Matter of Arai

Interim Decision #2027

临时决定第2027号

In Deportation Proceedings

在驱逐出境程序中

A-18483322

A-18483322

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: Donald L. Ungar, Esquire R. A. Vielhaber 517 Washington Street Appellate Trial Attorney San Francisco, California 94111 (Brief submitted)

代表被申请人： 代表移民局： Donald L. Ungar，律师 R. A. Vielhaber 517 Washington Street 上诉审判律师 San Francisco, California 94111 （已提交辩护状）

In our decision of February 6, 1970, we sustained the respond- ent's appeal, withdrew the order of the special inquiry officer, and granted respondent adjustment of status under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. At that time we stated that an opinion in greater detail would be forthcoming in the near future. In sustaining the respondent's appeal we have, in effect, exercised discretionary power contrary to the manner in which the special inquiry officer exercised it. In so doing, we did not conclude that the special inquiry officer was either arbitrary or capricious in his action or that he abused his discretion in any manner. The special inquiry officer after finding the respondent to be el- igible for the relief, nevertheless, concluded that such should not Je granted as a matter of discretion. He based his denial on the :riteria set forth in Matter of Ortiz-Prieto, 11 I. & N. Dec. 317

在我们1970年2月6日的决定中，我们维持了被申请人的上诉，撤销了特别调查官的命令，并依据《移民与国籍法》第245条批准了被申请人的调整身份。当时我们表示，将在不久的将来提供更详细的意见。在维持被申请人上诉时，我们实际上行使了与特别调查官行使方式相反的自由裁量权。在这样做时，我们并未认定特别调查官的行为具有任意性或反复无常性，也未认定他以任何方式滥用自由裁量权。特别调查官在认定被申请人有资格获得该救济后，仍得出结论认为不应作为自由裁量事项予以批准。他基于Matter of Ortiz-Prieto案，11 I. & N. Dec. 317中规定的标准作出拒绝。

494

494

Interim Decision #2027

临时决定第2027号

(BTA, 1965). We there stated that the extraordinary relief de- scribed in section 245 can only be granted in meritorious cases. Having found no outstanding equities in that case, we dismissed the appeal from the special inquiry officer's denial of the relief as a matter of discretion. We are now of the opinion that the language set forth in Matter of Ortiz-Prieto, supra, should be clarified and modified because it is too broad in its impact and probably more demand- ing than necessary. Accordingly, the language of the instant deci- sion will supersede that contained in Ortiz-Prieto. The respondent is now over 27 years of age. He is single and was admitted to the United States on March 25, 1968, as a visitor for a period of time to expire on April 26, 1968. On April 25, 1968, he filed an application for staus as a temporary worker or trainee. That application was denied on October 4, 1968, and he was thereafter granted voluntary departure to expire on Novem- ber 28, 1968. He remained beyond that date and is concededly de- portable on the charge contained in the order to show cause. The special inquiry officer in considering the respondent's ap- plication for adjustment of status under section 245 was aware that the respondent is a specialty cook in Japanese cuisine and had been accorded a labor certification for such employment. No finding was made by the special inquiry officer that the respond- ent was other than a bona fide visitor when he first arrived in the United States. Apparently the special inquiry officer considered the respondent's taking of employment before his trainee status had been acted upon as an adverse factor. He then found that the respondent's case presented no unusual equities and based his de- nial of the application on the ruling contained in Ortiz-P••eto. Section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act reposes with the Attorney General and his delegates the discretionary power to grant adjustment of status. Therefore it follows that mere eligibility for that privilege will not automatically result in a grant of the application. The record in the instant case presents no adverse factors af- fecting respondent's application. He is a young man, in good health and of good moral character. his employment is such that a labor certification has been issued. The employment could be of potential benefit to this country. The respondent has no depend- ents. It is difficult and probably inadvisable to set up restrictive guide lines for the exercise of discretion. Problems which may arise in applications for adjustment must of necessity be resolved

（BTA，1965）。我们在该案中表示，第245条所述的特殊救济只能在有正当理由的案件中给予。由于在该案中未发现杰出的衡平因素，我们驳回了对特别调查官作为自由裁量事项拒绝给予该救济的上诉。 我们现在认为，上述Matter of Ortiz-Prieto案中的表述应予澄清和修改，因为其影响过于宽泛，且可能比必要的更为苛刻。因此，本决定的表述将取代Ortiz-Prieto案中的表述。 被申请人现年超过27岁。他单身，于1968年3月25日作为访问者获准进入美国，停留期限至1968年4月26日届满。1968年4月25日，他提交了作为临时工人或受训人员的身份申请。该申请于1968年10月4日被拒绝，此后他获准自愿离境，期限至1968年11月28日届满。他在该日期之后仍滞留，并承认因出示原因通知书中所载指控而可被驱逐出境。 特别调查官在审议被申请人依据第245条提出的调整身份申请时，知悉被申请人是日本料理专业厨师，并已就该就业获得劳工证。特别调查官未认定被申请人在首次抵达美国时并非真正的访问者。显然，特别调查官将被申请人在其受训人员身份申请尚未获处理之前即接受就业一事视为不利因素。随后他认定被申请人的案件未呈现不寻常的衡平因素，并基于Ortiz-Prieto案中的裁决拒绝该申请。 《移民与国籍法》第245条将批准调整身份的自由裁量权赋予司法部长及其代表。因此，仅仅具备该特权的资格并不会自动导致申请获得批准。 本案记录未呈现影响被申请人申请的不利因素。他是一名年轻男子，身体健康，品行良好。其就业情况已获得劳工证。该就业可能对我国有益。被申请人无受抚养人。 为行使自由裁量权设定限制性指导方针是困难的，而且可能不可取。调整身份申请中可能出现的问题必须

495

495

Interim Decision #2027

临时决定第2027号

on an individual basis. Where adverse factors are present in a given application, it may be necessary for the applicant to offset these by a showing of unusual or even outstanding equities. Gen- erally, favorable factors such as family ties, hardship, length of residence in the United States, etc., will be considered as counter- vailing factors meriting favorable exercise of administrative dis- cretion. In the absence of adverse factors, adjustment will ordi- narily be granted, still as a matter of discretion. Our decision to sustain the respondent's appeal was based upon the foregoing considerations. We do not deem it necessary for the respondent to establish, in light of the circumstances surrounding his case, any outstanding equities.

根据个案情况加以解决。在特定申请中存在不利因素时，申请人可能有必要通过证明具有不寻常甚至杰出的衡平因素来抵消这些不利因素。一般而言，家庭关系、困难、在美国居留时间等有利因素，将被视为值得有利行使行政自由裁量权的抵销因素。在不存在不利因素的情况下，调整身份通常仍将作为自由裁量事项予以批准。 我们维持被申请人上诉的决定是基于上述考虑。鉴于其案件的相关情况，我们认为被申请人无需证明任何杰出的衡平因素。

996

996