Date of Decision: January 31, 2025
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) Athlete
Field: Athletics – Mixed Martial Arts
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Motion Outcome: Motion to reopen dismissed; motion to reconsider dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Claimed
- Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Awards (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i))
- Membership in Associations (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii))
- Published Material About the Petitioner (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii))
- Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv))
- Original Contributions of Major Significance (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v))
- Leading or Critical Role (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii))
Motion to Reopen Findings
- Ineffective Assistance Claim: Petitioner alleged prior preparer misrepresented herself as an attorney. The record showed the preparer clearly identified as a non-attorney. No sufficient evidence of deception provided.
- Membership in Associations: Claimed membership in Russian national judo and MMA teams. Documentation did not establish that membership required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts. Refereeing records were inconsistent and translations unreliable.
- Published Material: Articles appeared in blogs and YouTube channels lacking evidence of being major trade or professional publications.
- Judging Evidence: Petitioner claimed to have acted as a judge, not a referee. Documents conflicted, and translations contained inconsistencies. Even if accepted, this would still meet only two criteria, below the required three.
- Original Contributions & Leadership Role: Raised for the first time on motion; considered waived since not argued on appeal.
Motion to Reconsider Findings
- Petitioner argued AAO failed to consider new evidence on appeal.
- AAO reaffirmed that evidence must be submitted when requested, not for the first time on appeal.
- Ineffective assistance claim did not excuse late submissions.
- No incorrect application of law or policy identified.
Key Points from the Decision
- Translation Inconsistencies: Refereeing records conflicted between judo and MMA; discrepancies undermined credibility.
- Non-Qualifying Publications: Sports blogs and YouTube channels not shown as major or professional media.
- Membership Evidence Weak: National team documents failed to prove outstanding achievements required.
- Ineffective Assistance Not Established: Preparer was not an attorney, and petitioner signed forms acknowledging this.
- Failure to Meet Minimum Threshold: At most, petitioner satisfied two criteria, short of the required three.
Final Merits Determination
The AAO dismissed both the motion to reopen and the motion to reconsider. The petitioner failed to demonstrate eligibility under at least three criteria, and did not establish any error in law or policy.
Supporting Documentation
- Awards Evidence: Competition certificates (previously recognized but not sufficient alone).
- Membership Evidence: Russian judo and MMA team documents (not qualifying).
- Published Material: Blog articles and YouTube interviews (not qualifying).
- Judging Evidence: Refereeing book with inconsistencies (not qualifying).
- Contribution & Leadership Evidence: Raised too late and not considered.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Motion to reopen dismissed; motion to reconsider dismissed.
Reasoning: Petitioner failed to provide reliable evidence meeting three criteria, submitted weak or inconsistent documentation, and did not identify any misapplication of law or policy.
