企业家 · NIW 国家利益豁免：动议驳回（2024年1月26日）

案件背景

申请人是一名企业家，以专业人士（持有高级学位）身份申请I-140移民申请，并请求国家利益豁免以豁免职位邀请要求；德州服务中心认定其符合高级学位专业人士分类，但未认定其符合国家利益豁免。本次程序是申请人对AAO 2023年7月决定提出的第二次合并复议动议和重新开放动议。

审理经过

1. 初次决定

   德州服务中心于2021年12月拒绝申请，列明申请人支持证据（包括补件回复中提交的证据），认定其未证明拟议事业的国家重要性，也未证明综合衡量下豁免职位邀请要求有利于美国。

   核对原文依据

   The Director denied the petition in December 2021, listing the Petitioner's supporting evidence, including evidence submitted in response to a request for evidence (RFE)

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

   concluding that the Petitioner had not established: (1) the national importance of his proposed endeavor and (2) that, on

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页
2. 上诉

   AAO于2023年3月驳回上诉，采纳并维持原审决定，认定申请人未证明拟议事业的“潜在预期影响”。

   核对原文依据

   We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal from that decision in March 2023, adopting and affirming the Director's decision and concluding that the Petitioner had not established the "potential prospective impact" of his proposed endeavor.

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
3. 第一次合并动议

   申请人提出合并重新开放和复议动议，主张AAO未充分考虑记录证据，违反美国宪法第四修正案；AAO于2023年7月驳回，指出申请人未说明AAO在驳回上诉中如何违反第四修正案，且仅泛泛不同意结论不能满足复议动议要求。

   核对原文依据

   The Petitioner filed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider, stating that the dismissal violated the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because we had not fully considered the evidence of record. We dismissed that motion in July 2023

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页

   [The Petitioner] cannot meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider by broadly disagreeing with our conclusions; the motion must demonstrate how we erred as a matter oflaw or policy.

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
4. 第二次合并动议

   申请人提出第二次合并重新开放和复议动议，未回应AAO驳回第一次动议的理由，而是重复此前主张：USCIS未考虑其随申请及补件回复提交的全部证据，特别是专家意见信；并称若记录证据被正确分析，其将满足Dhanasar三要素。

   核对原文依据

   In its second motion, the Petitioner does not address our stated grounds for dismissing the prior motion. Instead, the Petitioner repeats its prior assertion that USCIS did not consider all the evidence that the Petitioner had submitted with the petition and, later, in response to an RFE.

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页

   The Petitioner contends, without further elaboration, that if the evidence ofrecord had "been properly analyzed," then USCIS would have concluded that the Petitioner "meets all three prongs ofDhanasar for the National Interest Waiver."

   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：核对重新开放动议是否附有新事实陈述和新书面证据，以及复议动议是否针对2023年7月决定本身指出法律或政策适用错误，而非重复原申请实体主张。
  核对原文依据

  A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence.

  查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

  The Petitioner has not identified any erroneous application of law or policy in our July 2023 decision

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
• 阅读提示：本案动议审查范围限于最新决定，AAO未对专家意见信或Dhanasar三要素作新的实体认定；不得将本次动议驳回理解为对原申请资格的全面重新审理。
  核对原文依据

  The scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision" and "the latest decision in the proceeding."

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页

  We will not re-adjudicate the petition anew.

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页