Matter of Raul Carrillo

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 99 (BIA 2009) Interim Decision #3658

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 99 (BIA 2009) 临时决定第3658号

File A077 002 996 - Miami, Florida

案卷号 A077 002 996 - 佛罗里达州迈阿密

Decided October 21, 2009

2009年10月21日裁定

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

美国司法部 移民审查执行办公室 移民上诉委员会

In determining whether an alien whose status was adjusted pursuant to section 1 of the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act of November 2, 1966, Pub. L. No. 89-732, 80 Stat. 1161, is removable as an alien who has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude committed within 5 years after the alien’s “date of admission,” the admission date is calculated according to the rollback provision of section 1, rather than the date adjustment of status was granted.

在裁定一名外国人——其身份系依据1966年11月2日《古巴难民调整法》第1条（Pub. L. No. 89-732, 80 Stat. 1161）调整——是否作为在“入境日期”后5年内实施涉及道德败坏犯罪而被定罪的外国人可被驱逐出境时，入境日期依据第1条的追溯条款计算，而非调整身份获批之日。

FOR RESPONDENT: Keith C. Williams, Esquire, Naples, Florida

被申请人代理律师：Keith C. Williams 律师，佛罗里达州那不勒斯

FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Adam Weisholtz, Assistant Chief Counsel

国土安全部代理：Adam Weisholtz，助理首席法律顾问

BEFORE: Board Panel: GRANT, MALPHRUS, and MULLANE, Board Members.

审理：委员会合议庭：GRANT、MALPHRUS 和 MULLANE，委员会成员。

GRANT, Board Member:

GRANT，委员会成员：

In a decision dated October 9, 2007, an Immigration Judge found the respondent removable under section 237(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) (2006), as an alien convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude committed within 5 years after his date of admission, and ordered him removed from the United States. The respondent has appealed from that decision. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) has filed a brief in support of the Immigration Judge’s decision. The appeal will be sustained and the proceedings will be terminated.

在2007年10月9日的一项决定中，一名移民法官认定被申请人依据《移民与国籍法》第237(a)(2)(A)(i)条，8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) (2006)，作为在其入境日期后5年内实施涉及道德败坏犯罪而被定罪的外国人可被驱逐出境，并命令将其驱逐出美国。被申请人对该决定提出上诉。国土安全部（“DHS”）提交了支持移民法官决定的简报。上诉将获支持，程序将终止。

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

一、事实与程序历史

The respondent is a native and citizen of Cuba who was paroled into the United States on March 4, 1999. His status was adjusted to that of a lawful permanent resident on January 30, 2001, pursuant to the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act of November 2, 1966, Pub. L. No. 89-732, 80 Stat. 1161 (“Cuban Adjustment Act”). On June 6, 2005, the respondent was convicted of four counts of grand theft, third degree, in violation of section 812.014

被申请人是古巴本土居民和公民，于1999年3月4日被假释进入美国。其身份于2001年1月30日依据1966年11月2日《古巴难民调整法》（Pub. L. No. 89-732, 80 Stat. 1161，“《古巴调整法》”）调整为合法永久居民。2005年6月6日，被申请人因违反《佛罗里达州法规》第812.014条的四项三级重大盗窃罪被定罪

99

99

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 99 (BIA 2009) Interim Decision #3658

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 99 (BIA 2009) 临时决定第3658号

of the Florida Statutes. The respondent committed these crimes between August 26, 2004, and September 16, 2004. At his removal hearing, the respondent admitted the allegations in the Notice to Appear (Form I-862) but denied that he was removable. He asserted that the effective date of his admission to the United States was March 4, 1999, the date of his parole, rather than January 30, 2001, the date on which his adjustment of status was granted, because of the “rollback” provision of the Cuban Adjustment Act. He therefore argued that his crimes involving moral turpitude had not been committed within 5 years after his date of admission. The DHS disagreed, citing Matter of Carrillo-Gutierrez, 16 I&N Dec. 429 (BIA 1977), in support of its assertion that the date of the respondent’s admission for purposes of establishing his removability was the actual date when he was accorded lawful permanent residence through adjustment of status. The Immigration Judge rejected the respondent’s contentions, relying on Matter of Carrillo-Gutierrez to find that the rollback provision of the Cuban Adjustment Act was for the limited purpose of making citizenship more obtainable and did not apply in this case. On appeal, the respondent does not dispute that his crimes involve moral turpitude but contends that they were not committed within 5 years of his admission.

《佛罗里达州法规》。被申请人于2004年8月26日至2004年9月16日期间实施了这些犯罪。 在驱逐听证中，被申请人承认出庭通知（I-862表）中的指控，但否认其可被驱逐出境。他主张，由于其入境美国的生效日期是1999年3月4日（即其假释之日），而非2001年1月30日（即其调整身份获批之日），依据《古巴调整法》的“追溯”条款。因此，他主张其涉及道德败坏的犯罪并非在入境日期后5年内实施。DHS不同意，援引 Matter of Carrillo-Gutierrez, 16 I&N Dec. 429 (BIA 1977)，以支持其主张：为确立被申请人可被驱逐出境之目的，其入境日期是通过调整身份获得合法永久居民的实际日期。移民法官驳回了被申请人的主张，依据 Matter of Carrillo-Gutierrez 认定《古巴调整法》的追溯条款仅限于使公民身份更易获得之目的，不适用于本案。在上诉中，被申请人不争辩其犯罪涉及道德败坏，但主张这些犯罪并非在其入境后5年内实施。

II. ANALYSIS

二、分析

We review the Immigration Judge’s findings of fact, including those relating to the credibility of testimony, only to determine whether they are “clearly erroneous,” while questions of law, discretion, and judgment may be reviewed de novo. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(d)(3)(i)-(ii) (2009); see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500 (BIA 2008); Matter of A-S-B-, 24 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 2008). We disagree with the Immigration Judge’s decision and conclude that the date he applied regarding the respondent’s admission was incorrect. Section 1 of the Cuban Adjustment Act, 80 Stat. at 1161, provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

我们审查移民法官的事实认定，包括与证言可信度相关的认定，仅以确定其是否“明显错误”，而法律、自由裁量和判断问题可重新审查。8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(d)(3)(i)-(ii) (2009)；另见 Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500 (BIA 2008)；Matter of A-S-B-, 24 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 2008)。我们不同意移民法官的决定，并认定其就被申请人入境所适用的日期不正确。《古巴调整法》第1条，80 Stat. at 1161，相关部分规定如下：

[T]he status of any alien who is a native or citizen of Cuba and who has been inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States subsequent to January 1, 1959 and has been physically present in the United States for two years, may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe, to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if the alien makes an application for such adjustment, and the alien is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for permanent residence. Upon approval of such an application for adjustment of status, the Attorney General shall create a record of the alien’s admission for permanent residence as of a date thirty months prior to the filing of such an application or the date of his last arrival into the United States, which ever date is later.

[任何身为古巴本土居民或公民、于1959年1月1日之后经检查并准许入境或假释进入美国、且已在美国实际居留两年的外国人的身份，经司法部长在其自由裁量权下并按其可能规定的条例，可调整为合法永久居民身份，前提是该外国人提出此类调整申请，且该外国人有资格获得移民签证并可被准许进入美国永久居留。此类调整身份申请获批后，司法部长应将该外国人入境永久居留的记录创建为：此类申请提交前三十个月之日，或其最后一次抵达美国之日，以较晚者为准。]

100

100

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 99 (BIA 2009) Interim Decision #3658

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 99 (BIA 2009) 临时决定第3658号

In light of this statute, we hold that for purposes of determining whether the respondent’s crimes involving moral turpitude were committed within 5 years after his admission, the correct date of his admission is March 4, 1999, the retroactive date on which he acquired lawful permanent residence pursuant to section 1 of the Cuban Adjustment Act. The DHS relies on caselaw where we held that the term “date of admission” in section 237(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Act refers to, among other things, the date on which an alien is lawfully admitted for permanent residence by means of adjustment of status. Matter of Shanu, 23 I&N Dec. 754 (BIA 2005), vacated sub nom. Aremu v. DHS, 450 F.3d 578, 583 (4th Cir. 2006) (stating, however, that the date of adjustment of status might qualify as the date of “admission” where the alien has never been admitted within the meaning of section 101(a)(13)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(A) (2006)); Matter of Rosas, 22 I&N Dec. 616 (BIA 1999). The alien in Matter of Shanu adjusted his status to that of a lawful permanent resident pursuant to section 245 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (1994). Section 245(b) of the Act instructs the Attorney General to “record the alien’s lawful admission for permanent residence” upon approval of his or her adjustment application. See Matter of Shanu, 23 I&N Dec. at 757; Matter of Rosas, 22 I&N Dec. at 619. Contrary to the DHS’s argument on appeal, Matter of Shanu and Matter of Rosas are not controlling in this case, because the respondent adjusted his status pursuant to section 1 of the Cuban Adjustment Act, which instructs the Attorney General to record the alien’s “admission for permanent residence as of a date 30 months prior to the filing of such an application or the date of his last arrival into the United States, whichever is later.” See Matter of Rivera-Rioseco, 19 I&N Dec. 833 (BIA 1988); Matter of Diaz-Chambrot, 19 I&N Dec. 674 (BIA 1988). See generally 8 C.F.R. §§ 245.2(a)(5)(iii), 1245.2(a)(5)(iii) (2009). Consequently, the date of his “admission” is not the date on which his application for adjustment was granted, but rather the retroactive date established by section 1 of the Cuban Adjustment Act. See generally Matter of Rosas, 22 I&N Dec. at 619 (recognizing that various means of adjustment of status do not record or confer lawful admission for permanent residence the same way, but nevertheless considering them all an “admission”). We also disagree with the DHS’s contention that the “rollback” provision of the Cuban Adjustment Act should not be applied in removal proceedings to restrict the enforcement provisions of the Act. The DHS relies on our decision in Matter of Carrillo-Gutierrez, 16 I&N Dec. 429, where we held that the 5-year period of statutory limitations for rescission proceedings under section 246(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1256(a) (1976), ran from the date the alien’s application for adjustment was approved rather than the retroactive date his lawful permanent residence was acquired pursuant to the Cuban

鉴于该法规，我们认定：为确定被申请人涉及道德败坏的犯罪是否在其入境后5年内实施之目的，其正确的入境日期是1999年3月4日，即其依据《古巴调整法》第1条获得合法永久居民的追溯日期。 DHS依赖判例法，其中我们认定《法》第237(a)(2)(A)(i)条中的“入境日期”一词除其他外，指外国人通过调整身份合法获准永久居留之日。Matter of Shanu, 23 I&N Dec. 754 (BIA 2005)，以 Aremu v. DHS, 450 F.3d 578, 583 (4th Cir. 2006) 之名撤销（但指出，在外国人从未在《法》第101(a)(13)(A)条，8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(A) (2006) 含义内入境的情况下，调整身份之日可能符合“入境”之日）；Matter of Rosas, 22 I&N Dec. 616 (BIA 1999)。Matter of Shanu 中的外国人依据《法》第245条，8 U.S.C. § 1255 (1994)，将其身份调整为合法永久居民。《法》第245(b)条指示司法部长在其调整申请获批后“记录该外国人的合法永久居留入境”。见 Matter of Shanu, 23 I&N Dec. at 757；Matter of Rosas, 22 I&N Dec. at 619。 与DHS在上诉中的主张相反，Matter of Shanu 和 Matter of Rosas 在本案中不具有控制力，因为被申请人依据《古巴调整法》第1条调整其身份，该条指示司法部长记录该外国人的“永久居留入境为：此类申请提交前30个月之日，或其最后一次抵达美国之日，以较晚者为准”。见 Matter of Rivera-Rioseco, 19 I&N Dec. 833 (BIA 1988)；Matter of Diaz-Chambrot, 19 I&N Dec. 674 (BIA 1988)。一般见 8 C.F.R. §§ 245.2(a)(5)(iii), 1245.2(a)(5)(iii) (2009)。因此，其“入境”日期不是其调整申请获批之日，而是《古巴调整法》第1条确立的追溯日期。一般见 Matter of Rosas, 22 I&N Dec. at 619（承认各种调整身份方式并非以相同方式记录或赋予合法永久居留入境，但仍将其全部视为“入境”）。 我们还不同意DHS的主张，即《古巴调整法》的“追溯”条款不应在驱逐程序中适用以限制《法》的执行条款。DHS依赖我们在 Matter of Carrillo-Gutierrez, 16 I&N Dec. 429 中的决定，其中我们认定《法》第246(a)条，8 U.S.C. § 1256(a) (1976)，规定的撤销程序5年法定时效期间从外国人调整申请获批之日而非其依据《古巴调整法》获得合法永久居民的追溯日期起算

101

101

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 99 (BIA 2009) Interim Decision #3658

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 99 (BIA 2009) 临时决定第3658号

Adjustment Act. We noted in that case that the rollback provision was designed to aid aliens seeking to naturalize to meet their residence requirements, and we declined to apply it in rescission proceedings. According to the DHS, therefore, the application of the rollback provision should be limited in cases involving enforcement provisions of the Act, such as those in the rescission proceedings in Matter of Carrillo-Gutierrez and the removal proceedings in this case. We conclude that Matter of Carrillo-Gutierrez is inapposite to this case. Rescission proceedings, by their nature, are controlled by the date the application for adjustment of status was approved, because they challenge the alien’s statutory eligibility for adjustment of status on that date. Matter of Diaz-Chambrot, 19 I&N Dec. at 676. In contrast, removability under section 237(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Act concerns the period of time after which an alien has been admitted into the United States. The “rollback” provision of the Cuban Adjustment Act defines the date of admission to be one other than that on which the alien’s adjustment application was granted. Moreover, we have held that the effect of the retroactivity provision is not limited to the context of the residence requirements for naturalization. Matter of Diaz-Chambrot, 19 I&N Dec. at 678, modifying Matter of Carrillo-Gutierrez, 16 I&N Dec. 429; see also Matter of Rivera-Rioseco, 19 I&N Dec. 833 (holding that an alien whose status was adjusted pursuant to section 1 of the Cuban Adjustment Act began acquiring lawful unrelinquished domicile for purposes of a waiver under former 212(c) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (1994), from the effective date of the alien’s acquisition of lawful permanent resident status according to the rollback provision of section 1). In light of the foregoing, we find no merit in the DHS’s contention that “rolling back” the respondent’s date of admission would improperly circumvent the enforcement provisions of the Act with respect to removal proceedings. We conclude that the respondent’s date of admission for lawful permanent residence is March 4, 1999, which is more than 5 years prior to the date he committed his crimes involving moral turpitude. Therefore, the respondent is not removable as charged under section 237(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, his appeal will be sustained and the removal proceedings will be terminated. ORDER: The appeal is sustained and the removal proceedings are terminated.

《调整法》。我们在该案中指出，回溯条款旨在帮助寻求归化的外国人满足其居住要求，我们拒绝在撤销程序中适用该条款。因此，根据国土安全部的意见，在涉及该法执行条款的案件中，回溯条款的适用应受到限制，例如Matter of Carrillo-Gutierrez中的撤销程序以及本案中的遣返程序。 我们认定Matter of Carrillo-Gutierrez与本案不具相关性。撤销程序本质上受调整身份申请获批之日所控制，因为它们质疑外国人在该日是否符合调整身份的法定资格。Matter of Diaz-Chambrot, 19 I&N Dec. at 676。相比之下，该法第237(a)(2)(A)(i)条下的可遣返性涉及外国人被准许进入美国之后的时间段。《古巴调整法》的“回溯”条款将入境日期界定为并非外国人调整身份申请获批之日。此外，我们已裁定，追溯条款的效力不限于归化居住要求的语境。Matter of Diaz-Chambrot, 19 I&N Dec. at 678, modifying Matter of Carrillo-Gutierrez, 16 I&N Dec. 429；另见Matter of Rivera-Rioseco, 19 I&N Dec. 833（裁定身份依据《古巴调整法》第1条获得调整的外国人，自其依据第1条回溯条款取得合法永久居民身份之日起，开始为该法前第212(c)条（8 U.S.C. § 1182 (1994)）下的豁免目的而取得合法未放弃住所）。鉴于上述情况，我们认为国土安全部关于“回溯”答辩人的入境日期将不当规避该法在遣返程序方面的执行条款的主张没有依据。 我们认定答辩人取得合法永久居民的入境日期为1999年3月4日，该日期早于其实施涉及道德败坏犯罪之日5年以上。因此，答辩人依据该法第237(a)(2)(A)(i)条不属可被遣返。据此，其上诉将获支持，遣返程序将终止。 命令：上诉获支持，遣返程序终止。

102

102