行政先例 · 绿卡与身份调整
Matter of Young
自愿离境不中断连续居住
11 I&N Dec. 38 (BIA 1965)
一名中国籍申请人依《移民与国籍法》第249条申请调整身份，移民局主张其在递解程序启动后自愿离境，中断了自1940年6月28日前的连续居住。移民上诉委员会认定，该离境属自愿离境，并非依驱逐或排斥程序离境，且其美国住所未放弃，故不中断第249条所需的连续居住。
所引用的裁判规则
在递解程序启动后、依该程序作出的自愿离境，不中断第249条意义上的连续居住；但依排斥或驱逐程序离境仍中断连续居住。
适用范围
适用于第249条调整身份中判断连续居住是否因离境而中断；本案区分自愿离境与依排斥或驱逐程序离境，后者仍中断连续居住。
查看官方引用与核查记录
核查日期：2026-11-04 · 官方判决来源
- 第4章 - 1972年1月1日之前进入美国的外国人
[^ 16] See Matter of Outin (PDF) , 14 I&N Dec. 6 (BIA 1972), but see Matter of Lettman (PDF) , 11 I&N Dec. 878 (Reg. Comm. 1966). A departure as a result of exclusion or expulsion proceedings may break the continuity of residence regardless of the period of time outside the United States. See Matter of P- (PDF) , 8 I&N Dec. 167 (BIA 1958), but see Matter of Young (PDF) , 11 I&N Dec. 38 (BIA 1965) (voluntary departure does not break continuity of residence).
- 第4章 - 1972年1月1日之前进入美国的外国人
[^ 18] For a further discussion on the issue of continuity of residence, see Matter of P- (PDF) , 8 I&N Dec. 167 (Reg. Comm. 1958); Matter of S-J-S- (PDF) , 8 I&N Dec. 463 (Asst. Comm’r 1959); Matter of Lee (PDF) , 11 I&N Dec. 34 (BIA 1965); Matter of Young (PDF) , 11 I&N Dec. 38 (BIA 1965); Matter of Ting (PDF) , 11 I&N Dec. 849 (BIA 1966); Matter of Lettman (PDF) , 11 I&N Dec. 878 (Reg. Comm. 1966); Matter of Benitez-Saenz (PDF) , 12 I&N Dec. 593 (BIA 1967); Matter of Contreras-Sotelo (PDF) , 12 I&N Dec. 596 (BIA 1967); Matter of Harrison (PDF) , 13 I&N Dec. 540 (BIA 1970); and Matter of Jalil (PDF) , 19 I&N Dec. 679 (Comm. 1988).
- 第4章 - 1972年1月1日之前进入美国的外国人
[^ 31] See Matter of Young (PDF) , 11 I&N Dec. 38 (BIA 1965). See Matter of Benitez-Saenz (PDF) , 12 I&N Dec. 593 (BIA 1967). See Matter of Contreras-Sotelo (PDF) , 12 I&N Dec. 596 (BIA 1967).
以上记录用于核对官方对具体规则的引用。部分推翻、法律修订或有管辖权法院的后续判决，可能影响其适用范围。
完整中文参考译文，按原文页码与段落对应，保留标题、引注及脚注。官方文本为英文原件。
原文第 1 页
Interim..Decision *1429
临时决定 *1429
MATKAR OP YOUNG
MATKAR OP YOUNG
In Deportation Proceedings
在驱逐程序中
A-418967S
A-418967S
Decided by Board. January 99, 1985
由委员会裁决。1985年1月99日
Applicant's voluntary departure from the United States following the institu- tion of, and pursuant to, deportation proceedings did not break the con- tinuity of his residence within the purview of section 249, Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended.
申请人在驱逐程序启动后并依据该程序自愿离开美国，并未打断其根据经修正的《移民与国籍法》第249条所涉范围内的居住连续性。
Oxon.:use:
Oxon.:use:
Order: Act of 1952—Section 241(a) (2) (8 U.S.O. 1251(a) (2) ]—Remained_ longer—Nonimmigrant. Lodged: Act of 1952--Section 241(a) (2) (S U.S.O. 1251(a) (2)]—Entered without inspection.
指控：1952年法案——第241(a)条(2)款(8 U.S.O. 1251(a)条(2)款)]——逾期居留——非移民。 补充指控：1952年法案——第241(a)条(2)款(S U.S.O. 1251(a)条(2)款)]——未经检查入境。
The case conies forward on appeal by the trial attorney from a decisiOn of the special inquiry officer dated September 15, 1981 grant- ing the application for adjustment of status under section 249 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The record relates to a native and citizen of China, 65 years old s
本案因庭审律师对特别调查官1981年9月15日准予根据《移民与国籍法》第249条提出的调整身份申请之决定提起上诉而呈交。 记录涉及一名中国出生和公民身份者，65岁
male, widower, who last arrived in the United States at the port of New York on or about July 4, 1947 on the S.S. Paralos and was ordered detained and refused a landing permit. Ere thereafter entered the United States without inspection as an alien. Deporta- bility solely on the lodged charge is, conceded. The respondent has applied for an adjustment of immigrant status under section 249 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The only requirement with which we are concerned is that the alien must have resided continuously in the United States since prior to June 28, 1940. In his Application for Adjustment of Status as a. Perma- nent Resident (Form 1-485), executed in connection with the depor- tation proceedings, and in his Alien Registration Form (Form AR .2) executed November 2, 1940, the respondent indicated that he had resided in the United States since 1925. The respondent has
男性，鳏夫，最后于1947年7月4日前后乘坐S.S. Paralos号抵达纽约港进入美国，并被下令拘留且拒绝给予登陆许可。此后，其作为外国人未经检查进入美国。仅凭补充指控的可驱逐性已被承认。 被申请人已根据《移民与国籍法》第249条申请调整移民身份。我们所关注的唯一要求是，该外国人必须自1940年6月28日之前起连续居住在美国。在其与驱逐程序相关签署的《永久居民身份调整申请》（Form 1-485）以及其1940年11月2日签署的《外国人登记表》（Form AR .2）中，被申请人表示其自1925年起居住在美国。被申请人已
38 o.
38 o.
原文第 2 页
Interim Decision *1429
临时决定 *1429
established, on the basis of testimony and documents presented, the requisite continuous residence in the United States since prior to June 28, 1940. However the Service contends that the respondent interrupted the continuity of his residence by his voluntary depar- ture on-March 15, 1947 because this voluntary departure occurred after the institution of deportation proceedings; that any departure from the United States after deportation .proceedings have been- instituted breaks the continuity of residence for the purpose of sec- tion 24.9 relief. The term "residence" means the place of general abode, the 'place of general abode of a person means his principal, actual dwelling place in fact without regard to intent? The Service has commingled the definitions of "entry" and "residence" to result in the conclusion that a person whose departure is occasioned by deportation proceed- ings could not claim that he had not made a new "entry" into the United. States. It is conceded that the respondent made a new "entry" into the United States when he entered without inspection on or about July 4, 1947 after his voluntary departure. Since section 249 of the Immigration and Nationality Act requires continuous residence in the United. States since prior to June 28, 1940, it is. apparent that the significant term is "residence" and that the ques- tion to be determined is whether such residence was continuous or was broken by a voluntary departure pursuant to deportation pro- cedings in March 1947. The respondent testified that he reshipped in France to another vessel owned by the same line at the direction of the owner of the line. He claims that when he departed in March 1947 he maintained his residence in the United States as indicated by his retention. of his living quarters in the United States where he left much of his personal effects. There appear to be no court cases directly in point: Those court cases which held that residence for the purpose of section 249 of the Immigration and Nationality Act was broken involve a departure under an order of deportation, such departure being regarded as having executed the order and warrant of deportation. 2 There have been some administrative- decisions which have dealt indirectly with the problem: In Matter .of P—, 8 L & N. Dec. 167, the alien alleged entry in the United States in 1920 and continuous
根据所提交的证言和文件，已确立其自1940年6月28日之前起在美国境内具备所需的连续居住。然而，移民局主张，被调查人因其于1947年3月15日的自愿离境而中断了其居住的连续性，因为该自愿离境发生在驱逐出境程序启动之后；即在驱逐出境程序启动后任何离开美国的行为，为第24.9条救济之目的均中断居住的连续性。 “居住”一词指一般居所，一个人的“一般居所”指其主要的、实际的事实上的住所，而不考虑意图？移民局将“入境”和“居住”的定义混同，从而得出如下结论：因驱逐出境程序而离境的人不能主张其未曾对美国作出新的“入境”。兹承认，被调查人在其自愿离境后于1947年7月4日或前后未经检查入境时，对美国作出了新的“入境”。由于《移民与国籍法》第249条要求自1940年6月28日之前起在美国境内连续居住，显然重要的术语是“居住”，而待确定的问题是此种居住是连续的，还是因1947年3月根据驱逐出境程序的自愿离境而中断。被调查人作证称，他在法国根据该航运公司所有者的指示被重新派往同一航运公司所有的另一艘船舶上。他主张，当其于1947年3月离境时，他保持了在美国的居住，这一点由他保留在美国的住所——他在该处留下了其大部分个人物品——所表明。 似乎没有直接相关的法院判例：那些认定《移民与国籍法》第249条之目的的居住已中断的法院判例，均涉及根据驱逐令离境，此种离境被视为已执行驱逐令和驱逐令状。2 有一些行政裁决间接处理了该问题：在Matter of P—，8 L & N. Dec. 167中，该外国人声称于1920年入境美国并连续
2 Sebtlea 101(a) (33) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, S U.S.C. 1101 (a) t33). Mrvica v. Beverly, 376 U.S. 560, 11 Led. 2d .911:.Chong v. Beverly, 191 F. Sung. 935 (8.D.N.Y., 1981) ; Sit Jag Sing v. Nice, 182 F: Supp. 292 (D.C., Cal. 1960) afrd. 287 -F.2d 561.
2 《移民与国籍法》第101(a)(33)条，S U.S.C. 1101(a) t33)。 Mrvica v. Beverly, 376 U.S. 560, 11 Led. 2d .911:.Chong v. Beverly, 191 F. Sung. 935 (8.D.N.Y., 1981)；Sit Jag Sing v. Nice, 182 F: Supp. 292 (D.C., Cal. 1960) afrd. 287 -F.2d 561。
89
89
原文第 3 页
Interim Decision *1429
临时决定 *1429
residence since that time. Evidence was presented to establish that claim and also establish that he had been absent from the- United States for brief periods on two occasions, in August 1922 and. again in 1940. The departure in 1922 was as the result of exclusion pro- ceedings. It was held that an alien who has bean absent from the United States at any time since the entry upon which his application is based may be found to have resided continuously in the United States since the date of his original entry if his absence was tempo- rary and his principal actual dwelling place in fact remained in the United States during the entire period of his absence. It was further held that a departure from the -United States cre a result of emoktsion or eepuZsion proceedings breaks the continuity of residence for the purpose of section 249, regardless of the period of time the alien is outside the United States after such departure. The underlined por- tion must be read in conjunction with the next sentence which indi- cates that the applicant's continuous residence in the United States• was broken on August 24, 1922 when be .was excluded and deported. Thus the holding in this case is consistent with the holding of the Supreme Court in. dirvicay.Espordy, 376 U.S. 560.3 Although the residence since the critical date must be continuous,. the statute does not require actual physical presence in the United_ States during the entire period. -Temporary absence, without aban- doiament of residence in the United States, will not preclude estab- lishment of the required residence. All the statute requires is that the applicant "has had his residence in the United States contin- uously since such entry." "Residence" is- defined as "the place of general abode; the place of general abode of a person means his prin- cipal, actual dwelling place in fact, without regard to intent." 4 The Service suggests that the record-does not•clearly show whether- or not the respondent was accorded the privilege of voluntary depar- ture or left under an outstanding deportation order. A reading of the evidence clearly shows that it is conceded that he left under an order of volUntary departure. In any event, if the respondent had in fact been deported, the Service would have introduced evidence. of such deportation into the record and if they should' discover such, evi.dence,.it may properly be made the, subject of a motion to reopen or reconsider. ' It is Conchnled that the respondent' has established continuous residence in the United. States since prior to June 28, 1940. gis de-
自那时起居住。提交了证据以证明该主张，并证明其曾两次短暂离开美国，一次在1922年8月，另一次在1940年。1922年的离境系排除程序的结果。裁定认为，外国人若在其申请所依据的入境之后任何时间曾离开美国，如其离开是暂时的，且其主要的实际事实上的住所地在整个离开期间仍留在美国，则可认定其自最初入境之日起连续居住在美国。还裁定，因排除或驱逐程序而离开美国，为第249条目的打断居住连续性，无论该外国人在此种离境后在美国境外的时间长短。下划线部分必须与下一句结合阅读，下一句表明申请人在美国的连续居住于1922年8月24日其被排除并驱逐时被打断。因此，本案的裁定与最高法院在Mrvica v. Espardy, 376 U.S. 560.3中的裁定一致。 尽管自关键日期起的居住必须是连续的，但该法并不要求在整个期间实际身在在美国。未放弃美国居住的暂时离开，不会妨碍确立所要求的居住。该法所要求的只是申请人“自该入境以来连续在美国拥有其居住”。“居住”被定义为“一般居所地；一个人的一般居所地指其主要的、实际的事实上的住所，而不考虑意图。”4 移民局提出，记录并未清楚显示被申请人是否被给予自愿离境的特权，或是根据尚未执行的驱逐令离境。对证据的阅读清楚表明，其系根据自愿离境令离境，此点已被承认。无论如何，如果被申请人事实上已被驱逐，移民局本会将该驱逐的证据引入记录；若其发现此类证据，可适当地作为重新开案或重新考虑动议的标的。 结论是被申请人已证明自1940年6月28日之前起在美国连续居住。其于
'matter of P—, 8 X. & N. Ded. 187, was cited with approval In Matter of R—. 8 L & N. Dec. 598,. 599. - ‘.00cdon and Rosenfield, Znanigratrozi ZU417 and Procedure Tat
'Matter of P—, 8 X. & N. Dec. 187，在Matter of R—, 8 L & N. Dec. 598, 599中获得赞同引用。 ‘.00cdon and Rosenfield, Znanigratrozi ZU417 and Procedure Tat
40:
40:
原文第 4 页
Interim Decision #1429
临时决定 #1429
parture in 1947 was not the result of exclusion or expulsion proceed- ings but was voluntary. We are unable to distinguish between a voluntary departure prior to the institution of deportation proceed- ings and a voluntary departure subsequent to the institution of deportation proceedings. The legal effect remains the same. The respondent has established that his absence was temporary. He is not a member of the excludable classes enumerated in section 249, is not ineligible to citizenship and is a person of good moral character. He has established eligibility for the discretionary relief available under section 249 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The order of the special inquiry officer will be affirmed. ORDER: It is ordered that the order of the special inquiry officer dated September .15, 1964 granting the application for adjustment of status under section 249 of the Immigration and Nationality Act be affirmed. It is further ordered that the appeal by the trial attorney from such decision of the special inquiry officer be and the same is hereby dismissed.
1947年的离境并非排除或驱逐程序的结果，而是自愿的。我们无法区分驱逐程序启动之前的自愿离境与驱逐程序启动之后的自愿离境。法律效果相同。被申请人已证明其离开是暂时的。其不属于第249条所列的可排除类别成员，不具有公民身份不合格情形，且为品行良好之人。其已证明具备《移民与国籍法》第249条下可获得的自由裁量救济的资格。特别调查官的命令将予维持。 命令：兹命令，特别调查官1964年9月15日准予根据《移民与国籍法》第249条提出的调整身份申请之命令予以维持。 并进一步命令，庭审律师对特别调查官上述决定提起的上诉，现予驳回。
41
41
