自主系统与机器人工程研究员 · EB-1A 杰出人才：发回重审（2024年5月9日）

案件背景

申请人是一名自主系统与机器人工程领域的研究者，以杰出能力类别提交I-140移民申请，意图在美国继续从事该领域研究；原审为德克萨斯服务中心主任拒绝，现处于上诉阶段并由行政上诉办公室（AAO）作出决定。

审理经过

1. 初次提交

   申请人提交I-140杰出能力申请及研究资料、科学文章与引用记录、引用其作品的他人文章、专利证据、资助证据和同行推荐信，主张满足原创贡献重大意义等标准。

   核对原文依据

   The Petitioner initially submitted documentation regarding his research, as well as copies of his scientific articles and citation records, scientific articles written by others who cite his work, evidence

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页

   of a patent, evidence of funding he received for his work, and testimonial letters from others in the field in support ofhis eligibility under this criterion.

   查看英文原件 · 第 3 页
2. 补件

   主任认为现有证据不足，要求补充证明贡献既原创又具有领域重大意义的客观文件证据；申请人回应称主任低估了NASA、AFOSR、NSF资助及引用历史和推荐信，并补交更多推荐信和更新引用索引。

   核对原文依据

   The Director found this evidence insufficient and requested additional evidence in the form of objective documentary evidence demonstrating that his contributions were both original and of major significance to the field.

   查看英文原件 · 第 3 页

   The Petitioner also submitted additional testimonial letters and an updated citation index in response to the request for evidence (RFE).

   查看英文原件 · 第 3 页
3. 原审拒绝决定

   主任拒绝申请，认定申请人仅满足评判他人工作和学术文章两项标准的字面要求，未满足至少三项；并称推荐信缺乏具体性、引用历史不足以显示重大意义。

   核对原文依据

   The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not satisfied the initial evidentiary criteria, of which he must meet at least three.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

   In the denial decision, the Director stated that the testimonial letters discussing the Petitioner's work in the field lacked specificity regarding how his achievements have affected the field as a whole or how they are being reproduced within the field.

   查看英文原件 · 第 3 页
4. 上诉

   申请人向AAO上诉，主张主任未具体分析其提交的证据，尤其未充分处理原创贡献重大意义标准下的证据，并称主任错误地忽视或驳回了关键证据。

   核对原文依据

   On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he also meets the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) related to original contributions of major significance in the field and contends that the Director did not sufficiently analyze his assertions and the submitted evidence with respect to this criterion.

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页

   On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's decision did not address the evidence he submitted with any specificity and instead summarily concluded that the evidence was insufficient.

   查看英文原件 · 第 3 页
5. AAO决定

   AAO于2024年5月9日决定撤回主任决定并发回重审，要求主任重新评估证据是否满足至少三项标准，并在必要时进行最终实质审查。

   核对原文依据

   Upon de novo review, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent with the following analysis.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

   ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis.

   查看英文原件 · 第 4 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：核对原审拒绝决定是否具体讨论了推荐信内容、引用记录、引用百分位分析及NASA、AFOSR、NSF资助证据；AAO的核心程序理由是原审未充分说明拒绝理由，而非AAO已认定这些证据满足重大意义标准。
  核对原文依据

  The Director's decision does not specifically address a single piece of that evidence, nor does it evaluate the Petitioner's response to the RFE or the additional evidence submitted aside from noting that the evidence "shows the [Petitioner] provides valuable research."

  查看英文原件 · 第 4 页
• 阅读提示：核对补件阶段提交的额外推荐信和更新引用索引是否被原审纳入考量；AAO要求发回后主任参考上诉书面论证意见，但未对补件材料是否足以满足标准作出结论。
  核对原文依据

  The Petitioner also submitted additional testimonial letters and an updated citation index in response to the request for evidence (RFE).

  查看英文原件 · 第 3 页

  In doing so, the Director should also review the Petitioner's appellate brief, which further addresses the previously submitted evidence.

  查看英文原件 · 第 4 页
• 阅读提示：本案仅涉及初始证据标准中原创贡献重大意义这一争议项；评判他人工作和学术文章两项已被认定满足字面要求，最终实质审查尚未进行，发回重审后仍可能得出不同结论。
  核对原文依据

  The Director determined that the Petitioner only met the plain language requirements of two evidentiary criteria relating to judging the work of others at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and authorship of scholarly articles at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The record supports this determination.

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页

  As the Director did not conclude that the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirements, the decision did not include a final merits determination.

  查看英文原件 · 第 4 页