Matter of Charlemagne Micabalo Estrada; Matter of Vanessa Joan Estrada

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 180 (BIA 2013) Interim Decision #3790

引用为 26 I&N Dec. 180 (BIA 2013) 临时决定 #3790

Decided August 8, 2013

2013年8月8日裁定

U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review

美国司法部 移民审查执行办公室

Board of Immigration Appeals

移民上诉委员会

A spouse or child accompanying or following to join a principal grandfathered alien cannot qualify as a derivative grandfathered alien for purposes of section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i) (2006), by virtue of a spouse or child relationship that arose after April 30, 2001.

随同或随后加入主要已祖父化外国人的配偶或子女，不能仅因在2001年4月30日之后产生的配偶或子女关系，而依据《移民与国籍法》第245(i)条，8 U.S.C. § 1255(i) (2006)，作为衍生已祖父化外国人取得资格。

FOR RESPONDENTS: Eric R. Welsh, Esquire, Pasadena, California

被申请人代理律师：Eric R. Welsh 律师，加利福尼亚州帕萨迪纳

FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Brent Landis, Assistant Chief Counsel

国土安全部代理律师：Brent Landis，助理首席法律顾问

BEFORE: Board Panel: PAULEY and GREER, Board Members; DONOVAN, Temporary Board Member.

审理： 委员会合议庭： PAULEY 和 GREER，委员会成员；DONOVAN，临时委员会成员。

DONOVAN, Temporary Board Member:

DONOVAN，临时委员会成员：

In a decision dated September 9, 2011, an Immigration Judge found the respondents removable, denied their applications for adjustment of status under section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i) (2006), and granted their request for voluntary departure. 1 The respondents have appealed from that decision.

在2011年9月9日的一项决定中，一名移民法官认定被申请人可被驱逐，驳回其依据《移民与国籍法》第245(i)条，8 U.S.C. § 1255(i) (2006)，提出的调整身份申请，并批准其自愿离境请求。1 被申请人对该决定提出上诉。

This case addresses whether the respondents are eligible for adjustment of status under section 245(i) of the Act. We hold that because the female respondent is not a “grandfathered alien” within the meaning of 8 C.F.R. § 1245.10(a)(1)(i) (2013), the respondents are not eligible for that relief. The appeal will therefore be dismissed with respect to their applications for adjustment of status under section 245(i) of the Act. The record will be remanded for consideration of the respondents’ eligibility for cancellation of removal and any other relief for which they may be eligible.

本案涉及被申请人是否有资格依据该法第245(i)条调整身份。我们认定，由于女性被申请人不属于8 C.F.R. § 1245.10(a)(1)(i) (2013)所指的“已祖父化外国人”，被申请人不具备获得该救济的资格。因此，就其依据该法第245(i)条提出的调整身份申请，上诉将被驳回。案件记录将被发回，以审议被申请人是否有资格获得取消驱逐以及其可能具备资格的任何其他救济。

1 On September 15, 2011, upon a motion by the respondents, the Immigration Judge withdrew the grant of voluntary departure and ordered the respondents removed from the United States to the Philippines.

1 2011年9月15日，经被申请人动议，移民法官撤销了自愿离境的批准，并命令将被申请人从美国驱逐至菲律宾。

180

180

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 180 (BIA 2013) Interim Decision #3790

引用为 26 I&N Dec. 180 (BIA 2013) 临时决定 #3790

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

I. 事实与程序历史

The respondents are a husband and wife who are natives and citizens of the Philippines. 2 The female respondent entered the United States on July 25, 1996, as a B-2 nonimmigrant visitor with authorization to remain until December 24, 1996. The male respondent entered the United States on October 31, 1999, as a B-1 visitor. His status was subsequently extended and he was given authorization to remain until July 15, 2000. Both respondents remained in the United States beyond the period of stay authorized by their visas. They were married on October 29, 2007.

被申请人为一对夫妻，是菲律宾国民和公民。2 女性被申请人于1996年7月25日以B-2非移民访客身份进入美国，获准停留至1996年12月24日。男性被申请人于1999年10月31日以B-1访客身份进入美国。其身份随后获延期，并获准停留至2000年7月15日。两名被申请人均在签证授权停留期届满后继续留在美国。他们于2007年10月29日结婚。

The female respondent was the beneficiary of a Form I-140 (Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker) filed on her behalf on April 9, 2001. That visa petition was withdrawn in February 2002. The female respondent is currently the beneficiary of an approved Form I-140 filed on her behalf on June 12, 2006. The male respondent is the beneficiary of a Form I-130 (Petition for Alien Relative) filed on his behalf on November 1, 2000, by his former wife.

女性被申请人是2001年4月9日为其提交的Form I-140（外籍工人移民申请）的受益人。该签证申请于2002年2月被撤回。女性被申请人目前是2006年6月12日为其提交并已获批准的Form I-140的受益人。男性被申请人是其前妻于2000年11月1日为其提交的Form I-130（外籍亲属申请）的受益人。

II. ISSUES

II. 争点

The respondents seek adjustment of status under section 245(i) of the Act based on the female respondent’s second Form I-140. First, they argue that the female respondent is a grandfathered alien for purposes of section 245(i) based on the first visa petition filed on her behalf in April 2001. Second, they argue that they are both grandfathered based on the Form I-130 filed on behalf of the male respondent in November 2000 by his former wife.

被申请人依据女性被申请人的第二份Form I-140，寻求依据该法第245(i)条调整身份。首先，他们主张，基于2001年4月为其提交的第一份签证申请，女性被申请人是第245(i)条意义上的已祖父化外国人。其次，他们主张，基于男性被申请人的前妻于2000年11月为其提交的Form I-130，二人均为已祖父化外国人。

III. ANALYSIS

III. 分析

A. Form I-140 Filed on April 9, 2001

A. 2001年4月9日提交的Form I-140

As an initial matter, we find that the female respondent does not qualify as a grandfathered alien for purposes of section 245(i) of the Act based on the first Form I-140 visa petition that was filed on her behalf because that petition was not approvable when filed. In order to grandfather an alien for purposes of section 245(i), a qualifying visa petition or labor certification must have been “approvable when filed,” meaning that it was (1) “properly filed,” (2) “meritorious in fact,” and (3) “non-frivolous.” See 8 C.F.R. § 1245.10(a)(1)–(3). The respondents do not argue that the visa petition

首先，我们认定，基于为其提交的第一份Form I-140签证申请，女性被申请人不符合该法第245(i)条意义上的已祖父化外国人资格，因为该申请在提交时不可批准。为使外国人依据第245(i)条获得祖父化资格，符合条件的签证申请或劳工证必须在“提交时不可批准”方面满足“提交时可批准”，即该申请 (1)“妥善提交”，(2)“事实上具有价值”，且 (3)“非轻率”。见8 C.F.R. § 1245.10(a)(1)–(3)。被申请人并未主张该签证申请

2 The respondents’ cases have been severed from that of their daughter, and a separate decision has been issued in her case.

2 被申请人的案件已与其女儿的案件分开，其女儿的案件已另行作出决定。

181

181

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 180 (BIA 2013) Interim Decision #3790

引用为 26 I&N Dec. 180 (BIA 2013) 临时决定 #3790

filed on the female respondent’s behalf was meritorious in fact. Rather, they argue that the petition should be considered “approvable when filed” because it was properly filed and was hypothetically approvable. In light of our intervening precedent, we disagree. See Matter of Butt, 26 I&N Dec. 108, 115 (BIA 2013) (discussing the difference between labor certifications and visa petitions and explaining that we have the ability to consider whether a visa petition would have been approved had it been adjudicated on the date it was filed).

为女性被申请人提交的申请事实上具有价值。相反，他们主张，该申请应被视为“提交时可批准”，因为它已妥善提交且在假设情况下可批准。鉴于我们其间作出的先例，我们不同意。见 Matter of Butt, 26 I&N Dec. 108, 115 (BIA 2013)（讨论劳工证与签证申请之间的区别，并解释我们能够审议签证申请若在其提交之日裁定是否本会获准）。

The April 9, 2001, Form I-140 visa petition filed on the female respondent’s behalf sought to classify her as an alien of “extraordinary ability” under section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A) (2000). 3 We agree with the Immigration Judge that the evidence attached to the visa petition, including the employer’s license and certificate of trade, as well as the female respondent’s tax return, did not show that she would have qualified for the requested classification had the visa petition been adjudicated rather than withdrawn. Furthermore, the respondents have not produced any evidence in addition to that originally submitted with the visa petition to demonstrate that it was meritorious in fact. Accordingly, we agree with the Immigration Judge that the April 9, 2001, visa petition was not approvable when filed and that the female respondent is not a grandfathered alien based on that petition.

2001年4月9日为女性被申请人提交的Form I-140签证申请寻求依据该法第203(b)(1)(A)条，8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A) (2000)，将其归类为“杰出能力”外国人。3 我们同意移民法官的意见，即附于该签证申请的证据，包括雇主执照和行业证书，以及女性被申请人的纳税申报表，均未表明若该签证申请经裁定而非被撤回，她本会符合所请求的归类资格。此外，被申请人未提供除最初随签证申请提交的材料之外的任何证据，以证明该申请事实上具有价值。因此，我们同意移民法官的意见，即2001年4月9日的签证申请在提交时不可批准，且女性被申请人基于该申请不是已祖父化外国人。

B. Form I-130 Filed on November 1, 2000

B. 2000年11月1日提交的Form I-130

The remaining issue before us is whether the female respondent qualifies as a grandfathered alien based on the family-based visa petition filed on the male respondent’s behalf, where their marriage took place after April 30, 2001. To address this issue, we must determine who is a grandfathered alien for purposes of section 245(i) of the Act.

我们面前剩余的争点是，鉴于女性被申请人的婚姻发生在2001年4月30日之后，她是否基于为男性被申请人提交的亲属移民签证申请而符合已祖父化外国人资格。为解决该争点，我们必须确定谁是该法第245(i)条意义上的已祖父化外国人。

1. Adjustment of Status Under Section 245(a) of the Act

1. 依据该法第245(a)条调整身份

Section 245(a) of the Act allows an alien who has been inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States to adjust his or her status to that

该法第245(a)条允许经检查并获准入境或假释进入美国的外国人将其身份调整为

3 “Extraordinary ability” is defined as “a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.” 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) (2013). “A petition for an alien of extraordinary ability must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise.” 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The regulations set forth the type of evidence that may be used to demonstrate the requisite level of ability, including evidence of a “major, international recognized award.” Id.

3 “杰出能力”被定义为“表明该个人属于已升至其领域最顶端的那一小部分人的专业水平”。8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) (2013)。“杰出能力外国人的申请必须附有证据，证明该外国人已持续获得国家或国际赞誉，且其成就已在其专业领域获得认可。”8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)。法规规定了可用于证明所需能力水平的证据类型，包括“重大、国际公认奖项”的证据。Id.

182

182

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 180 (BIA 2013) Interim Decision #3790

引用为 26 I&N Dec. 180 (BIA 2013) 临时决定 #3790

of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. To be eligible for adjustment of status under section 245(a), an alien must make an application for adjustment, be eligible to receive an immigrant visa, be admissible to the United States for permanent residence, and have an immigrant visa immediately available to him or her at the time the application was filed. Such an alien must also demonstrate that he or she merits adjustment of status in the exercise of discretion. See Matter of Blas, 15 I&N Dec. 626 (BIA 1974; A.G. 1976); Matter of Arai, 13 I&N Dec. 494 (BIA 1970).

合法获准永久居留的外国人。要符合依据第245(a)条调整身份的资格，外国人必须提出调整申请，有资格获得移民签证，可被接纳为美国永久居民，并在提交申请时已有可立即使用的移民签证。此类外国人还必须证明其在行使自由裁量权时值得调整身份。见 Matter of Blas, 15 I&N Dec. 626 (BIA 1974; A.G. 1976)；Matter of Arai, 13 I&N Dec. 494 (BIA 1970)。

Section 245(c) of the Act sets forth several categories of aliens who are ineligible for adjustment of status under section 245(a). For example, certain aliens who have engaged in unauthorized employment or who are in unlawful immigration status on the date the application is filed are ineligible for adjustment of status under section 245(a). See section 245(c)(2) of the Act.

该法第245(c)条规定了若干类无资格依据第245(a)条调整身份的外国人。例如，某些从事未经授权就业的外国人，或在提交申请之日处于非法移民身份的外国人，无资格依据第245(a)条调整身份。见该法第245(c)(2)条。

2. Adjustment of Status Under Section 245(i) of the Act

2. 依据该法第245(i)条调整身份

Section 245(i) of the Act permits adjustment of status for certain grandfathered aliens who are ineligible under section 245(a) because they entered without inspection or who are barred under section 245(c) of the Act. In addition to having been grandfathered, applicants for adjustment of status under section 245(i) must be admissible to the United States, be eligible to receive an immigrant visa, demonstrate that an immigrant visa is immediately available, and establish that adjustment is warranted in the exercise of discretion. See sections 245(i)(2)(A)–(B) of the Act; see also Matter of Rajah, 25 I&N Dec. 127, 134 (BIA 2009). In most cases, applicants for adjustment under section 245(i) must also pay a $1,000 penalty fee. See section 245(i)(1)(C) of the Act.

该法第245(i)条允许某些因未经检查入境而依据第245(a)条无资格，或受该法第245(c)条限制的已祖父化外国人调整身份。除已祖父化外，依据第245(i)条调整身份的申请人必须可被接纳进入美国，有资格获得移民签证，证明已有可立即使用的移民签证，并确立在行使自由裁量权时调整身份是适当的。见该法第245(i)(2)(A)–(B)条；另见 Matter of Rajah, 25 I&N Dec. 127, 134 (BIA 2009)。在大多数案件中，依据第245(i)条调整身份的申请人还必须支付1,000美元罚款费。见该法第245(i)(1)(C)条。

As originally enacted, section 245(i) permitted an alien who had entered the United States without inspection or who was barred under section 245(c) to apply for adjustment of status between October 1, 1994, and October 1, 1997, at which time the provision would “sunset.” See Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995, Pub. L. No. 103-317, § 506(b)–(c), 108 Stat. 1724, 1765–66, (effective Oct. 1, 1994). The October 1, 1997, sunset date was later repealed, and Congress created a new requirement that any application for section 245(i) adjustment had to be based on a visa petition that had been filed before January 14, 1998. See Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-119, § 111(a)–(b), 111 Stat. 2440, 2458 (enacted Nov. 26, 1997). The January 14, 1998, deadline for the filing of qualifying visa petitions was later extended to April 30, 2001.

第245(i)条最初颁布时，允许未经检查进入美国或受第245(c)条限制的外国人在1994年10月1日至1997年10月1日期间申请调整身份，该规定届时将“日落”失效。见 Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995, Pub. L. No. 103-317, § 506(b)–(c), 108 Stat. 1724, 1765–66,（1994年10月1日生效）。1997年10月1日的日落日期后来被废止，国会创设了一项新要求，即任何依据第245(i)条调整身份的申请都必须基于在1998年1月14日之前提交的签证申请。见 Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-119, § 111(a)–(b), 111 Stat. 2440, 2458（1997年11月26日颁布）。提交符合条件的签证申请的1998年1月14日截止日期后来被延长至2001年4月30日。

183

183

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 180 (BIA 2013) Interim Decision #3790

引用为 26 I&N Dec. 180 (BIA 2013) 临时决定 #3790

See LIFE Act Amendments of 2000, Div. B, Pub. L. No. 106-554, § 1502(a)(1), 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A-324 (enacted Dec. 21, 2000) (“LIFE Act Amendments”) (effective as if included in the enactment of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act, tit. XI, Pub. L. No. 106-553, 114 Stat. 2762, 2762A-142 (2000) (“LIFE Act”)).

见 LIFE Act Amendments of 2000, Div. B, Pub. L. No. 106-554, § 1502(a)(1), 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A-324（2000年12月21日颁布）（“LIFE Act Amendments”）（生效方式如同纳入 Legal Immigration Family Equity Act, tit. XI, Pub. L. No. 106-553, 114 Stat. 2762, 2762A-142 (2000)（“LIFE Act”）的颁布）。

3. Grandfathered Aliens

3. 已祖父化外国人

After the enactment of the LIFE Act and the LIFE Act Amendments, only aliens who were grandfathered by a qualifying visa petition or labor certification remained eligible for section 245(i) adjustment beyond the April 30, 2001, sunset date. Although the term does not appear in the Act, the regulations define a “grandfathered alien” as “an alien who is the beneficiary (including a spouse or child of the alien beneficiary if eligible to receive a visa under section 203(d) of the Act)” of a qualifying visa petition or labor certification that was filed on or before April 30, 2001. 8 C.F.R. § 1245.10(a)(1)(i).

在《LIFE法案》及《LIFE法案修正案》颁布后，只有通过符合条件的签证申请或劳工证而被祖父条款保护的alien，才在2001年4月30日日落日期之后仍符合第245(i)条调整身份的资格。尽管该术语未出现在该法案中，但法规将“祖父条款保护的alien”定义为：在2001年4月30日或之前提交的符合条件的签证申请或劳工证的“受益人（包括根据该法案第203(d)条有资格获得签证的alien受益人的配偶或子女）”。8 C.F.R. § 1245.10(a)(1)(i)。

As we explained in Matter of Ilic, 25 I&N Dec. 717, 719 (BIA 2012), there are two categories of grandfathered aliens. The first category, principal grandfathered aliens, encompasses the principal beneficiaries of qualifying visa petitions and labor certifications. The second category, derivative grandfathered aliens, encompasses the dependent spouses and children of principal grandfathered aliens, if eligible to receive a visa under section 203(d) of the Act. Both principal and derivative grandfathered aliens are independently eligible to apply for section 245(i) adjustment of status and either may be the principal adjustment applicant under that section. However, an alien who does not qualify as either a principal or derivative grandfathered alien cannot be the principal adjustment applicant under section 245(i) of the Act.

正如我们在Matter of Ilic, 25 I&N Dec. 717, 719 (BIA 2012)中所解释的，祖父条款保护的alien有两类。第一类，主要祖父条款保护的alien，包括符合条件的签证申请和劳工证的主要受益人。第二类，派生祖父条款保护的alien，包括主要祖父条款保护的alien的受抚养配偶和子女，前提是有资格根据该法案第203(d)条获得签证。主要和派生祖父条款保护的alien均独立有资格申请第245(i)条调整身份，且任何一方均可成为该条下的主要调整身份申请人。但是，不符合主要或派生祖父条款保护的alien资格的alien，不能成为该法案第245(i)条下的主要调整身份申请人。

4. Spouses and Children of Grandfathered Aliens

4. 祖父条款保护的alien的配偶和子女

In the context of section 245(i) of the Act, only aliens who became the principal beneficiary of a qualifying visa petition or labor certification on or before April 30, 2001, qualify as principal grandfathered aliens. See, e.g., 8 C.F.R. § 1245.10(j) (“Only the alien who was the beneficiary of the application for the labor certification on or before April 30, 2001, will be considered to have been grandfathered for purposes of . . . section 245(i) of the Act.”). Similarly, aliens who became the spouse or child of such principal grandfathered aliens on or before April 30, 2001, and who met the requirements of section 203(d) of the Act qualify as derivative grandfathered aliens. It is less clear, however, whether the spouses or children of principal grandfathered aliens are grandfathered where the

在该法案第245(i)条的语境下，只有在2001年4月30日或之前成为符合条件的签证申请或劳工证主要受益人的alien，才符合主要祖父条款保护的alien的资格。参见，例如，8 C.F.R. § 1245.10(j)（“只有在2001年4月30日或之前是劳工证申请受益人的alien，才被视为为……该法案第245(i)条之目的受到祖父条款保护。”）。同样，在2001年4月30日或之前成为此类主要祖父条款保护的alien的配偶或子女，且符合该法案第203(d)条要求的alien，符合派生祖父条款保护的alien的资格。然而，对于主要祖父条款保护的alien的配偶或子女在以下情况下是否受到祖父条款保护，则不太明确：

184

184

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 180 (BIA 2013) Interim Decision #3790

引用为26 I&N Dec. 180 (BIA 2013) 临时决定#3790

spouse or child relationship was established after April 30, 2001. We conclude that such after-acquired spouses and children do not qualify as grandfathered aliens for purposes of section 245(i) adjustment.

配偶或子女关系是在2001年4月30日之后建立的。我们得出结论，此类事后获得的配偶和子女不符合第245(i)条调整身份之目的的祖父条款保护的alien资格。

Both the Act and the regulations are silent on the question whether after-acquired spouses qualify as grandfathered aliens, and a review of the legislative history of section 245(i) sheds no light on the issue. Accordingly, we turn to the Supplementary Information to a 2001 interim rule for guidance. See Matter of Aguilar-Aquino, 24 I&N Dec. 747, 750 (BIA 2009) (stating that we must construe regulations to effectuate the intent of the enacting body (citing United States v. Christensen, 419 F.2d 1401, 1403 (9th Cir. 1969))); see also Matter of Artigas, 23 I&N Dec. 99, 100 (BIA 2001) (“[T]here is ‘no more persuasive evidence of the purpose of a [regulation] than the words by which the [Attorney General] undertook to give expression to [her] wishes.’” (quoting Perry v. Commerce Loan Co., 383 U.S. 392, 400 (1966))).

该法案和法规均未就事后获得的配偶是否符合祖父条款保护的alien资格这一问题作出规定，而对第245(i)条立法历史的审查也未对该问题提供任何启示。因此，我们转向2001年临时规则的补充信息以寻求指导。参见Matter of Aguilar-Aquino, 24 I&N Dec. 747, 750 (BIA 2009)（指出我们必须解释法规以实现颁布机构的意图（引用United States v. Christensen, 419 F.2d 1401, 1403 (9th Cir. 1969)））；另参见Matter of Artigas, 23 I&N Dec. 99, 100 (BIA 2001)（“[T]没有比[司法部长]为表达[其]意愿而使用的文字更能证明[法规]目的的证据了。”（引用Perry v. Commerce Loan Co., 383 U.S. 392, 400 (1966)））。

The Attorney General has adopted an “alien-based” reading of section 245(i) of the Act, meaning that an alien is grandfathered by the filing of a qualifying visa petition or labor certification application but is not limited to that particular petition or labor certification as the only possible basis for adjusting his or her status. See Adjustment of Status to That Person Admitted for Permanent Residence; Temporary Removal of Certain Restrictions of Eligibility, 66 Fed. Reg. 16,383, 16,384–85 (Mar. 26, 2001) (Supplementary Information); see also Matter of Ilic, 25 I&N Dec. at 719.

司法部长对该法案第245(i)条采取了“以alien为基础”的解读，即alien因提交符合条件的签证申请或劳工证申请而受到祖父条款保护，但不仅限于该特定申请或劳工证作为调整其身份的唯一可能依据。参见Adjustment of Status to That Person Admitted for Permanent Residence; Temporary Removal of Certain Restrictions of Eligibility, 66 Fed. Reg. 16,383, 16,384–85 (Mar. 26, 2001)（补充信息）；另参见Matter of Ilic, 25 I&N Dec. at 719。

The Supplementary Information to the interim rule makes clear that the purpose of grandfathering was to allow qualifying aliens to preserve their eligibility for section 245(i) adjustment after the April 30, 2001, sunset date. 66 Fed. Reg. at 16,384. In other words, only those aliens who satisfied the grandfathering requirements on or before April 30, 2001, retained section 245(i) eligibility beyond that date. Aliens who did not satisfy these requirements on or before April 30, 2001, were not grandfathered for purposes of section 245(i) adjustment. See Matter of Butt, 26 I&N Dec. at 114–15 (recognizing that the purpose of section 245(i) was to protect those who had legitimate visa applications on file before the enactment of the LIFE Act Amendments, rather than giving applicants a “second bite of the apple” (quoting Linares Huarcaya v. Mukasey, 550 F.3d 224, 230 (2d Cir. 2008)) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

临时规则的补充信息明确指出，祖父条款保护的目的是允许符合条件的alien在2001年4月30日日落日期之后保留其第245(i)条调整身份的资格。66 Fed. Reg. at 16,384。换言之，只有那些在2001年4月30日或之前满足祖父条款保护要求的alien，才在该日期之后保留第245(i)条资格。未在2001年4月30日或之前满足这些要求的alien，不为第245(i)条调整身份之目的受到祖父条款保护。参见Matter of Butt, 26 I&N Dec. at 114–15（承认第245(i)条的目的是保护那些在《LIFE法案修正案》颁布之前已有合法签证申请在案的人，而不是给申请人“第二次机会”（引用Linares Huarcaya v. Mukasey, 550 F.3d 224, 230 (2d Cir. 2008)）（内部引号省略））。

Under this reading of section 245(i), an alien who properly obtained grandfathered status retains it until he or she adjusts status under section 245(i). See 66 Fed. Reg. at 16,385 (Supplementary Information). Thus, the spouse of a principal grandfathered alien who qualifies as a derivative grandfathered alien remains grandfathered notwithstanding any subsequent changes in the relationship. See id. For example, divorce from or the death of a principal grandfathered alien does not terminate the derivative alien’s

根据对第245(i)条的这一解读，适当获得祖父条款保护身份的alien保留该身份，直至其根据第245(i)条调整身份。参见66 Fed. Reg. at 16,385（补充信息）。因此，符合派生祖父条款保护的alien资格的主要祖父条款保护的alien的配偶，尽管关系随后发生任何变化，仍保持祖父条款保护。参见同上。例如，与主要祖父条款保护的alien离婚或该alien死亡，并不终止派生alien的

185

185

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 180 (BIA 2013) Interim Decision #3790

引用为26 I&N Dec. 180 (BIA 2013) 临时决定#3790

grandfathered status. A subsequent change in circumstances cannot confer grandfathered status on an alien who did not meet the grandfathering requirements prior to the April 30, 2001, sunset date. Thus, an alien who was not grandfathered as of April 30, 2001, but subsequently married a principal grandfathered alien does not, by virtue of that marriage, become a derivative grandfathered alien.

祖父条款保护身份。情况随后发生变化，不能赋予在2001年4月30日日落日期之前未满足祖父条款保护要求的alien以祖父条款保护身份。因此，在2001年4月30日时未受到祖父条款保护、但随后与主要祖父条款保护的alien结婚的alien，并不因该婚姻而成为派生祖父条款保护的alien。

This interpretation of the grandfathering provisions of section 245(i) of the Act is consistent with the general concept of grandfathering, which includes an implicit temporal limitation. See Black’s Law Dictionary 718 (8th ed. 2004) (defining a “grandfather clause” as a “statutory or regulatory clause that exempts a class of persons or transactions because of circumstances existing before the new rule or regulation takes effect”). Under this concept, only those individuals who were members of the exempted class before the new rule or regulation took effect can benefit from grandfathered status. In the context of section 245(i), only those aliens who satisfied the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 1245.10(a)(1)(i) on or before April 30, 2001, were grandfathered within the meaning of that section and therefore retain eligibility to apply for section 245(i) adjustment beyond the sunset date. All other aliens, including the after-acquired spouses and children of principal grandfathered aliens, fall outside of the class of grandfathered aliens.

对第245(i)条祖父条款保护规定的这一解释符合祖父条款保护的一般概念，该概念包含隐含的时间限制。参见Black's Law Dictionary 718 (8th ed. 2004)（将“祖父条款”定义为“因新规则或法规生效之前存在的情况而豁免某类人员或交易的法定或法规条款”）。根据这一概念，只有在新规则或法规生效之前属于豁免类别的个人才能受益于祖父条款保护身份。在第245(i)条的语境下，只有在2001年4月30日或之前满足8 C.F.R. § 1245.10(a)(1)(i)要求的alien，才在该条含义内受到祖父条款保护，因此保留在日落日期之后申请第245(i)条调整身份的资格。所有其他alien，包括主要祖父条款保护的alien的事后获得的配偶和子女，均不属于祖父条款保护的alien类别。

Although no other courts have dealt with the issue presently before us, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has addressed the related issue of whether an alien who married a principal grandfathered alien obtained derivative grandfathered status by virtue of that marriage where the marriage took place after the principal grandfathered alien had adjusted to lawful permanent resident status. Landin-Molina v. Holder, 580 F.3d 913 (9th Cir. 2009). In finding that the alien in that case did not acquire derivative grandfathered status, the Ninth Circuit noted that “if grandfathered aliens who adjusted to lawful permanent resident status could impart grandfathered status to relatives acquired after the adjustment occurred, then [section 245(i)]’s filing cut-off date would be nullified with respect to those individuals.” Id. at 920 (citing Balam-Chuc v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1044, 1049–50 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that the April 30, 2001, sunset provision was a fixed deadline and that section 245(i) of the Act is a “statute of repose not subject to equitable tolling”)). We conclude that interpreting section 245(i) of the Act to allow principal grandfathered aliens to confer grandfathered status on after-acquired spouses and children by virtue of a relationship that arose after April 30, 2001, would likewise nullify the filing cut-off date with respect to those individuals. Cf. Matter of Legaspi, 25 I&N Dec. 328 (BIA 2010) (finding that an alien is not independently grandfathered for purposes of section 245(i) simply by virtue of marriage to a derivative grandfathered alien).

尽管没有其他法院处理过目前摆在我们面前的问题，但美国第9巡回上诉法院处理了一个相关问题，即与主要祖父条款保护的alien结婚的alien，在婚姻发生于主要祖父条款保护的alien已调整为合法永久居民身份之后的情况下，是否因该婚姻而获得派生祖父条款保护身份。Landin-Molina v. Holder, 580 F.3d 913 (9th Cir. 2009)。在认定该案中的alien未获得派生祖父条款保护身份时，第9巡回法院指出，“如果已调整为合法永久居民身份的祖父条款保护的alien能够将祖父条款保护身份赋予调整发生后获得的亲属，那么[第245(i)条]的提交截止日期对于这些个人而言将被取消。”Id. at 920（引用Balam-Chuc v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1044, 1049–50 (9th Cir. 2008)（认定2001年4月30日日落条款是固定截止日期，且该法案第245(i)条是“不受衡平法中止的除斥期间法规”））。我们得出结论，将该法案第245(i)条解释为允许主要祖父条款保护的alien凭借2001年4月30日之后产生的关系将祖父条款保护身份赋予事后获得的配偶和子女，同样会取消这些个人的提交截止日期。参见Matter of Legaspi, 25 I&N Dec. 328 (BIA 2010)（认定alien并不因与派生祖父条款保护的alien结婚而当然为第245(i)条之目的独立受到祖父条款保护）。

186

186

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 180 (BIA 2013) Interim Decision #3790

引用为26 I&N Dec. 180 (BIA 2013) 临时决定#3790

Our interpretation of section 245(i)’s grandfathering provisions is consistent with the interpretation adopted by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). See Memorandum from William R. Yates, Assoc. Dir. for Operations, to USCIS officials (Mar. 9, 2005) (clarifying the eligibility requirements for adjustment of status under section 245(i)), 2005 WL 628644 (“Yates Memo”). Under current USCIS policy, “[i]f a spouse or child relationship is established after the filing of a grandfathering petition or application and is in existence at the time the principal [grandfathered] alien adjusts status, the spouse or child is not a grandfathered alien and may not independently benefit from section 245(i)” of the Act. Id. § D(2), at 4. Although this interpretation is not binding on the Board, its adoption by the USCIS further supports our conclusion that the after-acquired spouses and children of principal grandfathered aliens are not grandfathered for purposes of section 245(i) of the Act.

我们对第245(i)条祖父条款保护规定的解释与美国公民及移民服务局（“USCIS”）所采纳的解释一致。参见William R. Yates，运营副局长，致USCIS官员的备忘录（2005年3月9日）（澄清第245(i)条调整身份的资格要求），2005 WL 628644（“Yates备忘录”）。根据现行USCIS政策，“如果配偶或子女关系在提交祖父条款保护申请或请求之后建立，并在主要[祖父条款保护的]alien调整身份时存在，则该配偶或子女不是祖父条款保护的alien，不能独立受益于该法案第245(i)条。”Id. § D(2), at 4。尽管这一解释对Board不具有约束力，但USCIS对其的采纳进一步支持了我们的结论，即主要祖父条款保护的alien的事后获得的配偶和子女不为该法案第245(i)条之目的受到祖父条款保护。

5. Dependent Spouses and Children of Grandfathered Aliens

5. 祖父条款保护的alien的受抚养配偶和子女

Although not grandfathered, qualifying after-acquired spouses and children are still able to benefit from section 245(i) of the Act in certain circumstances. The Supplementary Information to the interim rule clarifies that a dependent spouse or child—if eligible under section 203(d) of the Act—who is accompanying or following to join a grandfathered adjustment applicant is “considered to be grandfathered” if the qualifying relationship existed before the grandfathered alien adjusts his or her status. 66 Fed. Reg. at 16,384. We do not interpret the phrase “considered to be grandfathered” to mean that these spouses and children are independently grandfathered under section 245(i) such that they may be the principal adjustment applicant under that section. Rather, these aliens are able to seek section 245(i) adjustment as the dependents of grandfathered aliens where the spouse or child is accompanying or following to join a principal adjustment applicant who is a grandfathered alien.

尽管不属于祖父条款保护范围，符合条件的婚后取得身份的配偶和子女在某些情况下仍可受益于该法第245(i)条。临时规则的补充信息说明，作为祖父条款保护调整身份申请人的随行或随后加入的受抚养配偶或子女——如果符合该法第203(d)条规定的资格——在祖父条款保护的外国人调整其身份之前已存在合格关系的，即"被视为受祖父条款保护"。66 Fed. Reg. at 16,384。我们不将"被视为受祖父条款保护"一语解释为这些配偶和子女根据第245(i)条独立受到祖父条款保护，从而可以作为该条下的主调整身份申请人。相反，这些外国人可以作为受祖父条款保护外国人的受抚养人寻求第245(i)条调整身份，条件是该配偶或子女随行或随后加入作为受祖父条款保护外国人的主调整身份申请人。

Such spouses and children are able to benefit from section 245(i) of the Act by virtue of their status as dependents under section 203(d), which provides that a spouse or child who is accompanying or following to join a principal beneficiary of an immigrant visa is entitled to the same status as that alien. Thus, when a grandfathered alien applies for adjustment of status under section 245(i) as the principal adjustment applicant, his or her dependent spouse or children are eligible to adjust status under that section notwithstanding the fact that they are not grandfathered aliens. This interpretation coincides with the USCIS guidance regarding the status of the dependent spouses and children of grandfathered aliens. See Yates Memo, supra, at 4–5.

此类配偶和子女凭借其作为第203(d)条下受抚养人的身份而能够受益于该法第245(i)条，该条规定，随行或随后加入移民签证主受益人的配偶或子女有权享有与该外国人相同的身份。因此，当受祖父条款保护的外国人作为主调整身份申请人根据第245(i)条申请调整身份时，其受抚养配偶或子女有资格根据该条调整身份，尽管他们并非受祖父条款保护的外国人。这一解释与USCIS关于受祖父条款保护外国人的受抚养配偶和子女身份的指导意见一致。见Yates备忘录，前引，第4–5页。

187

187

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 180 (BIA 2013) Interim Decision #3790

引用为 26 I&N Dec. 180 (BIA 2013) 临时决定第3790号

IV. CONCLUSION

IV. 结论

To decide whether the female respondent qualifies as a grandfathered alien for section 245(i) eligibility purposes, we employ the foregoing principles. As the principal beneficiary of the Form I-130 filed on his behalf on November 1, 2000, the male respondent appears to qualify as a principal grandfathered alien. However, the respondents were not married until October 29, 2007. Accordingly, as an after-acquired spouse, the female respondent does not qualify as a derivative grandfathered alien based on that petition. 4

为裁定女性 respondent 是否符合第245(i)条资格目的下的祖父条款保护外国人资格，我们采用上述原则。作为2000年11月1日代表其提交的I-130表格的主受益人，男性 respondent 似乎符合主祖父条款保护外国人的资格。然而，respondents 直到2007年10月29日才结婚。因此，作为婚后取得的配偶，女性 respondent 基于该申请不符合派生祖父条款保护外国人的资格。4

Because the female respondent is not a grandfathered alien, she is not eligible for adjustment of status under section 245(i) of the Act based on the approved employment-based visa petition filed on her behalf on June 12, 2006. She is not eligible for adjustment of status under section 245(a) based on this petition because she is barred under section 245(c). Because the female respondent is not eligible for adjustment of status, it follows that the male respondent is not eligible for adjustment as a spouse following or accompanying to join the female respondent under section 203(d) of the Act.

由于女性 respondent 不是受祖父条款保护的外国人，她无资格基于2006年6月12日代表其提交并获批准的就业类签证申请根据该法第245(i)条调整身份。她无资格基于该申请根据第245(a)条调整身份，因为她受到第245(c)条的限制。由于女性 respondent 无资格调整身份，因此男性 respondent 无资格作为配偶根据该法第203(d)条随行或随后加入女性 respondent 而调整身份。

For the foregoing reasons, the respondents are not eligible for adjustment of status and their appeal will be dismissed with respect to that form of relief. Nonetheless, we will remand for consideration of the respondents’ eligibility for cancellation of removal, as well as any other relief for which they may be eligible. The respondents raised their eligibility for cancellation of removal on several occasions during proceedings below but were not provided an opportunity to apply for such relief. Additionally, upon consideration of the record and the respondents’ arguments, we find that a remand to a different Immigration Judge is appropriate under the circumstances. Given our disposition, we do not reach the remainder of the respondents’ arguments at this time.

基于上述理由，respondents 无资格调整身份，其关于该救济形式的上诉将被驳回。尽管如此，我们将发回重审，以考虑 respondents 是否有资格获得取消递解出境，以及他们可能符合资格的任何其他救济。Respondents 在下级程序的多个场合提出了其取消递解出境的资格问题，但未获得申请此类救济的机会。此外，经考虑记录和 respondents 的论点，我们认为在此情况下将案件发回由不同的移民法官审理是适当的。鉴于我们的处理结果，我们目前不处理 respondents 其余论点。

4 Because this visa petition was filed by the male respondent’s former wife, the female respondent would not have been eligible to receive a visa under section 203(d) of the Act as a result of the petition. Accordingly, even if the respondents had married on or before April 30, 2001, the female respondent would not have acquired derivative grandfathered status through this visa petition.

4 由于该签证申请由男性 respondent 的前妻提交，女性 respondent 本来无资格因该申请而根据该法第203(d)条获得签证。因此，即使 respondents 在2001年4月30日或之前结婚，女性 respondent 也不会通过该签证申请获得派生祖父条款保护身份。

188

188