本案适用标准
重新开放动议必须陈述新事实并有文件证据支持，8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2)；动议范围限于先前决定，8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i),(ii)；可批准满足要求并证明符合所请求福利资格的动议，参见Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992)（要求新证据具有改变结果的潜力）；申请人以优势证据承担证明责任，Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010)。
申请人主张
申请人主张其提交的两份新文件及重新提交的教授信件，连同先前提交的证据，证明其属于持有高级学位的专业人士，并应获国家利益豁免。
原审意见
原审服务中心认定申请人未证明符合EB-2分类资格，也未证明可作为裁量事项获得国家利益豁免；AAO先前决定已讨论相关证据缺陷。
两份新文件（原文标题因脱敏不可读）
- 证明目的
- 申请人用以证明其符合高级学位专业人士资格并应获国家利益豁免。
- AAO 如何评价
- AAO认定这些文件未能克服先前决定中讨论的证据缺陷，未将其认定为足以支持重新开放的新事实。
- 缺失、矛盾与适用限制
- 未提供官方学术记录（如文凭或成绩单）证明完成理学硕士项目；也未回应此前关于学术评估及外国学位美国等同性的关切。
核对原文依据
On motion, the Petitioner submits two new.--d_o_c_u_m_e_n_t_s_ti_·tl_e_d_'......______________--1 and' I' t' He also resubmits a letter written by Professor at the Petitioner asserts that these documents, along with previously IThe!submitted evidence, establishes he is a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and that he merits a national interest waiver.
查看英文原件 · 第 1 页The documents submitted do not overcome the deficiencies in the evidence discussed in our prior decision.
查看英文原件 · 第 1 页某教授的信件（重新提交）
- 证明目的
- 申请人主张该信件“明确证明”其从某机构获得的学位与美国认证机构授予的学位等同。
- AAO 如何评价
- AAO认定记录未显示这些文件属于官方学术记录，该信件不能替代官方学术记录。
- 缺失、矛盾与适用限制
- 记录缺乏官方学术记录，如文凭或成绩单，以证明完成硕士学位项目；8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)。
核对原文依据
While the Petitioner contends that he provided a "di~itally signed digital diploma" and that Professor! lletter "clearly establishes" a degree from the I is equivalent to those granted by U.S. accredited institutions, the record does not reflect that these documents are official academic records.
查看英文原件 · 第 2 页“数字签名的数字文凭”及学术评估（申请人主张已提交）
- 证明目的
- 申请人主张已提供数字签名文凭，并主张其外国学位与美国认证机构学位等同。
- AAO 如何评价
- AAO认定记录未显示该数字文凭属于官方学术记录；申请人也未回应此前关于学术评估及外国学位美国等同性的关切，本次提交文件未能克服该关切。
- 缺失、矛盾与适用限制
- 缺乏官方学术记录；未解决学术评估及美国等同性问题。
核对原文依据
The Petitioner also has not addressed, and the documents submitted on motion do not overcome, the concerns previously noted with regard to his academic evaluation and the U.S. equivalency of his foreign degree.
查看英文原件 · 第 2 页AAO 认定与理由
AAO将审查范围限定于先前决定，并审查本次动议是否提出新事实及足以改变结果的新证据。AAO认定申请人提交的文件未能克服先前决定中讨论的证据缺陷，尤其未能提供官方学术记录证明其完成硕士学位项目，也未回应此前关于学术评估及外国学位美国等同性的关切。因此AAO认为申请人未提出新事实证明先前驳回动议有误，动议应予驳回。
核对原文依据
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). Because the scope of a motion is limited to the prior decision, we will only review the latest decision in these proceedings.
查看英文原件 · 第 1 页The Petitioner has not provided new facts to establish reopening is warranted in this case. The documents submitted do not overcome the deficiencies in the evidence discussed in our prior decision.
查看英文原件 · 第 1 页Accordingly, the Petitioner has not provided new facts to establish that we erred in dismissing the prior motion. Based on the record, the motion must be dismissed.
查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
