电力系统工程师 · NIW 国家利益豁免：动议驳回（2024年9月18日）

案件背景

申请人是一名电力系统工程师，通过提交I-140表格寻求EB-2职业移民分类，类别为持有高级学位的专业人士，并请求豁免职位邀请要求（国家利益豁免）。

审理经过

1. 初次决定

   德克萨斯服务中心主任拒绝了该申请，认定申请人未证明其符合EB-2签证分类资格，也未证明对所需职位邀请（以及因此对劳工证）的酌情豁免会符合国家利益。

   核对原文依据

   The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not established that the Petitioner qualified for EB-2 visa classification and that a discretionary 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

   AAO驳回了后续上诉；在上诉裁决中，AAO认定申请人符合持有高级学位专业人士的分类资格，但认定其未证明拟从事事业具有国家重要性，因此未满足Dhanasar框架第一项要求。

   核对原文依据

   In dismissing the appeal, we determined that the Petitioner qualified for the classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. We, however, concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor has national importance and thus, he did not meet the national importance requirement of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页
3. 复议动议

   申请人提出复议动议，主张AAO适用了“比要求更严格的标准”并“忽视了客观和佐证证据”，并引用AAO的认定、其个人陈述部分内容、专家意见信及有证明力的研究，主张证据支持其拟从事事业的国家重要性。

   核对原文依据

   On motion, the Petitioner contends that we applied a "stricter than required standard" and "overlooked objective and corroborative evidence." The Petitioner references our determinations, portions of his personal statement, expert opinion letter, and probative research, and maintains that the evidence supports his proposed endeavor's national importance.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页
4. 复议动议裁决

   AAO于2024年9月18日驳回复议动议，认定申请人未证明先前决定在作出时基于对法律或政策的错误适用；上诉因此仍被驳回，原申请仍被拒绝。

   核对原文依据

   On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application oflaw or policy at the time we issued our decision. Accordingly, the motion will be dismissed.

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页

   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：本案复议审查范围限于AAO最新上诉决定是否错误适用法律或政策，不重新全面审理EB-2分类资格或国家利益豁免实体资格；上诉决定中已认定申请人符合高级学位专业人士分类资格。
  核对原文依据

  Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii).

  查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

  In dismissing the appeal, we determined that the Petitioner qualified for the classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.

  查看英文原件 · 第 1 页
• 阅读提示：核对Dhanasar第一项国家重要性分析时，应区分“申请人不同意AAO结论”与“申请人证明AAO错误适用法律或政策”；本案复议阶段AAO认定前者不足以支持复议。
  核对原文依据

  Here, simply disagreeing with our conclusions, without showing how we misapplied law or pointing to policy that contradicts our analysis of the evidence, is not sufficient to reconsider our decision.

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
• 阅读提示：核对专家意见信和有证明力研究时，应关注AAO指出的比较口径：申请人未证明其拟从事事业像Dhanasar中的科学研究员那样具有更广泛领域影响。
  核对原文依据

  For example, unlike the scientific researcher in Dhanasar, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his proposed endeavor offers broader implications in his field.

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页