Martial Arts Instructor

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner satisfied only one criterion (awards) instead of the required three. Specifically, the IBJJF black belt membership was found to be based on training requirements rather than expert-judged outstanding achievement, and refereeing was viewed as rule enforcement rather than judging. The Petitioner also failed to establish that athletic competitions qualified as artistic exhibitions.

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 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 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.