NIW 国家利益豁免：动议驳回（2025年4月3日）

案件背景

申请人寻求EB-2职业移民第二优先分类，并请求豁免该分类附带的职位邀请要求（国家利益豁免）；原申请为I-140表格。本次程序是申请人对AAO最近一次决定提出的第四次合并 reopen 与复议动议。

审理经过

1. 初次决定

   德州服务中心主任拒绝原申请，认定记录未能证明申请人符合所请求的EB-2移民分类或国家利益豁免。

   核对原文依据

   The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested EB-2 immigrant classification or a national interest waiver.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页
2. 上诉

   AAO首次上诉决定认定申请人在上诉中放弃了EB-2移民分类资格问题，并据此驳回上诉；因未确立EB-2资格，AAO保留对国家利益豁免上诉理由的审理。

   核对原文依据

   In our first appellate decision we concluded that the Petitioner waived the issue of his eligibility for EB-2 immigrant classification on appeal, and we dismissed the appeal on that basis.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

   Because the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for EB-2 immigrant classification, we reserved our consideration of his appellate arguments pe1taining to his national interest waiver request.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页
3. 第一次合并动议

   申请人提交包括多份工作经历信在内的补充证据，主张其确立原EB-2资格；AAO概括指出新证据不支持其特殊能力主张，但因该动议未挑战放弃EB-2资格问题的认定而驳回。

   核对原文依据

   In his initial combined motion to reopen and reconsider, the Petitioner submitted additional evidence, including multiple work experience letters, which he claimed established his eligibility for the underlying EB-2

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

   While we noted generally that the new evidence did not support his claim that he was an alien ofexceptional ability, we dismissed his first combined motion because it did not challenge our determination that he waived the issue of his eligibility for EB-2 classification.

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
4. 第二次及第三次合并动议

   申请人以原律师无效协助为由提出随后两次合并动议；AAO在最近一次决定中认定其先前动议中的无效协助主张已被处理，且两次动议均未提交符合 Matter of Lozada 要求的证据，故因不符合规章要求而驳回第三次合并动议。

   核对原文依据

   The Petitioner based his two subsequent combined motions to reopen and reconsider on claims of ineffective assistance of his former counsel.

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页

   We thus concluded that he had not submitted new facts supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence overcoming our latest decision, nor did he establish that our prior decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the time of the decision.

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
5. 第四次合并动议（本次）

   申请人提交书面论证意见及AAO先前决定副本；不争辩其未满足任何 Lozada 要求，而主张若有其他可信证据支持，AAO并非不能审理其无效协助主张。AAO认定书面意见中的律师陈述不构成证据，且与记录矛盾，申请人未指出记录中的其他可信证据。

   核对原文依据

   On motion, the Petitioner now submits a brief and a copy of our prior decision.

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页

   Notably, however, the Petitioner does not point to "other credible evidence" in the record supporting his claims.

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页

   counsel's unsubstantiated assertions do not constitute evidence

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页

逐项证据分析

按争议点查看申请主张、原审意见、具体证据与 AAO 理由。点击每项标题可展开或收起。

阅读提示与适用边界

以下为基于本案的材料核对提示，不是 AAO 对其他案件的裁定。

• 阅读提示：核对本次动议提交材料时，应区分书面论证意见中的律师陈述与证据；AAO明确律师陈述不构成证据。
  核对原文依据

  counsel's unsubstantiated assertions do not constitute evidence

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
• 阅读提示：核对G-28表格时，应注意记录显示上诉阶段附有申请人和前律师共同签署的G-28，这与书面意见中“未提交G-28”的陈述相矛盾。
  核对原文依据

  That appeal was accompanied by a Form G-28 executed by both the Petitioner and his former counsel.

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
• 阅读提示：核对Lozada合规时，应逐项检查宣誓书、告知前律师并给予回应机会、纪律投诉或未投诉解释；本案申请人明确不争辩其未满足任何一项。
  核对原文依据

  the Petitioner does not contest our determination that he did not satisfy any of the Lozada requirements

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
• 阅读提示：本次程序范围限于审查AAO最近一次决定，不涉及对原EB-2资格或国家利益豁免的重新实质审理。
  核对原文依据

  Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our latest decision.

  查看英文原件 · 第 1 页