NIW 国家利益豁免：动议驳回（2023年1月3日）

案件背景

申请人以专业人士持有高级学位身份申请第二优先移民分类，并请求国家利益豁免职位邀请要求；原审德州服务中心认定其符合高级学位专业人士分类，但未认定豁免职位邀请及劳工证符合国家利益。

审理经过

1. 初次决定

   德州服务中心拒绝原申请：认定申请人符合高级学位专业人士分类，但未认定豁免职位邀请及劳工证符合国家利益。

   核对原文依据

   The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree but 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

   申请人随后提出上诉；因纸质提交的I-290B表格签名由文字处理软件或其他电子格式生成，而法规和表格说明禁止非电子提交时使用电子签名，AAO驳回该上诉。

   核对原文依据

   We dismissed the Petitioner's subsequent appeal and motion to reconsider.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

   First, we dismissed the Petitioner's appeal, which was physically filed, because the signature on it was created by a word processor or other electronic format but the regulations and form instructions specifically disallow the submission of a Form I-290B signed in an electronic format except when it is filed electronically.

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
3. 复议动议

   申请人随后提出复议动议；AAO驳回，因为申请人承认上诉签名由文字处理软件生成，不符合签名要求，未证明先前上诉决定基于法律或政策适用错误。

   核对原文依据

   We dismissed the Petitioner's subsequent appeal and motion to reconsider.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

   Next, we dismissed the Petitioner's subsequent motion to reconsider because the Petitioner acknowledged that the appeal was signed by a word processor and, therefore, it did not meet the signature requirement.

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
4. 重新开放动议

   申请人提出重新开放动议，主张其此前错误地提交了复议动议而非重新开放动议，并提交一份以黑色墨水手写签名的新I-290B表格；AAO审查后驳回该动议。

   核对原文依据

   The matter is before us again on motion to reopen.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

   In support of the motion to reopen, the Petitioner asserts, in relevant part, that the signature on the appeal "was created by a word processor, and is not a handwritten mark" and that "because this is not a case of inappropriate application of the law as stipulated at 8 C.F.R. § 103 .5, and so the wrong category of appeal of motion [sic] was submitted. I had erroneously submitted a motion to reconsider."

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页

   ORDER: The motion to reopen 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：核对重新开放动议的审查范围是否限于先前决定，以及申请人是否针对AAO驳回先前复议动议提出新事实和文件证据；本案未重新审理国家利益豁免的实体标准。
  核对原文依据

  By regulation, the scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision."

  查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

  The Petitioner does not otherwise submit a new fact on motion to reopen, supported by documentary evidence that may establish eligibility, that addresses whether we erred by dismissing the prior motion to reconsider.

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
• 阅读提示：核对纸质提交的I-290B表格签名形式是否符合法规和表格说明；本案认定电子格式签名不符合要求，申请人亦承认该签名由文字处理软件生成。
  核对原文依据

  First, we dismissed the Petitioner's appeal, which was physically filed, because the signature on it was created by a word processor or other electronic format but the regulations and form instructions specifically disallow the submission of a Form I-290B signed in an electronic format except when it is filed electronically.

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页

  the signature on the appeal "was created by a word processor, and is not a handwritten mark"

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页