总经理及运营经理 · NIW 国家利益豁免：动议驳回（2024年1月8日）

案件背景

申请人是一名总经理和运营经理，以拥有高等学位的专业人士身份申请EB-2移民分类，并请求豁免职位邀请要求（国家利益豁免）。原审主任认定其EB-2资格成立但国家利益豁免不成立；AAO在上诉中撤回EB-2资格认定并维持否决，现申请人提出复议动议。

审理经过

1. 初次决定

   德州服务中心主任否决申请，认定申请人已证明EB-2高等学位专业人士资格，但未证明豁免职位邀请要求符合国家利益。

   核对原文依据

   The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner established her eligibility for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional, she did not demonstrate that a waiver ofthe job offer requirement would be in the national interest.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页
2. 上诉

   AAO受理上诉后作出决定，撤回主任关于EB-2高等学位专业人士资格的认定，指出申请人仅具美国学士学位的外国同等学历，未证明更高学位或学士后五年渐进工作经验；同时撤回主任关于Dhanasar第一要素的结论性认定，认定其未证明拟议事业具有国家重要性，并保留对第二、第三要素的讨论。上诉被驳回。

   核对原文依据

   In our decision dismissing the Petitioner's appeal, we withdrew the Director's determination that she established her eligibility for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

   We also addressed the Petitioner's request for a national interest waiver and the Director's adjudication of that request under the three-prong adjudicatory framework established by Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016).

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页

   We provided a multi-page analysis of the Petitioner's evidence and concluded that she did not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor. We reserved discussion of the remaining two prongs under the Dhanasar framework, noting that she could not qualify for a national interest waiver without meeting the first prong.

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
3. 复议动议

   申请人提出复议动议，主张USCIS未允许其提交额外证据证明高等学位专业人士资格，30天动议期限不足，并请求依据此前USCIS决定承认其拟议事业具有实质价值和国家重要性。AAO审查后认定动议未满足8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3)的要求，予以驳回。

   核对原文依据

   On motion, the Petitioner asserts that "USCIS did not allow me to produce additional evidence to establish, under the preponderance of the evidence standard, that I am indeed a professional with an advanced degree."

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页

   Based on the foregoing discussion, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that our prior decision to dismiss her appeal was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. Accordingly, she has not shown proper cause for reconsideration of that decision. The motion to reconsider will be dismissed.

   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：本案复议动议的审查范围限于AAO最新决定是否错误适用法律或政策，或是否基于当时记录证据作出错误决定；不审查新提交的证据。
  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. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii).

  查看英文原件 · 第 1 页
• 阅读提示：关于EB-2高等学位专业人士资格，可核对申请时（2020年12月）是否已具备学士后五年渐进工作经验；AAO指出申请人在复议中未声称申请时具备该条件。
  核对原文依据

  As discussed in our prior decision, although the Petitioner established that she holds the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree, she did not demonstrate that she had either a degree above that of a baccalaureate or the required five years of post-baccalaureate work experience required for this classification when she filed this petition in December 2020.

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
• 阅读提示：关于Dhanasar第一要素，可核对AAO先前决定中对拟议事业国家重要性的多页分析及申请人本次是否针对该分析提出具体法律或政策适用错误；本次复议未重新认定该要素的实质优劣。
  核对原文依据

  We provided a multi-page analysis of the Petitioner's evidence and concluded that she did not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor.

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页

  Similarly, the Petitioner does not contest our reasons for concluding that she did not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.

  查看英文原件 · 第 3 页