行政先例 · 亲属移民
Matter of Drigo
收养子女签证申请资格以提交申请时为准
18 I&N Dec. 223 (BIA 1982)
美国公民及移民服务局地区主任以受益人收养发生在14岁之后为由拒绝其作为收养子女的亲属移民优先类别申请。移民上诉委员会维持原决定，并裁定即使后来法律将收养年龄上限从14岁提高到16岁，也不能追溯赋予申请提交时并不存在的资格，否则将产生其本不应获得的优先日期。
所引用的裁判规则
签证申请受益人必须在提交申请时完全符合优先类别资格；申请提交后法律变更或后续事实发展不能追溯补正提交时的资格欠缺，否则等于赋予其本不应获得的优先日期。
适用范围
适用于亲属移民签证申请中收养子女资格的认定，即申请人须在提交申请时即已符合“儿童”定义；不涉及其他亲属类别或调整身份独立资格。
查看官方引用与核查记录
核查日期：2026-11-04 · 官方判决来源
- 第5章 - 亲属移民申请的审理
[^ 71] The evidence must establish eligibility at the time of filing the benefit request. See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(1) and (12) . See Matter of Bardouille (PDF) , 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981); Matter of Drigo (PDF) , 18 I&N Dec. 223 (BIA 1982). If the petitioner was not already eligible when the petition was filed, subsequent developments cannot retroactively establish eligibility as of the filing date. See Matter of Katigbak (PDF) , 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg. Comm’r 1971).
以上记录用于核对官方对具体规则的引用。部分推翻、法律修订或有管辖权法院的后续判决，可能影响其适用范围。
完整中文参考译文，按原文页码与段落对应，保留标题、引注及脚注。官方文本为英文原件。
原文第 1 页
Interim Decision #2901
临时决定第2901号
MATTER OF DRIGO
德里戈案
In Visa Petition Proceedings
在签证申请程序中
A-22631584
A-22631584
Decided by Board May 6, 1982
由委员会于1982年5月6日决定
(1) A visa petition filed on behalf of a beneficiary whose adoption occurred after his fourteenth birthday, but before his sixteenth birthday, was properly denied by the District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service because the beneficiary was not eligible for preference status as an adopted child under section 101(bX1XE) of Ile Immigration and Nationality Apt, 8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1)(E), at the time the applica- tion was filed. (2) Notwithstanding a recent amendment to section 101(b)(1)(E) which changes the age limitation of an adopted child from fourteen to sixteen years and the fact that the adop- tion was timely oxectiti.d under the amended language of the statute, the beneficiary does not qualify for immigration benefits under section 203(a)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.G. 1153(a)(2), because a visa petition approval would result in giving a priority date to which the beneficiary was not entitled at the time of the filing of the visa petition.
(1) 代表一名受益人提交的签证申请，该受益人的收养发生在其十四岁生日之后、但十六岁生日之前，移民和归化局地区局长正确地予以拒绝，因为在申请提交时，该受益人根据《移民和国籍法》第101(b)(1)(E)条、8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1)(E)，不具备作为收养子女获得优先地位的资格。 (2) 尽管第101(b)(1)(E)条最近的一项修正案将收养子女的年龄限制从十四岁改为十六岁，且该收养根据修正后的法条语言是及时有效的，但受益人仍不符合《移民和国籍法》第203(a)(2)条、8 U.S.C. 1153(a)(2)项下的移民福利资格，因为批准签证申请将导致赋予受益人在提交签证申请时无权享有的优先日期。
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: Brian L Masony, EscluiTe 155-56 Company Street Christiansted, St. Croix Virgin Islands 00820
代表申请人：Brian L Masony，律师 155-56 Company Street Christiansted, St. Croix Virgin Islands 00820
BY: Milhollan, Chairman; Maniatis, Dunne, Morris, and Vaccs, Board Members
由：Milhollan，主席；Maniatis、Dunne、Morris和Vaccs，委员会成员
The lawful permanent resident petitioner applied, for preference sta- tus for the beneficiary as her adopted, unmarried son under section 203(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1153(a)(2). In a decision-dated June 1, 1981, the District Director denied the peti- tion on the ground that preference status could not be conferred on the basis of the relationship between the petitioner and beneficiary because the adoption occurred after the beneficiary had reached the age of 14 years. The petitioner has appealed. The appeal will be dismissed. The beneficiary is a 16-year-old native and citizen of Dominica, West Indies. The petitioner is a 41-year-old native and citizen of Dominica, West Indies .who was admitted to the United States as a lawful perma- nent resident in 1978. The petitioner filed a visa petition on behalf of the beneficiary on May 19, 1981. In support of the petition, the petitioner submitted a birth certificate
合法永久居民申请人根据《移民和国籍法》第203(a)(2)条、8 U.S.C. 1153(a)(2)，为受益人作为其收养的未婚儿子申请优先地位。在1981年6月1日的决定中，地区局长以不能基于申请人与受益人之间的关系授予优先地位为由拒绝了该申请，因为收养发生在受益人年满14岁之后。申请人已提出上诉。上诉将被驳回。 受益人是16岁的西印度群岛多米尼克本土出生公民。申请人是41岁的西印度群岛多米尼克本土出生公民，于1978年作为合法永久居民获准进入美国。申请人于1981年5月19日代表受益人提交了签证申请。 为支持申请，申请人提交了一份出生证明
223
223
原文第 2 页
Interim Decision #2901
临时决定第2901号
which shows that the beneficiary was born on June 25, 1965, and an adoption decree which was rendered on October 2, 1979, in the Virgin Islands. On appeal, the petitioner contends through counsel's brief dated June 15, 1981, that "a decree of adoption is fully effective as of the date
该证明显示受益人出生于1965年6月25日，以及一份1979年10月2日在维尔京群岛作出的收养判决。 在上诉中，申请人通过1981年6月15日的律师简报主张，“收养判决自作出之日起完全有效
-entered inure pro tune and is entitled to recognition. for immigration purposes." Petitioner adds that the "Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands entered a decree of adoption untie pro tune as of May 7, 1979," when the beneficiary was only 13 years old. We rejected this argument in Matter of Cariaga, 15 ISSN Dec. 716 (BIA 1976). We note that at the time of the District Director's decision, the act of adoption- must have occurred before the child attained the age of 14. It was Congress' intent that the age restriction in section 101(bX1)(E) be construed strictly. Petitioner further contends that it is an abuse of discretion to deny the visa petition under the facts of this case. There is nothing in the record which -lends any substance to this claim and it will not be further considered. 'Bee Matter of Cariaga, supra. Section 203(a)(2) provides for the granting of preference status to an unmarried son or unmarried daughter of an alien lawfully adinitted for permanent residence. The petitioner must show that the beneficiary once qualified as her "child" within the meaning of section 101(b)(1) of the Act. When the District Director's decision was rendered, the term "child" was defuied in section 101(b)(1)(E) as:
——追溯录入并有权在移民目的上获得承认。”申请人补充说，“维尔京群岛地区法院于1979年5月7日追溯作出了收养判决”，当时受益人仅13岁。我们在Cariaga案，15 I&N Dec. 716（BIA 1976）中驳回了这一论点。我们注意到，在地区局长作出决定时，收养行为必须发生在子女年满14岁之前。国会的意图是第101(b)(1)(E)条中的年龄限制应严格解释。 申请人进一步主张，在本案事实下拒绝签证申请是滥用自由裁量权。记录中没有任何内容为该主张提供任何实质依据，因此不予进一步考虑。参见Cariaga案，同上。 第203(a)(2)条规定向合法获准永久居留的外国人的未婚儿子或未婚女儿授予优先地位。申请人必须证明受益人曾经符合《移民和国籍法》第101(b)(1)条含义内的其“子女”。当地区局长的决定作出时，“子女”一词在第101(b)(1)(E)条中定义为：
• • • a child adopted while under the age of fourteen years if the child has thereafter been in the legal custody of, and has resided with, the adopting parent or parents for at least two years. . . . In this case, the adoption occurred after the beneficiary's 14th birth- day but before his 16th birthday. Consequently, when the petition was filed the beneficiary was not eligible for preference status as an adopted child under section 101(b)(1)(E) of the Act. Accordingly, we find that the District Director's decision was correct. However, subsequent to the District Director's decision the definition of an adopted child within the statute was amended, raising the age limitation from 14 to 16 years., Section 101(b)(1)(E) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1)(E), as amended by section 2 of the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1981, Pub. L. 97-116, 95 Stat. 1611 (December 29, 1981). Since the beneficiary's adoption occurred before his 16th birthday, he would appear to be eligi- ble for preference status as an adopted child under current law. Although the beneficiary's adoption was timely as far as the current version of section 101(b)(1)(E) is concerned, we cannot give the peti- tioner the benefit of that change in the law. The Board has held that in order to be eligible for relative preference status under section 203(a)(2) of the Act, the alien beneficiary must be fully qualified at the time the
• • • 在十四岁以下被收养的子女，如果该子女此后在收养父母的法律监护下并与收养父母共同居住至少两年…… 在本案中，收养发生在受益人14岁生日之后但16岁生日之前。因此，在提交申请时，受益人根据《移民和国籍法》第101(b)(1)(E)条不具备作为收养子女获得优先地位的资格。据此，我们认为地区局长的决定是正确的。然而，在地区局长作出决定之后，法条中收养子女的定义被修正，将年龄限制从14岁提高到16岁。 《移民和国籍法》第101(b)(1)(E)条、8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1)(E)，经1981年《移民和国籍法修正案》第2条修正，Pub. L. 97-116，95 Stat. 1611（1981年12月29日）。由于受益人的收养发生在其16岁生日之前，根据现行法律，他似乎有资格作为收养子女获得优先地位。 尽管就第101(b)(1)(E)条的现行版本而言，受益人的收养是及时的，但我们不能给予申请人该法律变更的利益。委员会已裁定，为符合《移民和国籍法》第203(a)(2)条项下的亲属优先地位资格，外国受益人必须在
224
224
原文第 3 页
Interim Decision #2901
临时决定第2901号
visa petition is filed, otherwise this would result in our giving a priority date to which the beneficiary was not entitled at the time of filing. Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec_ 114 (RTA 1981). See 22 C.F.R. 42.62(a); S C.F.R. 245.1(g)(2). We note that the petitioner may now wish to file a new visa petition. The petitioner has the burden to establish eligibility for the benefits sought. Matter of Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966). Furthermore, the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary has been in her legal custody for a period of two years subsequent to the adoption, see Matter of Lee, 11 I&N Dec. 911 (BIA 1966), and that he has resided with his adoptive parent for the same length of time, either before or after the formal adoption. See Matter of M-, 8 I&N Dec. 118 (BIA 1958; A.G. 1959). From this record, it appears that the beneficiary has resided with the petitioner and has been in her legal custody for more than two years since the adoption. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.
提交签证申请时完全符合资格，否则这将导致我们赋予受益人在提交时无权享有的优先日期。Bardouille案，18 I&N Dec. 114（BIA 1981）。参见22 C.F.R. 42.62(a)；8 C.F.R. 245.1(g)(2)。 我们注意到，申请人现在可能希望提交新的签证申请。申请人有责任证明其符合所寻求福利的资格。Brantigan案，11 I&N Dec. 493（BIA 1966）。此外，申请人必须证明受益人在收养后已在其法律监护下满两年，参见Lee案，11 I&N Dec. 911（BIA 1966），并且其与收养父母共同居住同样长的时间，无论是在正式收养之前还是之后。参见M-案，8 I&N Dec. 118（BIA 1958；A.G. 1959）。从本记录来看，受益人自收养以来似乎已与申请人共同居住并在其法律监护下超过两年。 据此，上诉将被驳回。 命令：上诉驳回。
225
225
