本案适用标准
复议动议必须证明AAO先前决定基于对法律或政策的错误适用，且依据决定时程序记录中的证据该决定是错误的；8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3)。动议审查限于审查AAO最近一次决定；8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii)。申请人负有以优势证据证明资格的责任；Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010)。
申请人主张
申请人主张AAO先前决定有误，重申其使用电子签名并依赖相关法规、政策指导及与COVID-19相关的USCIS灵活性；她称其复议动议并非仅基于主张，而是有相关判例决定支持，可证明其案件符合既有法律先例。
原审意见
原审德州服务中心主任以提交表格上的签名无效为由拒绝申请；本次动议审查不重新审理初次资格，仅审查最近一次AAO决定是否错误适用法律或政策。
申请人关于电子签名、相关法规、政策指导及COVID-19灵活性的论点
- 证明目的
- 证明先前决定错误适用法律或政策，表格签名应被接受。
- AAO 如何评价
- AAO认定这些论点与先前上诉及先前动议中的论点相同，已在先前决定中处理；重复相同论点不构成复议的正当理由。
- 缺失、矛盾与适用限制
- 未提出新的法律或政策适用错误分析以针对最近一次先前决定。
核对原文依据
In our prior decision, we indicated that the Petitioner presented the same arguments on motion as that provided in support of her appeal.
查看英文原件 · 第 1 页Further, we addressed the Petitioner's prior arguments in our earlier decision, and the Petitioner's repetition of the same arguments does not show proper cause for reconsideration.
查看英文原件 · 第 2 页申请人所称支持其主张的相关判例决定
- 证明目的
- 证明其案件符合既有法律先例，动议有判例支持。
- AAO 如何评价
- AAO指出申请人未指明所引用的判例决定，也未提供其他信息支持其主张。
- 缺失、矛盾与适用限制
- 未识别具体判例决定，未提供可核对的判例内容。
核对原文依据
However, she does not identify the referenced precedent decisions or otherwise provide information to support her assertions.
查看英文原件 · 第 2 页两张签名截图
- 证明目的
- 证明其使用电子签名的情况。
- AAO 如何评价
- 该材料在先前程序中已提及；本次动议中AAO未重新评价其内容，仅认定申请人重复先前论点且未证明最近一次先前决定错误。
- 缺失、矛盾与适用限制
- 未指出该截图如何证明最近一次先前决定错误适用法律或政策。
核对原文依据
The Petitioner also indicated that she did not mistakenly equate electronic signatures with electronically reproduced original signatures and included screen shots of two signatures.
查看英文原件 · 第 1 页AAO 认定与理由
AAO指出申请人在本次动议中重复了此前上诉和先前动议中已提出的相同论点，且未指明所称支持其主张的判例决定，也未提供其他信息支持其主张。AAO认为申请人未证明最近一次先前决定在作出时基于对法律或政策的错误适用，重复相同论点不构成复议的正当理由。因此动议被驳回。
核对原文依据
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We dismissed the motion because the Petitioner did not establish that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy at the time we issued our decision.
查看英文原件 · 第 1 页Here, the Petitioner's motion to reconsider does not establish error in the most recent prior decision.
查看英文原件 · 第 2 页On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy at the time we issued our decision.
查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
