Matter of Stowers

Decided March 26, 1999

1999年3月26日决定

U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals

美国司法部 移民审查执行办公室 移民上诉委员会

In a decision dated March 10, 1997, an Immigration Judge found the respondent deportable pursuant to section 241(a)(1)(D)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(1)(D)(i) (1994), 1 and denied his request for a waiver pursuant to section 216(c)(4) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4) (1994), but granted him the privilege of voluntary

在1997年3月10日的一项决定中，一名移民法官认定被申请人依据《移民和国籍法》第241(a)(1)(D)(i)条、8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(1)(D)(i) (1994) 1 可被驱逐，并依据该法第216(c)(4)条、8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4) (1994)驳回了其豁免请求，但给予其自愿

605

605

departure pursuant to section 244(e) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1254(e) (1994) 2 . The respondent and the Immigration and Naturalization Service have filed timely appeals from the Immigration Judge’s decision. Upon review, the Board will sustain the Service’s appeal in part, dismiss the respondent’s appeal, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this order.

依据该法第244(e)条、8 U.S.C. § 1254(e) (1994) 2 离境的特权。被申请人和移民和归化局均已对移民法官的决定提出及时上诉。经审查，委员会将部分支持移民局的上诉，驳回被申请人的上诉，并将案件发回，按照本命令进行进一步程序。

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

I. 程序背景

The complex procedural history of this case may be summarized as fol- lows. The respondent is a 44-year-old native and citizen of New Zealand who entered the United States on May 8, 1988, as a nonimmigrant visitor. On February 1, 1996, the respondent married a United States citizen. On September 19, 1996, the Service granted the respondent conditional perma- nent resident status pursuant to section 216(a) of the Act, based upon his marriage. On October 11, 1996, upon learning that the respondent was not residing with his wife, the Service—without issuing a notice of intent to ter- minate—terminated the respondent’s conditional permanent resident status, pursuant to section 216(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. 3 The Service initiated depor- tation proceedings by issuing an Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing (Form I-221), charging the respondent with deportability under section 241(a)(1)(D)(i) of the Act. 4 In December 1996, after the termina- tion of his conditional permanent residence, the respondent submitted to the Service a Petition to Remove the Conditions on Residence (Form I-751), seeking “good faith” and “hardship” waivers. On February 21, 1997, the respondent and his wife were divorced. At the deportation hearing held on February 24, 1997—3 days after the respondent’s divorce—the Service issued a second notice terminating the respondent’s conditional permanent residence, pursuant to section

本案复杂的程序历史可概括如下。被申请人是一名44岁的新西兰本地人和公民，于1988年5月8日作为非移民访客进入美国。1996年2月1日，被申请人与一名美国公民结婚。1996年9月19日，移民局依据该法第216(a)条，基于其婚姻授予被申请人有条件永久居民身份。1996年10月11日，在得知被申请人未与其妻子同住后，移民局——未发出终止意向通知——依据该法第216(b)(1)(A)(i)条终止了被申请人的有条件永久居民身份。3 移民局通过发出出庭令和听证通知（Form I-221）启动驱逐程序，指控被申请人依据该法第241(a)(1)(D)(i)条可被驱逐。4 1996年12月，在其有条件永久居留权终止后，被申请人向移民局提交了《移除居留条件申请》（Form I-751），寻求“善意”和“困难”豁免。1997年2月21日，被申请人和其妻子离婚。 在1997年2月24日——被申请人离婚后3天——举行的驱逐听证会上，移民局发出了第二份通知，依据该法第

606

606

216(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act. 5 Additionally, the Service dropped the original allegation supporting the charge of deportability and substituted a new alle- gation on Form I-261 (Additional Charges of Deportability), reflecting that the respondent’s marriage had been terminated judicially. See 8 C.F.R. § 3.30 (1997) (relating to additional charges in deportation hearings). At the same hearing, the Service’s trial attorney informed the Immigration Judge that the Service would never adjudicate the respondent’s waiver application because the application had not been filed within the 90- day period before the 2-year anniversary date of the granting of condition- al permanent resident status. See section 216(c) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 216.4(a)(1) (1997). The Service’s trial attorney informed the Immigration Judge that this conclusion was reached after discussion with the Service’s district counsel. The Immigration Judge disagreed with the legal conclusion of the Service’s trial attorney and found that a waiver application could be filed at any time before the pertinent 2-year anniversary date, even where an alien’s conditional permanent resident status had been terminated. Citing appropriate case law and regulations, the Immigration Judge also recog- nized that he lacked jurisdiction to consider a waiver application unless and until the Service adjudicated the application. However, the Immigration Judge reasoned that because the Service’s trial attorney indicated that the Service would never adjudicate the respondent’s waiver application, the Service had “constructively denied” the application. The Immigration Judge thereby assumed jurisdiction over the respondent’s waiver applica- tion at the deportation hearing. Upon further reflection of the pertinent jurisdictional issues at the con- tinued hearing on February 25, 1997, the Immigration Judge found that the Service failed to provide the respondent with proper notice of its intent to terminate his conditional resident status on October 11, 1996 (which had been based upon the allegation that the respondent and his wife did not reside together). See 8 C.F.R. § 216.3(a). Nonetheless, the Immigration Judge declined to terminate proceedings because the Service had lodged the substitute allegation that the respondent had obtained a divorce from his wife. The Immigration Judge found that the Service was not obligated to supply the respondent with advance notice of its intent to terminate his sta- tus once the Service lodged the allegation concerning the respondent’s divorce. In support of this conclusion, the Immigration Judge reasoned that

《移民与国籍法》第216(b)(1)(A)(ii)条。5 此外，移民局撤销了支持驱逐出境指控的原始主张，并在I-261表格（额外驱逐出境指控）上替换了一项新主张，反映被申请人的婚姻已经司法终止。见8 C.F.R. § 3.30 (1997)（关于驱逐出境听证中的额外指控）。 在同一次听证中，移民局的庭审律师告知移民法官，移民局永远不会裁决被申请人的豁免申请，因为该申请未在授予有条件永久居民身份2周年日之前的90天期限内提交。见《移民与国籍法》第216(c)条；8 C.F.R. § 216.4(a)(1) (1997)。移民局的庭审律师告知移民法官，这一结论是在与移民局地区法律顾问讨论后得出的。移民法官不同意移民局庭审律师的法律结论，并认定豁免申请可以在相关2周年日之前的任何时间提交，即使外国人的有条件永久居民身份已被终止。移民法官援引适当的判例法和法规，还认识到，除非且直到移民局对该申请作出裁决，否则他缺乏审理豁免申请的管辖权。然而，移民法官推理认为，由于移民局的庭审律师表示移民局永远不会裁决被申请人的豁免申请，移民局已“推定拒绝”该申请。移民法官因此而在驱逐出境听证中对被申请人的豁免申请行使了管辖权。 在1997年2月25日继续举行的听证中，移民法官进一步反思相关管辖权问题后认定，移民局未能向被申请人提供其于1996年10月11日意图终止其有条件居民身份的适当通知（该通知基于被申请人与妻子未共同居住的主张）。见8 C.F.R. § 216.3(a)。尽管如此，移民法官拒绝终止程序，因为移民局已提出被申请人与其妻子离婚的替代主张。移民法官认定，一旦移民局提出了关于被申请人离婚的主张，移民局就没有义务向被申请人提供其意图终止其身份的提前通知。为支持这一结论，移民法官推理认为

607

607

the respondent had “ample time to review the lodged charge”; that “the respondent was already aware of this particular derogatory information” (i.e., the divorce); and that the respondent clearly was deportable under sec- tion 241(a)(1)(D)(i) of the Act, based upon the second notice of termina- tion. Because he admitted that he and his wife obtained a divorce, the respondent then conceded deportability on this charge and again requested an adjudication of his waiver application. After hearing testimony from numerous witnesses concerning the mer- its of the respondent’s waiver application, the Immigration Judge conclud- ed that the respondent did not carry his burden of proof to show that he entered his marriage in “good faith.” See section 216(c)(4) of the Act (stat- ing that the burden of proof rests with the alien to show the alien’s eligibil- ity for a waiver); 8 C.F.R. § 216.5(a)(1) (1998) (same). The Immigration Judge did not rule specifically on that part of the waiver application alleg- ing “extreme hardship.” The Immigration Judge therefore denied the respondent’s waiver application and found him deportable as charged, but granted him the privilege of voluntary departure.

被申请人有“充足时间审查所提出的指控”；“被申请人已经知悉这一特定不利信息”（即离婚）；并且，基于第二份终止通知，被申请人显然依据该法第241(a)(1)(D)(i)条可被驱逐。由于被申请人承认其与妻子已离婚，被申请人随后承认就该指控可被驱逐，并再次请求裁定其豁免申请。 在听取多名证人关于被申请人豁免申请实质问题的证词后，移民法官认定，被申请人未履行举证责任，证明其以“善意”缔结婚姻。见该法第216(c)(4)条（规定举证责任由外国人承担，以证明其符合豁免资格）；8 C.F.R. § 216.5(a)(1) (1998)（同上）。移民法官未对豁免申请中主张“极端困难”的部分作出具体裁定。 移民法官因此驳回了被申请人的豁免申请，并认定其如所指控可被驱逐，但给予其自愿离境的特权。

II. APPELLATE ARGUMENTS

II. 上诉论点

Each party has appealed the Immigration Judge’s decision to the Board. First, the Service has appealed, arguing (1) that the respondent was ineligible to file a waiver application where his conditional permanent resident status had been terminated prior to the 90-day period before the 2-year anniversary date of the granting of such status, and that the “Immigration Judge wrongly construed the Service’s refusal to adjudicate Respondent’s waiver as a con- structive denial”; and (2) that if the Immigration Judge had the authority to review the respondent’s waiver application, the Immigration Judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the application. The respondent also has appealed, arguing that the Immigration Judge violated his due process rights and erred by failing to consider the extreme hardship which would be caused by his deportation. In light of the following discussion, in which we conclude that the Service—not the Immigration Judge—had the jurisdiction to consid- er the respondent’s waiver application, we need only address one of the above issues, namely, the Service’s first argument.

每一方均已就移民法官的裁决向委员会提出上诉。首先，移民局提出上诉，主张（1）在答辩人的有条件永久居民身份已于授予该身份2周年日之前的90天期限之前被终止的情况下，其没有资格提交豁免申请，且“移民法官错误地将移民局拒绝裁定答辩人的豁免解释为推定拒绝”；以及（2）如果移民法官有权审查答辩人的豁免申请，移民法官在拒绝该申请时并未滥用其自由裁量权。答辩人亦提出上诉，主张移民法官侵犯了其正当程序权利，并且未能考虑其被驱逐出境将造成的极端困难，构成错误。鉴于下述讨论，其中我们认定移民局——而非移民法官——拥有审议答辩人豁免申请的管辖权，我们只需处理上述问题之一，即移民局的第一个主张。

III. ANALYSIS

III. 分析

The Board has outlined the statutory and regulatory scheme that gov- erns the status of a conditional permanent resident. See, e.g., Matter of Tee, 20 I&N Dec. 949 (BIA 1995); Matter of Anderson, 20 I&N Dec. 888 (BIA

委员会已概述了规范有条件永久居民身份的法定和监管框架。参见，例如，Matter of Tee，20 I&N Dec. 949（BIA 1995）；Matter of Anderson，20 I&N Dec. 888（BIA

608

608

1994); Matter of Mendes, 20 I&N Dec. 833 (BIA 1994); Matter of Balsillie, 20 I&N Dec. 486 (BIA 1992); Matter of Lemhammad, 20 I&N Dec. 316 (BIA 1991); Matter of Stockwell, 20 I&N Dec. 309 (BIA 1991). Section 216 of the Act creates a system whereby aliens who attain their conditional per- manent residence are granted that status for 2 years. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 216.2- 216.4 (1998). Within 90 days of the 2-year anniversary of the grant of condi- tional residence, the alien and the alien’s spouse must file with the Service a joint petition to remove the conditions on residence on Form I-751, accom- panied by appropriate documentary evidence to prove that the marriage was not entered into for the purpose of evading the immigration laws of the United States. Section 216(c)(1) of the Act; Matter of Nwokoma, 20 I&N Dec. 899, 902 (BIA 1994); 8 C.F.R. § 216.4. The Service may request an interview with the parties to assist in exploring the bona fides of the marriage. Section 216(c)(1)(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 216.4(b). If the Service approves the joint petition, it lifts the condition on the alien’s permanent resident status. See sec- tion 216(c)(3)(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 216.4(d)(1). The Act also provides the Service with the authority to affirmatively terminate the conditional resident status of an alien and to place the alien into proceedings to remove the alien from the United States. See sections 216(b), (c), 241(a)(1)(D)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. §§ 216.3-216.5 (1998). Termination of an alien’s conditional permanent resident status can occur in three ways. First, under section 216(b)(1) of the Act, the Service may ter- minate the alien’s conditional resident status before the 2-year conditional period expires, where the Service determines either that the qualifying mar- riage is fraudulent or was judicially annulled or terminated, or that a fee or other consideration was given for the filing of a pertinent petition. See Matter of Lemhammad, supra, at 320; 8 C.F.R. § 216.3. Second, the Service may terminate the alien’s conditional resident status for failure to timely file a joint petition or appear for the interview thereon. Section 216(c)(2)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 216.4. Third, the Service may terminate the alien’s con- ditional resident status upon adjudicating the joint petition and determining that the facts and information contained therein are untrue. Section 216(c)(3)(C) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 216.4(d)(2). Each of these determina- tions is reviewable in subsequent deportation proceedings. See sections 216(b)(2), (c)(2)(B), and (c)(3)(D) of the Act; Matter of Gawaran, 20 I&N Dec. 938, 942 (BIA 1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 1332 (9th Cir. 1996); Matter of Lemhammad, supra; 8 C.F.R. §§ 216.3(a), 216.4(d)(2). If the alien and his or her spouse are unable to meet the joint petition requirements under section 216 of the Act, 6 the alien nonetheless may file

1994）；Matter of Mendes，20 I&N Dec. 833（BIA 1994）；Matter of Balsillie，20 I&N Dec. 486（BIA 1992）；Matter of Lemhammad，20 I&N Dec. 316（BIA 1991）；Matter of Stockwell，20 I&N Dec. 309（BIA 1991）。该法第216条建立了一项制度，据此获得有条件永久居留权的外国人被授予该身份2年。参见8 C.F.R. §§ 216.2-216.4（1998）。在授予有条件居留权2周年之日起90天内，该外国人及其配偶必须向移民局提交I-751表格的联合申请以解除居留条件，并附上适当的书面证据，以证明该婚姻并非为规避美国移民法而缔结。该法第216(c)(1)条；Matter of Nwokoma，20 I&N Dec. 899，902（BIA 1994）；8 C.F.R. § 216.4。移民局可以要求与双方进行面谈，以协助探究婚姻的真实性。该法第216(c)(1)(B)条；8 C.F.R. § 216.4(b)。如果移民局批准联合申请，则解除该外国人永久居民身份上的条件。参见该法第216(c)(3)(B)条；8 C.F.R. § 216.4(d)(1)。 该法还授权移民局主动终止外国人的有条件居民身份，并将该外国人置于驱逐出境程序之中。参见该法第216(b)、(c)、241(a)(1)(D)(i)条；8 C.F.R. §§ 216.3-216.5（1998）。终止外国人的有条件永久居民身份可以通过三种方式进行。第一，根据该法第216(b)(1)条，移民局可以在2年有条件期届满之前终止该外国人的有条件居民身份，前提是移民局认定符合条件的婚姻具有欺诈性，或被司法判决宣告无效或终止，或为提交相关申请而给予了费用或其他对价。参见Matter of Lemhammad，supra，第320页；8 C.F.R. § 216.3。第二，移民局可以因该外国人未及时提交联合申请或未就此出面面谈而终止其有条件居民身份。该法第216(c)(2)(A)条；8 C.F.R. § 216.4。第三，移民局可以在裁定联合申请并认定其中所载事实和信息不真实后终止该外国人的有条件居民身份。该法第216(c)(3)(C)条；8 C.F.R. § 216.4(d)(2)。上述每一项认定均可在随后的驱逐出境程序中进行审查。参见该法第216(b)(2)、(c)(2)(B)和(c)(3)(D)条；Matter of Gawaran，20 I&N Dec. 938，942（BIA 1995），aff'd，91 F.3d 1332（9th Cir. 1996）；Matter of Lemhammad，supra；8 C.F.R. §§ 216.3(a)、216.4(d)(2)。 如果该外国人及其配偶无法满足该法第216条规定的联合申请要求，6 该外国人仍可提交

609

609

an application for a discretionary waiver of the requirement to file the joint petition under section 216(c)(4) of the Act. See Matter of Tee, supra, at 951- 52; Matter of Anderson, supra; Matter of Balsillie, supra; 8 C.F.R. § 216.5. Congress provided three distinct grounds for a waiver. In pertinent part, the three grounds are (1) that “extreme hardship would result” if the alien were removed, section 216(c)(4)(A) of the Act; or (2) that the good faith marriage was terminated, and the alien was not at fault in failing to meet the joint petition and interview requirements, section 216(c)(4)(B) of the Act; or (3) that during the good faith marriage, the alien spouse or child was battered by or was the subject of extreme cruelty, and the alien was not at fault in failing to meet the joint petition and interview requirements, section 216(c)(4)(C) of the Act. See Matter of Balsillie, supra; 8 C.F.R. § 216.5(a)(1). If the request for a waiver of the joint petition requirement is granted, the condition on permanent residence is removed. See generally 8 C.F.R. § 216.5. If the Service denies the waiver application, a conditional resident who has been placed into proceedings may apply for the waiver at any time before a final order of exclusion, deportation, or removal. 8 C.F.R. § 216.5(a)(2).

根据该法第216(c)(4)条提出的免除提交联合申请要求的酌情豁免申请。参见Matter of Tee，supra，第951-52页；Matter of Anderson，supra；Matter of Balsillie，supra；8 C.F.R. § 216.5。国会规定了三种不同的豁免理由。相关部分规定，三种理由为：(1) 如果该外国人被驱逐将导致“极端困难”，该法第216(c)(4)(A)条；或 (2) 善意婚姻已终止，且该外国人在未能满足联合申请和面谈要求方面无过错，该法第216(c)(4)(B)条；或 (3) 在善意婚姻期间，外国配偶或子女遭受殴打或成为极端残忍行为的对象，且该外国人在未能满足联合申请和面谈要求方面无过错，该法第216(c)(4)(C)条。参见Matter of Balsillie，supra；8 C.F.R. § 216.5(a)(1)。如果免除联合申请要求的请求获得批准，则永久居留的条件被解除。参见一般性规定8 C.F.R. § 216.5。如果移民局拒绝豁免申请，已被置于程序中的有条件居民可以在最终排除、驱逐或遣返令作出之前的任何时间申请豁免。8 C.F.R. § 216.5(a)(2)。

The operative facts discussed above reveal that the respondent was granted conditional resident status on September 19, 1996, pursuant to section 216(a)(1) of the Act, based on his marriage to a United States cit- izen. Less than 1 month after the grant of conditional resident status, the Service learned that the respondent and his wife were not cohabitating. Therefore, the Service terminated the respondent’s conditional resident status under section 216(b) of the Act—without providing the requisite regulatory notice—and placed him in deportation proceedings. A month later the respondent filed a waiver application with the Service. The Service did not adjudicate the waiver application; rather the Service sub- sequently lodged a substitute allegation supporting the charge of deporta- bility, contending that the respondent’s marriage was terminated judicial- ly on February 21, 1997. Simultaneously, and again without prior notifi- cation, the Service issued a second notice of termination of the respon- dent’s conditional resident status based upon the judicial termination of the marriage. 7

上述讨论的有效事实表明，应答人于1996年9月19日根据该法第216(a)(1)条，基于其与美国公民的婚姻，被授予有条件居民身份。在授予有条件居民身份后不到1个月，移民局获悉应答人与其妻子并未同居。因此，移民局根据该法第216(b)条终止了应答人的有条件居民身份——未提供必要的监管通知——并将其置于驱逐出境程序中。一个月后，应答人向移民局提交了豁免申请。移民局未裁定该豁免申请；相反，移民局随后提出了支持驱逐出境指控的替代指控，主张应答人的婚姻已于1997年2月21日经司法判决终止。同时，且再次未经事先通知，移民局基于婚姻的司法终止签发了第二份终止应答人有条件居民身份的通知。7

610

610

1. Eligibility to File a Waiver Application

1. 提交豁免申请的资格

The Service argues on appeal that because the respondent’s condition- al resident status was terminated under section 216(b) of the Act before the 90-day petitioning period preceding the second anniversary of the grant of status, the respondent’s only remedy was to have such termination reviewed in subsequent deportation proceedings. See section 216(b)(2) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 216.3(a). The Service contends that it lacks the statutory or regu- latory authority to waive the requirements for the filing of the joint petition due to the “final” termination of the respondent’s status before the petition- ing period. We are not persuaded by the Service’s argument. Neither section 216 of the Act (or its legislative history) nor the regulations specify a time limit on when a waiver application may be filed by an alien whose status was ter- minated under section 216(b)(1) of the Act. 8 See 8 C.F.R. §§ 216.1-216.5 (1998). We recognize that because a waiver application is filed as an alter- native to the joint petition, it is normally filed within the 90-day period pre- ceding the end of the 2-year conditional residence period. However, we hold that in certain situations it is appropriate to file a waiver application before or after the 90-day petitioning period, even where the Service affir- matively has terminated an alien’s conditional resident status. Our holding in the instant case is guided by our decision in Matter of Lemhammad, supra. In Matter of Lemhammad, the respondent married a United States citizen and obtained conditional resident status under section 216 of the Act on June 13, 1988. On October 25, 1989, the respondent and his wife were divorced. On May 10, 1990, the Service terminated the respondent’s conditional resident status under section 216(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act—based upon his divorce—and placed him into deportation pro- ceedings. 9 After his status had been terminated and after the end of the 90- day petitioning period, the respondent submitted a waiver application with the Immigration Judge. The Immigration Judge declined to adjudicate the waiver application, finding that the Service retained the original jurisdiction to adjudicate such application under 8 C.F.R. §§ 216.5(c) and (f). On

移民局在上诉中主张，由于应答人的有条件居民身份在授予身份2周年前90天申请期之前已根据该法第216(b)条被终止，应答人唯一的救济是在随后的驱逐出境程序中对终止进行审查。参见该法第216(b)(2)条；8 C.F.R. § 216.3(a)。移民局主张，由于应答人身份在申请期之前已被“最终”终止，其缺乏法定或监管权限来豁免提交联合申请的要求。 我们未被移民局的论点所说服。该法第216条（或其立法历史）和法规均未规定身份根据该法第216(b)(1)条被终止的外国人提交豁免申请的时间限制。8 参见8 C.F.R. §§ 216.1-216.5（1998）。我们认识到，由于豁免申请是作为联合申请的替代方式提交的，通常是在2年有条件居留期结束前90天期间内提交。然而，我们裁定，在某些情况下，即使在90天申请期之前或之后提交豁免申请也是适当的，即使移民局已主动终止外国人的有条件居民身份。 我们在本案中的裁定以我们在Matter of Lemhammad，supra案中的裁决为指导。在Matter of Lemhammad案中，应答人与一名美国公民结婚，并于1988年6月13日根据该法第216条获得有条件居民身份。1989年10月25日，应答人与其妻子离婚。1990年5月10日，移民局根据该法第216(b)(1)(A)(ii)条——基于其离婚——终止了应答人的有条件居民身份，并将其置于驱逐出境程序中。9 在其身份被终止后且90天申请期结束后，应答人向移民法官提交了豁免申请。移民法官拒绝裁定该豁免申请，认定移民局根据8 C.F.R. §§ 216.5(c)和(f)保留裁定此类申请的原始管辖权。在

611

611

appeal, we affirmed the Immigration Judge’s holding and found that the respondent should have submitted his waiver application directly to the Service. Matter of Lemhammad, supra, at 323. Just as in Matter of Lemhammad, supra, the respondent in the instant case filed his waiver application after his conditional resident status was terminated under section 216(b) of the Act. Furthermore, as in Lemhammad, the respondent submitted his waiver application at a time out- side the 90-day window preceding the second anniversary of the grant of conditional resident status. In Matter of Lemhammad, we held that the Service retained the jurisdictional authority to adjudicate the respondent’s waiver application and indicated that the Immigration Judge could have continued the case to allow for such adjudication. Id. at 322-23. The result in the instant case should be no different. We observe that conditional resident status under section 216 of the Act technically ends when the Service terminates such status in accord with the relevant subsection under section 216 of the Act. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 216.3(a), 216.4(d)(2). Nonetheless, Congress provided not only that an alien whose sta- tus has been terminated has a statutory and regulatory right to a review of the termination decision, but that where an alien cannot meet the joint petition requirements of section 216(c) of the Act, such alien should be given the opportunity to apply for a discretionary waiver under section 216(c)(4) of the Act. 10 In the instant case, the respondent, whose marriage ended before the 90-day period preceding the second anniversary of his grant of conditional status, and whose status was terminated, should have been afforded his right to apply for a discretionary waiver where he could not meet the joint petition

在上诉中，我们维持了移民法官的裁定，并认定 respondent 本应将其豁免申请直接提交给 Service。Matter of Lemhammad, supra, at 323。 正如在 Matter of Lemhammad, supra 中一样，本案中的 respondent 是在其有条件居民身份依据该法第216(b)条被终止之后才提交其豁免申请的。此外，与 Lemhammad 一样，respondent 提交其豁免申请的时间是在授予有条件居民身份第二周年之前的90天窗口期之外。在 Matter of Lemhammad 中，我们认定 Service 保留了裁定 respondent 豁免申请的管辖权，并表示移民法官本可以继续审理该案以允许进行该裁定。Id. at 322-23。本案的结果应当没有什么不同。 我们注意到，该法第216条下的有条件居民身份在 Service 依据该法第216条相关 subsection 终止该身份时在技术上即告结束。See 8 C.F.R. §§ 216.3(a), 216.4(d)(2)。尽管如此，国会不仅规定身份已被终止的外国人享有对终止决定进行复审的法定和监管权利，而且规定在外国人无法满足该法第216(c)条联合申请要求的情况下，应给予该外国人机会依据该法第216(c)(4)条申请酌情豁免。10 在本案中，respondent 的婚姻在其获得有条件身份第二周年之前的90天期间之前即已结束，且其身份已被终止，在其无法满足联合申请要求的情况下，本应被赋予申请酌情豁免的权利

612

612

requirements. 11 See Matter of Lemhammad, supra. To conclude otherwise would prevent an alien whose marriage is ter- minated within 21 months of gaining conditional resident status from ever having the conditions of the status lifted, even where the marriage was entered into in good faith or where extreme hardship would result. The reg- ulations affirmatively permit the filing and adjudication of a waiver appli- cation by a person requesting a “battered spouse” waiver, even if the Service already has terminated conditional resident status, rendering the applicant a “former conditional resident.” 8 C.F.R. § 216.5(e)(3)(ii) (emphasis added). 12 The regulations respecting the “hardship” and “good faith” waiver grounds are silent on the question of whether a “former” con- ditional resident may apply under these categories. Nevertheless, the statu- tory structure is identical with respect to all three grounds for the waiver. It is not apparent to us how that identical statutory structure would permit “former” conditional residents to seek only the “battered spouse” waiver while treating as ineligible such persons applying for the “good faith” or “hardship” waivers.

要求。11 See Matter of Lemhammad, supra。 得出相反结论将使婚姻在获得有条件居民身份21个月内终止的外国人永远无法解除身份条件，即使该婚姻是善意缔结的或将会导致极端困难。法规明确允许请求“受虐配偶”豁免的人提交和裁定豁免申请，即使 Service 已经终止了有条件居民身份，使申请人成为“前有条件居民”。8 C.F.R. § 216.5(e)(3)(ii)（强调为原文所加）。12 关于“困难”和“善意”豁免理由的法规对“前”有条件居民是否可以依据这些类别申请未作规定。然而，就所有三项豁免理由而言，法定结构是相同的。我们不清楚该相同的法定结构如何会允许“前”有条件居民仅寻求“受虐配偶”豁免，而将申请“善意”或“困难”豁免的此类人员视为不合格。

In light of the foregoing, we find that the Immigration Judge correctly found that the Act, regulations, and case law—construed in consonance— permitted the respondent to file a waiver application with the Service after his conditional resident status was terminated (either before or after the 90- day petitioning period). However, the Immigration Judge erred by not con- tinuing proceedings to allow the Service to adjudicate the respondent’s waiver application. As the Board held in Matter of Mendes, supra, where an

鉴于上述，我们认定移民法官正确地认定该法、法规和判例法——经一致解释——允许 respondent 在其有条件居民身份被终止后（在90天申请期之前或之后）向 Service 提交豁免申请。然而，移民法官未继续审理程序以允许 Service 裁定 respondent 的豁免申请，这是错误的。正如 Board 在 Matter of Mendes, supra 中裁定的，在外国人

613

613

alien is prima facie eligible for a waiver under section 216(c)(4) of the Act and wishes to have his or her waiver application adjudicated by the Service, the proceedings should be continued in order to allow the Service to adju- dicate the waiver application. See Matter of Tee, supra, at 952 (stating that an alien may request a continuance in order to submit a waiver request to the Service for adjudication); Matter of Anderson, supra, at 892 (“The immigration judge only has jurisdiction to review the denial of a waiver application.”); 8 C.F.R. §§ 216.5(e), (f); cf. section 216(d)(2)(C) of the Act. Although the Immigration Judge recognized this line of precedential cases, he used a theory of “constructive denial” to assume jurisdiction over the unadjudicated waiver application. However, as discussed above, the Act and the regulations expressly contemplate an initial adjudication of the waiver application before the regional service center director. “To rule oth- erwise would be to allow circumvention of the regulatory jurisdictional scheme and could serve to encourage aliens to withhold evidence and argu- ments until the review stage for purposes of delay.” Matter of Anderson, supra, at 892. Therefore, we will remand the record to the Immigration Judge for adjournment of the deportation proceedings pending an adjudication of the respondent’s waiver application, which was filed with the Service in December 1996. See 8 C.F.R. § 242.13 (1997) (regarding continuances). If the conditions of the waiver application are satisfied, the Service shall remove the conditions of the respondent’s status. If the application is denied by the Service, then it may be submitted to the Immigration Judge for review pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 216.5(f). Matter of Mendes, supra, at 840; see also Matter of Gawaran, supra, at 942 (discussing review of denial of application under section 216(c)(4) of the Act). At that point, the Immigration Judge may conduct further proceedings as he deems necessary and appropriate in light of the existing record. Accordingly, the following orders will be entered. ORDER: The respondent’s appeal is dismissed. FURTHER ORDER: The appeal of the Immigration and Naturalization Service is sustained in part, and the record is remanded to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings consistent with this order.

根据该法第216(c)(4)条表面上符合豁免资格并希望其豁免申请由 Service 裁定的，应继续审理程序以允许 Service 裁定该豁免申请。See Matter of Tee, supra, at 952（称外国人可以请求延期审理以便向 Service 提交豁免请求以供裁定）；Matter of Anderson, supra, at 892（“移民法官仅具有复审豁免申请被拒的管辖权。”）；8 C.F.R. §§ 216.5(e), (f)；cf. 该法第216(d)(2)(C)条。 尽管移民法官认可这一系列具有先例效力的案件，但他使用“推定拒绝”理论对未裁定的豁免申请主张管辖权。然而，如上所述，该法和法规明确设想由区域服务中心主任对豁免申请进行初步裁定。“作出相反裁定将允许规避监管管辖权框架，并可能鼓励外国人为拖延目的而扣留证据和论点直至复审阶段。”Matter of Anderson, supra, at 892。 因此，我们将记录发回移民法官，以在 respondent 于1996年12月向 Service 提交的豁免申请获得裁定之前延期驱逐程序。See 8 C.F.R. § 242.13 (1997)（关于延期审理）。如果豁免申请的条件得到满足，Service 应解除 respondent 身份的条件。如果申请被 Service 拒绝，则可依据 8 C.F.R. § 216.5(f) 提交移民法官复审。Matter of Mendes, supra, at 840；see also Matter of Gawaran, supra, at 942（讨论对该法第216(c)(4)条下申请被拒的复审）。届时，移民法官可根据现有记录进行其认为必要和适当的进一步程序。 据此，将作出以下命令。 命令：respondent 的上诉被驳回。 进一步命令：Immigration and Naturalization Service 的上诉部分获准，记录发回移民法官按照本命令进行进一步程序。

CONCURRING OPINION: Edward R. Grant, Board Member

协同意见：Board Member Edward R. Grant

I respectfully concur with the majority’s decision that the instant case should be remanded to the Immigration Judge for adjournment of the pro- ceedings pending an adjudication of the respondent’s waiver application. However, I write separately because I find that this case may be decided on narrower grounds than those applied by the majority. The majority accurately recounts the facts of the instant case. To summa- rize, the respondent was granted conditional resident status on September 19,

我恭敬地同意多数意见的裁定，即本案应发回移民法官，以在 respondent 的豁免申请获得裁定之前延期审理程序。然而，我另行撰写意见，因为我认定本案可以依据比多数意见所适用的更狭窄的理由予以裁定。 多数意见准确叙述了本案的事实。概括而言，respondent 于9月19日获得有条件居民身份，

614

614

1996, pursuant to section 216(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(a)(1) (1994), based on his marriage to a United States citizen. Less than 1 month after the grant of conditional resident status, the Immigration and Naturalization Service learned that the respondent and his wife were not cohabitating. The Service then affirmatively terminated the respondent’s conditional resident status pursuant to section 216(b) of the Act and placed him in deportation proceedings. The Service did not provide the respondent with the requisite notice of intent to terminate pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 216.3(a) (1996). A month later the respondent filed a waiver application with the Service. The Service did not adjudicate the waiver application; rather the Service subsequently lodged a substitute allegation supporting the charge of deportability, contending that the respondent’s marriage was terminated judi- cially on February 21, 1997. Simultaneously, and again without proper regu- latory notice, the Service issued a second notice of termination of the respon- dent’s conditional resident status based upon the respondent’s divorce. The regulations provide that before termination of conditional resident sta- tus can be accomplished, the Service is required to notify the parties involved that the alien’s status is being terminated. 8 C.F.R. § 216.3(a). Notification of the intended termination of conditional resident status is to be effected by writ- ten notice to the conditional resident so that he or she has an opportunity to review and rebut the evidence upon which the Service’s decision is to be based. The respondent in the instant case was provided no such opportunity. Each time the Service terminated the respondent’s conditional resident sta- tus, it failed to advise him beforehand of the derogatory information that led to the termination. 1 Insofar as the respondent did not have notice of the Service’s intent to terminate his status, I would find that his conditional per- manent resident status was not terminated in accordance with section 216(b) of the Act and the regulations that implement that statute. 2 Because the respondent’s status was not terminated properly before he filed his waiver application, I reject the Service’s argument that there is a jurisdictional bar to the adjudication of his waiver application. Furthermore, I concur in that part of the majority’s decision which holds that a waiver application may be filed outside the 90-day period preceding the end of the 2­year conditional residence period.

1996年，依据《移民与国籍法》第216(a)(1)条、8 U.S.C. § 1186a(a)(1)（1994），基于其与美国公民的婚姻。在获得有条件居民身份后不到1个月，移民与归化局获悉被申请人与妻子并未同居。随后，该局依据该法第216(b)条主动终止了被申请人的有条件居民身份，并将其置于驱逐出境程序中。该局未依据8 C.F.R. § 216.3(a)（1996）向被申请人提供终止身份所需的意向通知。一个月后，被申请人向该局提交了豁免申请。该局未对该豁免申请作出裁定；相反，该局随后提出了一项支持驱逐出境指控的替代指控，主张被申请人的婚姻已于1997年2月21日经司法程序解除。同时，该局再次在未依规发出适当通知的情况下，基于被申请人的离婚签发了第二份终止其有条件居民身份的通知。 法规规定，在终止有条件居民身份之前，该局必须通知相关当事方该外国人的身份正在被终止。8 C.F.R. § 216.3(a)。终止有条件居民身份的意向通知应以书面通知方式送达有条件居民，使其有机会审阅并反驳该局据以作出决定的证据。本案中的被申请人未获得此类机会。 该局每次终止被申请人的有条件居民身份时，均未事先告知其导致终止的不利信息。1 鉴于被申请人未收到该局终止其身份的意向通知，我认为其有条件永久居民身份并未依照该法第216(b)条及实施该法规的条例被终止。2 由于被申请人的身份在其提交豁免申请之前未被适当终止，我驳回该局关于对其豁免申请的裁定存在管辖权障碍的主张。此外，我同意多数意见裁决中认定豁免申请可以在2年有条件居留期结束前90天期间之外提交的那一部分。

615

615