NIW 国家利益豁免：动议驳回（2024年10月28日）

案件背景

申请人以EB-2（含国家利益豁免）类别提交I-140职业移民申请；原审德州服务中心主任认定其未证明基础EB-2资格及国家利益豁免，上诉被AAO驳回，现以复议动议请求重新考虑。

审理经过

1. 初次申请

   申请人提交I-140，主张以持有高级学位的专业人士身份符合EB-2，并请求国家利益豁免；初次申请中未主张以特殊能力人士身份申请EB-2。

   核对原文依据

   in the initial filing of the petition, the Petitioner claimed that she was "eligible for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree,"

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页
2. 补件

   主任发出补件通知后，申请人回复，仍以教育和专业经验主张其作为高级学位专业人士符合EB-2；补件回复中还在未作解释的情况下提出，因USCIS未要求提供8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)各项标准相关证据，故其已满足至少三项标准。

   核对原文依据

   in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), she further maintained her eligibility for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional based on her education and professional experience.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

   the Petitioner also asserted, without explanation, that because USCIS did not request evidence relating to the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii), USCIS

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

   recognized that she satisfied at least three of the six criteria, we agreed with the Director that this assertion was not supported by the record, nor did the Petitioner claim to satisfy any of the evidentiary criteria before the Director.

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
3. 原审拒绝决定

   德州服务中心主任拒绝申请，认定申请人未证明基础EB-2移民类别资格，也未证明国家利益豁免资格。

   核对原文依据

   The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for the underlying EB-2 immigrant classification or the requested national interest waiver.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页
4. 上诉

   AAO驳回后续上诉：维持主任关于基础移民类别资格的决定；因申请人未在上诉中质疑主任关于高级学位专业人士资格的认定，视为放弃；认可其在上诉中首次主张特殊能力，但认定其在主任面前未曾提出该主张，故不在上诉中首次审理五项标准；对国家利益豁免的上诉论点予以保留。

   核对原文依据

   In our appellate decision, we adopted and affirmed the Director's decision relating to the Petitioner's eligibility for the underlying immigrant classification.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

   We concluded that, because the Petitioner did not contest the Director's determination regarding her eligibility as an advanced degree professional, we considered that issue waived.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

   we determined that we would not consider Petitioner's claims to meet five of the six criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) for the first time on appeal. We also we reserved her appellate arguments regarding eligibility for a national interest waiver.

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
5. 复议动议

   申请人提出复议动议，主张AAO认定其在提交上诉前未主张以特殊能力人士身份申请EB-2有误，但未提供支持，也未说明何时曾在主任面前提出该主张；其仅重复上诉中已提出的论点，称提交给主任的证据满足8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)六项标准中的至少五项。

   核对原文依据

   On motion, the Petitioner asserts our determination that she did not claim eligibility for EB-2 immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional ability prior to filing her appeal is incorrect, but she does not provide support for this claim, or otherwise indicate when she claimed eligibility before the Director.

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页

   Instead, the Petitioner generally relies on the same claims previously put forth in her appeal, asserting that the evidence submitted before the Director satisfies at least five of the six evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3).

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
6. 复议动议决定

   AAO于2024年10月28日驳回复议动议。

   核对原文依据

   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：核对复议动议是否具体指明先前决定在事实或法律上的错误，而非仅重复上诉论点；本案AAO以未指明错误为由驳回动议。
  核对原文依据

  See Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) (confirming that a person cannot satisfy the requirements of a motion to reconsider by generally alleging error in the prior decision, rather the filing party "must specify the factual and legal issues" that were decided in error).

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
• 阅读提示：核对初次申请及补件回复中是否实际提出特殊能力资格主张；本案AAO认定申请人在主任面前未提出该主张，动议中亦未说明提出时间。
  核对原文依据

  Here, the Petitioner has not shown that she previously claimed eligibility for EB-2 immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional ability and, consequently, that we erred in dismissing her appeal.

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
• 阅读提示：国家利益豁免论点在上诉中被保留，本次复议未作实体认定；不得将保留理解为批准或否决。
  核对原文依据

  We also we reserved her appellate arguments regarding eligibility for a national interest waiver.

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页