NIW 国家利益豁免：动议驳回（2025年4月21日）

案件背景

申请人自行提交I-140表格，寻求EB-2职业移民分类（作为持有高级学位的专业人士）并申请国家利益豁免，免除该分类所附的职位邀请要求。原审德州服务中心主任拒绝该申请，认定申请人不符合EB-2分类资格，且未证明其应获得自由裁量的国家利益豁免。本次程序为第五次合并 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I-140申请，认定申请人不符合EB-2分类资格，且未证明其应获得自由裁量的国家利益豁免。

   核对原文依据

   The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not qualify for EB-2 classification and that he had not established he merits a discretionary national interest waiver.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页
2. 上诉

   申请人随后提出上诉，AAO以简易程序驳回，原因是申请人未指出主任决定中的任何法律结论错误或事实陈述错误，也未在上诉提交后30日内提交支持性证据。

   核对原文依据

   We summarily dismissed a subsequent appeal because the Petitioner did not identify any erroneous conclusion oflaw or statement of fact in the Director's decision; he also failed to submit supporting evidence within 30 days ofthe appeal's filing.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页
3. 动议

   AAO随后驳回四次合并的 reopen 与复议动议：第一次因申请人声称已在30日内提交额外证据但未随动议提供该证据副本，其主张缺乏可信证据支持；第二次因未在先前决定后33个日历日内提交；第三次因未证明先前决定错误，也未证明AAO在33日内收到其I-290B表格；第四次因未“质疑或回应”或“提交与驳回第三次动议理由相关的证据”，而是提交了与国家利益豁免资格相关、与第三次动议驳回理由无关的证据。

   核对原文依据

   The Petitioner's first combined motion to reopen and reconsider was dismissed because although he asserted that additional evidence in support of his appeal was submitted within 30 days, we determined his assertions were not persuasive or supported by probative evidence, and he did not provide a copy of that evidence with his motion.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

   The Petitioner's second combined motion to reopen and reconsider was dismissed because the motion was not filed within 33 calendar days of the prior decision.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

   The Petitioner's third combined motion to reopen and reconsider was dismissed because he did not establish our prior decision was incorrect or provide evidence to establish that we received his Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, within 33 days of the adverse decision.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

   The Petitioner's fourth combined motion to reopen and reconsider was dismissed because he did not "contest or address" or "submit evidence, relating to the grounds dismissing [his] third motion."

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页
4. 动议

   申请人提交第五次合并 reopen 与复议动议，再次提交说明其EB-2资格并适用Dhanasar三要素框架分析在案证据的陈述，同时重新提交以下证据：学历证书评估、文凭和证书、工作经验信、商业计划、描述拟议事业的确定性声明、专家信、简历、营业执照、IRS分配雇主识别号的信、购买其产品的客户来信、其企业与另外两家佛罗里达公司设立另一公司实体的经营协议、有意投资其企业者的来信，以及关于小企业和移民创业对经济重要性的文章。

   核对原文依据

   On motion, the Petitioner again submits a statement describing his eligibility for EB-2 classification and applies the Dhanasar three-pronged analytical framework for discretionary national interest waivers to the evidence already in the record.

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页

   his educational credentials evaluation, his diploma and certificates, work experience letters, a business plan, a definitive statement describing his proposed endeavor, an expert letter, his resume, his business licenses, a letter from the IRS assigning his enterprise an employer identification number, letters from a customer who purchased Petitioner's product, an operating agreement entered into between his business and two other Florida corporations to form another corporate entity, letters from individuals interested in investing in his enterprise, and articles relaying the importance of small businesses and immigrant entrepreneurship to the economy.

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
5. 动议决定

   AAO驳回本次合并动议：未提供新事实证明其在驳回先前动议时存在错误，故无重新开启的依据；复议主张仅重复已审议过的事实和问题，不属于“程序中最新的决定”的对象，AAO不会重新审理原申请，原申请维持拒绝。

   核对原文依据

   Here, the Petitioner has not provided new facts to establish that we erred in dismissing the prior motion.

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页

   We will not re-adjudicate the petition anew and, therefore, the underlying petition remains denied.

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页

   ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed.

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页

   FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed.

   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：核对本次动议提交的材料是否针对AAO驳回第四次动议的具体理由，而非仅重复EB-2资格和国家利益豁免的实体证据；动议审查范围受8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i)、(ii)限制。
  核对原文依据

  The scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision" and "the latest decision in the proceeding." 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), (ii).

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
• 阅读提示：核对复议主张是否具体指出最新决定中的法律结论错误或事实陈述错误，而非再次提交相同书面论证并泛泛指称错误。
  核对原文依据

  a motion to reconsider is not a process by which a party may submit, in essence, the same brief presented on appeal and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior Board decision

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
• 阅读提示：本案决定未对EB-2分类资格或Dhanasar三要素作新的实体认定，相关实体问题仍以原审拒绝和先前程序结论为背景，不能将本次动议驳回理解为对实体资格的重新判定。
  核对原文依据

  We will not re-adjudicate the petition anew and, therefore, the underlying petition remains denied.

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页