NIW 国家利益豁免：动议驳回（2024年8月12日）

案件背景

申请人以专业人士身份申请第二优先职业移民（EB-2），主张其持有高等学位，并请求豁免职位邀请要求（国家利益豁免）。原审德州服务中心拒绝该申请，认为申请人未证明符合签证类别资格、拟议事业具有国家重要性，或豁免职位邀请要求有益。后续上诉被驳回，现以复议动议请求重新考虑。

审理经过

1. 初次申请

   申请人提交I-140表格，寻求EB-2高等学位专业人士分类及国家利益豁免。初次申请信中称其作为拥有超过11年领域工作经验的首席执行官兼企业家，符合高等学位专业人士分类。

   核对原文依据

   Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver)

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

   In the letter submitted with the initial petition, he wrote that he "is eligible for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree ...because he is a CEO Chief Executive and Entrepreneur with more than 11 years of work experience in the field."

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
2. 补件

   申请人回应补件通知，主张符合高等学位分类，并补充称其满足8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii)六项监管标准中至少三项，已达到特殊能力分类所需的专业水平，但未进一步说明或论证如何符合特殊能力分类。

   核对原文依据

   Later in response to the request for evidence, the Petitioner averred that he qualified for the advanced degree classification and added that "the petitioner satisfied at least three of the six regulatory criteria at 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii) and has achieved the level of expertise required for exceptional ability classification." However, he did not further identify or argue how he qualifies for the classification as an individual of exceptional ability.

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
3. 原审拒绝决定

   德州服务中心主任拒绝申请，认定申请人未证明符合签证类别资格、拟议事业具有国家重要性，或豁免职位邀请要求有益。

   核对原文依据

   The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that he was eligible for the visa classification, that the proposed endeavor is of national importance, or that it would be beneficial to waive the requirements of a job offer.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页
4. 上诉

   申请人提出上诉，行政上诉办公室驳回上诉。上诉书面论证意见中，申请人未指明其主张满足哪些特殊能力标准，也未说明何种证据证明其专业水平高于该领域通常水平；而是主张主任决定未反驳其分类，故认为主任已认定其符合分类。

   核对原文依据

   We dismissed a subsequent appeal.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

   In the appeal brief, the Petitioner also did not identify which of the criteria he claims to have met or what evidence establishes the Petitioner has a degree of expertise above that ordinarily encountered in the field. Instead, he argued that as the Director's decision did not argue against his classification, he believed that the Director determined that he met the classification.

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
5. 复议动议

   申请人提交复议动议，主张行政上诉办公室先前决定错误，认为其误解了高等学位法规的明文规定，且申请人符合特殊能力人士资格。动议中首次指明其主张满足的特殊能力标准。

   核对原文依据

   On motion, the Petitioner contests the correctness of our prior decision. In support of the motion, the Petitioner argues that we misinterpreted the plain language of the regulations regarding advanced degrees and that the Petitioner qualifies as an individual of exceptional ability.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

   current motion does the Petitioner identify the exceptional ability criteria claimed to have been

   查看英文原件 · 第 3 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：可核对政策手册6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(A)(2)关于高等学位分类要求至少美国学士学位或外国同等学位的规定，以及8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3)关于复议动议须证明法律或政策错误适用的要求；本案未对特殊能力标准的具体内容作实质认定。
  核对原文依据

  The policy manual states that an individual "who does not possess at least a U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent degree is ineligible for [the advanced degree] classification."

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页

  A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of the decision.

  查看英文原件 · 第 1 页
• 阅读提示：可核对8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)关于“三比一”规则仅适用于H签证教育及专业培训要求的范围，以理解AAO为何否定申请人提交的教育与工作经验评估。
  核对原文依据

  The "three-for-one" rule is not contained in the regulations regarding the immigrant employment petitions. See 8 CR 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D) (limiting the "three-for one" rule only to education and specialized training requirements of the H visa).

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页