土木工程师兼施工经理 · EB-1A 杰出人才：发回重审（2025年1月27日）

案件背景

申请人是一名土木工程师和施工经理，通过I-140表格寻求第一优先杰出能力移民分类；原审为内布拉斯加服务中心拒绝，随后复议动议被驳回，现由行政上诉办公室（AAO）审理上诉。

审理经过

1. 初次决定

   内布拉斯加服务中心主任最初拒绝申请，认定记录未能证明申请人符合杰出能力，既不属于一次性重大国际公认奖项获得者，也未初步满足8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x)十项标准中至少三项。

   核对原文依据

   The Director of the Nebraska Service Center initially denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that the Petitioner qualifies as an individual of extraordinary ability either as the recipient of a one-time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award, or as someone who initially satisfied at least three of the ten required regulatory criteria

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页
2. 补件

   原审曾发出补件通知（RFE）；申请人提交了14页的补件答复陈述，逐项回应四项标准，但主任在决定中称“In response to the RFE, you submitted no evidence.”

   核对原文依据

   the record shows that the Director's denial lacked an adequate discussion ofthe responses the Petitioner provided in a 14-page statement that was included in his response to a request for evidence (RFE).

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页

   "In response to the RFE, you submitted no evidence."

   查看英文原件 · 第 3 页
3. 动议

   申请人随后提交重新开放和复议动议，附四份动议证据及一份法律论证意见；主任驳回该动议，笼统认定四份动议证据未证明其满足标准(ii)、(vi)、(viii)、(ix)，且未分析法条适用或回应法律论证意见。

   核对原文依据

   The Petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reopen and reconsider which the Director dismissed, concluding that while the Petitioner claimed to have met four of the regulatory criteria, the evidence he submitted did not show that he satisfied any of those criteria.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

   the Director ambiguously referred to the Petitioner's filing as a "Motion to Reopen and/or Reconsider" and broadly concluded that the evidence contained in four motion exhibits "does not demonstrate that you [the Petitioner] meet the criterion (ii, vi, viii, and ix)

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
4. 上诉

   案件依8 C.F.R. § 103.3提交AAO上诉；AAO进行重新审查，认为主任未提供完整准确的分析，决定撤回主任决定并发回重审。

   核对原文依据

   Upon de novo review, we conclude that the Director did not offer a complete and accurate analysis ofthe submitted evidence. We will therefore withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent with the analysis below.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 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：可核对补件答复14页陈述是否被原审决定实质讨论，以及主任“补件未提交证据”的表述与记录是否矛盾；该点仅用于理解发回理由，不推断实体资格。
  核对原文依据

  This determination indicates that the Director did not deem the Petitioner's RFE response statement as evidence even though the Petitioner addressed all four criteria in that statement.

  查看英文原件 · 第 3 页
• 阅读提示：可核对动议所附四份证据及法律论证意见是否被逐项分析法条适用；AAO仅指出原审未分析，未认定这些证据足以满足标准。
  核对原文依据

  The Director did not explain how the evidence was deficient in meeting the motion requirements, nor did the Director address any of the arguments made in a supporting legal brief the Petitioner submitted with the four motion exhibits.

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
• 阅读提示：标准(ix)在原审中已有专门说明，AAO脚注将其与其余三项标准区分；这不代表AAO认可或否定该标准的实体结论。
  核对原文依据

  the Director acknowledged the Petitioner's RFE response and explained why the evidence did not satisfy this criterion.

  查看英文原件 · 第 3 页