律师及创业者 · NIW 国家利益豁免：动议驳回（2025年5月29日）

案件背景

申请人是一名律师和企业家，以拥有高级学位的专业人士身份申请EB-2移民分类，并请求国家利益豁免职位邀请要求；其拟议事业涉及创业和小企业，主张能创造经济桥梁并促进经济发展。

审理经过

1. 初次决定

   服务中心运营处（SCOPS）拒绝原申请，认定申请人虽证明拟议事业具有实质价值，但未证明其国家重要性。

   核对原文依据

   Service Center Operations (SCOPS) denied the petition, concluding that though the Petitioner established bis proposed endeavor has substantial merit, be did not demonstrate its national importance.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页
2. 上诉

   AAO驳回后续上诉，同意SCOPS关于申请人未证明拟议事业国家重要性的认定，并对Matter of Dhanasar分析框架其余要求保留意见。

   核对原文依据

   We dismissed a subsequent appeal, concurring with SCOPS that the Petitioner had not demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor, and reserving our opinion as to whether the record establishes the remaining requirements of the analytical framework of Matter of Dhanasar

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页
3. 先前动议

   AAO驳回此前的合并重新开放与复议动议，认定申请人未确立推翻先前裁定的新事实，也未证明先前裁定基于当时法律或政策的错误适用。

   核对原文依据

   We dismissed a subsequent combined motion to reopen and reconsider, finding the Petitioner did not establish new facts overcoming our prior determination or that our prior determination was based on an incorrect application of law or policy at the time of issuance.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页
4. 本次动议

   案件现以第二次合并重新开放与复议动议提交AAO；申请人在重新开放动议中提交美巴双边关系情况说明书和一篇关于巴西国际贸易发展的文章，并在复议动议中主张先前决定未适用优势证据标准、未适当权衡证据。

   核对原文依据

   The matter is now before us on second combined motions to reopen and reconsider.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

   On motion to reopen, the Petitioner submits a bilateral relations fact sheet pertaining to the United States and Brazil and an article highlighting developments in Brazil's international trade.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

   the Petitioner contends his prior combined motion was erroneously dismissed as the proper preponderance of the evidence standard was not applied.

   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：核对重新开放动议所附美巴双边关系情况说明书和巴西国际贸易文章是否提及申请人的具体拟议事业、预期影响或国家重要性；AAO正是以未建立这些关联为由认定无新事实。
  核对原文依据

  These submitted documents, however, do not reference the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, demonstrate its prospective impact and national importance, or present new facts relevant to the issues raised in our dismissal of his prior motions to reopen and reconsider.

  查看英文原件 · 第 1 页
• 阅读提示：核对复议动议是否具体指明被不当权衡的证据文件，以及是否回应先前关于经济预测未获佐证、未显示显著雇用美国工人潜力的认定；仅概括主张证据充分不构成法律或政策错误适用的证明。
  核对原文依据

  However, the Petitioner does not detail which evidentiary documents were improperly weighted

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页

  the Petitioner does not address or overcome our previous finding that the record did not establish the endeavor would have substantial positive economic effects, significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or corroborate the stated economic projections.

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
• 阅读提示：本次程序范围限于审查先前动议裁定，不重新全面审理原申请；Dhanasar其余要求在此前上诉中已被明确保留，本次未作认定。
  核对原文依据

  Because the scope of a motion is limited to the prior decision, we will only review the latest decision in these proceedings.

  查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

  reserving our opinion as to whether the record establishes the remaining requirements of the analytical framework of Matter of Dhanasar

  查看英文原件 · 第 1 页