Judoka

The Petitioner failed to establish a one-time achievement, as his 'Master of Sport' award related to his athletic career, not coaching. He also did not meet the awards criterion because his claimed awards were as an athlete, and the 'National Coach' title was obtained after the petition filing. The membership criterion was not met as evidence did not show the association required outstanding achievements judged by national or international experts. The published material criterion was not satisfied due to partial translations, missing author information, relevance to his athletic career, and lack of proof of 'major media' status. Consequently, the Petitioner did not fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of at least three criteria.

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 appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner met zero of the required three criteria. Specifically, evidence for awards (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)) lacked context on significance, and membership evidence (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii)) failed to prove the 'outstanding achievements' requirement for the National Snowboarding Team. Other claimed criteria (published material and judging) were not reached as the first two were dispositive.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to establish eligibility for extraordinary ability by not meeting at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. Specifically, the AAO withdrew the Director's finding that the judging criterion was met, citing insufficient evidence regarding the nature and level of judging activities. The published material criterion was also not met due to outdated viewership statistics for the media outlet and the author not being identified. The awards criterion was not addressed as it would not change the outcome, and the membership criterion was met but insufficient on its own.