Matter of Rolando Manapa Federiso

Cite as 24 I&N Dec. 661 (BIA 2008) Interim Decision #3627

引用为 24 I&N Dec. 661 (BIA 2008) 临时决定第3627号

File A040 501 894 - Los Angeles

案卷 A040 501 894 - 洛杉矶

Decided October 23, 2008

2008年10月23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

To be eligible for a waiver of removal under section 237(a)(1)(H)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(H)(i) (2006), an alien must establish a qualifying relationship to a living relative.

要符合《移民与国籍法》第237(a)(1)(H)(i)条、8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(H)(i) (2006)规定的驱逐豁免资格，外国人必须证明其与在世亲属存在符合条件的亲属关系。

FOR RESPONDENT: Andrew J. Vazquez, Esquire, Pasadena, California

被申请人代理律师：Andrew J. Vazquez 律师，加利福尼亚州帕萨迪纳

FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Jessica Mufarreh, Assistant Chief Counsel

国土安全部代理律师：Jessica Mufarreh，助理首席法律顾问

BEFORE: Board Panel: FILPPU, COLE, and PAULEY, Board Members.

审理法官：委员会小组：FILPPU、COLE 和 PAULEY，委员会成员。

PAULEY, Board Member:

PAULEY，委员会成员：

In a decision dated July 28, 2006, an Immigration Judge granted the respondent’s request for a waiver of removal under section 237(a)(1)(H)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(H)(i) (2006). The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) has appealed from that decision. The appeal will be sustained, the decision of the Immigration Judge will be vacated, and the respondent will be ordered removed from the United States.

在2006年7月28日的裁定中，一名移民法官批准了被申请人依据《移民与国籍法》第237(a)(1)(H)(i)条、8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(H)(i) (2006)提出的驱逐豁免请求。国土安全部（“DHS”）对该裁定提出上诉。上诉将获支持，移民法官的裁定将被撤销，并将命令将被申请人驱逐出美国。

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

I. 事实与程序历史

The respondent is a native and citizen of the Philippines. The record reflects that he was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident on November 8, 1986, on the basis of his first-preference classification as the unmarried son of a United States citizen. It further indicates that he was married at the time of his admission. The respondent’s mother, who was a United States citizen, died in 2005. Removal proceedings were initiated against the respondent in January 2001. The Notice to Appear (Form I-862) charged that the respondent is removable under section 237(a)(1)(A) of the Act because he was inadmissible at the time

被申请人是菲律宾本土出生公民。记录显示，他于1986年11月8日以合法永久居民身份获准进入美国，依据是其作为美国公民未婚子女的第一优先类别。记录还表明，他在获准入境时已婚。被申请人的母亲是美国公民，于2005年去世。 2001年1月对被申请人启动驱逐程序。出庭通知（表格 I-862）指控被申请人依据该法第237(a)(1)(A)条可被驱逐，因为其在入境时不可入境

661

661

Cite as 24 I&N Dec. 661 (BIA 2008) Interim Decision #3627

引用为 24 I&N Dec. 661 (BIA 2008) 临时决定第3627号

of entry under sections 212(a)(5)(A)(i), (6)(C)(i), and (7)(A)(i)(I) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(5)(A)(i), (6)(C)(i), (7)(A)(i)(I) (2000). During proceedings on August 3, 2001, the Immigration Judge denied the DHS’s motion for a continuance and granted the respondent’s motion to terminate. The DHS appealed, and on December 8, 2003, we sustained the appeal and remanded the record for the proceedings to be reinstated. At the proceedings on remand, the Immigration Judge found the respondent removable as charged but granted his request for a waiver under section 237(a)(1)(H) of the Act. On appeal, the DHS contends that the respondent is statutorily ineligible for the waiver because he no longer qualifies as the son of a United States citizen following the death of his mother.

依据该法第212(a)(5)(A)(i)、(6)(C)(i)和(7)(A)(i)(I)条、8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(5)(A)(i)、(6)(C)(i)、(7)(A)(i)(I) (2000)。在2001年8月3日的程序中，移民法官驳回了DHS的延期动议，并批准了被申请人的终止动议。DHS提出上诉，2003年12月8日，我们支持上诉并将记录发回以恢复程序。在发回后的程序中，移民法官认定被申请人按指控可被驱逐，但批准了其依据该法第237(a)(1)(H)条提出的豁免请求。在上诉中，DHS主张被申请人因母亲去世后不再符合美国公民子女资格，故在法律上不符合豁免资格。

II. ANALYSIS

II. 分析

Section 237(a)(1)(H)(i) of the Act provides a waiver of removal for certain aliens who were inadmissible at the time of admission under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) because they sought documentation or admission by fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact. The statute currently provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

该法第237(a)(1)(H)(i)条规定，对某些在入境时依据第212(a)(6)(C)(i)条不可入境的外国人可豁免驱逐，理由是其通过欺诈或对重要事实的故意虚假陈述寻求文件或入境。该法规目前相关部分规定如下：

The provisions of this paragraph relating to the removal of aliens within the United States on the ground that they were inadmissible at the time of admission as aliens described in section 212(a)(6)(C)(i), whether willful or innocent, may, in the discretion of the Attorney General, be waived for any alien (other than an alien described in paragraph (4)(D)) who – (i) (I) is the spouse, parent, son, or daughter of a citizen of the United States or of an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence; and (II) was in possession of an immigrant visa or equivalent document and was otherwise admissible to the United States at the time of such admission except for those grounds of inadmissibility specified under paragraphs (5)(A) and (7)(A) of section 212(a) which were a direct result of that fraud or misrepresentation.

本款关于驱逐境内外国人的规定，以该等外国人在入境时属于第212(a)(6)(C)(i)条所述不可入境外国人为由，无论故意或无辜，经司法部长酌情决定，可对任何外国人（第(4)(D)款所述外国人除外）予以豁免，如果该外国人—— (i) (I) 是美国公民或合法获准进入美国永久居留的外国人的配偶、父母、子女或儿女；且 (II) 在获准入境时持有移民签证或同等文件，且除此之外可入境美国，但第212(a)条第(5)(A)和(7)(A)款规定的不可入境事由系该欺诈或虚假陈述的直接结果者除外。

Section 237(a)(1)(H) of the Act (emphasis added). Thus, only an alien who “is the spouse, parent, son, or daughter of a citizen of the United States or of an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence” may be eligible for this waiver. Section 237(a)(1)(H)(i)(I) of the Act. The respondent claims that he is eligible because he is the son of a United States citizen, even though his mother is now deceased. The DHS argues that a person can qualify as the son of a United States citizen only if the citizen parent is living. The respondent, on the other hand, focuses his argument on a comparison to the waiver of inadmissibility under section 212(i) of the Act, which requires a showing of hardship to the qualifying relative. He asserts that because section 237(a)(1)(H) has no such

该法第237(a)(1)(H)条（着重号为后加）。因此，只有“是美国公民或合法获准进入美国永久居留的外国人的配偶、父母、子女或儿女”的外国人，才可以符合该豁免资格。该法第237(a)(1)(H)(i)(I)条。被申请人主张其符合资格，因为他是美国公民的子女，即使其母亲现已去世。 DHS主张，一个人只有在公民父母在世时才能符合美国公民子女的资格。另一方面，被申请人将其论点集中于与该法第212(i)条规定的不可入境豁免的比较，该条要求证明对符合条件亲属造成困难。他主张，由于第237(a)(1)(H)条没有此类

662

662

Cite as 24 I&N Dec. 661 (BIA 2008) Interim Decision #3627

引用为 24 I&N Dec. 661 (BIA 2008) 临时决定第3627号

requirement, only the existence of the relationship to the qualifying relative must be shown and the parent need not still be living. Upon review of the history of section 237(a)(1)(H), we conclude that the Immigration Judge erred in finding the respondent eligible for a waiver and we will sustain the DHS’s appeal. The first origins of the fraud waiver appeared in 1957 when Congress created a provision that excused the deportation of an alien who was excludable at the time of entry on the basis of fraud or misrepresentation and who was a “spouse, parent, or child of a citizen of the United States” or a lawful permanent resident. See Act of Sept. 11, 1957, Pub. L. No. 85-316, § 7, 71 Stat. 639, 640; see also Matter of Slade, 10 I&N Dec. 128, 131 (BIA 1962). In 1961, Congress enacted the waiver provisions of former section 241(f) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1251(f) (1964). See Act of Sept. 26, 1961, Pub. L. No. 87-301, § 16, 75 Stat. 650, 655. The waiver of deportation, which was mandatory at that time, again contained the requirement that the applicant must qualify as a “spouse, parent, or child.” A subsequent amendment to former section 241(f) rendered the waiver discretionary, but the qualifying relative requirement remained the same. See Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1981, Pub. L. No. 97-116, § 8, 95 Stat. 1611, 1616. When section 241(f) was repealed and the statute was renumbered in 1990, the wording regarding qualifying relatives was also amended to replace a “child” with a “son, or daughter,” thereby eliminating the age restrictions associated with the term “child.” See former section 241(a)(1)(H) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(1)(H) (1994); see also Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649, §§ 602(a), (b), 104 Stat. 4978, 5079, 5081; section 101(b)(1) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(b)(1) (2006). The wording regarding qualifying relatives was preserved again when Congress revised the statute to change the deportation provisions to grounds of removal and accordingly renumbered former section 241(a)(1)(H) of the Act as section 237(a)(1)(H). See Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Div. C of Pub. L. No. 104-208, § 305(a)(2), 110 Stat. 3009-546, 3009-598. Congress has employed essentially identical language in regard to the qualifying relative requirement since the inception of the fraud waiver, and the meaning of that requirement of the statute has remained the same throughout its history. We therefore find it appropriate to consider the case law that has developed regarding the waiver in deciding the question before us. In INS v. Errico, 385 U.S. 214, 224 (1966), the Supreme Court noted in regard to the earliest version of the waiver that “[t]he fundamental purpose of this legislation was to unite families.” Citing that decision, we stated the following in Matter of Da Lomba, 16 I&N Dec. 616, 617-18 (BIA 1978): “The intent of Congress in enacting section 241(f) was a humantarian [sic]

要求，只需证明与符合条件亲属的关系存在，父母不必仍然在世。经审查第237(a)(1)(H)条的历史，我们得出结论：移民法官认定被申请人符合豁免资格有误，我们将支持DHS的上诉。 欺诈豁免的最初起源出现在1957年，当时国会创设了一项条款，免除因欺诈或虚假陈述而在入境时被排除的外国人的驱逐，该外国人须为“美国公民的配偶、父母或子女”或合法永久居民。见1957年9月11日法案，Pub. L. No. 85-316, § 7, 71 Stat. 639, 640；另见 Matter of Slade, 10 I&N Dec. 128, 131 (BIA 1962)。1961年，国会颁布了该法前第241(f)条、8 U.S.C. § 1251(f) (1964)的豁免条款。见1961年9月26日法案，Pub. L. No. 87-301, § 16, 75 Stat. 650, 655。当时的驱逐豁免是强制性的，再次包含申请人必须符合“配偶、父母或子女”资格的要求。随后对前第241(f)条的修正使豁免成为酌情性质，但符合条件亲属的要求保持不变。见1981年《移民与国籍法修正案》，Pub. L. No. 97-116, § 8, 95 Stat. 1611, 1616。 1990年第241(f)条被废止且法规重新编号时，关于符合条件亲属的措辞也被修正，将“子女”替换为“儿女”，从而消除了与“子女”一词相关的年龄限制。见该法前第241(a)(1)(H)条、8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(1)(H) (1994)；另见1990年《移民法》，Pub. L. No. 101-649, §§ 602(a), (b), 104 Stat. 4978, 5079, 5081；该法第101(b)(1)条、8 U.S.C. § 1101(b)(1) (2006)。当国会修订法规将驱逐条款改为驱逐事由并相应将前第241(a)(1)(H)条重新编号为第237(a)(1)(H)条时，关于符合条件亲属的措辞再次得以保留。见1996年《非法移民改革与移民责任法》，Pub. L. No. 104-208 第C编，§ 305(a)(2), 110 Stat. 3009-546, 3009-598。 自欺诈豁免创设以来，国会在符合条件亲属要求方面使用了基本相同的措辞，且该法规要求之含义在其整个历史中保持不变。因此，我们认为适宜考虑就该豁免发展出的判例法，以裁决摆在我们面前的问题。 在 INS v. Errico, 385 U.S. 214, 224 (1966)中，最高法院就最早版本的豁免指出，“该立法的根本目的是团聚家庭。”援引该判决，我们在 Matter of Da Lomba, 16 I&N Dec. 616, 617-18 (BIA 1978)中陈述如下：“国会颁布第241(f)条的意图是一种人道主义[原文如此]的

663

663

Cite as 24 I&N Dec. 661 (BIA 2008) Interim Decision #3627

引用为 24 I&N Dec. 661 (BIA 2008) 临时决定第3627号

desire to unite families and preserve family ties. The fundamental purpose for such legislation was to forestall deportation where it would break up a family composed in part of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.” See also Matter of Matti, 19 I&N Dec. 43, 46 (BIA 1984). In Chung Wook Myung v. District Director of the U.S. INS, 468 F.2d 627, 628 (9th Cir. 1972), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that an alien was not eligible for a waiver under former section 241(f) of the Act because his wife and United States citizen child resided in Korea. The court concluded that granting him a waiver would contravene the purpose of the statute, which was to promote family unity with his United States citizen child. Similarly, in Kalezic v. INS, 647 F.2d 920 (9th Cir. 1981), the Ninth Circuit sustained an Immigration Judge’s decision denying relief where the alien’s marriage was effectively over several months before the decision was rendered. The court noted that the marital relationship had ended in divorce before the alien’s deportation and found that to grant him a waiver under these circumstances would defeat the purpose of the statute, which was to allow spouses to remain together in this country. Id. at 922-23 (“It is the ‘family unit’ that [section 241(f)] seeks to preserve. Presently no such unit exits.”). We agree that the statutory language clearly supports the view that an existing relationship to a living relative is required for waiver eligibility in the case of a spouse. We find no basis in the statute to treat a parent, son, or daughter differently. It is clear from the language of the statute and its interpretation by the courts and this Board that the purpose of the fraud waiver is to unite aliens with their living United States citizen or lawful permanent resident family members. Because his mother is deceased, the respondent does not have a qualifying relative with whom to remain in the United States. We therefore find that he cannot establish his eligibility for a waiver under section 237(a)(1)(H)(i)(I) of the Act, and that the Immigration Judge erred in granting the waiver.1 Accordingly, we will sustain the DHS’s appeal, vacate the Immigration Judge’s decision, and order the respondent removed from the United States. ORDER: The appeal of the Department of Homeland Security is sustained. FURTHER ORDER: The decision of the Immigration Judge is vacated. FURTHER ORDER: The respondent is ordered removed from the United States to the Philippines.

愿望，即团聚家庭并维护家庭纽带。此类立法的根本目的是在驱逐会拆散部分由美国公民或合法永久居民组成的家庭时防止驱逐。”另见 Matter of Matti, 19 I&N Dec. 43, 46 (BIA 1984)。 在 Chung Wook Myung v. District Director of the U.S. INS, 468 F.2d 627, 628 (9th Cir. 1972)中，美国第九巡回上诉法院裁定，一名外国人因其妻子和美国公民子女居住在韩国，不符合该法前第241(f)条规定的豁免资格。法院得出结论，给予其豁免将违背该法规的目的，即促进其与美国公民子女的家庭团聚。 同样，在 Kalezic v. INS, 647 F.2d 920 (9th Cir. 1981)中，第九巡回法院支持了一名移民法官拒绝救济的裁定，该案中外国人的婚姻在裁定作出前数月已实际结束。法院指出，婚姻关系在该外国人被驱逐前已以离婚告终，并认定在此情况下给予其豁免将破坏该法规的目的，即允许配偶在本国共同生活。Id. at 922-23（“第241(f)条寻求维护的是‘家庭单元’。目前不存在这样的单元。”）。 我们同意，法规语言明确支持以下观点：就配偶而言，豁免资格要求与在世亲属存在现存关系。我们在法规中未找到任何依据以不同方式对待父母、子女或儿女。 从法规语言及其法院和本委员会的解释中可以清楚看出，欺诈豁免的目的是使外国人与其在世的美国公民或合法永久居民家庭成员团聚。由于其母亲已去世，被申请人没有可与其在美国共同生活的符合条件亲属。因此，我们认定其无法证明依据该法第237(a)(1)(H)(i)(I)条符合豁免资格，且移民法官批准豁免有误。1 据此，我们将支持DHS的上诉，撤销移民法官的裁定，并命令将被申请人驱逐出美国。 命令：国土安全部的上诉获支持。 进一步命令：移民法官的裁定被撤销。 进一步命令：命令将被申请人从美国驱逐至菲律宾。

1 We note that in Kalezic v. INS, supra, the court found that the operative date was the date of the Immigration Judge’s decision. In this case, the respondent’s mother died before the Immigration Judge’s decision. Thus, we have no occasion to opine on the correctness of this aspect of Kalezic.

1 我们注意到，在Kalezic v. INS, supra案中，法院认定生效日期为移民法官作出裁决之日。在本案中，被申请人的母亲在移民法官作出裁决之前去世。因此，我们无需就Kalezic案这一方面的正确性发表意见。

664

664