NIW 国家利益豁免：动议驳回（2024年11月26日）

案件背景

申请人以EB-2职业移民类别申请，主张作为持有高级学位的专业人士符合资格，并请求豁免职位邀请要求及劳工证的国家利益豁免。原审德州服务中心认定其符合高级学位专业人士分类，但未认定国家利益豁免。本次为第三次合并提出的复议动议与重新开放动议。

审理经过

1. 初次决定

   德州服务中心主任拒绝原申请：认定申请人符合高级学位专业人士分类，但未认定豁免职位邀请及劳工证符合国家利益。

   核对原文依据

   The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that he had not established 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
2. 上诉

   申请人提出上诉，但未在提交上诉后30个日历日内向AAO提交书面论证意见或补充证据，AAO据此简易驳回上诉。

   核对原文依据

   We summarily dismissed his appeal because the Petitioner did not submit a timely brief or additional evidence specifying any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the Director's decision.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

   we explained that the Petitioner's appeal was not accompanied by a brief and/or additional evidence, nor was it submitted to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) within 30 calendar days of filling the appeal.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页
3. 动议

   申请人第一次提出合并的重新开放与复议动议，主张其已邮寄书面论证意见及补充证据；AAO指出其误寄至USCIS凤凰城锁箱而非AAO，认定未能推翻简易驳回，驳回该合并动议。

   核对原文依据

   We acknowledged the Petitioner's contention in his first motion that he mailed his brief and additional evidence; however, we stated that he had incorrectly sent the brief in support of his appeal to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Phoenix

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

   As such, we concluded that the Petitioner had not overcome our summary dismissal of his appeal and dismissed his combined motions to reopen and reconsider.

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
4. 动议

   申请人第二次提出合并的重新开放与复议动议，AAO予以驳回（原文仅记载“随后驳回了两次合并的重新开放与复议动议”，未载明第二次动议的具体理由）。

   核对原文依据

   We subsequently dismissed two combined motions to reopen and reconsider.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页
5. 动议

   申请人第三次提出合并的重新开放与复议动议，随附书面论证意见和证据，再次主张其符合所请求分类的要求，但未承认或质疑AAO先前决定有误。AAO本次驳回两项动议。

   核对原文依据

   With the instant motions, the Petitioner provides a brief and evidence, again asserting he meets the requirements for his requested classification, but not acknowledging our prior decision, or contending that it was erroneous.

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页

   ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed.

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页

   FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed.

   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：核对本次动议的书面论证意见是否针对AAO先前驳回重新开放动议的理由，而非仅重复国家利益豁免的实体主张；这是AAO认定重新开放动议未成立的具体依据。
  核对原文依据

  Here, the Petitioner has not provided new facts to establish that we erred in dismissing the prior motion to reopen.

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
• 阅读提示：核对本次书面论证意见是否指出先前决定中错误适用的法律或政策，并援引决定时程序记录中的证据；这是复议动议的法定审查边界。
  核对原文依据

  The Petitioner's brief does not establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy and was incorrect based on the evidence in the record ofproceedings at the time ofthe decision.

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
• 阅读提示：本案程序范围限于动议审查，AAO明确只审查最新决定；原审关于国家利益豁免的实体认定不在本次重新审理范围内。
  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