人力资源专员 · 普通 EB-2 职业移民：动议驳回（2025年2月13日）

案件背景

申请人自称人力资源专员，寻求EB-2职业移民分类（作为持有高级学位的专业人士）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，理由是未证明其属于持有高级学位专业人士。

审理经过

1. 初次决定

   德州服务中心主任拒绝原申请，认定申请人未证明其属于持有高级学位的专业人士。

   核对原文依据

   The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that the Petitioner qualified as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页
2. 上诉

   申请人随后提出上诉，AAO驳回该上诉。

   核对原文依据

   We dismissed a subsequent appeal and three following motions.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页
3. 动议

   上诉被驳回后，申请人又提出三次动议，均被处理；本次为第四次复议动议。

   核对原文依据

   We dismissed a subsequent appeal and three following motions. The matter is now before us on a fourth motion to reconsider.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页
4. 动议

   在上一份动议中，申请人主张AAO采用了过严的证明标准，称工作经历方面的“差异”并非伪造或欺骗且属轻微，并称已证明其职位的主要证据不可获得、补充宣誓书足以作为二手证据。AAO不同意这些主张。

   核对原文依据

   In her last motion, the Petitioner argued that we applied a stricter standard of proof than permissible when evaluating the evidence of record.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

   She claimed that the "perceived discrepancies" regarding the Petitioner's work history are not "indicative of falsification or deception" and were generally "minor."

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

   She also contended that she had established the unavailability of primary evidence for her position at

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

   Finally, the Petitioner asserted that the that the additional affidavits were sufficient secondary evidence and established her role at

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

   We disagreed with the Petitioner's arguments.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页
5. 本次复议动议

   申请人本次主张：依据8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)，在其所称主要证据不可获得时，提交的宣誓书应被接受为主要证据，AAO排除该证据施加了高于优势证据的标准；宣誓书应足以“解决差异”，要求对每个问题提供独立第三方文件似乎超过优势证据标准；工作经历中的差异应视为轻微且不重要。

   核对原文依据

   In the current motion, the Petitioner asserts that under 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b )(2) the affidavits she submitted should be accepted as primary evidence was unavailable and our dismissal of this evidence

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

   imposed a higher standard of proof than the requisite preponderance.

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页

   She further avers that the affidavits submitted should be sufficient to "resolve discrepancies" and that "requiring independent, third-party documentation for every issue seemed to exceed the preponderance standard."

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页

   The Petitioner also claims that "perceived discrepancies in her employment history should be viewed as minor and immaterial."

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
6. 本次复议动议决定

   AAO驳回本次复议动议；原申请仍处于被拒绝状态，AAO明确不会重新审理原申请。

   核对原文依据

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

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页

   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：核对本次复议动议的审查范围时，应区分“复议动议是否显示先前决定错误适用法律或政策”与“原申请是否重新获得实质审理”；AAO明确表示不会重新裁定原申请。
  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
• 阅读提示：核对宣誓书评价时，应关注AAO引用Matter of Ho所要求的“独立客观证据”标准，以及本次动议中相同论点已在上一份动议提出的程序性认定；原文未在本次重新评价宣誓书的具体内容。
  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 decision.

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页

  A petitioner must "resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence, and attempts to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies, absent competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth, in fact, lies, will not suffice."

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
• 阅读提示：核对证明标准时，可参照原文脚注所述优势证据标准要求证据显示申请人的主张“probably true”；该标准适用于资格证明，而本次动议的审查门槛是先前决定是否错误适用法律或政策。
  核对原文依据

  Under the preponderance of the evidence standard, the evidence must demonstrate that a Petitioner's claim is "probably true."

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页

  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