Matter of Zaidan

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: ON BEHALF OF SERVICE. Rehim Babaoglu, Esquire Charles Wiegand III 99 North Third Street General Attorney Memphis, Tennessee 38103

代表申请人： 代表移民局： Rehim Babaoglu, Esquire Charles Wiegand III 99 North Third Street 总检察长 Memphis, Tennessee 38103

The United States citizen petitioner, now deceased, applied for preference status for the beneficiary as his sister under section 203(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(a)(5) (1982). The petition was approved by the district direc- tor on September 18, 1980.. Following the petitioner's death, the beneficiary was notified by the district director that the petition had been revoked because a favorable exercise of discretion was not warranted under 8 C.F.R. § 205.1(aX3) (1981). The beneficiary ap- pealed from that decision. During the pendency of the appeal, the beneficiary filed a motion requesting that the district director re- consider his decision. Without addressing the question of jurisdic- tion, the Board remanded the record on March 18, 1983, in order to permit the district director to consider the beneficiary's motion. In a decision dated May 31, 1983, the district director denied the motion. The beneficiary has appealed from that decision. The appeal will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

现已故世的美国公民申请人根据《移民和国籍法》第203(a)(5)条，8 U.S.C. § 1153(a)(5) (1982)，为其姐妹受益人申请优先地位。该申请于1980年9月18日由地区主任批准。申请人死亡后，地区主任通知受益人，该申请已被撤销，因为根据8 C.F.R. § 205.1(a)(3) (1981)不宜作出有利的酌情行使。受益人对该决定提出上诉。在上诉待决期间，受益人提出动议，请求地区主任重新考虑其决定。委员会未处理管辖权问题，于1983年3月18日将记录发回，以便地区主任考虑受益人的动议。在1983年5月31日的决定中，地区主任驳回了该动议。受益人已对该决定提出上诉。该上诉将因缺乏管辖权而被驳回。

The regulations provide for the automatic revocation of an ap- proved relative visa petition under several enumerated circum- stances, one of which is the death of the petitioner. See 8 C.F.R. § 205.1(a) (1985). An exception to automatic revocation following the death of the petitioner is permitted under 8 C.F.R. § 205.1(aX3) (1985) when "the Attorney General in his discretion determines that for humanitarian reasons revocation would be inappropriate." In this case the district director has considered the humanitarian factors presented by the beneficiary and has concluded that revoca- tion of the visa petition is appropriate. The beneficiary seeks appellate review of the district director's decision, claiming that her case merits a favorable exercise of dis- cretion. The Immigration and Naturalization Service argues, how- ever, that the beneficiary has no standing to contest the district di- rector's decision and that the Board lacks jurisdiction to consider the beneficiary's appeal. We agree that the Board has no jurisdic- tion in this case and shall dismiss the appeal on that basis. The parameters of the Board's appellate Jurisdiction are circum- scribed. by the regulations which are set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(b) (1985). According to 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(b)(5) (1985), an appeal will lie to the Board from "decisions revoking the approval of [relative] visa petitions, in accordance with section 205 of the act, as provided in Parts 204 and 205, respectively, of this chapter." (Emphasis added.) Our authority to review decisions regarding visa petition revoca- tion is therefore limited to that accorded by 8 C.F.R. §§ 205.1 and 205.2 (1985). It is specifically stated in 8 C.F.R. § 205.2 (1985) that the petition- er may appeal a decision of the district director revoking approval of a visa petition on any ground other than those listed in 8 C.F.R. § 205.1 (1985) when notice of the revocation has been given to the petitioner_' There is no such provision for appellate review when a petition is automatically revoked under 8 C.F.R. § 205.1 (1985). Since the Board's authority to review revocation decisions is limit- ed to that specified in the regulations and 8 C.F.R. § 205.1 (1985) does not provide for any appeal, we conclude that the Board lacks jurisdiction over appeals dealing with the automatic revocation of a visa petition. As the Board lacks jurisdiction over the appeal, IT IS ORDERED: that the record of proceedings be returned to the local office of the Immigration and Naturalization Service without further action.

条例规定，在若干列举的情形下，已批准的亲属签证申请将被自动撤销，其中之一是申请人死亡。见8 C.F.R. § 205.1(a) (1985)。根据8 C.F.R. § 205.1(a)(3) (1985)，当"司法部长酌情认定出于人道主义原因撤销将不适当"时，允许申请人死亡后自动撤销的例外。在本案中，地区主任考虑了受益人提出的人道主义因素，并得出结论认为撤销签证申请是适当的。 受益人寻求对地区主任决定的上诉审查，声称其案件值得有利的酌情行使。然而，移民和归化局辩称，受益人没有资格对地区主任的决定提出异议，且委员会缺乏审理受益人上诉的管辖权。我们同意委员会在本案中没有管辖权，并将据此驳回上诉。 委员会上诉管辖权的范围受到限制。由8 C.F.R. § 3.1(b) (1985)中规定的条例。根据8 C.F.R. § 3.1(b)(5) (1985)，可向委员会提出上诉的是"根据该法第205条，按照本章第204部分和第205部分的规定，撤销[亲属]签证申请批准的决定。"（着重号为后加。）因此，我们审查有关签证申请撤销决定的权限仅限于8 C.F.R. §§ 205.1和205.2 (1985)所赋予的权限。 8 C.F.R. § 205.2 (1985)明确规定，当撤销通知已送达申请人时，申请人可以就地区主任以8 C.F.R. § 205.1 (1985)所列理由以外的任何理由撤销签证申请批准的决定提出上诉。当申请根据8 C.F.R. § 205.1 (1985)被自动撤销时，没有此类上诉审查的规定。由于委员会审查撤销决定的权限仅限于条例所规定的范围，且8 C.F.R. § 205.1 (1985)未规定任何上诉，我们得出结论，委员会对涉及签证申请自动撤销的上诉缺乏管辖权。 由于委员会对该上诉缺乏管辖权， 特此命令：将诉讼记录退回移民和归化局当地办公室，不作进一步处理。