Matter of Serna

The petitioner has appealed from a decision of the District Director dated September 16, 1976, denying a petition filed on behalf of the beneficiary as her spouse under section 201(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1151(b), for the reason that the evidence submitted by the petitioner had not established that she is a United States citizen. The record will be remanded. The Code of Federal Regulations provides that a petition filed on behalf of a relative by a United States citizen whose citizenship is based on. birth in the United States must be accompanied by the petitioner's birth certificate; or, if the birth certificate is unobtainable, a copy of a baptismal certificate under church seal that shows the place of birth and date of baptism (which must occur within two months after birth); or, if neither a birth certificate nor a baptismal certificate is obtainable, affidavits of two United States citizens who have personal knowledge of the petitioner's birth in the United States. 8 C.F.R. 204.2(a)(1). In support of her citizenship claim, the petitioner submitted a cer- tified photostatic copy of a birth certificate issued by the State of Texas, dated June 23, 1952, stating that Ramona Rodriguez was born in Raymondville, Texas, on March 10, 1951. The eerttlicate contains two affidavits from Guadalupe Patino Rodriguez (who is listed as the peti-

申请人已就地区局长1976年9月16日的决定提出上诉，该决定拒绝了为受益人作为其配偶依据《移民与国籍法》第201(b)条、8 U.S.C. 1151(b)提交的申请，理由是申请人提交的证据未能确立其为美国公民。案卷将发回重审。 《联邦法规汇编》规定，由公民身份基于在美国出生的美国公民为亲属提交的申请，必须附有申请人的出生证明；或者，如果出生证明无法取得，则附有加盖教会印章的洗礼证明副本，显示出生地和洗礼日期（洗礼必须发生在出生后两个月内）；或者，如果出生证明和洗礼证明均无法取得，则附有两名对申请人在美国出生有亲身了解的美国公民的宣誓书。8 C.F.R. 204.2(a)(1)。 为支持其公民身份主张，申请人提交了一份由德克萨斯州签发的出生证明的经核证影印副本，日期为1952年6月23日，载明Ramona Rodriguez于1951年3月10日出生在德克萨斯州Raymondville。该证明包含Guadalupe Patino Rodriguez（在证明上列为申请人

tioner's mother on the certificate) and Ofelia Rodriguez (who is listed as "not related" on the certificate) verifying the facts stated in the birth certificate. The petitioner also submitted a certified photostatic copy of a baptismal certificate for Maria Ramona Rodriguez that bears the same date and place of birth as the birth certificate. This document, dated November 5, 1974, states that the petitioner was baptized in the Our Lady of Guadalupe Church, Raymondville, Texas, on March 9, 1952. The District Director concluded that the evidence submitted failed to meet any one requirement for proof of United States citizenship under 8 C.F.R. 204.2(a)(1).' He further stated that the documents were "in- adequate by any reasonable standards." On appeal, the petitioner contends that a "delayed" birth certificate may be treated as prima fade evidence of United States citizenship until it is rebutted by contradictory documentary evidence. In support of her position, the petitioner cites Matter of Herrera, 13 I. & N. Dec. 755 (MIA 1971). In that case, the petitioner presented a birth certificate issued by the State of Texas 45 years after the date of his birth. He also presented baptismal certificates from two different parishes. However, contracliPt- irg his claim of a United States birthplace was a census record which listed the petitioner's birthplace as Mexico. The Board affirmed the decision of the District Director denying the petition on the ground that the evidence of United States citizenship contained in the delayed birth certificate had been rebutted by contradictory documentary evidence in the census record. We also noted that the delayed birth certificate and the delayed baptismal certificate, both issued about the same time, appeared to be part of a fraudulent scheme. The Board did state in Matter of Herrera, supra, at 758, that the delayed birth certificate presented by the petitioner "may be treated as prima fade evidence of the facts it relates." However, there was no intent on our part in that case to promulgate an inflexible rule of evidence regarding the weight to be assigned a delayed birth certificate. It is true, as counsel points out, that the regulation pertaining to prod of United States citizenship in visa petition proceedings, 8 C.F.R. 204.2(a)(1), does not distinguish between certificates issued at the time of birth and those issued at some later date. For many persons who are born in this country and who are therefore bona fide United States citizens, a delayed birth certificate may be the only type of birth certifi- cate available to them. To penalize these persons because they were not

的母亲）和Ofelia Rodriguez（在证明上列为“无亲属关系”）的两份宣誓书，核实出生证明中所载事实。申请人还提交了一份Maria Ramona Rodriguez洗礼证明的经核证影印副本，其出生日期和出生地与出生证明相同。该文件日期为1974年11月5日，载明申请人于1952年3月9日在德克萨斯州Raymondville的Our Lady of Guadalupe教堂受洗。 地区局长认定，所提交的证据未能满足8 C.F.R. 204.2(a)(1)下美国公民身份证明的任何一项要求。¹ 他还表示，这些文件“按任何合理标准都不充分”。 在上诉中，申请人主张，“迟延”出生证明可作为美国公民身份的初步证据，直至被相反的书证反驳。为支持其立场，申请人援引Matter of Herrera，13 I. & N. Dec. 755 (BIA 1971)。 在该案中，申请人提交了一份由其出生日期45年后由德克萨斯州签发的出生证明。他还提交了两个不同堂区的洗礼证明。然而，与其美国出生地主张相矛盾的是，一份人口普查记录将申请人的出生地列为墨西哥。委员会维持了地区局长拒绝该申请的决定，理由是迟延出生证明中所载的美国公民身份证据已被人口普查记录中的相反书证反驳。我们还指出，迟延出生证明和迟延洗礼证明均大约在同一时间签发，似乎是一个欺诈计划的一部分。 委员会在Matter of Herrera，supra，第758页中确实表示，申请人提交的迟延出生证明“可作为其所载事实的初步证据”。然而，我们在该案中并无意就迟延出生证明应赋予的证明力颁布一项僵化的证据规则。 诚如律师所指出的，关于签证申请程序中美国公民身份证明的法规8 C.F.R. 204.2(a)(1)确实没有区分出生时签发的证明和后来某个日期签发的证明。对于许多在本国出生、因而为真正美国公民的人来说，迟延出生证明可能是他们唯一可获得的出生证明类型。因这些人未

born in hospitals or other facilities where births are registered would be unjust. At the same time, there can be little dispute that the opportu- nity for fraud is much greater with a delayed birth certificate. This is not an issue easily resolved. Our use of the term "prima facie" in Matter of Herrera, supra, was perhaps misleading, thereby creating an inference that a delayed birth certificate, unrebutted by contradic- tory evidence of a birthplace other than the United States, would establish in every case a petitioner's status as a United States citizen. This was not our intent. Such a rute would be unwise and an unwar- ranted restriction on the District Director's adjudicative function in this area. Rather, it is our position that each case must be decided on its own facts with regard to the sufficiency of the evidence presented as to the petitioner's birthplace. Of course, the District Director's finding con- cerning the petitioner's claim of citizenship is reviewable by the Board on appeal. In the case before us, the District Director requested the petitioner to submit affidavits attesting to the facts of her birth. We are not per- suaded that this was an unreasonable request, viewing the record as a whole. The petitioner does bear the burden of proof in visa petition proceedings and this includes his or her eligibility as a United States citizen to bestow immigration benefits upon an immediate relative. Consequently, we conclude that the record should be remanded to the District Director to afford the petitioner an opportunity to obtain the evidence requested by the District Director or to explain why such evidence is unavailable. Upon remand, the Immigration and Naturaliza- tion Service should have a reasonable opportunity to present any evi- dence it may have that contradicts the petitioner's claim of United States citizenship. The District Director should then enter a new deci- sion in this matter, which should be certified to this Board for review if it is adverse to the petitioner. Accordingly, the following orders shall be entered. ORDER: The record is remanded to the District Director for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and the entry of a new decision. FURTHER ORDER: In the event of a decision that is adverse to the petitioner, the District Director shall certify his decision to the Board for review.

在医院或其他进行出生登记的设施出生而惩罚他们，将是不公正的。同时，几乎无可争议的是，迟延出生证明的欺诈机会要大得多。 这不是一个容易解决的问题。我们在Matter of Herrera，supra中使用“初步”一词或许具有误导性，从而造成一种推断，即迟延出生证明若未被关于美国以外出生地的相反证据反驳，便会在每一起案件中确立申请人的美国公民身份。这并非我们的本意。这样的规则将是不明智的，并且是对地区局长在该领域裁决职能的不当限制。相反，我们的立场是，每一起案件都必须根据其自身事实，就所提交的关于申请人出生地的证据是否充分作出决定。当然，地区局长关于申请人公民身份主张的认定可由委员会在上诉中复审。 在我们面前的案件中，地区局长要求申请人提交证明其出生事实的宣誓书。从整体案卷来看，我们并不认为这一要求不合理。申请人在签证申请程序中确实承担举证责任，这包括其作为美国公民有资格为直系亲属授予移民福利。因此，我们认定案卷应发回地区局长，给予申请人机会取得地区局长所要求的证据，或解释为何此类证据无法取得。发回后，移民与归化局应有合理机会提交其可能拥有的、与申请人美国公民身份主张相矛盾的任何证据。地区局长随后应就此事项作出新的决定，如果该决定对申请人不利，则应将该决定认证至本委员会复审。据此，应作出以下命令。 命令：案卷发回地区局长，以便按照上述意见进行进一步程序并作出新的决定。 进一步命令：如果作出对申请人不利的决定，地区局长应将其决定认证至委员会复审。