Martial Artist

The Petitioner did not meet the requirements for a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider. The record failed to establish a one-time major award or satisfaction of at least three of the ten EB-1A criteria.

The motion to reopen and reconsider was dismissed because the petitioner failed to demonstrate an incorrect application of law or policy for reconsideration, and did not provide new facts for reopening. Specifically, the petitioner's kickboxing awards, including a second place at a World Championship, were not deemed major, internationally recognized one-time achievements comparable to a Nobel Prize or Olympic medal. Furthermore, the petitioner's claim of membership in the Ukrainian national sports team and 'Master of Sports of Ukraine' recognition did not meet the membership criterion, as no evidence of selective requirements judged by national or international experts was provided.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner's brief only addressed the original petition denial and her eligibility, rather than challenging the Director's most recent decision to dismiss her combined motion to reopen and reconsider. The AAO found that the Petitioner's failure to address why the Director's motion dismissal contained any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact was a sufficient basis for summary dismissal, and by not contesting the motion decision, she abandoned those claims.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to satisfy the 'membership in associations' criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii)). Evidence for USFBJJ membership lacked proof of outstanding achievement requirements, and the IBJJF certificate was dated after the petition's filing date. As the Petitioner only claimed three criteria and one was unmet, the minimum requirement of three criteria was not satisfied. The record also did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the Petitioner was among the small percentage at the very top of the field.