Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) Fighter

The motions to reopen and reconsider were dismissed. The motion to reopen failed because the Petitioner did not present new facts or sufficient evidence to support claims of ineffective assistance or to establish eligibility under new criteria (original contributions, leading role, memberships, published material, judging). The motion to reconsider failed because the Petitioner did not establish that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy, particularly regarding the consideration of new evidence on appeal. The AAO found inconsistencies in the translation of the refereeing book, reducing its reliability.

The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to establish a one-time achievement or meet at least three of the 10 EB-1A criteria. Specifically, criteria for lesser awards (i), memberships (ii), published material (iii), original contributions (v), and artistic exhibitions (vii) were not met. For awards, the context for excellence was not established. For memberships, the black belt requirements did not necessitate outstanding achievements. For published material, the publications were not proven to be 'major trade publications or other major media'. For original contributions, the organized tournament was not shown to be of 'major significance'. For exhibitions, Brazilian jiu-jitsu competitions were deemed athletic, not artistic, and thus did not qualify.

The appeal was dismissed because, despite meeting three initial criteria, the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he was among the small percentage at the very top of his field. The decision highlighted intermittent first-place finishes between 2014-2023, lack of context for competition results (e.g., number of participants, overall performance vs. selective representation), and the fact that a I-degree black belt was not indicative of being at the very top. Post-filing evidence was not considered, and expert opinion letters were given less weight due to contradictions with other evidence.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. Specifically, the Petitioner only met one of the ten EB-1A criteria (lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards). Evidence for 'published material' was deemed insufficient due to the publications' limited reach and demise, and 'original contributions' lacked proof of major significance or widespread adoption. The criterion for 'judging' was not evaluated as it would not change the outcome.