Martial Arts Athlete

The Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he is in the small percentage at the top of the field. While he met the plain language of three criteria, his major achievements (bronze medals at championships) occurred in 2005-2006, and recent evidence involved smaller state/regional competitions. Additionally, his coaching evidence lacked detail on student placements or significant professional impact.

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 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 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.