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 motions were dismissed because they did not satisfy the regulatory requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a). The motion to reopen failed to provide new relevant facts supported by documentary evidence, and the motion to reconsider did not establish that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy.

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 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.