本案适用标准
复议动议须证明先前决定基于对法律或政策的错误适用，且依据决定时记录中的证据该决定是错误的；8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3)。复议审查限于最新决定，8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii)。国家利益豁免适用Dhanasar框架，重点为“外国人拟议开展的具体事业”，而非其所在行业或职业的重要性；Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889, 893 (AAO 2016)。举证责任为优势证据；Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010)。
申请人主张
申请人主张AAO未按Chawathe综合考量全部证据，未正确适用Dhanasar；其拟议事业（个人健身）与国家健康倡议一致，且因将培训他人为其客户提供健康成果而具有全国影响；并主张AAO忽视了大学教授A-R-的专家意见，该意见确认其工作的经济利益及对反肥胖努力的贡献。
原审意见
原审主任拒绝原申请，认定未证明豁免职位邀请及劳工证符合国家利益。
申请人此前提交的个人陈述和个人训练计划
- 证明目的
- 用以证明其拟议事业（个人健身）具有国家重要性并与国家健康倡议一致。
- AAO 如何评价
- 申请人在动议中援引这些材料并重申下级阶段论点；AAO未重新逐项评价这些材料，而是认定申请人未说明对记录的不同分析如何能确立资格，故未证明先前决定错误。
- 缺失、矛盾与适用限制
- 申请人未展开“未综合考量全部证据”的主张，也未解释替代分析如何确立资格。
核对原文依据
She refers to her previously submitted personal statement and personal training plan and reiterates arguments made below that the subject matter of her endeavor, personal fitness, aligns with national health initiatives
查看英文原件 · 第 1 页she does not elaborate this claim or explain how an alternate analysis ofthe record would have established her eligibility
查看英文原件 · 第 2 页大学教授A-R-的专家意见信
- 证明目的
- 证明申请人工作的经济利益，以及其项目对反肥胖努力的贡献。
- AAO 如何评价
- AAO说明先前决定并未忽视该信，而是认定该信聚焦于申请人客户所受影响，而非Dhanasar所要求的与国家重要性相称的更广泛影响，故不足以支持国家重要性主张。
- 缺失、矛盾与适用限制
- 该信的影响论述限于申请人客户层面，未体现与国家重要性相称的更广泛影响。
核对原文依据
The Petitioner contends that our decision disregarded the expert opinion provided by A-R-, a university professor who affirmed the economic benefits of the Petitioner's work and that her programs would contribute to anti-obesity efforts.
查看英文原件 · 第 1 页Rather than disregarding this document, our decision found that the letter did not support the claim of the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, as it focused on the impact of the Petitioner's clients rather than a broader impact commensurate with national importance
查看英文原件 · 第 2 页AAO 认定与理由
AAO指出，Dhanasar关注的是申请人拟议开展的具体事业，而非其所在行业或职业的重要性，因此申请人以个人健身行业与国家健康倡议一致来论证国家重要性并不切题。对于A-R-的专家意见，AAO说明先前决定并非忽视该信，而是认定该信聚焦于申请人客户所受影响，而非Dhanasar所要求的与国家重要性相称的更广泛影响。申请人虽声称未综合考量全部证据，但未展开该主张，也未说明对记录的不同分析如何能确立资格，故未证明先前决定错误适用法律或政策。
核对原文依据
the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."
查看英文原件 · 第 2 页our decision found that the letter did not support the claim of the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, as it focused on the impact of the Petitioner's clients rather than a broader impact commensurate with national importance
查看英文原件 · 第 2 页she does not elaborate this claim or explain how an alternate analysis ofthe record would have established her eligibility
查看英文原件 · 第 2 页the Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy at the time we issued our decision.
查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
