Martial Artist

The AAO dismissed the combined motions because the petitioner failed to provide new facts supported by documentary evidence related to the February 5, 2024 motion decision for the motion to reopen. For the motion to reconsider, the petitioner did not establish that the AAO was incorrect in its ultimate determination in that same decision. The petitioner's submissions were repetitive and did not address the procedural requirements for reopening or reconsidering the latest adverse decision.

The motion to reconsider did not identify an incorrect application of law or policy, and the motion to reopen failed to provide significant new facts that would change the result. Specifically, coaching evidence was distinguished from athletic performance, and much of the evidence post-dated the initial filing.

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.