Matter of Christo’s, Inc.

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 537 (AAO 2015) Interim Decision #3831

引用为 26 I&N Dec. 537 (AAO 2015) 临时决定 #3831

U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

美国国土安全部 美国公民及移民服务局

Administrative Appeals Office

行政上诉办公室

(1) An alien who submits false documents representing a nonexistent or fictitious

(1) 提交虚假文件表示不存在或虚构的

marriage, but who never either entered into or attempted or conspired to enter into a marriage, may intend to evade the immigration laws but is not, by such act alone, considered to have “entered into” or “attempted or conspired to enter into” a marriage for purposes of section 204(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(c) (2012). Matter of Concepcion, 16 I&N Dec. 10 (BIA 1976), followed. (2) Misrepresentations relating to a nonexistent marriage may render the beneficiary

婚姻，但从未缔结婚姻或试图或共谋缔结婚姻的外国人，可能意图规避移民法，但仅凭该行为，就《移民与国籍法》第204(c)条、8 U.S.C. § 1154(c) (2012) 而言，不被视为已“缔结”或“试图或共谋缔结”婚姻。遵循 Matter of Concepcion, 16 I&N Dec. 10 (BIA 1976)。 (2) 与不存在的婚姻有关的虚假陈述可能使受益人

inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) (2012), when the Director adjudicates the application for adjustment of status. ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: Annelise Araujo, Esquire, Boston, Massachusetts

在局长裁定调整身份申请时，依据该法第212(a)(6)(C)(i)条、8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) (2012) 被认定为不可入境。 代表申请人：Annelise Araujo 律师，马萨诸塞州波士顿

The Vermont Service Center Director (“VSC Director”) determined that the beneficiary lacked the requisite employment qualifications and thus revoked a previously approved Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Form I-140). In its decision to dismiss the petitioner’s appeal of the revocation, the Administrative Appeals Office (“AAO”) affirmed the VSC Director’s determination with respect to the beneficiary’s qualifications and further identified the marriage fraud bar at section 204(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(c) (2012), as an additional ground of ineligibility. 2 The AAO subsequently reopened the matter and permitted the petitioner to submit a supplemental brief and additional evidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(5)(ii) (2014). Upon review, the AAO will sustain the appeal and reinstate approval of the petition.

佛蒙特服务中心主任（“VSC主任”）认定受益人缺乏所需的就业资格，因而撤销了先前批准的外国工人移民申请（I-140表）。在驳回申请人对撤销决定的上诉的裁决中，行政上诉办公室（“AAO”）维持了VSC主任关于受益人资格的认定，并进一步指出《移民与国籍法》第204(c)条、8 U.S.C. § 1154(c) (2012) 规定的婚姻欺诈禁止条款作为额外的不可资格理由。2 随后，AAO重新开启该事项，并允许申请人依据 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(5)(ii) (2014) 提交补充简报和额外证据。经审查，AAO将维持上诉并恢复申请的批准。

1 This decision was originally entered on August 12, 2013. The matter has been reopened on the Administrative Appeals Office’s own motion for the limited purpose of making revisions for designation of this decision as precedent. 2 The AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis. See, e.g., Dor v. Dist. Dir., INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n.9 (2d Cir. 1989).

1 本决定最初于2013年8月12日作出。该事项已由行政上诉办公室自行动议重新开启，仅限于为将本决定指定为先例而作出修订。 2 AAO以重新审查（de novo）方式进行上诉审查。参见，例如，Dor v. Dist. Dir., INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n.9 (2d Cir. 1989)。

537

537

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 537 (AAO 2015) Interim Decision #3831

引用为 26 I&N Dec. 537 (AAO 2015) 临时决定 #3831

I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

I. 程序与事实背景

The petitioner is a restaurant that seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States as a cook. The petitioner filed this petition seeking classification of the beneficiary under section 203(b)(3) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(3) (2012). As required by section 212(a)(5)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A) (2012), the petitioner submitted an individual labor certification, the Application for Alien Employment Certification (Form ETA-750), which was approved by the Department of Labor (“DOL”). In revoking approval of the Form I-140 petition, the VSC Director determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary possessed the minimum experience required by the labor certification. Upon reviewing the revocation of the previously approved Form I-140 petition, the AAO affirmed the VSC Director’s decision regarding the beneficiary’s qualifications and dismissed the appeal.

申请人是一家餐厅，寻求在美国永久雇用受益人担任厨师。申请人提交本申请，寻求依据该法第203(b)(3)条、8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(3) (2012) 对受益人进行分类。按照该法第212(a)(5)(A)条、8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A) (2012) 的要求，申请人提交了个人劳工证，即外国就业认证申请（ETA-750表），该申请已获劳工部（“DOL”）批准。在撤销I-140表申请的批准时，VSC主任认定申请人未能证明受益人具备劳工证所要求的最低经验。在审查先前批准的I-140表申请的撤销时，AAO维持了VSC主任关于受益人资格的决定并驳回了上诉。

Exercising its de novo review of the record of proceedings, the AAO also concluded that section 204(c) of the Act required denial of the Form I-140 petition. The record indicated that the beneficiary of the Form I-140 petition was also the named beneficiary of a separate marriage-based Petition for Alien Relative (Form I-130) that was filed with the District Director, Boston, Massachusetts (“Boston Director”). An Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (Form I-485) was concurrently filed with the Form I-130 petition. During his interview in the Boston District Office, the beneficiary indicated that the marriage certificate filed with the Form I-130 petition was fictitious and that he had never met or married the petitioner. The Boston Director denied the Form I-130 petition as abandoned and denied the adjustment application because the beneficiary was inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act for misrepresentations relating to the marriage-based Form I-130 petition. 3

AAO对诉讼记录行使重新审查后，还认定该法第204(c)条要求拒绝I-140表申请。记录显示，I-140表申请的受益人同时也是向马萨诸塞州波士顿地区主任（“波士顿主任”）提交的单独的亲属移民申请（I-130表）的指定受益人。同时提交了登记永久居留或调整身份申请（I-485表）与I-130表申请。在波士顿地区办公室的面谈中，受益人表示随I-130表申请提交的结婚证书是虚构的，他从未见过或娶过申请人。波士顿主任以放弃为由拒绝了I-130表申请，并拒绝了调整身份申请，因为受益人依据该法第212(a)(6)(C)(i)条因与婚姻类I-130表申请有关的虚假陈述而不可入境。3

In a Notice of Intent to Revoke the Form I-140 petition’s approval, the VSC Director asserted, inter alia, that the petition could not be approved because, pursuant to section 204(c) of the Act, the beneficiary had previously engaged in marriage fraud in relation to the Form I-130 petition and adjustment application adjudicated by the Boston Director. The VSC Director did not, however, include a determination regarding section 204(c) in the ultimate revocation decision.

在撤销I-140表申请批准的意向通知中，VSC主任主张，除其他事项外，该申请不能获批，因为依据该法第204(c)条，受益人在波士顿主任裁定的I-130表申请和调整身份申请方面先前从事了婚姻欺诈。然而，VSC主任未在最终撤销决定中纳入关于第204(c)条的认定。

3 The Boston Director treated the Form I-130 petition as abandoned because the beneficiary disavowed the existence of a marriage and the putative petitioner spouse failed to appear for the interview.

3 波士顿主任将I-130表申请视为放弃，因为受益人否认存在婚姻，且推定的申请人配偶未出席面谈。

538

538

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 537 (AAO 2015) Interim Decision #3831

引用为 26 I&N Dec. 537 (AAO 2015) 临时决定 #3831

Upon appellate review of the decision to revoke approval of the Form I-140 petition, the AAO independently determined that the approval must be revoked because substantial and probative evidence supported a reasonable inference that the beneficiary conspired to enter into a prior marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration laws. See Matter of Tawfik, 20 I&N Dec. 166 (BIA 1990). The AAO therefore concluded that revocation of the Form I-140 petition’s approval was required, not only by the petitioner’s failure to demonstrate that the beneficiary qualified for the proffered position, but also by section 204(c) of the Act.

在对撤销I-140表申请批准的裁决进行上诉审查时，AAO独立认定必须撤销批准，因为实质性和有证明力的证据支持合理推断受益人共谋缔结先前婚姻以规避移民法。参见 Matter of Tawfik, 20 I&N Dec. 166 (BIA 1990)。因此，AAO认定撤销I-140表申请的批准不仅是由于申请人未能证明受益人符合所提供职位的资格，也是由于该法第204(c)条的要求。

II. ANALYSIS

II. 分析

A. Qualifications of the Beneficiary

A. 受益人的资格

Section 203(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act provides for visa preference classification of immigrants who are qualified to perform “skilled labor (requiring at least 2 years [of] training or experience), not of a temporary or seasonal nature, for which qualified workers are not available in the United States.” To be eligible for approval, a beneficiary must possess all the education, training, and experience specified on the labor certification as of the petition’s priority date. See Matter of Wing’s Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 160 (Acting Reg. Comm’r 1977). The priority date of the petition is the date that the DOL accepts the request for labor certification for processing. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(d) (2014).

该法第203(b)(3)(A)(i)条规定，有资格从事“技术劳动（要求至少2年培训或经验），非临时性或季节性，且美国境内没有合格工人可用”的移民可获得签证优先分类。为符合批准资格，受益人必须在申请优先日时具备劳工证上指定的所有教育、培训和经验。参见 Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 160 (Acting Reg. Comm'r 1977)。申请的优先日是DOL接受劳工证请求进行处理之日。8 C.F.R. § 204.5(d) (2014)。

In the prior decision dismissing the petitioner’s appeal, the AAO identified inconsistencies that precluded the petitioner from establishing the beneficiary’s qualifications. With supplemental evidence submitted after the AAO reopened its prior decision, the petitioner has adequately “resolve[d] the inconsistencies by independent objective evidence.” Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). The petitioner has established through relevant, probative, and credible evidence that it is more likely than not that, as of the priority date, the beneficiary possessed the education, training, and experience specified on the Form ETA-750. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010).

在先前驳回申请人上诉的裁决中，AAO指出了使申请人无法证明受益人资格的不一致之处。凭借在AAO重新开启其先前裁决后提交的补充证据，申请人已充分“通过独立客观证据解决了一致性问题”。Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988)。申请人已通过相关、有证明力和可信的证据证明，在优先日时，受益人很可能具备ETA-750表上指定的教育、培训和经验。参见 Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010)。

B. Application of the Marriage Fraud Bar

B. 婚姻欺诈禁止条款的适用

For the reasons set out below, the AAO also concludes that the beneficiary is not subject to the marriage fraud bar in section 204(c) of the Act, which provides as follows:

基于下述理由，AAO还认定受益人不受该法第204(c)条婚姻欺诈禁止条款的约束，该条规定如下：

Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (b) no petition shall be approved if (1) the alien has previously been accorded, or has sought to be accorded, an

尽管有(b)款的规定，任何申请均不得批准，如果(1)该外国人先前已因司法部长认定其为规避移民法而缔结的婚姻，作为美国公民的配偶或合法永久居民的外国人的配偶而被给予或寻求被给予直系亲属或优先身份，或

539

539

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 537 (AAO 2015) Interim Decision #3831

引用为 26 I&N Dec. 537 (AAO 2015) 临时决定 #3831

immediate relative or preference status as the spouse of a citizen of the United States or the spouse of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, by reason of a marriage determined by the Attorney General to have been entered into for the purpose of evading the immigration laws, or (2) the Attorney General has determined that the alien has attempted or conspired to enter into a marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration laws. (Emphasis added.) Congress revised the section 204(c) bar to include cases where an alien has attempted or conspired to enter into a marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration laws when it enacted the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986 (“IMFA”), Pub. L. No. 99-639, § 4, 100 Stat. 3537, 3543.

(2) 司法部长已认定该外国人试图或共谋缔结婚姻以规避移民法。 （强调为后加。）国会在颁布1986年《移民婚姻欺诈修正案》（“IMFA”），Pub. L. No. 99-639, § 4, 100 Stat. 3537, 3543时，修订了第204(c)条禁止条款，将外国人试图或共谋缔结婚姻以规避移民法的案件包括在内。

Construing section 204(c) of the Act prior to the IMFA, the Board of Immigration Appeals held that the statutory bar is inapplicable in cases where an alien does not actually enter into a marriage but only falsifies documents to represent that a marriage exists. See Matter of Anselmo, 16 I&N Dec. 152, 153 (BIA 1977) (“In the absence of an actual marriage, section 204(c) does not apply.”); Matter of Concepcion, 16 I&N Dec. 10, 11 (BIA 1976) (concluding that section 204(c) did not apply to an alien who never married but falsified marriage documents, because “it cannot be determined that she obtained immediate relative status on the basis of a marriage entered into for the purpose of evading the immigration laws”).

在IMFA之前解释该法第204(c)条时，移民上诉委员会认定，在外国人并未实际缔结婚姻而仅伪造文件表示存在婚姻的案件中，法定禁止条款不适用。参见 Matter of Anselmo, 16 I&N Dec. 152, 153 (BIA 1977)（“在不存在实际婚姻的情况下，第204(c)条不适用。”）；Matter of Concepcion, 16 I&N Dec. 10, 11 (BIA 1976)（认定第204(c)条不适用于从未结婚但伪造婚姻文件的外国人，因为“无法认定她基于为规避移民法而缔结的婚姻获得了直系亲属身份”）。

Of course, with the addition of section 204(c)(2), it can no longer be said that the statute requires an “actual marriage.” By its express language, section 204(c)(2) states that an attempt or conspiracy to enter into a marriage will also suffice if the purpose was to evade the immigration laws. But absent an attempt or conspiracy to enter into a marriage, the IMFA amendments to section 204(c) of the Act do not negate the continued applicability of Concepcion and Anselmo.

当然，随着第204(c)(2)条的增加，不能再说法条要求“实际婚姻”。第204(c)(2)条以其明确措辞规定，如果目的是规避移民法，试图或共谋缔结婚姻也足以适用。但在不存在试图或共谋缔结婚姻的情况下，IMFA对该法第204(c)条的修订并不否定Concepcion和Anselmo的持续适用性。

By its plain language, section 204(c) applies only to an alien who “entered into,” or “attempted or conspired” to enter into, a marriage. See Jimenez v. Quarterman, 555 U.S. 113, 118 (2009) (“It is well established that, when the statutory language is plain, we must enforce it according to its terms.”). An alien who submits false documents representing a nonexistent or fictitious marriage, but who never either entered into or attempted or conspired to enter into a marriage, may intend to evade the immigration laws, but is not, by such act alone, considered to have “entered into” or “attempted or conspired to enter into” a marriage for purposes of section 204(c) of the Act.

以其平实语言，第204(c)条仅适用于“缔结”或“试图或共谋”缔结婚姻的外国人。参见 Jimenez v. Quarterman, 555 U.S. 113, 118 (2009)（“公认的是，当法条语言平实时，我们必须按其条款执行。”）。提交虚假文件表示不存在或虚构的婚姻，但从未缔结婚姻或试图或共谋缔结婚姻的外国人，可能意图规避移民法，但仅凭该行为，就本法第204(c)条而言，不被视为已“缔结”或“试图或共谋缔结”婚姻。

Section 204(c) aside, however, such conduct may render the beneficiary inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act when the Director adjudicates the Form I-485. See Matter of O-, 8 I&N Dec. 295 (BIA 1959) (holding that the visa petition procedure is not the appropriate forum for

然而，除第204(c)条之外，当主任裁决I-485表格时，此类行为可能使受益人根据该法第212(a)(6)(C)(i)条不可入境。参见Matter of O-, 8 I&N Dec. 295 (BIA 1959)（裁定签证申请程序并非认定外国人不可入境的适当场所）；

540

540

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 537 (AAO 2015) Interim Decision #3831

引用为26 I&N Dec. 537 (AAO 2015) 临时决定第3831号

finding an alien inadmissible); see also Matter of Bark, 14 I&N Dec. 237, 240 (BIA 1972) (observing that under section 204(e) of the Act, approval of a visa petition does not entitle an immigrant to be admitted to the United States or adjust status), rev’d on other grounds, Bark v. INS, 511 F.2d 1200 (9th Cir. 1975). In this case, the record contains a fictitious marriage certificate filed with the Form I-130 petition. Nonetheless, the AAO concludes that the beneficiary credibly established that the purported marriage never occurred and that he did not otherwise enter into, or conspire or attempt to enter into, a marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration laws of the United States. 4 Thus, section 204(c) is inapplicable.

参见Matter of Bark, 14 I&N Dec. 237, 240 (BIA 1972)（指出根据该法第204(e)条，签证申请的批准并不使移民有权进入美国或调整身份），因其他理由被撤销，Bark v. INS, 511 F.2d 1200 (9th Cir. 1975)。 在本案中，记录包含一份随I-130表格申请提交的虚假结婚证书。尽管如此，AAO认定受益人可信地证明所称婚姻从未发生，且其并未以规避美国移民法为目的缔结、共谋或试图缔结婚姻。4 因此，第204(c)条不适用。

III. CONCLUSION

III. 结论

The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361 (2012). With respect to the beneficiary’s eligibility for the Form I-140 petition, the petitioner has met that burden.

这些程序中的举证责任完全由申请人承担。该法第291条，8 U.S.C. § 1361 (2012)。关于受益人获得I-140表格申请的资格，申请人已履行该举证责任。

4 From his initial interview on the adjustment application through his subsequent assistance in USCIS’s investigation of a person alleged to be engaged in the unauthorized practice of immigration law, the beneficiary credibly demonstrated that he did not willfully misrepresent a material fact or otherwise know that a preparer had done so in any benefit requests relating to him. The beneficiary persuasively established that he first realized that he was the subject of a marriage-based immigrant visa petition when he appeared for an interview with USCIS and was asked about the purported marriage. The beneficiary confirmed at the interview that he never met or married the purported petitioner and verified that the presented marriage certificate was false.

4 从调整身份申请的初次面谈，到其后协助USCIS调查一名被指控从事未经授权移民法律执业的人员，受益人可信地证明其并未故意虚假陈述重大事实，亦不知晓任何准备人在与其相关的任何福利请求中实施了此类行为。受益人令人信服地证明，其首次意识到自己是一项基于婚姻的移民签证申请的对象，是在其出席USCIS面谈并被问及所称婚姻之时。受益人在面谈中确认其从未见过或迎娶所称申请人，并核实所出示的结婚证书是虚假的。

541

541