NIW 国家利益豁免：动议驳回（2024年8月27日）

案件背景

申请人以EB-2类别申请移民，主张作为高等学位专业人士或科学、艺术或商业领域特殊能力人士，并请求国家利益豁免职位邀请要求；原审德州服务中心拒绝，先前上诉被驳回，本次以合并的重开与复议动议再次请求AAO审查。

审理经过

1. 初次决定

   德州服务中心主任拒绝原申请，认定申请人不符合基础EB-2移民分类资格，也不符合国家利益豁免资格且不值得酌情批准。

   核对原文依据

   The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for the underlying EB-2 immigrant classification or that he is eligible for, and merits as a matter of discretion, a national interest waiver.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页
2. 上诉

   AAO驳回上诉，同意主任认定申请人未证明国家利益豁免资格，具体维持Dhanasar第一要素不满足；对第二、第三要素及基础EB-2分类资格保留意见。

   核对原文依据

   We dismissed the appeal affirming the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not meet Dhansar's first prong. We reserved our opinion on the second and third Dhanasar prongs and on the Petitioner's eligibility for the underlying EB-2 immigrant classification.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页
3. 动议

   申请人提交合并的重开与复议动议及书面论证意见，主张主任未适当考虑原申请及补件答复中的全部证据，并称上诉决定未评估其全部论点；未指明未评估的具体论点，也未提交新证据或经文件支持的新事实。

   核对原文依据

   The Petitioner submits a brief claiming we should reopen the petition because the Director did not give due regard to all the evidence provided with the petition and with his request for evidence response

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页

   he does not introduce any new evidence, or a new fact supported by documentary evidence to establish proper cause to reopen our appeal decision.

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
4. 动议

   申请人还概括主张主任拒绝决定违反法律或政策、缺乏记录证据支持，并称主任未“适当”分析证据而违反第五修正案；AAO指出这些论点针对主任决定而非最近的上诉决定。

   核对原文依据

   The Petitioner generally argues that the Director's decision denying the petition was "contrary to law or policy, and unsupported by the evidence of record."

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页

   Here, the Petitioner's arguments relate to the Director's decision instead of the most recent decision, our appeal decision.

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
5. 动议决定

   AAO驳回重开动议和复议动议，维持先前认定申请人未满足Dhanasar第一要素，继续保留基础EB-2分类资格及第二、第三要素问题。

   核对原文依据

   ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed.

   查看英文原件 · 第 3 页

   FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed.

   查看英文原件 · 第 3 页

   to reserve the issues of the Petitioner's eligibility for the underlying EB-2 immigrant classification and whether he meets the second and third Dhanasar prongs.

   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：核对重开动议是否附有原申请及补件答复之外的新证据或经文件支持的新事实；本案AAO明确指出未提交此类材料。
  核对原文依据

  he does not introduce any new evidence, or a new fact supported by documentary evidence to establish proper cause to reopen our appeal decision.

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
• 阅读提示：核对复议动议是否具体针对AAO上诉决定指出法律或政策适用错误；本案AAO指出论点主要针对主任决定，未具体说明上诉决定的错误。
  核对原文依据

  Here, the Petitioner's arguments relate to the Director's decision instead of the most recent decision, our appeal decision.

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
• 阅读提示：本案未重新审理基础EB-2分类资格及Dhanasar第二、第三要素，相关结论仍处于保留状态，不能将本次动议驳回理解为对这些事项的实体否定。
  核对原文依据

  to reserve the issues of the Petitioner's eligibility for the underlying EB-2 immigrant classification and whether he meets the second and third Dhanasar prongs.

  查看英文原件 · 第 3 页