Matter of Al Wazzan

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 359 (AAO 2010) Interim Decision #3699

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 359 (AAO 2010) 临时决定 #3699

Decided October 20, 2010 1

2010年10月20日决定 1

U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Administrative Appeals Office

美国国土安全部 美国公民及移民服务局 行政上诉办公室

(1) Although section 204(j) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(j) (2000), provides that an employment-based immigrant visa petition shall remain valid with respect to a new job if the beneficiary’s application for adjustment of status has been filed and remained unadjudicated for 180 days, the petition must have been “valid” to begin with if it is to “remain valid with respect to a new job.”

(1) 尽管《移民与国籍法》第204(j)条，8 U.S.C. § 1154(j)（2000年），规定如果受益人的调整身份申请已提交且未裁决达180天，则基于就业的移民签证申请就新工作而言应保持有效，但该申请必须一开始就是“有效”的，才能“就新工作而言保持有效”。

(2) To be considered “valid” in harmony with related provisions and with the statute as a whole, the petition must have been filed for an alien who is “entitled” to the requested classification and that petition must have been “approved” by a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) officer pursuant to his or her authority under the Act.

(2) 为在与相关条款及整部法律协调一致的意义上被视为“有效”，该申请必须是为“有权”获得所请求分类的外国人提交的，并且该申请必须已由美国公民及移民服务局（“USCIS”）官员依据其在《法》下的权限予以“批准”。

(3) Congress specifically granted USCIS the sole authority to make eligibility determinations for immigrant visa petitions under section 204(b) of the Act.

(3) 国会特别授予USCIS根据《法》第204(b)条对移民签证申请作出资格认定的唯一权限。

(4) An unadjudicated immigrant visa petition is not made “valid” merely through the act of filing the petition with USCIS or through the passage of 180 days.

(4) 未裁决的移民签证申请不会仅仅因为向USCIS提交该申请或经过180天而变得“有效”。

ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT: Angelo Paparelli, Esquire, Irvine, California

代表申请人：Angelo Paparelli，Esquire，加利福尼亚州尔湾

BEFORE: Perry Rhew, Chief, Administrative Appeals Office

审理者：Perry Rhew，行政上诉办公室主任

The Director, California Service Center, denied the Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (Form I-485) on October 6, 2004. 2 In a separate action on November 8, 2004, the director certified the decision

加利福尼亚服务中心主任于2004年10月6日否决了登记永久居留或调整身份申请（Form I-485）。2 在2004年11月8日的另一项行动中，主任将该决定认证

1 This matter was initially decided on January 12, 2005, and designated as an “adopted decision” of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, guiding USCIS officers in their administration of the immigration laws. It was not designated as precedent under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(i) (2010) until October 20, 2010. On our own motion, we reopen and amend the decision for the limited purpose of making editorial revisions consistent with designation of the decision as precedent. 2 After the director denied the underlying immigrant visa petition, the petitioner filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief in the United States District Court, Central District of California. Al Wazzan (USA), Inc. v. Tom Ridge, CV04-6575-NM (RZX) (filed Aug. 9, 2004). On November 15, 2006, the district court entered judgment in favor of the Government.

1 本事项最初于2005年1月12日决定，并被指定为美国公民及移民服务局的“采纳决定”，指导USCIS官员执行移民法。直到2010年10月20日，才根据8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(i)（2010年）将其指定为先例。经我们自行动议，我们重新开启并修订该决定，仅限于进行与将该决定指定为先例相一致的编辑性修订。 2 在主任否决基础移民签证申请后，申请人向美国加利福尼亚中区联邦地区法院提起宣告性和禁令性救济诉讼。Al Wazzan (USA), Inc. v. Tom Ridge, CV04-6575-NM (RZX)（2004年8月9日提起）。2006年11月15日，地区法院作出有利于政府的判决。

359

359

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 359 (AAO 2010) Interim Decision #3699

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 359 (AAO 2010) 临时决定 #3699

to the Administrative Appeals Office (“AAO”) for review. The director’s decision will be affirmed. The applicant is a native and citizen of Kuwait who seeks to adjust his status to permanent resident, despite never having shown eligibility for the immigrant visa classification on which his adjustment application is based. On two occasions, the director denied the Form I-140 immigrant visa petitions that his employer, Al Wazzan (USA), Inc. dba “Prime Casting,” filed on his behalf. In accordance with section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) (2000), the applicant is seeking to adjust his status as a multinational executive or manager pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C) (2000). Although the director denied the visa petition that was filed by the applicant’s actual employer, the applicant states that he has now been offered employment by a second firm and claims that he should be allowed to adjust status based on this job offer. On notice of certification, the applicant submits a brief in support of the application for adjustment of status. Citing section 204(j) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(j) (2000), titled “Job Flexibility For Long Delayed Applicants For Adjustment of Status to Permanent Residence,” the applicant asserts that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) may not deny the adjustment application because the application had been pending for more than 180 days at the time it was adjudicated.

提交行政上诉办公室（“AAO”）审查。主任的决定将予维持。 申请人系科威特国民和公民，寻求将其身份调整为永久居民，尽管其从未表明有资格获得其调整身份申请所依据的移民签证分类。主任两次否决了其雇主Al Wazzan (USA), Inc. dba “Prime Casting”代其提交的Form I-140移民签证申请。根据《移民与国籍法》第245(a)条，8 U.S.C. § 1255(a)（2000年），申请人寻求依据《法》第203(b)(1)(C)条，8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C)（2000年），作为跨国公司高管或经理调整身份。尽管主任否决了由申请人的实际雇主提交的签证申请，申请人称其现已获得第二家公司的聘用邀请，并主张应允许其基于该工作邀请调整身份。 在认证通知后，申请人提交了一份支持调整身份申请的简报。申请人援引《法》第204(j)条，8 U.S.C. § 1154(j)（2000年），标题为“长期延迟调整身份为永久居民的申请人的工作灵活性”，主张美国公民及移民服务局（“USCIS”）不得否决该调整申请，因为该申请在裁决时已待决超过180天。

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

I. 事实与程序历史

This matter has a complex procedural history. The applicant’s employer filed an initial Form I-140 immigrant visa petition (WAC 98 245 51887) in 1998, which the director denied on February 2, 2000. The AAO dismissed a subsequent appeal on January 8, 2001, affirming the director’s decision to deny, and rejected a late motion to reopen the matter on July 22, 2003. No Form I-485 was ever filed in connection with this I-140 petition. The applicant’s employer filed a second Form I-140 immigrant visa petition (WAC 02 266 54969) on August 26, 2002. Additionally, the applicant immediately filed this Form I-485 application for adjustment of status on September 18, 2002, pursuant to the “concurrent filing” process that was implemented by USCIS on July 31, 2002. See 67 Fed. Reg. 49,561 (July 31, 2002), codified at 8 C.F.R. § 245.2(a)(2)(i)(B). After a number of intervening actions, the director ultimately denied the Form I-140 immigrant visa petition on August 3, 2003. Consistent with USCIS policy, the director also denied the Form I-485 application for adjustment of status on September 29, 2003, because an immigrant visa was not immediately available to the applicant. See Memorandum from William Yates, Deputy Exec. Assoc. Comm’r, USCIS, Procedures for concurrently filed family-based or employment-based Form I-485 when the underlying visa petition is denied (Feb. 28, 2003), discussed

本事项具有复杂的程序历史。申请人的雇主于1998年提交了首份Form I-140移民签证申请（WAC 98 245 51887），主任于2000年2月2日予以否决。AAO于2001年1月8日驳回了随后的上诉，维持主任的否决决定，并于2003年7月22日拒绝了逾期重新开启该事项的动议。与该I-140申请相关的Form I-485从未提交。 申请人的雇主于2002年8月26日提交了第二份Form I-140移民签证申请（WAC 02 266 54969）。此外，申请人立即于2002年9月18日根据USCIS于2002年7月31日实施的“同时提交”程序提交了本Form I-485调整身份申请。见67 Fed. Reg. 49,561（2002年7月31日），编纂于8 C.F.R. § 245.2(a)(2)(i)(B)。经过若干中间行动后，主任最终于2003年8月3日否决了Form I-140移民签证申请。依照USCIS政策，主任还于2003年9月29日否决了Form I-485调整身份申请，因为申请人没有可立即获得的移民签证。见William Yates，USCIS副执行助理专员备忘录，Procedures for concurrently filed family-based or employment-based Form I-485 when the underlying visa petition is denied（2003年2月28日），讨论

360

360

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 359 (AAO 2010) Interim Decision #3699

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 359 (AAO 2010) 临时决定 #3699

and reproduced in Tammy Fox-Isicoff and H. Ronald Klasko, The Child Status Protection Act: Is your Child Protected?, 80 Interpreter Releases, No. 28, July 21, 2003, at 973 (“Service adjudicators should also deny the concurrently filed Form I-485 when the underlying visa petition is denied because the applicant has lost the claim to adjustment of status.”). Accordingly, at the time that the director denied the Form I-485 application for adjustment of status, the application had been pending for 376 days. 3

并转载于Tammy Fox-Isicoff和H. Ronald Klasko，The Child Status Protection Act: Is your Child Protected?，80 Interpreter Releases，第28号，2003年7月21日，第973页（“当基础签证申请被否决时，服务局裁决人员也应否决同时提交的Form I-485，因为申请人已丧失调整身份的主张。”）。 因此，在主任否决Form I-485调整身份申请时，该申请已待决376天。3

II. ISSUE PRESENTED ON CERTIFICATION

II. 认证中提出的问题

This case presents the AAO with its first opportunity to construe this statutory provision and determine its effect on an application for adjustment of status if a visa petition is denied after the application is pending for 180 days. In general, an alien may acquire permanent resident status in the United States through two legal mechanisms: the alien may pick up an approved visa packet at an overseas consulate and be “admitted” to the United States for permanent residence; or, if the alien is already in the United States in a lawful nonimmigrant or parolee status, the alien may “adjust status” to that of an alien admitted for permanent residence. Compare section 211 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1181 (2000), with section 245 of the Act. Governing adjustment of status, section 245(a) of the Act 4 requires the adjustment applicant to have an “approved” petition:

本案为AAO提供了首次解释该法定条款并确定其在申请待决180天后签证申请被否决时对调整身份申请之影响的机会。一般而言，外国人可以通过两种法律机制在美国获得永久居民身份：外国人可以在海外领事馆领取已批准的签证包裹并“获准”进入美国成为永久居民；或者，如果外国人已以合法非移民或假释者身份在美国境内，外国人可以“调整身份”为获准进入美国成为永久居民的外国人。比较《法》第211条，8 U.S.C. § 1181（2000年），与《法》第245条。 关于调整身份，《法》第245(a)条4要求调整身份申请人拥有“已批准”的申请：

The status of an alien who was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States or the status of any other alien having an approved petition for classification under subparagraph (A)(iii), (A)(iv), (B)(ii), or (B)(iii)

经检查并获准或假释进入美国的外国人的身份，或任何其他拥有根据第204(a)(1)条(A)(iii)、(A)(iv)、(B)(ii)或(B)(iii)项[原文如此]批准的分类申请的外国人的身份

3 There is some question as to the actual date of the director’s denial of the adjustment of status application; regardless of how it is calculated, the application was pending more than 180 days. The lengthy delay in adjudicating the application for adjustment of status was caused by a USCIS error, which in turn was the result of the concurrent filing process and the applicant’s multiple visa petitions. The Form I-485 application for adjustment of status was originally denied on October 30, 2002, or 42 days after filing, after the director erroneously matched the Form I-485 with the first denied Form I-140, instead of the second pending Form I-140. After the applicant noted this error in 2003, the director reopened the matter and denied the application for a second time on September 29, 2003. Since the first denial was predicated on USCIS error, the second decision will be considered the effective denial of the application for adjustment of status. 4 In 2006, Congress amended section 245(a) of the Act by striking the phrase “under subparagraph (A)(iii), (A)(iv), (B)(ii), or (B)(iii) of section 1154(a)(1) of this title or” and inserting “as a VAWA self-petitioner.” Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act—Technical Corrections, Pub. L. No. 109-271, § 6(f)(1), 120 Stat. 750, 763 (2006).

3 关于主任否决调整身份申请的实际日期存在一些疑问；无论如何计算，该申请待决均超过180天。裁决调整身份申请的长期延迟是由USCIS错误造成的，而该错误又是同时提交程序和申请人多份签证申请的结果。Form I-485调整身份申请最初于2002年10月30日被否决，即提交后42天，此前主任错误地将Form I-485与第一份被否决的Form I-140匹配，而非第二份待决的Form I-140。在申请人于2003年指出该错误后，主任重新开启该事项并于2003年9月29日第二次否决该申请。由于第一次否决是基于USCIS错误，第二次决定将被视为调整身份申请的有效否决。 4 2006年，国会修订了《法》第245(a)条，删除“根据本法典第1154(a)(1)条(A)(iii)、(A)(iv)、(B)(ii)或(B)(iii)项或”一语，并插入“作为VAWA自我申请人”。Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act—Technical Corrections, Pub. L. No. 109-271, § 6(f)(1), 120 Stat. 750, 763 (2006)。

361

361

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 359 (AAO 2010) Interim Decision #3699

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 359 (AAO 2010) 临时决定 #3699

of section 204(a)(1) or [sic] may be adjusted by the Attorney General [now Secretary of Homeland Security], in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe, to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if: (1) the alien makes an application for such adjustment, (2) the alien is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for permanent residence, and (3) an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed.

第204(a)(1)条或[原文如此]可由司法部长[现为国土安全部部长]在其自由裁量权下并按其可能规定的条例，调整为合法获准永久居留的外国人的身份，如果： (1) 该外国人提出此类调整申请， (2) 该外国人有资格获得移民签证并可获准进入美国成为永久居民，且 (3) 在其提交申请时有可立即获得的移民签证。

(Emphasis added.)

（强调为后加。）

In 2000, Congress passed the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-313, 114 Stat. 1251 (“AC21”). Section 106(c) of AC21, 114 Stat. at 1254, amended section 204 of the Act by adding subsection(j), titled “Job Flexibility for Long Delayed Applicants for Adjustment of Status to Permanent Residence”:

2000年，国会通过了《2000年二十一世纪美国竞争力法》，Pub. L. No. 106-313, 114 Stat. 1251（“AC21”）。AC21第106(c)条，114 Stat. at 1254，修订了《法》第204条，增加(j)款，标题为“长期延迟调整身份为永久居民的申请人的工作灵活性”：

A petition under subsection (a)(1)(D) [since redesignated section 204(a)(1)(F)] for an individual whose application for adjustment of status pursuant to section 245 has been filed and remained unadjudicated for 180 days or more shall remain valid with respect to a new job if the individual changes jobs or employers if the new job is in the same or a similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.

根据第245条提交调整身份申请且该申请未裁决达180天或以上的个人，其根据(a)(1)(D)款[后重新指定为第204(a)(1)(F)条]提交的申请，如果该个人更换工作或雇主，且新工作与提交申请所针对的工作属于相同或相似的职业分类，则就新工作而言应保持有效。

Section 212(a)(5)(A)(iv) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A)(iv) (2000), states further:

《法》第212(a)(5)(A)(iv)条，8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A)(iv)（2000年），进一步规定：

A certification made under clause (i) with respect to an individual whose petition is covered by section 204(j) shall remain valid with respect to a new job accepted by the individual after the individual changes jobs or employers if the new job is in the same or a similar occupational classification as the job for which the certification was issued.

根据第(i)项对申请受第204(j)条涵盖的个人所作出的认证，如果该个人在更换工作或雇主后接受的新工作与认证所针对的工作属于相同或相似的职业分类，则就该新工作而言应保持有效。

At the time AC21 went into effect, legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) regulations provided that an alien worker could not apply for permanent resident status by filing a Form I-485, application to adjust status, until he or she obtained the approval of the underlying Form I-140 immigrant visa petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 245.2(a)(2)(i) (2000). Therefore, the process under section 106(c) of AC21 at the time of enactment was as follows: first, an alien obtained an approved employment-based immigrant visa petition; second, the alien filed an application to adjust status; third, if the adjustment application was not processed within 180 days, the underlying immigrant visa petition remained valid even if the alien changed employers or positions, provided the new job was in the same or similar occupational classification. On certification, the applicant claims that the director improperly denied the underlying Form I-140 immigrant visa petition and, regardless of that

在AC21生效时，遗留移民归化局（“INS”）的规定是，外籍劳工在获得作为基础的I-140移民签证申请批准之前，不能通过提交I-485表格（调整身份申请）来申请永久居民身份。见8 C.F.R. § 245.2(a)(2)(i) (2000)。因此，在颁布时，AC21第106(c)条下的程序如下：第一，外籍人士获得已批准的就业类移民签证申请；第二，该外籍人士提交调整身份申请；第三，如果调整申请在180天内未获处理，即使该外籍人士更换雇主或职位，只要新工作属于相同或相似的职业分类，作为基础的移民签证申请仍然有效。在认证中，申请人声称主任不当拒绝了作为基础的I-140移民签证申请，并且无论该

362

362

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 359 (AAO 2010) Interim Decision #3699

引注为25 I&N Dec. 359 (AAO 2010) 临时决定第3699号

denial, further argues that section 106(c) of AC21 bars the director from denying the application for adjustment of status because it was pending for more than 180 days. 5 The applicant asserts that Congress enacted section 106(c) in an effort to reduce the backlogs of adjustment of status applications and ameliorate the negative consequences that these backlogs have on applicants. Citing Tcherepnin v. Knight, 389 U.S. 332 (1967), the applicant states that “the familiar canons of statutory construction require that remedial legislation should be construed liberally to effectuate Congress’ intent.” The applicant maintains that the only reasonable interpretation of section 106(c) is that “Congress in effect gave the USCIS a six-month deadline within which to adjudicate every non-frivolous employment-based immigrant visa petition and associated adjustment application.” Accordingly, the applicant concludes that after 6 months have elapsed from the date of filing for adjustment of status, USCIS no longer has the authority to deny a “non-frivolous” Form I-485 application and the alien beneficiary has the statutory right to change jobs or employers. 6 The applicant has pointed to no legislative history that would support his assertion, in essence, that USCIS should overlook the statutory requirement of an “approved petition” for adjustment of status, in favor of granting permanent residence to those aliens with denied petitions, or even to aliens with unadjudicated I-140s, if the 180-day time period passes before the adjustment application is adjudicated. The available legislative history does not shed light on Congress’ intent in specifically enacting section 106(c) of AC21. While the legislative history for AC21 discusses congressional concerns regarding the nation’s economic competitiveness, the shortage of skilled technology workers, U.S. job training, and the cap on the number of nonimmigrant H-1B workers, the legislative history does not specifically mention section 106(c) or any concerns regarding backlogs in adjustment of status applications. The legislative history briefly

拒绝如何，进一步主张AC21第106(c)条禁止主任拒绝调整身份申请，因为该申请已待决超过180天。5 申请人断言，国会颁布第106(c)条是为了减少调整身份申请的积压，并改善这些积压对申请人造成的负面后果。申请人引用Tcherepnin v. Knight, 389 U.S. 332 (1967)，指出“熟悉的成文法解释规则要求，补救性立法应作宽松解释，以实现国会的意图。”申请人坚持认为，对第106(c)条唯一合理的解释是“国会在实际上给了USCIS六个月的期限，以裁决每一项非轻率的就业类移民签证申请及相关的调整申请。”因此，申请人得出结论，在提交调整身份申请之日起6个月过后，USCIS不再有权拒绝“非轻率”的I-485表格申请，外籍受益人享有更换工作或雇主的法定权利。6 申请人未指出任何立法历史支持其主张，即实质上USCIS应忽视调整身份需“已批准申请”的法定要求，转而向申请被拒的外籍人士、甚至I-140尚未裁决的外籍人士授予永久居留权，只要在调整申请裁决前180天期限已过。 现有立法历史并未阐明国会具体颁布AC21第106(c)条的意图。虽然AC21的立法历史讨论了国会对国家经济竞争力、熟练技术工人短缺、美国职业培训以及非移民H-1B工人人数上限的关切，但立法历史并未具体提及第106(c)条或任何关于调整身份申请积压的关切。立法历史简要

5 The denied Form I-140 (WAC 02 266 54969) was also certified to the AAO for review. In a separate decision that will be incorporated into the record of proceeding, the AAO upheld the director’s decision to deny the immigrant visa petition. The applicant fails to mention that the director denied the previous Form I-140 (WAC 98 245 51887) and that the AAO also dismissed the appeal in that matter. 6 The applicant’s argument implies that the present application is not frivolous. The applicant does claim that five prior approvals of the beneficiary’s nonimmigrant status confirmed the applicant’s eligibility. The applicant fails to mention that the INS denied the petitioner’s third request for an extension and revoked the approval of the last nonimmigrant petition filed by the applicant’s employer. Most significantly, the applicant declines to note that prior to filing the current Form I-140 and Form I-485, the applicant’s employer filed an initial Form I-140 immigrant visa petition in 1998, which was denied by the director. The AAO affirmed the director’s denial on appeal. The issue in the present matter, however, is not whether the beneficiary’s application for adjustment of status is frivolous, but whether the visa petition remains “valid” under section 106(c) of AC21.

5 被拒的I-140表格（WAC 02 266 54969）也被认证至AAO进行审查。在将并入诉讼记录的单独决定中，AAO维持了主任拒绝该移民签证申请的决定。申请人未提及主任拒绝了先前的I-140表格（WAC 98 245 51887），且AAO在该事项中也驳回了上诉。 6 申请人的论点暗示本申请并非轻率。申请人确实声称受益人非移民身份的先前五次批准确认了申请人的资格。申请人未提及INS拒绝了申请人第三次延期请求，并撤销了申请人雇主提交的最后一份非移民申请的批准。最重要的是，申请人避而不谈在提交当前I-140表格和I-485表格之前，申请人的雇主于1998年提交了初始I-140移民签证申请，该申请被主任拒绝。AAO在上诉中维持了主任的拒绝。然而，本事项的问题不是受益人的调整身份申请是否轻率，而是该签证申请根据AC21第106(c)条是否仍然“有效”。

363

363

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 359 (AAO 2010) Interim Decision #3699

引注为25 I&N Dec. 359 (AAO 2010) 临时决定第3699号

mentions “inordinate delays in labor certification and INS visa processing” in reference to provisions relating to the extension of an H-1B nonimmigrant alien’s period of stay. See S. Rep. No. 106-260, at 9, 20 (2000), available at 2000 WL 622763. In the 2001 Report on the Activities of the Committee on the Judiciary, the House Judiciary Committee summarized the effects of AC21 on immigrant visa petitions:

在提及有关延长H-1B非移民外籍人士停留期的条款时提到“劳工证和INS签证处理中的过度延迟”。见S. Rep. No. 106-260, at 9, 20 (2000)，可查阅2000 WL 622763。在2001年司法委员会活动报告中，众议院司法委员会总结了AC21对移民签证申请的影响：

[I]f an employer’s immigrant visa petition for an alien worker has been filed and remains unadjudicated for at least 180 days, the petition shall remain valid with respect to a new job if the alien changes jobs or employers if the new job is in the same or a similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.

[I]如果雇主为外籍劳工提交的移民签证申请已提交且至少180天未获裁决，则在该外籍人士更换工作或雇主时，只要新工作与提交申请的工作属于相同或相似的职业分类，该申请对新工作仍然有效。

H.R. Rep. No. 106-1048, at 194 (2000), available at 2001 WL 67919 (emphasis added). Notably, this report further confuses the question of congressional intent since the report clearly refers to “immigrant visa petitions” and not the “application for adjustment of status” that appears in the final statute. Even if more specific references were available, the legislative history behind AC21 would not provide guidance in the current matter since, as previously noted, an approved employment-based immigrant visa petition was required to file for adjustment of status at the time Congress enacted AC21.

H.R. Rep. No. 106-1048, at 194 (2000)，可查阅2001 WL 67919（强调为后加）。值得注意的是，该报告进一步混淆了国会意图的问题，因为报告明确提及“移民签证申请”，而非最终成文法中出现的“调整身份申请”。即使有更具体的引用可用，AC21背后的立法历史也不会为当前事项提供指导，因为如前所述，在国会颁布AC21时，提交调整身份申请需要已批准的就业类移民签证申请。

III. INTERPRETATION OF “VALID”

III. 对“有效”的解释

Upon review, the applicant’s assertions are not persuasive. The operative language in section 106(c) is the following sentence: “A petition . . . shall remain valid with respect to a new job if the individual changes jobs or employers . . . .” The term “valid” is not defined by the statute, nor does the Congressional Record provide any guidance as to its meaning. 7

经审查，申请人的主张不具说服力。第106(c)条的操作性语言是以下句子：“如果个人更换工作或雇主，申请……对新工作仍然有效……。” “有效”一词未由成文法定义，国会记录也未对其含义提供任何指导。7

7 USCIS has not published any regulations governing the application of section 106(c) of AC21. The agency has offered guidance on this provision in the form of policy memoranda and has amended the Adjudicator’s Field Manual (“AFM”) to account for the law. At the time of adjudication, neither the memoranda nor the AFM had defined the term “valid” or discussed the effect of AC21 on a petition that is denied or remains unadjudicated after 180 days. See Memorandum from William R. Yates, Acting Assoc. Dir. for Operations, USCIS, Continuing Validity of Form I-140 Petition in accordance with Section 106(c) of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (Aug. 4, 2003); Memorandum from Michael A. Pearson, Executive Assoc. Comm’r, Office of Field Operations, INS (now CIS), Initial Guidance for Processing H-1B Petitions as Affected by the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (Public Law 106-313) and Related Legislation (June 19, 2001); see also AFM § 20.2. USCIS has since issued supplemental guidance on section 106(c) of AC21. See Memorandum from (continued...)

7 USCIS尚未发布任何规范AC21第106(c)条适用的法规。该机构以政策备忘录的形式就该条款提供了指导，并修订了裁决员现场手册（“AFM”）以反映该法律。在裁决时，备忘录和AFM均未定义“有效”一词，也未讨论AC21对在180天后被拒或仍未裁决的申请的影响。见William R. Yates，USCIS运营代理副总监备忘录，Continuing Validity of Form I-140 Petition in accordance with Section 106(c) of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000（2003年8月4日）；Michael A. Pearson，INS（现CIS）现场运营办公室执行副专员备忘录，Initial Guidance for Processing H-1B Petitions as Affected by the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (Public Law 106-313) and Related Legislation（2001年6月19日）；另见AFM § 20.2。USCIS此后发布了关于AC21第106(c)条的补充指导。见备忘录，来自（续……）

364

364

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 359 (AAO 2010) Interim Decision #3699

引注为25 I&N Dec. 359 (AAO 2010) 临时决定第3699号

See S. Rep. No. 106-260; see also H.R. Rep. No. 106-1048. Critical to section 106(c) of AC21, the petition must be “valid” to begin with if it is to “remain valid with respect to a new job.” Section 204(j) of the Act (emphasis added). Although the applicant relies on congressional intent and the “familiar canons of statutory construction” to assert that the AAO should construe section 106(c) liberally, the applicant does not discuss the actual language of the statute. Statutory interpretation begins with the language of the statute itself. Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare v. Davenport, 495 U.S. 552 (1990). We are expected to give the words used in the statute their ordinary meaning. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Furthermore, we are to construe the language in question in harmony with the thrust of related provisions and with the statute as a whole. K Mart Corp. v. Cartier Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) (holding that construction of language which takes into account the design of the statute as a whole is preferred); see also COIT Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989); Matter of W-F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). The problematic issues presented by this case are primarily the result of immigration procedures that have arisen since the enactment of section 106(c) of AC21. As previously noted, USCIS implemented the “concurrent filing” process on July 31, 2002, whereby an employer may file an employment-based immigrant visa petition and an application for adjustment of status for the alien beneficiary at the same time. See 67 Fed. Reg. at 49,561. USCIS implemented the concurrent filing process as a convenience for aliens and their U.S. employers; USCIS in no way suggested that an unadjudicated I-140 could be the basis for I-485 approval under the portability provisions of section 106(c). Prior to this date, only immediate relatives and family-based preference cases could concurrently file a visa petition and an adjustment application. Accordingly, at the time that Congress enacted AC21, no alien could assert that a denied or unadjudicated immigrant visa petition “shall remain valid” through the passage of 180 days, since the application for adjustment could not be filed until after the petition was approved by USCIS. It is presumed that Congress is aware of INS regulations at the time it passes a law. See Goodyear Atomic Corp. v. Miller, 486 U.S. 174, 184-85 (1988).

见S. Rep. No. 106-260；另见H.R. Rep. No. 106-1048。对AC21第106(c)条至关重要的是，申请必须首先是“有效”的，才能“对新工作仍然有效”。该法第204(j)条（强调为后加）。尽管申请人依据国会意图和“熟悉的成文法解释规则”主张AAO应对第106(c)条作宽松解释，但申请人未讨论成文法的实际语言。成文法解释始于成文法本身的语言。Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare v. Davenport, 495 U.S. 552 (1990)。我们应赋予成文法所用词语其通常含义。Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)。此外，我们应将所涉语言与相关条款的主旨以及整个成文法协调解释。K Mart Corp. v. Cartier Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988)（裁定优先采用考虑成文法整体设计的语言解释）；另见COIT Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 (1989)；Matter of W-F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996)。 本案提出的问题主要源于AC21第106(c)条颁布后出现的移民程序。如前所述，USCIS于2002年7月31日实施了“同时提交”程序，雇主可同时为外籍受益人提交就业类移民签证申请和调整身份申请。见67 Fed. Reg. at 49,561。USCIS实施同时提交程序是为外籍人士及其美国雇主提供便利；USCIS绝未暗示未裁决的I-140可作为第106(c)条转换条款下I-485批准的依据。在此日期之前，只有直系亲属和亲属类优先案件可以同时提交签证申请和调整申请。因此，在国会颁布AC21时，任何外籍人士都不能主张被拒或未裁决的移民签证申请通过180天的经过“仍然有效”，因为在USCIS批准申请之前不能提交调整申请。推定国会通过法律时知悉INS的规定。见Goodyear Atomic Corp. v. Miller, 486 U.S. 174, 184-85 (1988)。

(...continued) Donald Neufeld, Acting Assoc. Dir. of Domestic Operations, USCIS, Supplemental Guidance Relating to Processing Forms I-140 Employment-Based Immigrant Petitions and I-129 H-1B Petitions, and Form I-485 Adjustment Applications Affected by the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (Public Law 106-313), as amended, and the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 (ACWIA), Title IV of Div. C of Public Law 105-277 (May 30, 2008).

（……续） Donald Neufeld，USCIS国内运营代理副总监，Supplemental Guidance Relating to Processing Forms I-140 Employment-Based Immigrant Petitions and I-129 H-1B Petitions, and Form I-485 Adjustment Applications Affected by the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (Public Law 106-313), as amended, and the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 (ACWIA), Title IV of Div. C of Public Law 105-277（2008年5月30日）。

365

365

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 359 (AAO 2010) Interim Decision #3699

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 359 (AAO 2010) 临时决定 #3699

Contrary to the ordinary meaning of the word, the applicant’s assertion would have the AAO construe the term “valid” to include denied or unadjudicated petitions. See Webster’s New College Dictionary 1218 (2001) (defining “valid” as “well-grounded,” “producing the desired results,” or “legally sound and effective”). Since an approved petition was required to file an application for adjustment of status, it is extremely doubtful that Congress intended the term “valid” to include petitions that are denied or remain pending after the close of the 180-day period. 8 With regard to the overall design of the nation’s immigration laws, section 204 of the Act provides the basic statutory framework for the granting of immigrant status. Section 204(a)(1)(F) of the Act provides that “[a]ny employer desiring and intending to employ within the United States an alien entitled to classification under section . . . 203 . . . may file a petition with the Attorney General [now Secretary of Homeland Security] for such classification.” (Emphasis added.) Section 204(b) of the Act governs USCIS’ authority to approve an immigrant visa petition and grant immigrant status:

与“valid”一词的通常含义相反，申请人的主张将使AAO将“valid”一词解释为包括被拒绝或未裁定的申请。参见 Webster's New College Dictionary 1218 (2001)（将“valid”定义为“有充分根据的”、“产生预期结果的”或“在法律上有效且具有效力的”）。由于提交调整身份申请需要已获批准的申请，因此极可怀疑国会意图将“valid”一词包括在180天期限届满后被拒绝或仍待决的申请。8 关于国家移民法的整体设计，该法第204条为授予移民身份提供了基本法定框架。该法第204(a)(1)(F)条规定，“[a]ny employer desiring and intending to employ within the United States an alien entitled to classification under section . . . 203 . . . may file a petition with the Attorney General [now Secretary of Homeland Security] for such classification。”（强调为后加。） 该法第204(b)条规定了USCIS批准移民签证申请并授予移民身份的权限：

After an investigation of the facts in each case, and after consultation with the Secretary of Labor with respect to petitions to accord a status under section 203(b)(2) or 203(b)(3), the Attorney General [now Secretary of Homeland Security] shall, if he determines that the facts stated in the petition are true and that the alien in behalf of whom the petition is made is . . . eligible for preference under subsection (a) or (b) of section 203, approve the petition and forward one copy thereof to the Department of State. The Secretary of State shall then authorize the consular officer concerned to grant the preference status.

在对每宗案件的事实进行调查后，并且就根据第203(b)(2)条或第203(b)(3)条授予身份的申请与劳工部长协商后，司法部长[现为国土安全部长]shall，如果其认定申请中陈述的事实属实且申请所代表的外国人……有资格获得第203条(a)或(b)款下的优先类别，则必须批准该申请并将其一份副本转交国务院。国务卿随后应授权有关领事官员授予优先身份。

Accordingly, pursuant to the statutory framework for the granting of immigrant status, any United States employer desiring and intending to employ an alien “entitled” to immigrant classification under the Act “may file” a petition for classification. Section 204(a)(1)(F) of the Act. However, section 204(b) of the Act mandates that USCIS approve that petition only after investigating the facts in each case, determining that the facts stated in the petition are true and that the alien is eligible for the requested classification, and consulting with the Secretary of Labor when required. Section 204(b) of the Act. Congress specifically granted USCIS the sole authority to approve an immigrant visa petition; an alien may not adjust status or be granted

因此，根据授予移民身份的法定框架，任何希望并打算雇用根据该法“entitled”获得移民分类的外国人的美国雇主“may file”分类申请。该法第204(a)(1)(F)条。但是，该法第204(b)条强制要求USCIS只有在调查每宗案件的事实、认定申请中陈述的事实属实且该外国人有资格获得所请求的分类，并在需要时与劳工部长协商后，才能批准该申请。该法第204(b)条。国会特别授予USCIS批准移民签证申请的唯一权限；外国人不得调整身份或被授予

8 It is also noted that the Act contains at least one provision that does apply to pending petitions; in that instance, Congress specifically used the word “pending.” See section 101(a)(15)(V) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(V) (2000) (establishing a nonimmigrant visa for aliens with family-based petitions that have been pending 3 years or more).

8 还注意到，该法至少有一项条款确实适用于待决申请；在该情形中，国会特别使用了“pending”一词。参见该法第101(a)(15)(V)条，8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(V) (2000)（为家庭类申请已待决3年或以上的外国人设立非移民签证）。

366

366

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 359 (AAO 2010) Interim Decision #3699

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 359 (AAO 2010) 临时决定 #3699

immigrant status by the Department of State until USCIS “approves” the petition. Therefore, to be considered “valid” in harmony with the thrust of the related provisions and with the statute as a whole, the petition must have been filed for an alien who is “entitled” to the requested classification and that petition must have been “approved” by a USCIS officer pursuant to his or her authority under the Act. See generally section 204 of the Act. Contrary to the applicant’s assertions, a petition is not made “valid” merely through the act of filing the petition with USCIS or through the passage of 180 days. To interpret this provision in any other manner would subvert the statutory scheme of the U.S. immigration laws. Considering the statute as a whole, it would severely undermine the immigration laws of the United States to find that a petition is “valid” when that petition was never approved or, even if it was approved, if it was filed on behalf of an alien who was never “entitled” to the requested visa classification. It would be irrational to believe that Congress intended to throw out the entire statutorily mandated scheme regulating immigrant visas whenever that scheme requires more than 180 days to effectuate. It would also be absurd to suppose that Congress enacted a statute that would encourage large numbers of ineligible aliens to file immigrant visa petitions, if the legislation was actually meant to be an impetus for USCIS to reduce its backlogs. Although the applicant’s assertions rely heavily on the assumed intent of Congress to ameliorate the effects of USCIS backlogs, the applicant’s construction of section 106(c) would create a situation where ineligible aliens would gain a “valid” visa simply by filing frivolous visa petitions and adjustment applications, thereby increasing USCIS backlogs, in the hopes that the application might remain unadjudicated for 180 days. In the present matter, the petition was filed on behalf of an alien who was not “entitled” to the classification and the petition was ultimately denied. Section 106(c) of AC21 does not repeal or modify section 204(b) or section 245 of the Act, which require USCIS to approve a petition prior to granting immigrant status or adjustment of status. Accordingly, this petition cannot be deemed to have been “valid” for purposes of section 106(c) of AC21.

移民身份，直到USCIS“approves”该申请。 因此，为与相关条款的主旨以及整部法律保持一致而被视为“valid”，该申请必须是为“entitled”获得所请求分类的外国人提交的，并且该申请必须已由USCIS官员根据该法赋予的权限“approved”。一般参见该法第204条。与申请人的主张相反，申请并非仅通过向USCIS提交申请的行为或通过180天的经过而变得“valid”。以任何其他方式解释该条款都将颠覆美国移民法的法定制度。 从整体考虑该法，若认定申请在从未获批准时，或即使曾获批准但系为从未“entitled”获得所请求签证分类的外国人提交时，该申请即为“valid”，将严重损害美国的移民法。认为国会意图每当法定强制制度需要超过180天才能实现时便抛弃整个规范移民签证的制度，是不合理的。认为国会制定了一项将鼓励大量不合格外国人提交移民签证申请的法律，如果该立法实际上意在推动USCIS减少其积压案件，也是荒谬的。尽管申请人的主张严重依赖所谓国会意图改善USCIS积压案件影响的假定意图，但申请人对第106(c)条的解释将造成一种局面，即不合格外国人仅通过提交无意义的签证申请和调整身份申请即可获得“valid”签证，从而增加USCIS积压案件，希望该申请可能在180天内保持未裁定状态。 在本案中，该申请是为一名并非“entitled”获得该分类的外国人提交的，且该申请最终被拒绝。AC21第106(c)条并未废除或修改该法第204(b)条或第245条，这些条款要求USCIS在授予移民身份或调整身份之前批准申请。因此，就AC21第106(c)条而言，该申请不能被视为“valid”。

IV. CONCLUSION

IV. 结论

Because the applicant’s assertions are not persuasive and the denial of the underlying petition still stands, there is no provision to allow the approval of the adjustment application. The burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the applicant. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361 (2000). Here, that burden has not been met. The application must be denied.

由于申请人的主张不具说服力且基础申请被拒的决定仍然有效，没有条款允许批准调整身份申请。证明有资格获得所寻求利益的举证责任完全由申请人承担。该法第291条，8 U.S.C. § 1361 (2000)。在此，该举证责任未得到满足。该申请必须被拒绝。

367

367

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 359 (AAO 2010) Interim Decision #3699

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 359 (AAO 2010) 临时决定 #3699

This decision does not bar the applicant’s new prospective employer from filing a new I-140 immigrant visa petition, based on an appropriate visa classification, with a new I-485 application for adjustment of status. It is noted that the applicant has a priority date of April 27, 2001, based on a labor certification that was filed on his behalf by a third potential employer, which makes him eligible for benefits under section 245(i) of the Act. ORDER: The director’s decision is affirmed. The application is denied.

本决定并不禁止申请人的新潜在雇主基于适当的签证分类提交新的I-140移民签证申请，并附上新的I-485调整身份申请。注意到申请人基于第三方潜在雇主为其提交的劳工证而拥有2001年4月27日的优先日期，这使其有资格获得该法第245(i)条下的利益。 命令：主任的决定予以维持。该申请被拒绝。

368

368