Matter of Xiuyi Wang

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 28 (BIA 2009) Interim Decision #3646

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 28 (BIA 2009) 临时决定 #3646

File A088 484 947 - California Service Center

案卷 A088 484 947 - 加利福尼亚服务中心

Decided June 16, 2009

2009年6月16日裁定

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

美国司法部 移民审查执行办公室

Board of Immigration Appeals

移民上诉委员会

The automatic conversion and priority date retention provisions of the Child Status Protection Act, Pub L. No. 107-208, 116 Stat. 927 (2002), do not apply to an alien who ages out of eligibility for an immigrant visa as the derivative beneficiary of a fourth-preference visa petition, and on whose behalf a second-preference petition is later filed by a different petitioner.

《儿童身份保护法》（Pub L. No. 107-208, 116 Stat. 927 (2002)）的自动转换和优先日期保留条款，不适用于因作为第四优先签证申请的衍生受益人而超龄失去移民签证资格的外国人，且其后由不同申请人为其提交第二优先申请的情形。

FOR RESPONDENT: Scott Bratton, Esquire, Cleveland, Ohio

代表被申请人：Scott Bratton 律师，俄亥俄州克利夫兰

AMICI CURIAE: 1 Robert L. Reeves, Esquire; Nancy Miller, Esquire; and Jeremiah Johnson, Esquire, Pasadena, California

法庭之友：1 Robert L. Reeves 律师；Nancy Miller 律师；及 Jeremiah Johnson 律师，加利福尼亚州帕萨迪纳

FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Jason R. Grimm, Service Center Counsel

代表国土安全部：Jason R. Grimm，服务中心法律顾问

BEFORE: Board Panel: NEAL, Acting Chairman; ADKINS-BLANCH, Board Member; and MANN, Temporary Board Member.

审理法官：委员会合议庭：NEAL，代理主席；ADKINS-BLANCH，委员会成员；及 MANN，临时委员会成员。

MANN, Temporary Board Member:

MANN，临时委员会成员：

In a decision dated March 25, 2008, the director of the California Service Center approved a visa petition filed by the lawful permanent resident petitioneronbehalf of the beneficiaryashisunmarrieddaughter. Althoughthe directorapprovedthevisapetition,shedeniedthepetitioner’srequest toassign an earlier priority date to the visa petition. Specifically, the director accorded the visa petition a prioritydate of September 5, 2006, which is the date the visa petition was filed. However, the petitioner sought an earlier priority date of December 28, 1992, the date that a previous visa petition had been filed on the petitioner’s behalf by his sister, of which his daughter was a derivative

在2008年3月25日的决定中，加利福尼亚服务中心主任批准了合法永久居民申请人代表受益人作为其未婚女儿提交的签证申请。尽管主任批准了签证申请，但她拒绝了申请人要求为该签证申请指定较早优先日期的请求。具体而言，主任给予该签证申请2006年9月5日的优先日期，即签证申请提交之日。然而，申请人寻求1992年12月28日的较早优先日期，即其姐妹此前代表申请人提交的先前签证申请的日期，其女儿是该申请的衍生

1 We acknowledge with appreciation the helpful briefs submitted by both parties and by amici curiae.

1 我们感谢双方及法庭之友提交的有益简报。

28

28

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 28 (BIA 2009) Interim Decision #3646

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 28 (BIA 2009) 临时决定 #3646

beneficiary. In view of the important questions raisedregardingwhichpriority date to assign to a visa petition, the director certified her decision to the Board for review. The director’s decision will be affirmed. The request for oral argument is denied.

受益人。鉴于就应为签证申请指定哪个优先日期提出的重要问题，主任将其决定认证至委员会审查。主任的决定将予维持。口头辩论请求被拒绝。

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

I. 事实和程序历史

A. 1992 Visa Petition

A. 1992年签证申请

The petitioner is a native and citizen of China. On December 28, 1992, his United States citizen sister filed a Petition for Alien Relative (Form I-130) on his behalf pursuant to section 203(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(a)(4) (Supp. IV 1992). That visa petition was approved 2 months later on February 24, 1993, and was accorded a priority date of December 28, 1992. The petitioner was the primary beneficiary of that fourth-preference visa petition (hereinafter referred to as the “1992 visa petition”), and his wife and three children were listed as derivative beneficiaries. The beneficiary of the instant visa petition is his daughter, who was born on November 6, 1982, and was 10 years old when the 1992 petition was filed.

申请人是中国国民和公民。1992年12月28日，其美国公民姐妹根据《移民和国籍法》第203(a)(4)条，8 U.S.C. § 1153(a)(4) (Supp. IV 1992)，代表他提交了《外籍亲属申请》（表格 I-130）。该签证申请在2个月后的1993年2月24日获批，并被给予1992年12月28日的优先日期。申请人是该第四优先签证申请（以下简称“1992年签证申请”）的主要受益人，其妻子和三名子女被列为衍生受益人。本签证申请的受益人是其女儿，出生于1982年11月6日，1992年申请提交时10岁。

In February 2005 visas became available for nationals of China who were beneficiaries of fourth-preference petitions with a priority date in 1992. See Department of State Visa Bulletin, Vol. III, No. 78 (Feb. 2005). Accordingly, the petitioner was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident on October 3, 2005. By this time, however, the beneficiary was 22 years of age and no longer qualified as a “child” who could derive beneficiary status from the petition filed by her aunt on behalf of her father. See sections 101(b)(1), 203(d) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(b), 1153(d) (2006).

2005年2月，优先日期为1992年的第四优先申请受益人的中国国民签证可用。见国务院签证公告，第III卷，第78号（2005年2月）。因此，申请人于2005年10月3日作为合法永久居民获准进入美国。然而，此时受益人已22岁，不再符合可从其姑母代表其父亲提交的申请中衍生受益人身份的“儿童”资格。见该法第101(b)(1)、203(d)条，8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(b), 1153(d) (2006)。

B. 2006 Visa Petition

B. 2006年签证申请

On September 5, 2006, the petitioner filed a second-preference visa petition on behalf of the beneficiary as his unmarried daughter pursuant to section 203(a)(2) of the Act (hereinafter referred to as the “2006 visa petition”). In a cover letter sent with the visa petition, the petitioner requested that the beneficiary be assigned a priority date of December 28, 1992, which was the priority date given to the fourth-preference visa petition that had been filed on his behalf by his sister.

2006年9月5日，申请人根据该法第203(a)(2)条代表受益人作为其未婚女儿提交了第二优先签证申请（以下简称“2006年签证申请”）。在随签证申请发送的附信中，申请人请求给予受益人1992年12月28日的优先日期，即其姐妹代表他提交的第四优先签证申请所获的优先日期。

The director approved the second-preference visa petition on March 25, 2008, but she gave it a priority date of September 5, 2006, which is the date the visa petition was filed. In her decision, the director noted that

主任于2008年3月25日批准了第二优先签证申请，但她给予其2006年9月5日的优先日期，即签证申请提交之日。 在其决定中，主任指出

29

29

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 28 (BIA 2009) Interim Decision #3646

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 28 (BIA 2009) 临时决定 #3646

8 C.F.R. § 204.2(a)(4) (2008) allows for retention of a priority date solely with regard to derivative beneficiaries of a second-preference visa petition, not to derivative beneficiaries of a fourth-preference visapetition. Asthe1992 visa petition was a fourth-preference petition, the director concluded that the second-preference petition filed by the petitioner in 2006 could not retain the more favorable priority date of the 1992 visa petition.

8 C.F.R. § 204.2(a)(4) (2008) 仅允许第二优先签证申请的衍生受益人保留优先日期，而非第四优先签证申请的衍生受益人。由于1992年签证申请是第四优先申请，主任得出结论，申请人于2006年提交的第二优先申请不能保留1992年签证申请更有利的优先日期。

The director acknowledged the petitioner’s argument that the beneficiary should be accorded the earlier priority date pursuant to the Child Status Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 107-208, 116 Stat. 927 (2002) (“CSPA”). However, she concluded that the CSPA did not apply to this case. In the absence of published precedent on the applicability of the CSPA in this situation, the director elected to certify her decision to the Board.

主任认可申请人关于应根据《儿童身份保护法》（Pub. L. No. 107-208, 116 Stat. 927 (2002)）（“CSPA”）给予受益人较早优先日期的论点。然而，她得出结论，CSPA不适用于本案。在缺乏关于CSPA在此情形下适用性的已公布先例的情况下，主任选择将其决定认证至委员会。

II. ISSUE

II. 问题

The issue in this case is whether a derivative beneficiary who has aged out of a fourth-preference visa petition may automatically convert her status to that of a beneficiary of a second-preference category pursuant to section 203(h) of the Act. To answer this question, we must examine whether the CSPA intended for the beneficiary of a second-preference visa petition filed by her father to retain the priority date previously accorded to her as the derivative beneficiary of a fourth-preference visa petition filed by her aunt.

本案的问题是，已超龄失去第四优先签证申请资格的衍生受益人，是否可以根据该法第203(h)条自动将其身份转换为第二优先类别的受益人。为回答此问题，我们必须审查CSPA是否意图让由其父亲提交的第二优先签证申请的受益人保留此前作为其姑母提交的第四优先签证申请的衍生受益人所获的优先日期。

III. CHILD STATUS PROTECTION ACT

III. 儿童身份保护法

A. Who May Qualify as a “Child”?

A. 谁可以符合“儿童”资格？

Section 203(h) of the Act was amended by section 3 of the Child Status Protection Act, 116 Stat. at 928, in part to define who may qualify as a “child” and in part to address the “[t]reatment of certain unmarried sons and daughters seeking” immigrant status in the United States. Section 203(h) provides in pertinent part:

该法第203(h)条经《儿童身份保护法》第3条修订，116 Stat. at 928，部分是为了界定谁可以符合“儿童”资格，部分是为了处理在美国寻求移民身份的“[某]些未婚子女的待遇”。第203(h)条相关部分规定：

Rules for Determining Whether Certain Aliens Are Children (1) In general For purposes of subsections (a)(2)(A) 2 and (d), 3 a determination of whether an alien satisfies the age requirement in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)

确定某些外国人是否为儿童的规定 (1) 一般规定 为第(a)(2)(A)2 和 (d)3 款之目的，确定外国人是否满足第101(b)(1)4 条(A)项之前事项中的年龄要求，应使用——

2 This provision relates to the spouses or children of lawful permanent residents. 3 This provision relates to a spouse or child, if accompanying to join the spouse or parent.

2 该条款涉及合法永久居民的配偶或子女。 3 该条款涉及配偶或子女，如果随行以与配偶或父母团聚。

30

30

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 28 (BIA 2009) Interim Decision #3646

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 28 (BIA 2009) 临时决定 #3646

of section 101(b)(1) 4 shall be made using—

第101(b)(1)4 条(A)项，应使用——

(A) the age of the alien on the date on which an immigrant visa number becomes available for such alien (or, in the case of subsection (d), the date on which an immigrant visa number became available for the alien’s parent), but only if the alien has sought to acquire the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence within one year of such availability; reduced by

(A) 外国人移民签证名额可用之日该外国人的年龄（或，就(d)款而言，外国人父母移民签证名额可用之日），但仅限该外国人在该可用性后1年内寻求获得合法永久居民身份的情况；减去

(B) the number of days in the period during which the applicable petition described in paragraph (2) was pending. (2) Petitions described The petition described in this paragraph is—

(B) 第(2)款所述适用申请待决期间的天数。 (2) 所述申请 本款所述申请是——

(A) with respect to a relationship described in subsection (a)(2)(A), a petition filed under section 204 for classification of an alien child under subsection (a)(2)(A); or

(A) 就第(a)(2)(A)款所述关系而言，根据第204条提交的将外国儿童归类为第(a)(2)(A)款下的申请；或

(B) with respect to an alien child who is a derivative beneficiary under subsection (d), a petition filed under section 204 for classification of the alien’s parent under subsection (a), (b), or (c). 5 (3) Retention of priority date If the age of an alien is determined under paragraph (1) to be 21 years of age or older for the purposes of subsections (a)(2)(A) and (d), the alien’s petition shall automatically be converted to the appropriate category and the alien shall retain the original priority date issued upon receipt of the original petition.

(B) 就作为第(d)款下衍生受益人的外国儿童而言，根据第204条提交的将外国人父母归类为第(a)、(b)或(c)款下的申请。5 (3) 优先日期保留 如果根据第(1)款确定外国人的年龄为21岁或以上，为第(a)(2)(A)和(d)款之目的，该外国人的申请应自动转换为适当类别，且该外国人应保留收到原始申请时签发的原始优先日期。

The CSPA was essentially enacted to provide relief to children who might “age out” of their beneficiary status because of administrative delays in visa processing or adjustment application adjudication. A “child” is defined for immigration purposes as an unmarried individual under the age of 21. Section 101(b)(1) of the Act. In certain visa categories, qualifying as a “child” has a definite advantage. For example, the child of a United States citizen is characterized as an “immediate relative,” a category that is not subject to any statutory limit on the number of visas available each year. Thus, the “child” of a United States citizen does not need to wait for a priority date to become current, because a visa will be immediately available for a beneficiary in that category. Section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1151(b)(2)(A)(i) (2006). However, should the child of a United States citizen reach the age of 21 before immigrating to the United States, he or she is then classified as a “son” or “daughter” of a United States citizen and falls within the purview of the first-preference category, which is subject to numerical limits and the attendant wait for a visa to become available. See section 203 of the Act (establishing the percentage of visas that may be allocated for various relative classifications). To illustrate, had this beneficiary been a child

CSPA基本上是为了向可能因签证处理或调整申请裁定的行政延迟而“超龄”失去受益人身份的儿童提供救济而颁布的。就移民目的而言，“儿童”被定义为21岁以下的未婚个人。该法第101(b)(1)条。在某些签证类别中，符合“儿童”资格具有明确优势。例如，美国公民的子女被定性为“直系亲属”，该类别不受每年可用签证数量的任何法定限制。因此，美国公民的“子女”无需等待优先日期变为当前，因为该类别受益人签证将立即可用。该法第201(b)(2)(A)(i)条，8 U.S.C. § 1151(b)(2)(A)(i) (2006)。然而，如果美国公民的子女在移民美国前达到21岁，他或她随后被归类为美国公民的“儿子”或“女儿”，属于第一优先类别的范围，该类别受数量限制并需等待签证可用。见该法第203条（规定可为各种亲属类别分配的签证百分比）。举例来说，如果该受益人今天

4 This matter notes that the term “child” means an unmarried person under 21. 5 Section 203(a) refers to familial visas, (b) refers to employment based visas, and (c) refers to diversity visas.

4 本事项指出，“儿童”一词指21岁以下的未婚个人。 5 第203(a)条指家庭签证，(b)指就业签证，(c)指多元化签证。

31

31

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 28 (BIA 2009) Interim Decision #3646

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 28 (BIA 2009) 临时决定 #3646

of a United States citizen today, she could immediately seek to immigrate as an immediate relative. However, as a Chinese national who is the unmarried daughter of a lawful permanent resident, she falls within the second-preference category, which is several years from being current. 6

是美国公民的子女，她可以立即作为直系亲属寻求移民。然而，作为合法永久居民的未婚女儿的中国国民，她属于第二优先类别，该类别距离变为当前还有数年。6

To protect a child’s status from being lost on account of administrative processing delays, section 203(h)(1) of the Act provides a formula for determining whether a son or a daughter who, as in this case, is the derivative beneficiary of a visa petition may still qualify as a “child” when the parent’s petition becomes current. The formula subtracts the amount of time it took Departmentof HomelandSecurity’sUnitedStatesCitizenshipandImmigration Services (“USCIS”) to adjudicate the visa petition (that is, the number of days from the date the visa petition was filed to the date the visa petition was approved) from the age of the derivative beneficiary on the date the visa petition became available. If the age of the derivative beneficiary as so calculated is under 21, then she may still be considered a “child,” and she may be eligible to adjust her status or immigrate to the United States based on a visa petition filed on behalf of her parent.

为保护儿童身份不因行政处理延误而丧失，该法第203(h)(1)条规定了一项公式，用于确定在本案中作为签证申请衍生受益人的子女，在父母的申请变为可签证时是否仍可符合“儿童”资格。该公式从衍生受益人在签证申请变为可签证之日的年龄中，减去国土安全部美国公民及移民服务局（“USCIS”）审理该签证申请所花费的时间（即从签证申请提交之日到签证申请获批之日的天数）。如果按此计算出的衍生受益人年龄未满21岁，则她仍可被视为“儿童”，并且她可能有资格基于为其父母提交的签证申请调整身份或移民美国。

The parties in this case agree that the beneficiary could not be considered a “child” under section 203(h)(1) of the Act, because at the time the 1992 visa petition became current, she was not under 21, even subtracting the number of days that the visa petition was pending approval, which was less than 2 months’ time. The beneficiary had already aged out when the 1992 visa petition became current, and she was thus not eligible to immigrate with her father in 2005.

本案各方均同意，受益人不能依据该法第203(h)(1)条被视为“儿童”，因为在1992年签证申请变为可签证时，她未满21岁，即使减去签证申请待批的天数（不足2个月）也是如此。当1992年签证申请变为可签证时，受益人已经超龄，因此她无资格于2005年随其父亲移民。

B. “One-Year” Bar

B.“一年”禁止

The issue then turns on whether the petitioner may use section 203(h)(3) of the Act to convert the priority date from his sister’s fourth-preference visa petition to an unrelated second-preference visa petition for his daughter. As noted above, section 203(h)(1) provides a calculation that determines the age of an alien on the date an immigrant visa number becomes available, “but only if the alien has sought to acquire the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence within one year of such availability.” Section 203(h)(1)(A) of the Act.

问题随后取决于申请人是否可以依据该法第203(h)(3)条，将其姐妹第四优先签证申请的优先日期转换为为其女儿提交的无关第二优先签证申请。如上所述，第203(h)(1)条规定了一项计算，用于确定外国人在移民签证名额变为可用之日的年龄，“但仅限该外国人在该名额可用后一年内已寻求获得合法永久居民身份”。该法第203(h)(1)(A)条。

As an initial matter, the USCIS argues that the beneficiary may not take advantage of the age calculation provision in section 203(h)(1) of the Act to utilize the priority date retention provision in section 203(h)(3), because she

首先，USCIS主张，受益人不能利用该法第203(h)(1)条的年龄计算规定来适用第203(h)(3)条的优先日期保留规定，因为她

6 The most recent priority date for this nationality and category is February 1, 2001. Department of State Visa Bulletin, Vol. IX, No. 9 (June 2009).

6 该国籍和类别最近的可签证优先日期为2001年2月1日。国务院签证公告，第IX卷，第9号（2009年6月）。

32

32

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 28 (BIA 2009) Interim Decision #3646

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 28 (BIA 2009) 临时决定 #3646

admittedly did not file an application for lawful permanent resident status within 1 year of visa availability. Conversely, the petitioner asserts that the requirement in section 203(h)(1) that an alien must seek permanent resident status within 1 year of the visa’s availability is inapplicable to his daughter. According to the petitioner, sections 203(h)(1) and (3) of the Act are distinct from each other and provide different benefits. 7

承认未在签证可用后1年内提交合法永久居民身份申请。相反，申请人主张，第203(h)(1)条关于外国人必须在签证可用后1年内寻求永久居民身份的要求不适用于其女儿。根据申请人的说法，该法第203(h)(1)条和第(3)条彼此不同，并提供不同的利益。7

The record before us contains no evidence that the beneficiary sought to acquire lawful permanent resident status under the 1992 visa petition within a year of the visa petition becoming available, that is, by February 2006. However, we need not address the question whether this bars the beneficiary from using the terms of section 203(h)(3) of the Act, as we have alternatively examined whether section 203(h)(3) permits an automatic conversion from a fourth-preference visa petition to a second-preference visa petition with retention of the priority date of the fourth-preference petition, and we resolve the matter on that basis.

我们面前的记录中没有证据表明受益人在1992年签证申请变为可用后一年内，即到2006年2月前，曾寻求根据该签证申请获得合法永久居民身份。但是，我们无需处理这是否禁止受益人适用该法第203(h)(3)条规定的问题，因为我们已另行审查第203(h)(3)条是否允许从第四优先签证申请自动转换为第二优先签证申请并保留第四优先申请的优先日期，我们基于该理由解决此事。

IV. AUTOMATIC CONVERSION AND PRIORITY DATE

IV. 自动转换和优先日期

RETENTION UNDER SECTION 203(h)(3)

依据该法第203(h)(3)条的保留

OF THE ACT

该法

A. Statutory language

A. 法定语言

If the beneficiary is determined to be 21 years of age or older pursuant to section 203(h)(1) of the Act, then section 203(h)(3) provides that “the alien’s petition shall automatically be converted to the appropriate category and the alien shall retain the original priority date issued upon receipt of the original petition.” Unlike sections 203(h)(1) and (2), which when read in tandem clearly define the universe of petitions that qualify for the “delayed processing formula,” the language of section 203(h)(3) does not expressly state which petitions qualifyfor automatic conversion and retention of prioritydates. Given this ambiguity, we must look to the legislative intent behind section 203(h)(3).

如果依据该法第203(h)(1)条确定受益人年满21岁或以上，则第203(h)(3)条规定，“该外国人的申请应自动转换为适当类别，且该外国人应保留收到原始申请时签发的原始优先日期。”与第203(h)(1)条和第(2)条结合阅读时明确界定符合“延迟处理公式”的申请范围不同，第203(h)(3)条的语言未明确说明哪些申请符合自动转换和保留优先日期的资格。鉴于这一模糊性，我们必须考察第203(h)(3)条背后的立法意图。

7 The petitioner cites our unpublished decision in Matter of Garcia, A79 001 587 (BIA June 16, 2006), 2006 WL 2183654, in which we found that section 203(h)(3) allowed the alien to use the priority date granted to her as a derivative beneficiary of her mother’s visa petition. As a rule, unpublished decisions are not authority, and we are not bound by them. Matter of Arthur, 20 I&N Dec. 475 (BIA 1992), modified on other grounds, Matter of Velarde, 23 I&N Dec. 253 (BIA 2002); Matter of Medrano, 20 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 1990, 1991). Nevertheless, we observe that the decision in Garcia discussed neither the requirement that an alien must seekto acquire lawful permanent resident status within 1 year of visa availability nor the legislative framework of the statute. We therefore decline to adopt the reasoning in Garcia. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(g) (2009).

7 申请人引用了我们在Matter of Garcia, A79 001 587 (BIA June 16, 2006), 2006 WL 2183654中的未公布决定，其中我们认定第203(h)(3)条允许该外国人使用其作为母亲签证申请衍生受益人获得的优先日期。作为规则，未公布的决定不具权威性，我们不受其约束。Matter of Arthur, 20 I&N Dec. 475 (BIA 1992), modified on other grounds, Matter of Velarde, 23 I&N Dec. 253 (BIA 2002); Matter of Medrano, 20 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 1990, 1991)。 尽管如此，我们注意到Garcia案的决定既未讨论外国人必须在签证可用后1年内寻求获得合法永久居民身份的要求，也未讨论该法的立法框架。因此，我们拒绝采纳Garcia案的推理。见 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(g) (2009)。

33

33

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 28 (BIA 2009) Interim Decision #3646

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 28 (BIA 2009) 临时决定 #3646

The petitioner urges a broad interpretation of section 203(h), contending that section 203(h)(3) is available to all derivative beneficiaries of any visa petition classification. The brief offeredbyamicicuriaesimilarlymaintainsthatsection 203(h) of the Act is ameliorative and inclusive and does not limit its automatic conversion and priority date retention provisions to family-based preference petitions. In contrast, the USCIS urges a much narrower interpretation of the CSPA, arguing that section 203(h)(3) mirrors the language of 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(a)(4) and essentially codifies “established regulatory practice,” which requires that the original priority date will be retained only if the second visa petition is filed bythe same petitioner. Thus, the USCIS maintains that in order to effect an “automatic conversion” under the CSPA, the petitioner also must have been the petitioner on the 1992 visa petition. According to the USCIS, such an interpretation of the statute avoids open-ended petitions with no timeliness considerations. We begin with an examination of the regulatory and statutory context in which Congress enacted the automatic conversion and priority date retention provisions of section 203(h)(3).

申请人敦促对第203(h)条作广义解释，主张第203(h)(3)条适用于任何签证申请类别的所有衍生受益人。法庭之友提交的简报同样主张，该法第203(h)条具有改善性和包容性，并未将其自动转换和优先日期保留规定限于家庭类优先申请。相反，USCIS敦促对CSPA作窄得多的解释，主张第203(h)(3)条与8 C.F.R. § 204.2(a)(4)的语言相呼应，实质上编纂了“既有监管实践”，该实践要求只有在第二份签证申请由同一申请人提交时才保留原始优先日期。因此，USCIS主张，为根据CSPA实现“自动转换”，申请人还必须曾是1992年签证申请的申请人。根据USCIS的说法，对法规的这种解释避免了没有时效考虑的开放式申请。我们首先考察国会颁布第203(h)(3)条自动转换和优先日期保留规定时所处的监管和法定背景。

B. Use of Visa Petition Conversion and Priority Date

B. 签证申请转换和优先日期

Retention Language

保留语言的使用

In immigration regulations, the phrase “automatic conversion” has a recognized meaning. For example, the relevant provisions of 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(i), which have been in effect since 1987, provide for the “automatic conversion of preference classification” from one preference category to another upon the occurrence of certain events. See Automatic Conversion of Classification of Beneficiary, 52 Fed. Reg. 33,797 (Sept. 8, 1987), 1987 WL 140984. Such events include changes in the beneficiary’s marital status or the naturalization of the petitioner. Thus, a second-preference petition filed on behalf of the son or daughter of a petitioner who naturalizes would automatically convert to a first-preference petition, and the newly converted petition would retain the original priority date.

在移民法规中，“自动转换”一词具有公认含义。例如，自1987年起生效的8 C.F.R. § 204.2(i)相关条款规定，在发生某些事件时，“优先类别的自动转换”从一个优先类别转为另一个优先类别。见 Automatic Conversion of Classification of Beneficiary, 52 Fed. Reg. 33,797 (Sept. 8, 1987), 1987 WL 140984。此类事件包括受益人婚姻状况的变化或申请人归化。因此，为归化申请人的儿子或女儿提交的第二优先申请将自动转换为第一优先申请，新转换的申请将保留原始优先日期。

Similarly, at the time Congress enacted the CSPA, the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(a)(4) provided for “retention” of a priority date for an aged-out child who was accompanying or following to join a principal beneficiary on a second-preference spousal petition. Under 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(a)(4), if a child ages out prior to the issuance of a visa to the principal beneficiary, a separate petition for that son or daughter is then required, but the original prioritydate is retained if the subsequent petition is filed bythe same petitioner. In other words, the retention provision of 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(a)(4) is limited to a lawful permanent resident’s son or daughter who was previously eligible

同样，在国会颁布CSPA时，8 C.F.R. § 204.2(a)(4)的法规规定，对于随行或随后加入第二优先配偶申请主受益人的超龄子女，“保留”优先日期。根据8 C.F.R. § 204.2(a)(4)，如果子女在主受益人获得签证前超龄，则随后需要为该儿子或女儿提交单独申请，但如果后续申请由同一申请人提交，则保留原始优先日期。换言之，8 C.F.R. § 204.2(a)(4)的保留规定限于合法永久居民的儿子或女儿，该子女此前曾符合资格

34

34

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 28 (BIA 2009) Interim Decision #3646

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 28 (BIA 2009) 临时决定 #3646

as a derivative beneficiary under a second-preference spousal petition filed by that same lawful permanent resident.

作为由同一合法永久居民提交的第二优先配偶申请下的衍生受益人。

In another context, the CSPA added section 201(f) to the Act, which sets forth rules for determining whether certain aliens qualify as immediate relatives. Thatsectiontreatedtheterms“automaticconversion”and“retention” consistently with the existing regulatory schema. 8 Section 201(f) expressly authorizes automatic conversions of petitions upon the naturalization of an alien’s parent or the termination of a beneficiary’s marriage. In such situations, neither the beneficiary nor an immigration officer need take any action to effect the conversion to the new preference category, because the “conversion” of the originally filed petition based on one preference category to another preference category occurs automatically by operation of law. 9

在另一背景下，CSPA在该法中增加了第201(f)条，规定了确定某些外国人是否符合直系亲属资格的规则。该条对“自动转换”和“保留”术语的处理与现有监管框架一致。8 第201(f)条明确授权在外国人父母归化或受益人婚姻终止时自动转换申请。在此类情况下，受益人移民官员均无需采取任何行动即可实现向新优先类别的转换，因为基于一个优先类别最初提交的申请向另一优先类别的“转换”依法自动发生。9

As illustrated above, the term “conversion” has consistently been used to mean that a visa petition converts from one visa category to another, and the beneficiary of that petition then falls within a new classification without the need to file a new visa petition. Similarly, the concept of “retention” of priority dates has always been limited to visa petitions filed by the same family member. A visa petition filed by another family member receives its own priority date. We therefore presume that Congress enacted the language in section 203(h)(3) with an understanding of the past usage of these regulatory terms. See Matter of Monreal, 23 I&N Dec. 56 (BIA 2001); Matter of Devison, 22 I&N Dec. 1362 (BIA 2000, 2001).

如上所示，“转换”一词一贯用于指签证申请从一个签证类别转换为另一个签证类别，该申请的受益人随后归入新的分类，而无需提交新的签证申请。同样，优先日期“保留”的概念始终限于同一家庭成员提交的签证申请。另一家庭成员提交的签证申请获得其自己的优先日期。因此，我们推定国会在颁布第203(h)(3)条语言时了解这些监管术语的过往用法。见 Matter of Monreal, 23 I&N Dec. 56 (BIA 2001); Matter of Devison, 22 I&N Dec. 1362 (BIA 2000, 2001)。

With this understanding of how the automatic conversion and priority date retention processes have operated historically, we turn to this case to determine how section 203(h)(3) would apply to the beneficiary. First, with regard to the “automatic conversion” referenced in section 203(h)(3), we look to see to which category the fourth-preference petition converted at the moment the beneficiary aged out. When the beneficiary aged out from her status as a derivative beneficiary on a fourth-preference petition, there was no other category to which her visa could convert because no category exists for the

基于对自动转换和优先日期保留程序历史运作方式的这一理解，我们转向本案，以确定第203(h)(3)条将如何适用于受益人。首先，关于第203(h)(3)条中提及的“自动转换”，我们查看第四优先申请在受益人超龄那一刻转换为何种类别。当受益人从第四优先申请的衍生受益人身份超龄时，其签证没有其他类别可转换，因为不存在针对该

8 In fact, section 2 of the CSPA, 116 Stat. at 927-28, which added section 201(f) to the Act, specifically referenced the preexisting regulatory automatic conversion provisions of 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.2(i)(1) and (3). 9 By way of further example, section 6 of the CSPA, 116 Stat. at 929, added section 204(k) to the Act to create a new automatic conversion category, wherein a petition filed on behalf of an unmarried son or daughter of a lawful permanent resident who subsequently naturalizes will automatically convert to a petition to classifythe alien as the son or daughter of a United States citizen. The “automatic” nature of this transaction is emphasized by the need for aliens to affirmatively opt out of the conversion if they do not wish to move into the new preference category (for example, should the new category provide a less advantageous priority date). See section 204(k)(2) of the Act.

8 事实上，CSPA第2条，116 Stat. at 927-28，在法案中增加了第201(f)条，特别引用了8 C.F.R. §§ 204.2(i)(1)和(3)中已有的法规自动转换条款。 9 作为进一步的例子，CSPA第6条，116 Stat. at 929，在法案中增加了第204(k)条，创建了一个新的自动转换类别，其中为合法永久居民的非婚生子女提交的申请，若该居民随后入籍，将自动转换为将该外国人归类为美国公民的子女的申请。这种交易的“自动”性质通过外国人如果不想进入新的优先类别（例如，如果新类别提供较不利的优先日期）必须肯定选择退出的需要而得到强调。见法案第204(k)(2)条。

35

35

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 28 (BIA 2009) Interim Decision #3646

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 28 (BIA 2009) 临时决定 #3646

niece of a United States citizen. Second, if we apply the “retention” language of section 203(h) here, we look to see if the new petition was filed on the beneficiary’s behalf by the same petitioner. In the beneficiary’s case, the new visa petition has been filed by her father, not by her aunt (who was the original petitioner). As noted above, her aunt is not eligible to file a new petition for her because no category exists for the niece of a United States citizen under our existing visa preference classification system.

美国公民的侄女。其次，如果我们在此适用第203(h)条的“保留”语言，我们查看新申请是否由同一申请人代表受益人提交。在受益人的案件中，新的签证申请是由她的父亲提交的，而不是由她的阿姨（原申请人）提交的。如上所述，她的阿姨没有资格为她提交新的申请，因为在现有签证优先分类体系下，美国公民的侄女没有类别存在。

The petitioner disregards the context explained above and instead maintains that the CSPA is intended as anameliorativeprovisionto keep families together and that the beneficiary in one visa preference category should be able to retain the prioritydate for all derivative beneficiaries who mayage out. His argument suggests that any time a son or daughter who is a derivative beneficiary of a visa petition filed on behalf of the parent alien is calculated to be 21 years of age or older pursuant to section 203(h)(1)of the Act, that derivative visa petition automatically converts to a new visa petition that may be filed in the future when the alien parent becomes eligible to file the new visa petition. Thus, by this argument, as long as a parent gains status under any preference category, all children who were derivative beneficiaries would gain favorable priority date status, even with regard to a new visa petition that is wholly independent of the original petition and that may be filed without any time limitation in the future. In other words, a derivative beneficiary would never age out or lose a previous priority date. However, we find no clear indication in the statute that Congress intended to expand the historical categories eligible for automatic conversion and priority date retention in such a fashion. We therefore search the legislative history of the CSPA for evidence of a clear intent by Congress to expand the use of the concepts of automatic conversion and priority date retention, as advocated by the petitioner.

申请人无视上述解释的背景，反而坚持认为CSPA旨在作为一项改善性条款以保持家庭团聚，并且在一个签证优先类别中的受益人应能够为所有可能超龄的衍生受益人保留优先日期。他的论点表明，任何时间，作为代表父母外国人提交的签证申请的衍生受益人的子女，根据法案第203(h)(1)条计算为21岁或以上，该衍生签证申请自动转换为新的签证申请，该新申请可在未来外国父母有资格提交新签证申请时提交。因此，根据这一论点，只要父母在任何优先类别下获得身份，所有曾为衍生受益人的子女将获得有利的优先日期地位，即使对于完全独立于原始申请且在未来可能无任何时间限制提交的新签证申请也是如此。换句话说，衍生受益人永远不会超龄或失去以前的优先日期。然而，我们在法规中没有发现明确迹象表明国会意图以这种方式扩大符合自动转换和优先日期保留的历史类别。因此，我们在CSPA的立法历史中寻找证据，证明国会明确意图扩大自动转换和优先日期保留概念的使用，如申请人所主张。

C. Legislative History

C. 立法历史

In the House Report accompanying H.R. 1209,107thCong. (2001), initially entitled the “Child Status Protection Act of 2001,” the Committee on the Judiciary identified the purpose of the bill as modifying

在伴随H.R. 1209,107thCong. (2001)的众议院报告中，该法案最初题为“2001年儿童身份保护法”，司法委员会将法案的目的确定为修改

provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act determining whether an alien is considered a child and eligible for permanent resident status as an immediate relative of a U.S. citizen, principally by providing that the alien’s status as a child is determined as of the date on which the petition to classify the alien as an immediate relative is filed.

《移民和国籍法》中确定外国人是否被视为儿童并有资格作为美国公民直系亲属获得永久居民身份的规定，主要是通过规定外国人的儿童身份截至提交将外国人归类为直系亲属的申请之日确定。

H.R. Rep. No. 107-45, at 1-2 (2001), reprinted in 2002 U.S.C.C.A.N. 640, 640, 2001 WL 406244, at *1-2. Both the report and associated statements from

H.R. Rep. No. 107-45, at 1-2 (2001), reprinted in 2002 U.S.C.C.A.N. 640, 640, 2001 WL 406244, at *1-2。报告和来自

36

36

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 28 (BIA 2009) Interim Decision #3646

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 28 (BIA 2009) 临时决定 #3646

several members of the House of Representatives emphasize that the drive for the legislation was the then-extensive administrative delays in the processing of visa petitions and applications resulting in the aging out of beneficiaries of petitions filed byUnited States citizens and the associated loss of child status for immigration purposes. Id. at 2, reprinted in 2002 U.S.C.C.A.N. 640, 641, 2001 WL 406244, at *2; see also 147 Cong. Rec. H2901 (daily ed. June 6, 2001) (statements of Reps. Sensenbrenner, Jackson-Lee, and Smith), 2001 WL 617985.

几位众议院议员强调，推动立法的动力是当时签证申请和处理中的广泛行政延迟，导致美国公民提交的申请受益人超龄以及相关的移民目的儿童身份丧失。Id. at 2, reprinted in 2002 U.S.C.C.A.N. 640, 641, 2001 WL 406244, at *2; 另见 147 Cong. Rec. H2901 (daily ed. June 6, 2001) (Reps. Sensenbrenner, Jackson-Lee, and Smith的声明), 2001 WL 617985。

The legislature subsequently reported changes to the proposed CSPA, regarding retention of child status for immediate relatives and adding section 203(h) of the Act in its current form. CSPA, § 3, 116 Stat. at 928. A report on the activities of the Committee on the Judiciary summarized the CSPA, noting that the statute applied when a child of a United States citizen ages out, when lawful permanent resident parents naturalize after petitioning for their sons and daughters, and when United States citizen parents petition for their married sons and daughters whose marriages are later terminated, and it applied as well to children of lawful permanent residents, family- and employer-sponsored immigrants, and diversity lottery winners. H.R. Rep. No. 107-807 (2003), 2003 WL 131168, at *55-56.

立法机构随后报告了对拟议CSPA的变更，涉及直系亲属的儿童身份保留，并以当前形式增加了法案第203(h)条。CSPA, § 3, 116 Stat. at 928。司法委员会活动报告总结了CSPA，指出该法规适用于美国公民的子女超龄时，合法永久居民父母在为子女申请后入籍时，以及美国公民父母为其已婚子女申请且婚姻后来终止时，并且也适用于合法永久居民的子女、家庭和雇主担保的移民以及多元化 lottery 获胜者。H.R. Rep. No. 107-807 (2003), 2003 WL 131168, at *55-56。

While the legislative record contains generalized references to the Senate amendment regarding children of family- and employment-based visas and diversity visas, there is little discussion explaining the nature of those changes. However, the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary did note, in referencing those amendments, that the Senate bill addresses other situations where alien children lose immigration benefits by aging out as a result of processing delays. He noted the same included children of lawful permanent residents, family- and employer-sponsored immigrants, diversity lottery winners, and asylees and refugees. 148 Cong. Rec. H4989 (daily ed. July 22, 2002) (statement of Rep. Sensenbrenner), 2002 WL 1610632, at *H4990-91; see also H.R. Rep. 107-807, 2003 WL 131168, at *55-56.

虽然立法记录包含对参议院修正案的概括性引用，涉及家庭和就业签证及多元化签证的子女，但很少有讨论解释这些变更的性质。然而，司法委员会主席在引用这些修正案时确实指出，参议院法案处理了其他情况，即外国儿童因处理延迟而超龄失去移民福利。他指出同样包括合法永久居民的子女、家庭和雇主担保的移民、多元化 lottery 获胜者以及庇护者和难民。148 Cong. Rec. H4989 (daily ed. July 22, 2002) (Rep. Sensenbrenner的声明), 2002 WL 1610632, at *H4990-91; 另见 H.R. Rep. 107-807, 2003 WL 131168, at *55-56。

There was repeated discussion in the House, both before and after the Senate amendment, of the intention to allow for retention of child status “without displacing others who have been waiting patiently in other visa categories.” 148 Cong.Rec. H4989 (statement of Rep. Jackson-Lee), 2002 WL 1610632, at *H4992; 147 Cong. Rec. H2901, 2001 WL 617985, at *H2902. 10

在众议院，参议院修正案前后反复讨论了允许保留儿童身份的意图，“不取代其他在其他签证类别中耐心等待的人。”148 Cong.Rec. H4989 (Rep. Jackson-Lee的声明), 2002 WL 1610632, at *H4992; 147 Cong. Rec. H2901, 2001 WL 617985, at *H2902。10

10 Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee reported that the bill contained newly added compromise language to reflect the legislature’s desire that the bill not displace others already awaiting visas in other preference categories. Indeed, it was expected that this legislation would open up more immigrant visas in the preference categories because more

10 代表Sheila Jackson-Lee报告说，该法案包含新添加的妥协语言，以反映立法机构希望该法案不取代其他已在其他优先类别中等待签证的人。事实上，预期该立法将在优先类别中开放更多移民签证，因为更多

(continued...)

（续...）

37

37

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 28 (BIA 2009) Interim Decision #3646

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 28 (BIA 2009) 临时决定 #3646

The historical record regarding the CSPA contains nothing that is contrary to, or reflects any disagreement with, the noted intent of legislators to have the CSPA address the issue of children aging out of visa availability as a result of administrative processing delays, without cutting in line ahead of others awaiting visas in other preference categories. While the CSPA was enacted to alleviate the consequences of administrative delays, there is no clear evidence that it was intended to address delays resulting from visa allocation issues, such as the long wait associated with priority dates. If we interpret section 203(h) as the petitioner advocates, the beneficiary, as a new entrant in the second-preference visa category line, would displace other aliens who have already been in that line for years before her. Although her visa petition was filed in 2006, the beneficiary would “jump” to the front of the line by retaining a 1992 priority date, thereby causing all the individuals behind her to fall further behind in the queue. 11

关于CSPA的历史记录中没有任何与立法者指出的意图相反或反映任何分歧的内容，即CSPA处理儿童因行政处理延迟而超龄失去签证可用性的问题，而不插队到其他优先类别中等待签证的人前面。虽然CSPA颁布是为了减轻行政延迟的后果，但没有明确证据表明它旨在处理签证分配问题导致的延迟，例如与优先日期相关的长时间等待。如果我们按照申请人的主张解释第203(h)条，受益人作为第二优先签证类别队列的新进入者，将取代其他在她之前已在该队列中多年的外国人。尽管她的签证申请于2006年提交，但受益人将通过保留1992年的优先日期“跳”到队列前面，从而使她后面的所有个人在队列中进一步落后。11

We recognize the petitioner’s concern that the length of the visa queue in certain categories can result in children aging out of visa eligibility and losing the opportunity to immigrate with other family members. However, this delayis not a consequence of administrativedelaysbytheGovernment. Rather, it is the result of a high demand for a finite number of visas. We find that while the legislative record demonstrates a clear concern on the part of Congress to ameliorate the delays associated with the processing of visa petitions, there is no indication in the statutory language or legislative history of the CSPA that Congress intended to create a mechanism to avoid the natural consequence of a child aging out of a visa category because of the length of the visa line. We find no indication in the legislative record that Congress was attempting to expand on the historical application of automatic conversion and retention of priority dates for visa petitions, and we therefore decline to read such an expansion into the statute.

我们认识到申请人担心某些类别中签证队列的长度可能导致儿童超龄失去签证资格并失去与其他家庭成员一起移民的机会。然而，这种延迟不是政府行政延迟的后果。相反，它是有限数量签证的高需求的结果。我们发现，虽然立法记录表明国会明确关注减轻与签证申请处理相关的延迟，但在CSPA的法规语言或立法历史中没有迹象表明国会意图创建一种机制来避免儿童因签证队列长度而超龄出签证类别的自然后果。我们在立法记录中没有发现任何迹象表明国会试图扩大自动转换和优先日期保留对签证申请的历史应用，因此我们拒绝将这种扩大解读入法规。

(...continued)

（...续）

individuals would be eligible for visas as immediate relatives and fewer would be shifted to the limited, family-based preference categories. 147 Cong. Rec. H2901 (statement of Rep. Jackson-Lee), 2001 WL 617985, at *H2902. 11 The petitioner’s argument is rather similar in nature to one seeking to “grandfather” a priority date. However, Congress did not write the statute in such a manner, although it clearly has the capability of doing so. See section 245(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i) (2006).

个人将有资格作为直系亲属获得签证，而更少的人将被转移到有限的家庭优先类别。 147 Cong. Rec. H2901 (Rep. Jackson-Lee的声明), 2001 WL 617985, at *H2902。 11 申请人的论点在性质上类似于寻求“祖父条款”优先日期。然而，国会没有以这种方式撰写法规，尽管它显然有能力这样做。见法案第245(i)条，8 U.S.C. § 1255(i) (2006)。

38

38

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 28 (BIA 2009) Interim Decision #3646

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 28 (BIA 2009) 临时决定 #3646

V. CONCLUSION

V. 结论

When the beneficiary turned 21 years of age before the fourth-preference visa petition became current, she no longer qualified as a “child” under section 203(h)(1) of the Act. Further, the automatic conversion and priority date retention provisions of section 203(h)(3) do not apply to the beneficiary, as those concepts are used historically in Federal regulations and codified elsewhere in the CSPA. First, there was no available category to which the beneficiary’s petition could convert because no category exists for the niece of a United States citizen. Moreover, the second-preference petition filed on behalf of the beneficiary cannot retain the priority date from the fourth-preference petition filed by her aunt because the second-petition has been filed by her father, a new petitioner.

当受益人在第四优先签证申请变为当前之前年满21岁时，她不再符合法案第203(h)(1)条下的“儿童”资格。此外，第203(h)(3)条的自动转换和优先日期保留条款不适用于受益人，因为这些概念在联邦法规和CSPA其他地方的历史使用中。首先，没有可用的类别可供受益人的申请转换，因为美国公民的侄女没有类别存在。此外，代表受益人提交的第二优先申请不能保留她阿姨提交的第四优先申请的优先日期，因为第二申请是由她的父亲，一个新申请人提交的。

Absent clear legislative intent to create an open-ended grandfathering of priority dates that allow derivative beneficiaries to retain an earlier priority date set in the context of a different relationship, to be used at any time, which we do not find in the history of the CSPA, we decline to apply the automatic conversion and prioritydate retention provisions of section 203(h) beyond their current bounds. Accordingly, we will affirm the decision of the director that the priority date to be assigned to the petitioner’s visa petition on behalf of his daughter is September 5, 2006, the date the visa petition was filed.

在缺乏明确的立法意图——即创设一种开放式的优先日期祖父条款，使衍生受益人能够保留在不同关系背景下设定的较早优先日期并可在任何时候使用——的情况下，我们在《儿童身份保护法》（CSPA）的立法历史中未发现此种意图，因此我们拒绝将第203(h)条的自动转换和优先日期保留条款适用于其当前边界之外。据此，我们将维持主任的决定，即申请人为其女儿提交的签证申请所应分配的优先日期为2006年9月5日，即该签证申请提交之日。

39

39