艺术、戏剧和音乐教师/创业者 · NIW 国家利益豁免：上诉驳回（2025年11月14日）

案件背景

申请人自述为艺术、戏剧和音乐教师/创业者，提交I-140表格寻求EB-2第二优先移民分类，主张自己属于科学、艺术或商业领域具有特殊能力的人，并请求豁免该分类所附的职位邀请要求（即国家利益豁免）。

审理经过

1. 初次决定

   服务中心运营处（SCOPS）拒绝该申请，认定申请人未确立基础EB-2签证分类资格，并提及豁免所需职位邀请及劳工证须符合国家利益；SCOPS因基础资格未确立认为进一步考虑国家利益豁免无意义。

   核对原文依据

   Service Center Operations (SCOPS) denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner had not established eligibility for the underlying EB-2 visa classification and 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

   SCOPs determined that the Petitioner had not established eligibility for the underlying classification, and that further consideration of a national interest waiver would serve no meaningful purpose.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页
2. 上诉

   申请人依8 C.F.R. § 103.3提出上诉；上诉中仅主张其符合国家利益豁免资格，未针对SCOPS关于基础EB-2分类的具体认定提出异议。

   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 solely argues his eligibility for a national interest waiver. He does not address or contest SCOPS' specific findings regarding the underlying EB-2 visa classification.

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
3. 上诉

   申请人在上诉时提交了此前已提交的文件，但未解释该证据如何显示SCOPS关于基础EB-2分类的决定存在法律结论或事实陈述错误。

   核对原文依据

   Although he presents previously submitted documentation on appeal, the Petitioner does not explain how the evidence shows an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in SCOPS' decision of the underlying EB-2 visa classification.

   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：可核对SCOPS决定中关于六项初始标准中哪三项未满足的具体记载；本案AAO决定仅概括为未满足三项，未逐项展开。
  核对原文依据

  SCOPs determined that the Petitioner had not met three of the six required initial criteria in order to conduct a final merits determination.

  查看英文原件 · 第 1 页
• 阅读提示：可核对上诉书面论证意见是否仅涉及国家利益豁免而未回应基础EB-2分类认定；本案据此认定该问题放弃。
  核对原文依据

  On appeal, the Petitioner solely argues his eligibility for a national interest waiver.

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
• 阅读提示：可核对上诉时提交的此前已提交文件及是否附有说明其如何指向SCOPS认定错误的论证；本案指出未作此说明。
  核对原文依据

  the Petitioner does not explain how the evidence shows an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in SCOPS' decision

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页