NIW 国家利益豁免：发回重审（2025年5月19日）

案件背景

申请人是一名研究人员，通过I-140表格申请EB-2职业移民第二优先类别，主张自己属于持有高等学位的专业人士，并请求豁免职位邀请要求（国家利益豁免）。原审由服务中心运营办公室（SCOPS）作出拒绝决定；本次程序为申请人对该拒绝决定提起的上诉。

审理经过

1. 初次决定

   SCOPS拒绝该I-140国家利益豁免申请，认定记录未能证明豁免职位邀请及劳工证要求符合国家利益；并认定申请人未证明拟议事业具有国家重要性、申请人处于有利推进该事业的位置，以及综合权衡豁免职位邀请要求有利于美国。

   核对原文依据

   Service Center Operations (SCOPS) denied the petition, concluding that the record 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

   In evaluating the Petitioner's request for a national interest waiver, SCOPS concluded that the Petitioner had not established his proposed endeavor's national importance, that he is well positioned

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

   to advance the endeavor, or that, on balance it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the job offer requirements.

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
2. 上诉

   申请人依据8 C.F.R. § 103.3提起上诉，主张SCOPS未适当考虑全部证据，也未解释其决定理由。

   核对原文依据

   The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

   On appeal, the Petitioner contends, among other things, that SCOPS did not properly consider all the evidence or explain the rationale underlying their determination.

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
3. 上诉决定

   AAO进行重新审查，同意SCOPS的决定未充分解释拒绝理由，撤销该决定并发回，要求SCOPS审查完整记录，并就Dhanasar三要素分别作出新的决定。

   核对原文依据

   Upon de novo review, we will withdraw the 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

   On remand, SCOPS should review the entire record and determine whether the Petitioner has established eligibility under each ofthe three Dhanasar prongs.

   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：本案的审查边界是原审决定是否充分说明拒绝理由，而非Dhanasar三要素的实体是否满足；AAO对三要素均未作实体认定，发回重审不等于批准国家利益豁免。
  核对原文依据

  While the evidence of record may ultimately be insufficient to demonstrate the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver, SCOPS did not adequately address the evidence and arguments submitted and, therefore, did not sufficiently explain the reasons for denial.

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页

  In remanding, we express no opinion as to the ultimate resolution of this case.

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
• 阅读提示：可核对记录中是否包含描述拟议事业的个人陈述、推荐信和行业文章，以及SCOPS决定是否具体讨论了这些材料；AAO仅指出原审未讨论，未评价这些材料的证明力。
  核对原文依据

  the record reflects the Petitioner submitted documentation including personal statements describing his endeavor, recommendation letters, and industry articles, in support ofhis claim that he satisfied this prong. None of this evidence was discussed in the decision.

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
• 阅读提示：可核对记录中是否包含出版物、引用记录、支持信、个人陈述及Google Scholar引用记录，以及SCOPS决定是否具体分析了这些材料；AAO未对第二要素作实体认定。
  核对原文依据

  the decision lacked specific analysis of the Petitioner's evidence such as his publications, citation record, support letters, and personal statements describing his plans to advance his proposed endeavor.

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页

  the record also contained other I evidence of the Petitioner's citation record from Google Scholar, which was not discussed.

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
• 阅读提示：可核对记录中是否有用于证明第三要素的文件，以及SCOPS决定是否在未具体讨论这些文件的情况下结论称申请人未提交文件证据；AAO未对第三要素作实体认定。
  核对原文依据

  regarding the third prong, the decision concluded, without a specific discussion of documents in the record, that the Petitioner "ha[ s] not submitted documentary evidence" demonstrating that he met this prong.

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页