dismissed P-1 Case: Boxing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 22458706 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 4, 2022 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (Athlete, Artist, or Entertainer - P) 
The Petitioner, a boxing promotional and management company, seeks to extend the Beneficiary's 
classification as an internationally recognized athlete. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
Section 101(a)(15)(P)(i)(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(P)(i)(a). This P-1 classification makes 
nonimmigrant visas available to certain high performing athletes and coaches. Sections 204(i)(2) and 
214(c)(4)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1154(i)(2) , 1184(c)(4)(A). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary was coming to the United States solely to participate in 
distinguished competitions that require an athlete with an international reputation. See Sections 
101(a)(15)(P)(i) and 214(c)(4)(A)(i)(I) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(p)(l)(ii)(A)(l), (4)(i)(A). We 
dismissed the Petitioner's appeal of that decision. The Petitioner subsequently filed a combined 
motion to reopen and reconsider, which we dismissed as untimely filed. 1 The matter is now before us 
on a second motion to reopen and reconsider in which the Petitioner contends that the lateness of its 
prior untimely motion may be excused because such lateness was beyond its control. 
Upon review , we will reopen the matter in order to consider the merits of the previously filed motion 
to reopen . However, for the reasons discussed below, the combined motion currently before us will 
be dismissed. 
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 (1) 
1 The record reflects that we dismissed the Petitioner 's appeal and mailed the decision to the Petitioner and counsel on 
March 11, 2021. During the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic , U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
issued guidance that Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion , would be accepted if filed within 60 days of the 
unfavorable decision . Based on this extended deadline , the Petitioner 's previous motion would have been deemed timely 
filed if received by USC IS on or before May 13, 2021 , which includes the60-day period plus three days for mailing. The 
record shows the Petitioner first attempted to file the previous combined motion to reopen and reconsider on 
April 12, 2021. On May 28, 2021, USCIS issued a notice rejecting the filing because " [t]hepayment amount is incorrect 
or has not been provided. " Thereafter , the Petitioner filed the previous motion with the proper fee on June 7, 2021, 88 
days after we issued the unfavorable decision , thus causing the motion to be untimely. 
state the reasons for reconsideration and establish that the decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or USCIS policy, and (2) establish that the decision was incorrect based on the 
evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5(a)(3). 
To merit reopening, a petitionerrnustnot only meet the formal filing requirements ( such as submission 
of a properlycornpletedFonnI290B, 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
As a preliminary matter, we note that by regulation, the scope of a motion is limited to "the prior 
decision." 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(i). In this case, the prior decision at issue is our dismissal of the 
previous combined motion, which was untimely filed. 
A. Motion to Reconsider 
Although the Petitioner indicates that it is filing a combined motion to reopen and reconsider, the 
Petitioner does not contend that the dismissal of the previous motion was incorrect based on the 
evidence ofrecord at the time of the initial decision. The Petitioner concedes that the previous motion 
was untimely and does not claim that our dismissal decision was based on an incorrect application of 
law or policy. The motion to reconsider does not satisfy the regulatory requirements at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(3) and will be dismissed. 
B. Motion to Reopen 
The Petitioner's motion to reopen is based on a claim that the delayed filing of its previous motion 
may be excused at our discretion. Specifically, the regulations permit the review of an untimely filed 
motion to reopen where the untimeliness is shown to have been reasonable and beyond a petitioner's 
control. See 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5(a). The Petitioner has established with the current motion to reopen that 
the late filing of its first motion to reopen was beyond its control. We will therefore reopen the matter 
for the purpose of reviewing the merits of the first motion to reopen. 2 
The sole issue we will discuss is whether the Petitioner submitted new facts or evidence in support of 
the previously filed motion to reopen demonstrating that the Beneficiary would be corning to the 
United States solely to participate in distinguished competitions that require an athlete with an 
international reputation. 
1. AAO Appellate Decision 
In our appellate decision, we concluded that the Petitioner did not meet its burden to establish that the 
Beneficiary would be coming to the United States solely to participate in distinguished competitions 
2 There is no comparable provision with respect toa motion to reconsider. 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a). As such, we cannot excuse 
the untimely filing of the Petitioner's previous motion to reconsider and will not address themerits ofthatmotion here. 
2 
that require an athlete with an international reputation. We noted that in its initial filing, the Petitioner 
submitted a sample boxing schedule of "hypothetical matches" that had not been set but also included 
a title fight actually scheduled to take placeinl I Texas, in September 2019. We agreed with the 
Director's conclusion that the Petitioner's sample schedule did not demonstrate the Beneficiary will 
actually participate in athletic competitions that have a distinguished reputation, as "a tentative, 
hypothetical schedule of future boxing matches and the concession on the schedule stating that the 
events are 'not real' indicates that these are not definite events but rather, represent the types of 
competitions in which the beneficiary intends or hopes to participate." 
In addition, we determined that the record did not support the Petitioner's contention that the submitted 
hypothetical schedule is normal in boxing. The Petitioner argued that boxing matches are "almost 
never scheduled years in advance" and the provided sample schedule of hypothetical fights is normal 
in boxing. In support, the Petitioner submitted a letter froml l a Texas boxing 
promoter, stating that a lcannotprovide a schedule for "his next several years ofboxingmatches" 
because "[t]hese things are not done four or five years in advance because they cannot be done far in 
advance." (emphasis in original). I I further stated that "I never have been able to reliably 
provide a boxer's itinerary beyond about six months into the future." We observed that although the 
letter from I claimed that boxing schedules cannot be set for years in advance or, i 
I I personal experience, after six months, the Petitioner's sample schedule only included an actual 
boxingmatch setto occur weeks after the filing of the petition with the next three hypothetical matches 
set to occur within about six months after the time of filing. These factors indicated the Petitioner did 
not submit a normal sample schedule of the Beneficiary's competitions. 
Fmiher, although the record includes mention of the Beneficiary being scheduled to participate in a 
title fight in September 2019, it does not contain any documentation on the proposed fight or any of 
the other hypothetical events listed in the Beneficiary's sample boxing schedule, and the Petitioner did 
not exp lain why it was not ab le to provide documentation of these proposed events. 
Additionally, with regard to provided statements froJ !representative of the World Boxing 
Bureau, submitted after the time of filing the petition asse1iing the Beneficiary would be fighting in 
title matches in November 2019 and April 2020, we found that while adding additional events after 
the time of filing may be permissible in certain situations, the Petitioner did not show that at the time 
of filing the Beneficiary intended to compete in events with distinguished reputations that require the 
participation of athletes with international reputations. We noted that a petitioner must establish that 
all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing 
and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b )( 1 ), ( 12). 
Finally, we noted that, although on appeal the Petitioner referenced a letter from 
commissioner of the Oklahoma State Athletic Commission, claiming that an international boxer such 
as the Beneficiary would only be allowed to participate in boxing matches against "other 
internationally ranked boxers with similar ranking and skills," none of the hypothetical boxing 
matches provided in the Beneficiary's sample schedule were set to take place in Oklahoma, and the 
Petitioner did not provide evidence from commissioners in relevant locations indicating the 
hypothetical matches would only be against other internationally ranked boxers with similar ranking 
and skills. Based on the above, our appellate decision concluded that the Petitioner has not met its 
burden to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed competitions have a 
3 
distinguished reputation and require participation of athletes who have international reputations. See 
Section 214(c)(4)(A)(ii)(I) of the Act; 8 e.F.R. § 214.2(p)(4)(i)(A), (ii)(A). 
2. Previous Motion to Reopen 
In its previous motion, the Petitioner reasserted that the Beneficiary "would fight similarly skilled 
professional boxers who are similarly ranked in BoxRec's international rankings .... " The Petitioner 
provided several additional documents, includin a new boxing contract dated April 2021 for a May 
2021 bout between the Beneficiary and 3 a printout from www.boxrec.com for 
and an additional letter from asserting that it is "industry practice" to 
"match up similarly skilled boxers." 
The users Policy Manual specifies: 
Relevant considerations for determining whether competitions are at an internationally 
recognized level of performance such that they require the participation of an 
internationally recognized athlete or team include, but are not limited to: 
• The level of viewership, attendance, revenue, and major media coverage of the 
events; 
• The extent of past participation by internationally recognized athletes or teams; 
• The international ranking of athletes competing; or 
• Documented merits requirements for participants. 
If the record shows the participation of internationally recognized caliber competitors 
is currently unusual or uncommon, this may indicate that the event may not currently 
be at an internationally recognized level of performance. In addition, while not 
necessarily determinative, the fact that a competition is open to competitors at all skill 
levels may be a relevant negative factor in analyzing whether it is at an internationally 
recognized level of performance. If the event includes differentiated categories of 
competition based on skill level, the focus should be on the reputation and level of 
recognition of the specific category of competition in which the athlete or team seeks 
to participate. 
2 USCIS Policy ManualN.2(A)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-2-part-n-chapter-2; 
see also users Policy Alert PA-2021-04, Additional Guidance Relating to P-IA Internationally 
Recognized Athletes 1-2 (Mar. 26, 2021 ), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policy­
manual-updates/20210326-Athletes.pdf. 
The Petitioner's previous motion does not contain evidence sufficient to establish that the 
Beneficiary's intended matches qualify as events that "require an internationally recognized athlete." 
8 e.F.R. § 214.2(p)(4)(i)(A). The Petitioner has not presented evidence relating to "[t]he level of 
3 We note that the new boxing contract did not state the bout would take place in Oklahoma, as the Petitioner asserted; 
,.ra..thq-the contract did not specify the fight venue. We further note that this bout already took place in July 2021 at the 
Event Center in Texas, according to the Beneficiary's competitive results on www.boxrec.com (last accessed 
on November 4, 2022). 
4 
viewership, attendance, revenue, and major media coverage of the [Beneficiary's intended events]"; 
"[t]he extent of past participation by internationally recognized athletes" in the events; "[t]he 
international ranking of athletes competing;" or "[dd]ocumented merits requirements for participants." 
See 2 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at N.2(A)(l); see also USCIS Policy AlertPA-2021-04, supra, at 
1-2. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supp01ied by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R 
§ 103 .5(a)(2). The Petitioner's motion did not present new facts related the issue of whether the 
Beneficiary would be coming to solely to participate in distinguished competitions that require an 
athlete with an international reputation. However, evidentiary deficiencies in these areas significantly 
contributed to our dismissal of the Petitioner's appeal. 
Accordingly, upon review, the Petitioner's first motion to reopen did not include new facts that 
adequately addressed the reasons for dismissal of the appeal and did not establish that the appeal 
should be reopened. For this reason, we will not disturb our decision to dismiss the appeal and the 
petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
5