物理治疗师 · NIW 国家利益豁免：动议驳回（2024年3月18日）

案件背景

申请人是一名物理治疗师，自行提交I-140表格，寻求EB-2职业移民分类（作为持有高级学位的专业人士），并请求豁免该分类所附的职位邀请要求（即国家利益豁免）。原审由内布拉斯加服务中心主任审理。

审理经过

1. 初次决定

   内布拉斯加服务中心主任拒绝原申请，认定申请人未能证明豁免职位邀请要求（进而豁免劳工证）符合国家利益；主任同时认定拟议事业具有实质价值，但未认定其具有国家重要性，也未认定申请人处于有利地位推进该事业，亦未认定权衡后豁免职位邀请将有利于美国。

   核对原文依据

   The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish 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

   The Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. However, he concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that her proposed endeavor has national importance under the first prong of the Dhanasar analysis.

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
2. 上诉

   申请人于2023年4月13日提交上诉（I-290B表格），勾选“我的书面论证意见和/或补充证据附上”，随附书面论证意见、更新的个人陈述及已在记录中的证据副本。AAO以简易程序驳回上诉，理由是其未针对主任拒绝决定中的具体认定，也未主张主任决定存在法律结论或事实陈述错误。

   核对原文依据

   The Petitioner filed her appeal on April 13, 2023 . She checked a box on Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, stating, "My brief and/or additional evidence is attached."

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

   We summarily dismissed the appeal, stating, "you do not address the specific findings in the Director's denial, nor does your brief claim any erroneous conclusion oflaw or statement offact in the Director's decision."

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页
3. 动议

   申请人提交合并的重开与复议动议，称其在上诉信中刻意不指出先前决定的错误或缺陷，目的是更完整全面地说明其从事和促进具有国家重要性服务的真实意图；随附书面论证意见、已在记录中的证据副本，以及2022年12月至2023年3月在菲律宾某机构完成三门课程的材料。AAO指出申请人未解释该课程材料的相关性，也未解释在美国移民局记录显示其自2019年入境后未离开美国的情况下如何在该菲律宾机构完成课程。

   核对原文依据

   On motion, the Petitioner states, "in my appeal letter I chose not to point out errors or flaws in the previous decision ... My goal is to offer a more complete and comprehensive understanding of my real intention to undertake and promote services of national importance."

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

   The Petitioner also submits evidence of three courses completed at the I IPhilippines, from December 2022 to March 2023 .

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

   The Petitioner does not explain the relevance of this evidence. Nor does the Petitioner explain how she completed this coursework at an institution in the Philippines when USCIS records reflect that the Petitioner has not traveled outside the United States since her entry in 2019.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页
4. 动议决定

   AAO驳回合并的重开与复议动议。

   核对原文依据

   Upon review, we will dismiss the combined motions.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

   ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed.

   查看英文原件 · 第 3 页

   FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is 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：核对重开动议所附材料是否包含此前未在记录中提交的新事实，而非仅重复原申请或上诉已提交的证据；本案AAO据此认定不满足8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2)。
  核对原文依据

  Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not constitute "new facts."

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
• 阅读提示：核对复议动议是否具体指出先前决定在适用法律或政策上的错误，而非仅泛泛不同意结论；本案AAO据此认定不满足8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3)。
  核对原文依据

  The Petitioner cannot meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider by broadly disagreeing with our conclusions and restating her initial claims; the motion must demonstrate how we erred as a matter of law or policy.

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
• 阅读提示：核对菲律宾课程材料与申请人自2019年入境后未离境的记录之间是否存在可解释的矛盾，以及申请人是否说明该材料与动议争点的相关性；本案AAO指出两项均未说明。
  核对原文依据

  Nor does the Petitioner explain how she completed this coursework at an institution in the Philippines when USCIS records reflect that the Petitioner has not traveled outside the United States since her entry in 2019.

  查看英文原件 · 第 1 页