." However, we determined that the 
Director properly followed policy guidance, reviewed the record and evidence, and found the 
Petitioner's documentation insufficient to demonstrate the Beneficiary's eligibility. 6 In addition, the 
Petitioner claimed that "[i]t is unreasonable to expect an applicant to receive a major, internationally­
recognized award on a regular basis in between the 0-1 extensions." We concluded that the Director's 
decision did not indicate that she required the Beneficiary to receive major, internationally recognized 
awards between extensions, as alleged by the Petitioner. Instead, as indicated in her decision, the 
Director explained that since the Petitioner did not claim that the Beneficiary received a major, 
internationally recognized award, such as a Nobel Prize, it must show that he satisfied at least three of 
the eight evidentiary criteria. Further, although the Petitioner did not contest the Director's evidentiary 
criteria determinations, we reviewed the record and discussed each of the four claimed criteria and 
decided that the Beneficiary did not fulfill any of them. 
3 See also Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010), in which we held that, "truth is to be determined not 
by thr QJl8D1itv afevideTe alone but by its quality." 
4 See with a validity period from November 9, 2002 to July 1, 2004. 
5 See _______ ~ith a validity period from July 2, 2015 to July 1, 2018, for the most recent extension approval. 
6 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0151, Rescission of Guidance Regarding Deference to Prior Determinations 
of Eligibility in the Adjudication of Petitions for Extension of Nonimmigrant Status, 3 (Oct. 23, 2017), 
2 
III. ANALYSIS 
A. Jurisdiction 
In Part 2 of Form I-290B , Notice of Appea l or Motion, the Petitioner indicates the filing of the motion 
to reconsider the decision of the "Vermont Service Center" on November 21, 2018 . However, we 
dismissed the appeal on October 16, 2019. The official having jurisdiction is the official who made 
the latest decision in the proceeding. See 8 C.F .R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii) . In this case, we maintain 
jurisdiction of the motion as the latest decision involved dismissing the appeal. 
B. Judicial Proceeding Statement 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(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 motion does not meet the 
applicable requirements. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
C. Motion to Reconsider 
On motion , the Petitioner contends: 
VSC denied the instant 0-1 petition based on the reasoning that the beneficiary has 
failed to sustain his international acclaim in the sport of taekwondo . We agree with the 
VSC 's analysis in part at its principled application to the new memo , however, we 
believe the instant petition should have been afforded a degree of favorable 
discretionary consideration pursuant to the same memo that the decision was based on. 
[The Petitioner 's] previou s 0-1 petitions on behalf of [the Beneficiary] have always 
been based on true and accurate records and all of the submitted materials have always 
been meritorious . There were no material errors in prior adjudications . In addition , 
[the Beneficiary] has always been a model citizen of his community who has never 
committed any crimes nor ever violated the terms of his non-immigrant status. 
Utilizing his unique knowledge and experience grained from world class competitions , 
[ the Beneficiary] has been focused on enriching the students ' minds with discipline and 
moral righteousness while at the same time improving their physical conditions through 
practice of taekwondo . 
A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent 
precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or 
http://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy-memoranda (providing that an adjudicato r's fact-fmdin g authority should not 
be constrained by any prior petition approv al, but instead, should be based on the merits of each case). 
3 
Service policy. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Here, the Petitioner makes arguments referring to VSC's 
decision rather than our latest decision dismissing the appeal. In fact, the Petitioner does not mention 
or contest our decision. Although the Petitioner claims that the "petition should have been afforded a 
favorable consideration through VSC's discretion in the name of fairness and justice," we reviewed 
the record and concluded that the Director properly followed policy guidance regarding prior 
adjudications. Further, we discussed the Petitioner's documentation providing an analysis for each of 
the claimed four criteria. 
Regardless of prior 0-1 nonimmigrant approvals, the Petitioner did not show that the Beneficiary 
satisfied at least three categories of evidence. The Petitioner does not address or contest this 
determination. Further, we are not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not 
been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g., Matter 
of Church Scientology International, l 9 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988); see also La. Philharmonic 
Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000) (providing that we are not 
bound by prior decisions of a service center or district director). 
As the Petitioner did not demonstrate that we erroneously applied law or policy, the Petitioner did not 
establish that the motion meets the regulatory requirements. Therefore, we will deny the motion to 
reconsider. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown that our previous decision dismissing the appeal was incorrect based on 
the record before us. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
4