Matter of Baires-Larios

Cite as 24 I&N Dec. 467 (BIA 2008) Interim Decision #3603

引用为 24 I&N Dec. 467 (BIA 2008) 临时决定 #3603

File A42 474 527 - Los Fresnos

案卷 A42 474 527 - Los Fresnos

Decided March 10, 2008

2008年3月10日决定

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

A child who has satisfied the statutory conditions of former section 321(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1432(a) (1988), before the age of 18 years has acquired United States citizenship, regardless of whether the naturalized parent acquired legal custody of the child before or after the naturalization.

在18岁之前满足《移民与国籍法》前第321(a)条（8 U.S.C. § 1432(a) (1988)）法定条件的儿童已获得美国公民身份，无论归化的父母是在归化之前还是之后获得该儿童的法定监护权。

FOR RESPONDENT: Jodi Goodwin, Esquire, Harlingen, Texas

被申请人代理律师：Jodi Goodwin 律师，德克萨斯州哈林根

FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Lessa N. Whatmough, Assistant Chief Counsel

国土安全部代理律师：Lessa N. Whatmough，助理首席法律顾问

BEFORE: Board Panel: HOLMES, GRANT, and MILLER, Board Members.

审理法官：委员会成员 HOLMES、GRANT 和 MILLER。

MILLER, Board Member:

MILLER，委员会成员：

In a decision dated August 28, 2007, an Immigration Judge found that the respondent did not derive United States citizenship through her father, denied her requests for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure, and ordered her removed from the United States. The respondent has appealed from that decision. The appeal will be sustained and the record will be remanded to the Immigration Judge.

在2007年8月28日的决定中，移民法官认定被申请人未通过其父亲获得美国公民身份，驳回了她的取消递解和自愿离境请求，并命令将其驱逐出美国。被申请人对该决定提出上诉。上诉将获支持，案件记录将发回移民法官重审。

The record reflects that the respondent was born in El Salvador on November 13, 1976. On February 8, 1978, the respondent’s parents were divorced. The respondent’s father became a naturalized United States citizen on January 13, 1989. On November 3, 1990, the respondent’s mother executed an affidavit relinquishing legal custody of the respondent and allowing her to go to the United States. On November 14, 1990, the respondent was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident. The respondent claims that she automatically acquired United States citizenship pursuant to former section 321(a) of the Immigration and

记录显示，被申请人于1976年11月13日出生在萨尔瓦多。1978年2月8日，被申请人的父母离婚。被申请人的父亲于1989年1月13日成为归化的美国公民。1990年11月3日，被申请人的母亲签署了一份宣誓书，放弃对被申请人的法定监护权并允许她前往美国。1990年11月14日，被申请人作为合法永久居民获准进入美国。被申请人声称，她根据《移民与国籍法》前第321(a)条自动获得了美国公民身份，

467

467

Cite as 24 I&N Dec. 467 (BIA 2008) Interim Decision #3603

引用为 24 I&N Dec. 467 (BIA 2008) 临时决定 #3603

Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1432(a) (1988),1 on November 14, 1990, when she was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident under the legal custody of her father.

即《移民与国籍法》前第321(a)条，8 U.S.C. § 1432(a) (1988)，1 于1990年11月14日，当她作为合法永久居民在其父亲的法定监护下获准进入美国时。

Because the respondent was born in El Salvador, she is presumed to be an alien and bears the burden of establishing her claim to United States citizenship by a preponderance of credible evidence. See Matter of Tijerina-Villarreal, 13 I&N Dec. 327, 330 (BIA 1969). Section 321(a) of the Act, which was in force prior to February 27, 2001, stated, in pertinent part, as follows:

由于被申请人出生在萨尔瓦多，她被推定为外国人，并承担以优势可信证据证明其美国公民身份主张的责任。见 Matter of Tijerina-Villarreal, 13 I&N Dec. 327, 330 (BIA 1969)。该法第321(a)条在2001年2月27日之前有效，其相关部分规定如下：

A child born outside of the United States of alien parents . . . becomes a citizen of the United States upon fulfillment of the following conditions: . . . (3) The naturalization of the parent having legal custody of the child when there has been a legal separation of the parents . . . if

在外国出生的外国父母所生子女……在满足以下条件时成为美国公民： …… (3) 在父母合法分居的情况下，拥有子女法定监护权的父母归化……如果

(4) Such naturalization takes place while such child is unmarried and under the age of eighteen years; and

(4) 此种归化发生在该子女未婚且未满十八岁时；且

(5) Such child is residing in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence at the time of the naturalization of the parent . . . or thereafter begins to reside permanently in the United States while under the age of eighteen years.

(5) 该子女在父母归化时或之后根据合法永久居留的准入居住在美国，或在未满十八岁时开始在美国永久居住。

It is clear that the naturalization of the respondent’s father took place while she was under the age of 18 years and that she was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident while under the age of 18 years. However, the Immigration Judge stated that even accepting the factual position of the respondent that she came into her father’s legal custody on November 3, 1990, she did not acquire United States citizenship through her father under former section 321(a) of the Act because she admittedly was not in her father’s legal custody on the date of her father’s naturalization, i.e., January 13, 1989. The Immigration Judge cited two cases from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in support of his determination that a child must be in the legal custody of his or her parent on the date of the parent’s naturalization to acquire derivative citizenship under section 321(a) of the Act. See Jordon v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 424 F.3d 320, 330 (3d Cir. 2005); Bagot v. Ashcroft, 398 F.3d 252, 257 (3d Cir. 2005). The respondent asserts that it is sufficient that she came into her father’s legal custody prior to her 18th birthday to satisfy the requirements of section 321(a) of the Act.

显然，被申请人父亲的归化发生在她未满18岁时，且她作为合法永久居民在未满18岁时获准进入美国。然而，移民法官表示，即使接受被申请人关于她于1990年11月3日进入父亲法定监护的事实主张，她也没有根据该法前第321(a)条通过其父亲获得美国公民身份，因为她承认在其父亲归化之日即1989年1月13日，她并不在其父亲的法定监护下。移民法官引用了美国第三巡回上诉法院的两个案例，以支持其裁定：儿童必须在父母归化之日处于父母的法定监护下，才能根据该法第321(a)条获得衍生公民身份。见 Jordon v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 424 F.3d 320, 330 (3d Cir. 2005); Bagot v. Ashcroft, 398 F.3d 252, 257 (3d Cir. 2005)。被申请人主张，她在18岁生日之前进入父亲的法定监护即足以满足该法第321(a)条的要求。

We agree with the respondent that she has met the requirements of section 321(a) of the Act if she came into her father’s legal custody prior to reaching her 18th birthday, even if she was not in his custody on the date of his

我们同意被申请人的观点，即如果她在年满18岁之前进入父亲的法定监护，即使在她父亲归化之日她不在其监护下，她也已满足该法第321(a)条的要求。

1 We note that section 103(a) of the Child Citizenship Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-395, 114 Stat. 1631, 1633, repealed section 321 of the Act, effective February 27, 2001.

1 我们注意到，2000年《儿童公民法》第103(a)条，Pub. L. No. 106-395, 114 Stat. 1631, 1633，废除了该法第321条，自2001年2月27日起生效。

468

468

Cite as 24 I&N Dec. 467 (BIA 2008) Interim Decision #3603

引用为 24 I&N Dec. 467 (BIA 2008) 临时决定 #3603

naturalization. We point out that we are not bound by the Third Circuit decisions on which the Immigration Judge relied because this case is within the jurisdiction of the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit has indicated that an alien who seeks to establish that he acquired citizenship pursuant to section 321(a) of the Act as a derivative of a parent who naturalized following a legal separation must “meet his burden of proving that he was in the sole legal custody of his naturalized [parent] prior to his eighteenth birthday.” Bustamante-Barrera v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 388, 396 (5th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1247 (2007) (emphasis added). Although the issue in that case concerned whether the legal custody requirement of section 321(a) was satisfied where the parent who had naturalized shared “joint legal custody” of the child with a noncitizen parent, it is instructive that the issue was framed in terms of whether the child must prove he was in the sole legal custody of the naturalized parent “prior to his eighteenth birthday,” rather than at the time of the parent’s naturalization. Id.

我们指出，我们不受移民法官所依赖的第三巡回法院判决的约束，因为本案属于第五巡回法院的管辖范围。第五巡回法院已表明，寻求根据该法第321(a)条证明其作为合法分居后归化的父母的衍生人获得公民身份的外国人，必须“证明其在十八岁生日之前处于其归化的[父母]的唯一法定监护下。” Bustamante-Barrera v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 388, 396 (5th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1247 (2007)（强调为后加）。尽管该案的问题涉及在归化的父母与非公民父母共享“共同法定监护权”的情况下，第321(a)条的法定监护要求是否得到满足，但具有启发性的是，该问题被表述为子女是否必须证明其在“十八岁生日之前”而非在父母归化时处于归化父母的唯一法定监护下。Id.

Matter of M-, 3 I&N Dec. 850 (C.O.1950), provides additional support for our determination that the respondent need only show that she came into her father’s legal custody prior to reaching her 18th birthday. In that case, it was determined that an alien whose father had naturalized on September 4, 1946, following the legal dissolution of his marriage, acquired derivative citizenship pursuant to section 314(c) of the Nationality Act of 1940, ch. 876, 54 Stat. 1137, 1145-46 (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 714), when she was admitted for permanent residence on August 25, 1947, into the legal custody of her father. Section 314(c) provided for the automatic acquisition of citizenship for a child born outside the United States who established “[t]he naturalization of the parent having legal custody of the child when there has been a legal separation of the parents” where such naturalization takes place while the child is under the age of 18 years and the child is residing in the United States at the time of the naturalization or thereafter begins to reside permanently in the United States while under the age of 18 years.2 The provision in section 314(c) requiring the alien to establish the “naturalization of the parent having legal custody of the child,” which is identical to that in former section 321(c), was not interpreted to mean that the legal custody must be in effect on the date of the parent’s naturalization.

Matter of M-, 3 I&N Dec. 850 (C.O.1950) 为我们的裁定提供了额外支持，即被申请人只需证明她在年满18岁之前进入父亲的法定监护。在该案中，裁定一名父亲在合法解除婚姻后于1946年9月4日归化的外国人，根据1940年《国籍法》第314(c)条，ch. 876, 54 Stat. 1137, 1145-46（编纂于 8 U.S.C. § 714），在其于1947年8月25日作为永久居民获准进入父亲的法定监护时，获得了衍生公民身份。第314(c)条规定，对于在美国境外出生且证明“[在]父母合法分居的情况下拥有子女法定监护权的父母归化”的儿童，如果此种归化发生在儿童未满18岁时，且儿童在归化时居住在美国或之后在未满18岁时开始在美国永久居住，则自动获得公民身份。2 第314(c)条中要求外国人证明“拥有子女法定监护权的父母归化”的规定，与前第321(c)条中的规定相同，但并未被解释为法定监护必须在父母归化之日有效。

We also find instructive a policy issued by the United States Department of State, which also considers citizenship claims. The Department of State set out its interpretation of former section 321(a) of the Act in Passport Bulletin 96-18, issued November 6, 1996, entitled “New Interpretation of

我们还发现美国国务院发布的一项政策具有启发性，该政策也处理公民身份主张。国务院在1996年11月6日发布的第96-18号护照公告中阐述了其对《移民与国籍法》前第321(a)条的解释，标题为“对

Section 314(c) of the Nationality Act of 1940 differed from former section 321(a) of the Act in that it did not require that a child’s residence in the United States at the time of the parent’s naturalization be pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence.

1940年《国籍法》第314(c)条与该法前第321(a)条的不同之处在于，它不要求儿童在父母归化时在美国的居住是根据合法永久居留的准入。

469

469

Cite as 24 I&N Dec. 467 (BIA 2008) Interim Decision #3603

引用为 24 I&N Dec. 467 (BIA 2008) 临时决定 #3603

Claims to Citizenship Under Section 321(a) [of the] INA.” See Matter of Fuentes, 21 I&N Dec. 893, 897 (BIA 1997) (following Passport Bulletin 96-18 regarding the issue of age under former section 321(a) of the Act); see also Saxbe v. Bustos, 419 U.S. 65, 74 (1974) (noting that a “longstanding administrative construction [may be] entitled to great weight”). That bulletin reads, in pertinent part, as follows:

《移民与国籍法》第321(a)条下的公民身份主张”。见 Matter of Fuentes, 21 I&N Dec. 893, 897 (BIA 1997)（遵循第96-18号护照公告关于该法前第321(a)条年龄问题的规定）；另见 Saxbe v. Bustos, 419 U.S. 65, 74 (1974)（指出“长期行政解释[可能]被赋予重大权重”）。该公告的相关部分内容如下：

A child who is given into the custody of a parent following that parent’s naturalization (the other parent being an alien) would derive citizenship under Section 321(a)(3) [of the] INA on the date custody is awarded provided such date is prior to child’s 18th birthday and the child is residing in the United States pursuant to lawful permanent residence on that date. If the child is not residing in the United States on that date but enters the United States to begin lawful permanent residence before age 18, citizenship would be acquired on the date of such entry.

在父母一方归化后（另一方为外国人）被交由该父母监护的子女，将在监护权授予之日根据《移民与国籍法》第321(a)(3)条获得衍生公民身份，前提是该日期在子女18岁生日之前，且子女在该日根据合法永久居留居住在美国。如果子女在该日未居住在美国，但在18岁前进入美国开始合法永久居留，则公民身份将在该入境之日获得。

Additionally, the Adjudicator’s Field Manual of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services indicates that a child may derive citizenship under section 321(a) if the parent is awarded legal custody of the child after that parent’s naturalization, as long as both actions occur before the child reaches the age of 18. See U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Dep’t of Homeland Security, Adjudicator’s Field Manual, ch. 71, § 71.1(d)(2) (Feb. 2008), http://www.uscis.gov/propub/DocView/afmid/1/172 (“Manual”). The Manual states that “[s]ince the order in which the requirements [of former section 321(a)] were satisfied was not stated in the statute, as long as the applicant meets the requirement of the statute before age 18 the applicant derives U.S. citizenship.” As an example, the Manual notes that “under the prior INA section 321(a)(3), citizenship would be derived when a divorce occurred after naturalization of one parent and the naturalized parent obtained legal custody of the child.” The Manual goes on to state that “[t]he date of citizenship for most applicants will be the date of the last action to occur before age 18,” which may be, inter alia, the date of naturalization of the parent or the date of “legal custody when there has been a legal separation.”

此外，美国公民及移民服务局的《裁决者现场手册》表明，如果父母在归化后获得子女的法定监护权，只要两者均发生在子女年满18岁之前，子女可以根据第321(a)条获得衍生公民身份。见美国公民及移民服务局，国土安全部，《裁决者现场手册》，第71章，§ 71.1(d)(2)（2008年2月），http://www.uscis.gov/propub/DocView/afmid/1/172（“手册”）。手册指出，“由于[前第321(a)条]各项要求得到满足的顺序未在法规中规定，只要申请人在18岁之前满足法规要求，申请人即获得美国公民身份。”作为示例，手册指出，“根据之前的《移民与国籍法》第321(a)(3)条，当一方父母归化后发生离婚且归化的父母获得子女的法定监护权时，公民身份即被衍生。”手册进一步指出，“对大多数申请人而言，公民身份日期将是18岁之前最后发生的行动日期”，该日期可以是，除其他外，父母归化之日或“父母合法分居时的法定监护”之日。

In view of the above, we agree with the respondent that in order to establish derivative citizenship under former section 321(a) of the Act, she must show only that she was in the legal custody of her father before she reached the age of 18 years, rather than on the date her father naturalized. Her appeal will therefore be sustained. Because the Immigration Judge incorrectly found the respondent’s concession that she was not in her father’s legal custody on the date of his naturalization to be determinative, he did not decide whether the respondent was in her father’s legal custody prior to reaching her 18th birthday. Inasmuch as such a determination requires additional fact-finding, we will remand the record to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings. On remand, both parties may present additional evidence, including testimony,

鉴于上述情况，我们同意被申请人的意见，即为了根据该法前第321(a)条确立派生公民身份，她只需证明其在年满18岁之前处于父亲的法定监护之下，而非在其父亲入籍之日处于其法定监护之下。因此，她的上诉将获支持。由于移民法官错误地认定被申请人承认在其父亲入籍之日未处于其父亲的法定监护之下具有决定性，他未裁定被申请人在年满18岁生日之前是否处于其父亲的法定监护之下。鉴于该裁定需要进一步的事实认定，我们将记录发回移民法官进行进一步程序。发回后，双方均可提交补充证据，包括证言，

470

470

Cite as 24 I&N Dec. 467 (BIA 2008) Interim Decision #3603

引用为 24 I&N Dec. 467 (BIA 2008) 临时决定第3603号

relevant to the respondent’s claim of derivative citizenship under former section 321(a) of the Act.

与被申请人根据该法前第321(a)条提出的派生公民身份主张相关。

471

471