NIW 国家利益豁免：动议驳回（2024年4月22日）

案件背景

申请人以EB-2职业移民类别（高等学位专业人士）申请国家利益豁免，请求免除职位邀请及劳工证要求；原申请由德州服务中心处理。

审理经过

1. 初次决定

   德州服务中心主任拒绝原申请，认定申请人未证明免除职位邀请及劳工证要求符合国家利益。

   核对原文依据

   The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页
2. 上诉

   AAO于2023年6月作出上诉决定，维持拒绝，同意主任意见，认定申请人未满足Dhanasar框架第一项要件，未提交一致证据证明拟议事业的国家重要性乃至确切性质。

   核对原文依据

   In our decision dismissing the appeal, we agreed with the Director that the Petitioner did not meet the first prong of the analytical framework set forth in Matter ofDhanasar

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页

   We explained that the Petitioner had not submitted consistent evidence to establish the national importance, or even the precise nature, of her proposed endeavor.

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
3. 动议

   申请人提出合并的重开与复议动议，主张AAO未考虑其随申请及补件答复提交的全部证据，并援引美国宪法第四修正案。

   核对原文依据

   On motion, the Petitioner states that we did not consider all the evidence that she had submitted with the petition and, later, in response to a request for evidence.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

   those documents were not properly analyzed by the Service, violating the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页
4. 动议裁决

   AAO驳回重开与复议动议，认定申请人未指出被遗漏的具体文件，未说明考虑这些材料会如何改变2023年6月决定的结果，也未提出新事实或新证据。

   核对原文依据

   The Petitioner does not identify any specific documents or other pieces of evidence that we overlooked in our appellate review of the record

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页

   The Petitioner has not established new facts relevant to our appellate decision that would warrant reopening of the proceedings, nor has she shown that we erred as a matter of law or USCIS policy.

   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：核对动议是否具体指出2023年6月上诉决定中被指遗漏的文件，以及该文件与Dhanasar第一项要件认定之间的关联；仅重复“未考虑全部证据”不构成复议依据。
  核对原文依据

  The Petitioner does not identify any specific documents or other pieces of evidence that we overlooked in our appellate review of the record

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
• 阅读提示：本案动议审查范围限于2023年6月上诉决定，不涉及德州服务中心2022年12月拒绝决定的重新审理；不得将本次动议裁决理解为对原申请资格的全面重新认定。
  核对原文依据

  The only decision properly before us on motion is our June 2023 appellate decision, and not the Director's December 2022 denial of the petition.

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
• 阅读提示：第四修正案主张须说明与不利决定理由的具体关联；仅援引该条款不能满足复议动议对法律或政策错误适用的证明要求。
  核对原文依据

  Citing to an authority that is not relevant to the grounds of the unfavorable decision will not meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider.

  查看英文原件 · 第 1 页