Matter of Chawathe

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010) Interim Decision #3700

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010) 临时决定 #3700

Decided October 20, 2010 1

2010年10月20日决定 1

U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Administrative Appeals Office

美国国土安全部 美国公民及移民服务局 行政上诉办公室

(1) For purposes of establishing the requisite continuous residence in naturalization proceedings pursuant to section 316(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1427(b) (2006), a publicly held corporation may be deemed an “American firm or corporation” if the applicant establishes that the corporation is both incorporated in the United States and trades its stock exclusively on U.S. stock exchange markets.

(1) 为根据《移民与国籍法》第316(b)条，8 U.S.C. § 1427(b) (2006)，在入籍程序中确立所需的连续居住，如果申请人证明该公司既在美国注册成立又仅在美国证券交易所市场交易其股票，则公开持股公司可以被视为“美国商号或公司”。

(2) When an applicant’s employer is a publicly held corporation that is incorporated in the United States and trades its stock exclusively on U.S. stock markets, the applicant need not demonstrate the nationality of the corporation by establishing the nationality of those persons who own more than 51% of the stock of that firm. Matter of Warrach, 17 I&N Dec. 285, 286-87 (Reg. Comm’r 1979), clarified.

(2) 当申请人的雇主是一家在美国注册成立且仅在美国股票市场交易其股票的公开持股公司时，申请人无需通过确立拥有该公司超过51%股票的人士的国籍来证明该公司的国籍。Matter of Warrach, 17 I&N Dec. 285, 286-87 (Reg. Comm’r 1979)，予以澄清。

(3) In most administrative immigration proceedings, the applicant must prove by a preponderance of evidence that he or she is eligible for the benefit sought.

(3) 在大多数行政移民程序中，申请人必须通过优势证据证明其有资格获得所寻求的福利。

(4) Even if the director has some doubt as to the truth, if the petitioner submits relevant, probative, and credible evidence that leads the director to believe that the claim is “more likely than not” or “probably” true, the applicant has satisfied the standard of proof. Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm’r 1989), followed.

(4) 即使主任对真实性存有某些疑问，如果申请人提交了相关、有证明力且可信的证据，使主任相信该主张“更可能”或“大概”为真，申请人即已满足证明标准。Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm’r 1989)，予以遵循。

(5) If the director can articulate a material doubt, it is appropriate for the director to either request additional evidence or, if that doubt leads the director to believe that the claim is probably not true, deny the application or petition.

(5) 如果主任能够阐明实质性疑问，主任适宜请求补充证据，或者，如果该疑问使主任相信该主张大概不真实，则拒绝该申请或请求。

ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT: Pro se

代表申请人：自行代理

BEFORE: Perry Rhew, Chief, Administrative Appeals Office

审理者：Perry Rhew，行政上诉办公室主任

The application to preserve residence for naturalization purposes was denied by the Acting District Director, San Francisco, California, and is now

为入籍目的保留居住的申请被加利福尼亚州旧金山的代理地区主任拒绝，现

1 This matter was initially decided on January 11, 2006, and designated as an “adopted decision” of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), guiding USCIS officers in their administration of the immigration laws. It was not designated as precedent under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(i) (2010) until October 20, 2010. On our own motion, we reopen and amend the decision for the limited purpose of making editorial revisions consistent with designation of the decision as precedent.

1 本事项最初于2006年1月11日决定，并被指定为美国公民及移民服务局（“USCIS”）的“采纳决定”，指导USCIS官员执行移民法。直至2010年10月20日，才根据8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(i) (2010)被指定为先例。我们自行动议，重新开启并修订该决定，仅限于进行与该决定被指定为先例相一致的编辑性修订。

369

369

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010) Interim Decision #3700

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010) 临时决定 #3700

before the Administrative Appeals Office (“AAO”) on appeal. The appeal will be sustained. The primary question presented in this matter is whether a publicly traded corporation may be considered an “American firm or corporation,” pursuant to section 316(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1427(b) (2006), when its stock ownership is widely dispersed and there is no readily available means to determine the nationality of its owners. 2 Upon review, the AAO concludes that a publicly held corporation may be deemed an “American firm or corporation” for purposes of section 316(b) of the Act if the applicant establishes that the corporation is both incorporated in the United States and trades its stock exclusively on U.S. stock markets.

在上诉中提交行政上诉办公室（“AAO”）。上诉将获支持。 本事项提出的主要问题是，根据《移民与国籍法》第316(b)条，8 U.S.C. § 1427(b) (2006)，当其股票所有权广泛分散且没有 readily available 手段确定其所有者国籍时，公开交易公司是否可以被视为“美国商号或公司”。2 经审查，AAO得出结论，如果申请人证明该公司既在美国注册成立又仅在美国股票市场交易其股票，则公开持股公司可以为该法第316(b)条的目的被视为“美国商号或公司”。

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

I. 事实与程序历史

The applicant is an employee of ChevronTexaco Corporation who was granted permanent resident status on June 26, 2000, as a member of a profession holding an advanced degree or having exceptional ability. Expecting to file an application for naturalization as a United States citizen in the future, the applicant filed an Application to Preserve Residence for Naturalization Purposes (Form N-470) with his local immigration office in San Francisco, California, on January 30, 2003. The applicant seeks to preserve his residence for naturalization purposes under section 316(b) of the Act as a lawful permanent resident who will be temporarily absent from the United States for the purpose of employment with an “American firm or corporation.” In order to be naturalized as a United States citizen, the Act requires in part that a person reside continuously in the United States as a lawful permanent resident for at least 5 years prior to filing an application for naturalization, and that the person be physically present in the United States for at least one half of the required residency period. See generally section 316 of the Act. Section 316(b) of the Act provides that an absence from the United States for a continuous period of 1 year or more shall break the continuity of the required 5-year period of continuous residence. However, section 316(b) of the Act also provides that no period of absence from the United States shall break the continuity of residence if the applicant proves to the satisfaction of the Secretary of Homeland Security that he or she

申请人是ChevronTexaco Corporation的雇员，于2000年6月26日作为拥有高级学位的专业人士或具有特殊才能的人获得永久居民身份。预期将来提交作为美国公民的入籍申请，申请人于2003年1月30日向其位于加利福尼亚州旧金山的当地移民办公室提交了为入籍目的保留居住的申请（表格N-470）。申请人寻求根据该法第316(b)条作为合法永久居民为入籍目的保留其居住，该居民将因受雇于“美国商号或公司”而暂时离开美国。 为归化为美国公民，该法部分要求一个人在提交入籍申请前作为合法永久居民连续在美国居住至少5年，并且该人在所需居住期间至少有一半时间实际身在美国。一般见该法第316条。 该法第316(b)条规定，连续离开美国1年或以上应中断所需5年连续居住期的连续性。 然而，该法第316(b)条还规定，如果申请人使国土安全部部长确信其

2 A “stock” is a proportional part of a corporation’s capital represented by the total number of equal units (or shares) owned, and granting the stockholder the right to participate in the management of the corporation and share in its profits. See generally Black’s Law Dictionary 1428 (7th ed. 2002).

2 “股票”是公司资本的比例部分，由所拥有的等额单位（或股份）总数代表，并授予股东参与公司管理和分享其利润的权利。一般见 Black’s Law Dictionary 1428 (7th ed. 2002)。

370

370

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010) Interim Decision #3700

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010) 临时决定 #3700

has been physically present and residing in the United States after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence for an uninterrupted period of at least one year and . . . is employed by an American firm or corporation engaged in whole or in part in the development of foreign trade and commerce of the United States, or a subsidiary thereof more than 50 per centum of whose stock is owned by an American firm or corporation . . . .

在合法获准永久居留后已实际身在美国并居住在美国连续至少一年，并且……受雇于一家全部或部分从事美国对外贸易和商业发展的美国商号或公司，或其子公司，该子公司超过50%的股票由一家美国商号或公司拥有……。

In the present matter, the director determined that the applicant had failed to establish that his employer, ChevronTexaco Corporation, was an “American firm or corporation” as required by the Act. The director determined further that the applicant had failed to establish that his temporary overseas employer, Saudi Arabian Texaco, qualified as a ChevronTexaco Corporation “subsidiary” under section 316(b) of the Act. The director denied the application for preservation of residence for naturalization purposes on this basis. On appeal, the applicant asserts that his employer, ChevronTexaco Corporation (hereafter referred to as ChevronTexaco), was incorporated in the State of Delaware and qualifies as an “American firm or corporation” under section 316(b) of the Act. The applicant also asserts that Saudi Arabian Texaco is owned and controlled by ChevronTexaco and therefore qualifies as a “subsidiary of an American corporation.”

在本事项中，主任认定申请人未能证明其雇主ChevronTexaco Corporation是该法所要求的“美国商号或公司”。主任进一步认定，申请人未能证明其海外临时雇主Saudi Arabian Texaco符合该法第316(b)条下ChevronTexaco Corporation“子公司”的资格。主任据此拒绝了为入籍目的保留居住的申请。 在上诉中，申请人主张其雇主ChevronTexaco Corporation（以下称为ChevronTexaco）在特拉华州注册成立，并符合该法第316(b)条下的“美国商号或公司”。申请人还主张Saudi Arabian Texaco由ChevronTexaco拥有和控制，因此符合“美国公司子公司”的资格。

II. “AMERICAN FIRM OR CORPORATION”

II. “美国商号或公司”

For purposes of section 316(b) of the Act, the nationality of a firm or corporation has traditionally been determined through tracing the percentage of individual ownership interest in a firm or corporation, and by tracing the nationality of the persons having principal ownership interests (more than 50%) in the firm or corporation. The Immigration and Naturalization Service Regional Commissioner stated in Matter of Warrach, 17 I&N Dec. 285, 286-87 (Reg. Comm’r 1979), that

为该法第316(b)条的目的，商号或公司的国籍传统上通过追溯商号或公司中个人所有权权益的百分比，以及通过追溯在商号或公司中拥有主要所有权权益（超过50%）的人的国籍来确定。移民和归化局地区主任在Matter of Warrach, 17 I&N Dec. 285, 286-87 (Reg. Comm’r 1979)中表示，

when it is shown that 51 percent or more of the stock of the employer corporation is owned by a foreign firm, such firm is a “foreign corporation” within the meaning of section 316(b). The fact that a firm is incorporated under the laws of a state of the United States does not necessarily determine that it is an American firm or corporation. The nationality of such firm would be determined by the nationality of those persons who own more than 51 percent of the stock of that firm.

当表明雇主公司51%或以上的股票由外国商号拥有时，该商号是第316(b)条含义内的“外国公司”。商号根据美国某州法律注册成立的事实并不必然确定其为美国商号或公司。该商号的国籍将由拥有该商号超过51%股票的人的国籍确定。

Thus, under the principles set forth in Matter of Warrach, ChevronTexaco’s incorporation in the State of Delaware does not establish that ChevronTexaco is an “American firm or corporation.” Rather, the applicant must also demonstrate that more than 50% of ChevronTexaco is owned by persons who are United States citizens. The applicant in the present matter provided no evidence to establish who the individual

因此，根据Matter of Warrach中确立的原则，ChevronTexaco在特拉华州注册成立并不证明ChevronTexaco是“美国商号或公司”。相反，申请人还必须证明ChevronTexaco超过50%由美国公民拥有。本事项中的申请人未提供证据证明个人

371

371

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010) Interim Decision #3700

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010) 临时决定 #3700

ChevronTexaco stockholders are, or to establish the percentage of ownership interests held by each stockholder. Nor did the applicant provide evidence or information to establish the nationality of each stockholder or owner of the corporation. The applicant therefore failed to establish that ChevronTexaco is an “American corporation” as defined in Matter of Warrach. The AAO notes that the principles set forth in Matter of Warrach apply well to traditional situations involving closely held companies or corporations. However, the Warrach principles fail to address or to take into account the difficulties of tracing the ownership interests and nationalities of modern, publicly held corporations that have thousands of stockholders and capital stock that is traded on a daily basis on the stock markets. 3 The present record contains a copy of ChevronTexaco Corporation’s 2002 Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, (SEC Form 10-K). An SEC Form 10-K is the report that publicly held corporations file with the SEC on an annual basis; the report provides a comprehensive overview of a corporation’s business and financial condition and includes audited financial statements. See generally U.S. SEC, Quick Answers, Form 10-K, http://www.sec.gov/answers/form10k.htm (last modified June 26, 2009). In the present matter, the submitted SEC Form 10-K reflects that ChevronTexaco is incorporated in the State of Delaware and that ChevronTexaco stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange, located in New York, New York, and on the Pacific Stock Exchange, located in San Francisco, California. The AAO notes that the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of ChevronTexaco Corporation, dated October 9, 2001, reflects that ChevronTexaco stock is traded publicly, and that “[t]he total of shares of all classes of stock which the Corporation shall have authority to issue is four billion one hundred million (4,100,000,000), of which one hundred million (100,000,000) shares shall be Preferred Stock . . . and four billion (4,000,000,000) shares shall be Common Stock.” The AAO recognizes that the widely dispersed ownership of publicly held corporations makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for an applicant

ChevronTexaco股东是谁，或证明每位股东所持所有权权益的百分比。申请人也未提供证据或信息证明每位股东或公司所有者的国籍。因此，申请人未能证明ChevronTexaco是Matter of Warrach中定义的“美国公司”。 AAO指出，Matter of Warrach中确立的原则很好地适用于涉及封闭持股公司或公司的传统情况。然而，Warrach原则未能处理或考虑到追溯现代公开持股公司的所有权权益和国籍的困难，这些公司拥有数千名股东且资本股票每天在股票市场交易。3 本记录包含一份ChevronTexaco Corporation根据1934年《证券交易法》第13或15(d)条提交的2002年证券交易委员会（“SEC”）年度报告（SEC表格10-K）的副本。SEC表格10-K是公开持股公司每年向SEC提交的报告；该报告提供公司业务和财务状况的全面概述，并包括经审计的财务报表。一般见 U.S. SEC, Quick Answers, Form 10-K, http://www.sec.gov/answers/form10k.htm（最后修改于2009年6月26日）。 在本事项中，提交的SEC表格10-K反映ChevronTexaco在特拉华州注册成立，且ChevronTexaco股票在位于纽约州纽约市的纽约证券交易所和位于加利福尼亚州旧金山的太平洋证券交易所交易。AAO指出，日期为2001年10月9日的ChevronTexaco Corporation重述公司注册证书反映ChevronTexaco股票公开交易，并且“公司有权发行的所有类别股票的总数为四十亿一亿（4,100,000,000）股，其中一亿（100,000,000）股应为优先股……四十亿（4,000,000,000）股应为普通股。” AAO认识到，公开持股公司所有权的广泛分散使得申请人极其困难，甚至不可能

3 In general, the capital stock of a corporation may be “closely held” or “publicly held.” A closely held corporation issues stock to a few stockholders, and that stock is not traded on the public stock markets or securities exchanges. By contrast, the stock of a publicly held corporation is listed on the public stock markets and is traded to and among the general public. See Black’s Law Dictionary, supra, at 341-44. The U.S. public stock markets or securities exchanges include the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), the Nasdaq Stock Market (NASDAQ), the American Stock Exchange (AMEX) [now known as NYSE Amex Equities], the Philadelphia Stock Exchange (PHLX), the Chicago Stock Exchange (CHX), Boston Stock Exchange (BSE), and the National Stock Exchange (NSX).

3 一般而言，公司的资本股票可以是“封闭持有”或“公开持有”。封闭持有公司向少数股东发行股票，该股票不在公开股票市场或证券交易所交易。相比之下，公开持有公司的股票在公开股票市场上市，并在公众之间及公众内部交易。见《布莱克法律词典》，前引，第341-44页。美国公开股票市场或证券交易所包括纽约证券交易所（NYSE）、纳斯达克股票市场（NASDAQ）、美国证券交易所（AMEX）[现称为NYSE Amex Equities]、费城证券交易所（PHLX）、芝加哥证券交易所（CHX）、波士顿证券交易所（BSE）和国家证券交易所（NSX）。

372

372

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010) Interim Decision #3700

引用为25 I&N Dec. 369（AAO 2010） 临时决定第3700号

under section 316(b) of the Act to trace the interests and nationalities of its stockholders. As in this case, a publicly traded corporation may issue billions of shares of stock which are traded daily by the general public. Examining a question relating to the nationality of a corporation and section 319(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1430 (2006), a 1995 Legal Opinion by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of the General Counsel (now Citizenship and Immigration Services, Office of Chief Counsel) discussed the United States Department of State regulations and precedent legal decisions interpreting the definition of a corporation’s nationality for purposes of the treaty trader and investor nonimmigrant visa classification. 4 The Legal Opinion observed that a corporation is normally found to have the nationality of whoever owns more than 50% of the corporation’s capital stock. The Legal Opinion indicated that it would be anomalous to have two conflicting principles to decide the same issue, with the variance depending upon which section of the Act applied to the case. See Office of INS Gen. Counsel, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Interpretation of American Firm or Corporation for section 319(b) of the Act, Genco Op. No. 95-21 (Sept. 14, 1995), available at 1995 WL 1796328. The Legal Opinion concluded that the definition of “American firm or corporation” established for purposes of nonimmigrant treaty traders and investors should also apply to relevant cases under sections 316(b) and 319(b) of the Act, as well. 5 The AAO notes that the Department of State expanded the nationality definition of a corporation for nonimmigrant treaty trader and investor purposes in Volume 9 of the Foreign Affairs Manual, 9 FAM 41.51 note 3.2, which states, in pertinent part:

根据该法第316(b)条，追溯其股东的权益和国籍。如本案一样，公开交易的公司可以发行数十亿股由公众每日交易的股票。 在审议一个与公司国籍和该法第319(b)条、8 U.S.C. § 1430（2006）有关的问题时，移民和归化局总法律顾问办公室（现为公民和移民服务局首席法律顾问办公室）1995年的一份法律意见讨论了美国国务院法规和先例法律裁决，这些裁决为条约贸易商和投资者非移民签证分类的目的解释了公司国籍的定义。4 该法律意见指出，通常认定公司具有拥有公司资本股票超过50%的人的国籍。该法律意见表示，用两项相互冲突的原则来决定同一问题，且差异取决于适用案件的该法条款，将是反常的。见移民和归化局总法律顾问办公室，美国司法部，为该方法第319(b)条对美国公司或企业的解释，Genco Op. No. 95-21（1995年9月14日），可查阅1995 WL 1796328。该法律意见的结论是，为非移民条约贸易商和投资者确立的“美国公司或企业”定义也应适用于该方法第316(b)和319(b)条下的相关案件。5 AAO注意到，国务院在《外交事务手册》第9卷第9 FAM 41.51注3.2中扩大了非移民条约贸易商和投资者目的的公司国籍定义，该注的相关部分规定：

In cases where a corporation is sold exclusively on a stock exchange in the country of incorporation, however, one can presume that the nationality of the corporation is that of the location of the exchange. The applicant should still, and may be requested to provide the best evidence available to support such

然而，在公司仅在其注册国证券交易所出售股票的情况下，可以推定该公司的国籍为交易所所在地的国籍。申请人仍应并且可能被要求提供可获得的最佳证据来支持此类

4 Section 319(b) of the Act relates, in part, to the naturalization requirements of spouses of United States citizens who are employed overseas by an “American firm or corporation” and who are engaged in whole or in part in the development of foreign trade and commerce of the United States, or a subsidiary thereof. 5 The current case, however, is readily distinguished from the case addressed by the 1995 Legal Opinion. The alien in that case was employed by a closely held corporation that was the wholly owned subsidiary of a multi-tiered business entity. The ultimate parent corporation was incorporated abroad, and the majority of its stock was owned by persons who were not U.S. citizens or nationals. Thus, the employing corporation was a foreign corporation because the ultimate parent corporation was a foreign corporation. In this current appeal, the AAO is examining the nationality of the publicly traded parent corporation, rather than a closely held subsidiary.

4 该法第319(b)条部分涉及美国公民配偶的归化要求，这些配偶由“美国公司或企业”在海外雇用，并全部或部分从事美国对外贸易和商业的发展，或其子公司。 5 然而，本案与1995年法律意见所处理的案件容易区分。该案中的外国人受雇于一家封闭持有公司，该公司是一个多层商业实体的全资子公司。最终母公司是在国外注册的，其多数股票由非美国公民或国民的人拥有。因此，雇用公司是外国公司，因为最终母公司是外国公司。在本次上诉中，AAO正在审查公开交易的母公司的国籍，而不是封闭持有的子公司。

373

373

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010) Interim Decision #3700

引用为25 I&N Dec. 369（AAO 2010） 临时决定第3700号

a presumption. In the case of a multinational corporation whose stock is exchanged in more than one country, then the applicant must satisfy the consular officer by the best evidence available that the business meets the nationality requirement.

此类推定。对于股票在多个国家交易所交易的多国公司，申请人必须通过可获得的最佳证据使领事官员满意该企业符合国籍要求。

As noted by Matter of Warrach, 17 I&N Dec. at 287, the fact that a firm is incorporated under the laws of a State of the United States does not necessarily determine that it is an American firm or corporation. However, given the difficulty of tracing the nationalities and ownership interests of modern public corporations, the AAO finds that it is reasonable to presume that a publicly held corporation meets the definition of “American firm or corporation” for section 316(b) purposes if the applicant demonstrates that the employer is both incorporated in the United States and trades its stock exclusively on U.S. stock markets. 6 In the present matter, the AAO finds that the evidence contained in the record establishes that ChevronTexaco is incorporated in the United States and that it is a publicly held corporation whose stock is exclusively sold on United States stock exchange markets. The applicant has therefore established that ChevronTexaco qualifies as an “American firm or corporation” under section 316(b) of the Act.

正如Matter of Warrach, 17 I&N Dec. at 287所指出的，一家公司根据美国某州法律注册成立的事实并不必然确定它是美国公司或企业。然而，鉴于追溯现代上市公司国籍和所有权权益的困难，AAO认为，如果申请人证明雇主既在美国注册成立又仅在美国股票市场交易其股票，则可以合理地推定公开持有公司符合该方法第316(b)条目的的“美国公司或企业”定义。6 在本案中，AAO认为记录中的证据证明ChevronTexaco在美国注册成立，并且是一家公开持有的公司，其股票仅在美国证券交易所市场出售。因此，申请人已证明ChevronTexaco符合该方法第316(b)条下的“美国公司或企业”资格。

III. SUBSIDIARY AND “PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE”

III. 子公司和“证据优势”

In addition, the AAO finds that the applicant has established that Saudi Arabia Texaco (“SAT”) qualifies as a “subsidiary” of ChevronTexaco under section 316(b) of the Act. Under section 316(b) of the Act, an applicant must establish that she or he is “[e]mployed by an American firm or corporation engaged in whole or in part in the development of foreign trade and commerce of the United States, or a subsidiary thereof more than 50 per centum of whose stock is owned by an American firm or corporation.” The AAO notes that the ChevronTexaco SEC Form 10-K submitted by the applicant states that

此外，AAO认为申请人已证明Saudi Arabia Texaco（“SAT”）符合该方法第316(b)条下ChevronTexaco的“子公司”资格。根据该方法第316(b)条，申请人必须证明她或他“[受]雇于一家全部或部分从事美国对外贸易和商业发展的美国公司或企业，或其超过50%股票由美国公司或企业拥有的子公司。” AAO注意到，申请人提交的ChevronTexaco SEC Form 10-K表明

ChevronTexaco Corporation, a Delaware corporation, manages its investments in subsidiaries and affiliates, and provides administrative, financial and management support to U.S. and foreign subsidiaries that engage in fully integrated petroleum operations, chemicals operations, coal mining, power and energy services. The company operates in the United States and approximately 180 other countries.

ChevronTexaco Corporation，一家特拉华州公司，管理其在子公司和关联公司的投资，并向从事完全一体化石油业务、化学品业务、煤炭开采、电力和能源服务的美国及外国子公司提供行政、财务和管理支持。该公司在美国和约180个其他国家运营。

6 Note that both facts must be present in order for a publicly traded firm to be considered “American.” If a firm or corporation does not satisfy both criteria, the applicant must meet the requirements of Matter of Warrach, 17 I&N Dec. at 285, to establish that the employer is an “American firm or corporation.”

6 注意，两个事实必须同时存在，公开交易公司才能被视为“美国”公司。如果公司或企业不满足两个标准，申请人必须满足Matter of Warrach, 17 I&N Dec. at 285的要求，以证明雇主是“美国公司或企业”。

374

374

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010) Interim Decision #3700

引用为25 I&N Dec. 369（AAO 2010） 临时决定第3700号

See SEC Form 10-K at 3. In discussing its international operations, the SEC Form 10-K states further that “Saudi Arabia Texaco, a ChevronTexaco subsidiary, holds a concession to produce onshore crude oil from the Partitioned Neutral Zone (PNZ), located between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the State of Kuwait.” Id. at 15-16 (emphasis added). In addition, the record contains a letter written by Mr. Tim Miller, Assistant to the President, Saudi Arabian Texaco, stating that “ChevronTexaco is engaged in the development of foreign trade and commerce of the United States through its wholly-owned subsidiary—Saudi Arabian Texaco (SAT), which is located in Kuwait.” (Emphasis added.) The letter also states that the applicant will be assigned temporarily to SAT in Kuwait for 2 to 3 years in the same capacity that he fills at ChevronTexaco in California, and that while abroad, the applicant will continue to be paid his annual salary by ChevronTexaco. Although the applicant could have submitted more probative evidence to establish that SAT is a subsidiary of ChevronTexaco, such as direct evidence of the ownership of SAT stock, the AAO finds that the SEC Form 10-K and the letter written by his employer are sufficient to establish by a preponderance of evidence that SAT is a wholly owned subsidiary of ChevronTexaco. 7 Except where a different standard is specified by law, a petitioner or applicant in administrative immigration proceedings must prove by a preponderance of evidence that he or she is eligible for the benefit sought. See, e.g., Matter of Martinez, 21 I&N Dec. 1035, 1036 (BIA 1997) (noting that the petitioner must prove eligibility by a preponderance of evidence in visa petition proceedings); Matter of Soo Hoo, 11 I&N Dec. 151, 152 (BIA 1965) (finding that the petitioner had not established eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence because the submitted evidence was not credible); cf. Matter of Patel, 19 I&N Dec. 774, 782-3 (BIA 1988) (noting that section 204(a)(2)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(2)(A) (Supp. IV 1986), requires a higher standard of clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of a fraudulent prior marriage).

见SEC Form 10-K第3页。在讨论其国际业务时，SEC Form 10-K进一步指出，“Saudi Arabia Texaco，一家ChevronTexaco子公司，持有在沙特阿拉伯王国和科威特国之间的分区中立区（PNZ）生产陆上原油的特许权。”同上，第15-16页（强调为后加）。 此外，记录中包含一封由Saudi Arabian Texaco总裁助理Tim Miller先生写的信，指出“ChevronTexaco通过其全资子公司——位于科威特的Saudi Arabian Texaco（SAT）——从事美国对外贸易和商业的发展。”（强调为后加。）该信还指出，申请人将被临时派往科威特的SAT工作2至3年，担任与他在加利福尼亚ChevronTexaco相同的职位，并且在国外期间，申请人将继续由ChevronTexaco支付年薪。 尽管申请人本可以提交更有证明力的证据来证明SAT是ChevronTexaco的子公司，例如SAT股票所有权的直接证据，但AAO认为SEC Form 10-K和其雇主写的信足以通过证据优势证明SAT是ChevronTexaco的全资子公司。7 除非法律规定了不同的标准，行政移民程序中的申请人或请愿人必须通过证据优势证明他或她有资格获得所寻求的利益。见，例如，Matter of Martinez, 21 I&N Dec. 1035, 1036（BIA 1997）（指出请愿人必须在签证请愿程序中通过证据优势证明资格）；Matter of Soo Hoo, 11 I&N Dec. 151, 152（BIA 1965）（认定请愿人未通过证据优势证明资格，因为提交的证据不可信）；比较Matter of Patel, 19 I&N Dec. 774, 782-3（BIA 1988）（指出该方法第204(a)(2)(A)条、8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(2)(A)（Supp. IV 1986）要求更高标准的明确和令人信服的证据来反驳先前婚姻欺诈的推定）。

7 The standard of proof should not be confused with the burden of proof. The burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the applicant. Section 316(b)(2) of the Act; see also section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361 (2006). Additionally, the “preponderance of the evidence” standard does not relieve the petitioner or applicant from satisfying the basic evidentiary requirements set by regulation. There are no regulations relating to a corporation’s eligibility as an “American firm or corporation” under section 316(b) of the Act. Had the regulations required specific evidence, the applicant would have been required to submit that evidence. Cf. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) (2006) (requiring that specific objective evidence be submitted to demonstrate eligibility as an alien of extraordinary ability).

7 证明标准不应与举证责任混淆。证明所寻求利益资格的责任完全在申请人身上。该方法第316(b)(2)条；另见该方法第291条、8 U.S.C. § 1361（2006）。此外，“证据优势”标准并不免除请愿人或申请人满足法规规定的基本证据要求。没有关于公司符合该方法第316(b)条下“美国公司或企业”资格的法规。如果法规要求特定证据，申请人将被要求提交该证据。比较8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)（2006）（要求提交特定客观证据以证明作为特殊才能外国人的资格）。

375

375

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010) Interim Decision #3700

引用为25 I&N Dec. 369（AAO 2010） 临时决定第3700号

The “preponderance of the evidence” standard requires that the evidence demonstrate that the applicant’s claim is “probably true,” where the determination of “truth” is made based on the factual circumstances of each individual case. Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm’r 1989). In evaluating the evidence, Matter of E-M- also stated that “[t]ruth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality.” Id. at 80. Thus, in adjudicating the application pursuant to the preponderance of the evidence standard, the director must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true. Even if the director has some doubt as to the truth, if the petitioner submits relevant, probative, and credible evidence that leads the director to believe that the claim is “more likely than not” or “probably” true, the applicant or petitioner has satisfied the standard of proof. See INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 431 (1987) (discussing “more likely than not” as a greater than 50% chance of an occurrence taking place). If the director can articulate a material doubt, it is appropriate for the director to either request additional evidence or, if that doubt leads the director to believe that the claim is probably not true, deny the application or petition. Here, the submitted evidence is relevant, probative, and credible. As a document that is based on audited financial statements and reviewed by a Federal agency, the information in the SEC Form 10-K is highly credible and warrants substantial weight in immigration proceedings. And although the specific claim that SAT is a “wholly-owned subsidiary” is not supported by independent evidence, the letter from the applicant’s employer is relevant, uncontroverted by any other evidence, and generally supported by the SEC Form 10-K. Furthermore, as the assistant to the president of SAT, the author is in a position to have first-hand knowledge of the corporation’s relationship with ChevronTexaco. As required under the applicable standard of proof, the evidence establishes that it is “probably” true that SAT is a subsidiary of an “American firm or corporation,” with at least 50% of its stock owned by ChevronTexaco, as required by section 316(b) of the Act. The AAO finds that the evidence sufficiently establishes that the applicant’s overseas employer, Saudi Arabian Texaco, qualifies as a subsidiary of ChevronTexaco under section 316(b) of the Act. The evidence further establishes that the applicant’s assignment to work with SAT is temporary and for the purpose of assisting ChevronTexaco to engage in the development of foreign trade and commerce.

“证据优势”标准要求证据证明申请人的主张“可能为真”，其中“真实性”的认定基于每个个案的事实情况作出。Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989)。在评估证据时，Matter of E-M-还指出，“[真]实性不能仅凭证据的数量来确定，而应凭其质量来确定。”Id. at 80。因此，在依据证据优势标准裁定申请时，主任必须审查每一项证据的相关性、证明价值和可信度，既单独审查，也在全部证据的整体背景下审查，以确定待证明的事实是否可能为真。即使主任对真实性存有一些疑问，如果申请人提交了相关、具有证明力且可信的证据，使主任相信该主张“更可能为真”或“可能”为真，则申请人或申请人已满足证明标准。See INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 431 (1987)（将“更可能为真”论述为发生可能性大于50%）。如果主任能够阐明实质性疑问，主任可以请求补充证据，或者，如果该疑问使主任相信该主张可能不为真，则拒绝该申请或申请。在此，提交的证据具有相关性、证明力和可信度。作为一份基于经审计财务报表并经联邦机构审阅的文件，SEC Form 10-K中的信息具有高度可信度，在移民程序中应给予实质性权重。而且，尽管SAT是“全资子公司”这一具体主张没有独立证据支持，但申请人雇主的信函具有相关性、未被任何其他证据反驳，并总体上得到SEC Form 10-K的支持。此外，作为SAT总裁的助理，作者处于能够第一手了解该公司与ChevronTexaco关系的职位。按照适用证明标准的要求，证据证明SAT“可能”是“美国公司或企业”的子公司，且ChevronTexaco拥有其至少50%的股份，符合该法第316(b)条的要求，这一点“可能”为真。AAO认定，证据充分证明申请人的海外雇主Saudi Arabian Texaco符合该法第316(b)条下ChevronTexaco子公司的资格。证据进一步证明，申请人被派往SAT工作属临时性质，目的是协助ChevronTexaco从事对外贸易和商业的发展。

376

376

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010) Interim Decision #3700

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010) 临时决定 #3700

IV. CONCLUSION

IV. 结论

From the evidence in the record, the AAO finds that ChevronTexaco meets the definition of an “American corporation,” since it is incorporated in the United States and is publicly traded solely on U.S. stock exchanges. The AAO also finds that Saudi Arabian Texaco is a “subsidiary” of ChevronTexaco, and that ChevronTexaco owns more than 50% of the stock in Saudi Arabian Texaco. On the basis of these findings, the AAO concludes that the applicant meets the requirements for preservation of his residence for naturalization purposes pursuant to section 316(b) of the Act. The appeal will therefore be sustained. ORDER: The appeal is sustained.

根据记录中的证据，AAO认定ChevronTexaco符合“美国公司”的定义，因为其在美国注册成立，且仅在美国证券交易所公开交易。AAO还认定Saudi Arabian Texaco是ChevronTexaco的“子公司”，且ChevronTexaco拥有Saudi Arabian Texaco超过50%的股份。基于这些认定，AAO得出结论，申请人符合该法第316(b)条下为入籍目的保留其居所的要求。因此，上诉将获支持。 命令：上诉获支持。

377

377