Ogundipe v. Mukasey

 EZEKIEL OLUFEMI OGUNDIPE, Reverend, Petitioner, v. No. 07-1592  MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. 

EZEKIEL OLUFEMI OGUNDIPE， 牧师， 申请人， 诉 第07-1592号 MICHAEL B. MUKASEY，司法部长， 被申请人。

On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

关于对移民上诉委员会命令的复审申请。

Argued: May 14, 2008

辩论：2008年5月14日

Decided: September 2, 2008

判决：2008年9月2日

Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

由巡回法官TRAXLER、GREGORY和SHEDD审理。

2 OGUNDIPE v. MUKASEY

2 OGUNDIPE诉MUKASEY

Petitions denied by published opinion. Judge Shedd wrote the opinion, in which Judge Traxler joined. Judge Gregory wrote a dissenting opinion.

以公布意见驳回申请。Shedd法官撰写意见，Traxler法官加入。Gregory法官撰写反对意见。

ARGUED: David Christopher Drake, JOHNSON & ASSO- CIATES, PC, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Justin R. Markel, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. ON BRIEF: Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, PC, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Fran- cis W. Fraser, Senior Litigation Counsel, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

辩论：David Christopher Drake，JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, PC，弗吉尼亚州阿灵顿，为申请人。Justin R. Markel，美国司法部移民诉讼办公室，华盛顿特区，为被申请人。简报：Randall L. Johnson，JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, PC，弗吉尼亚州阿灵顿，为申请人。Peter D. Keisler，助理司法部长，民事司，Francis W. Fraser，高级诉讼律师，美国司法部，华盛顿特区，为被申请人。

SHEDD, Circuit Judge:

SHEDD，巡回法官：

Ezekiel Olufemi Ogundipe, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") dismissing his appeal and ordering his vol- untary departure from the United States, and of the BIA’s order denying his motion for reconsideration. Ogundipe con- tends that he is eligible to adjust his status without leaving the United States because he is a "grandfathered alien" who was the beneficiary of a special immigrant visa petition filed before April 30, 2001. The immigration judge ("IJ") and the BIA concluded that the visa petition on which Ogundipe relies was not "approvable when filed" and therefore denied his application to adjust status. Finding no error, we deny his petitions for review.

Ezekiel Olufemi Ogundipe，尼日利亚国民和公民，申请复审移民上诉委员会（"BIA"）驳回其上诉并命令其自愿离境的命令，以及BIA拒绝其重新考虑动议的命令。Ogundipe主张，他有资格在不离开美国的情况下调整身份，因为他是"祖父条款外国人"，是2001年4月30日之前提交的特殊移民签证申请的受益人。移民法官（"IJ"）和BIA认定，Ogundipe所依赖的签证申请在提交时不可批准，因此拒绝了他的调整身份申请。认定无错误，我们驳回其复审申请。

3 OGUNDIPE v. MUKASEY

3 OGUNDIPE诉MUKASEY

I

I

Ogundipe was admitted to the United States as a nonimmi- grant B2 visitor on December 31, 1994. He overstayed his visa, which expired on June 30, 1995. In August 1997, He Cares Fellowship ("HCF"), a church located in Adelphi, Maryland, filed an I-360 Petition for Amerasian, Widow, or Special Immigrant Visa on Ogundipe’s behalf (the "HCF Peti- tion"), asserting that Ogundipe qualified for a "special immi- grant" visa as a religious worker, as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(C) (1997). Upon receipt of the HCF Petition, the Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS") 1

Ogundipe于1994年12月31日作为非移民B2访客获准进入美国。他的签证于1995年6月30日到期，他逾期居留。1997年8月，位于马里兰州阿德尔菲的教会He Cares Fellowship（"HCF"）代表Ogundipe提交了I-360美亚混血儿、寡妇或特殊移民签证申请（"HCF申请"），主张Ogundipe有资格作为宗教工作者获得"特殊移民"签证，如8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(C)（1997）所定义。收到HCF申请后，移民和归化局（"INS"） 1

requested additional information from HCF in a detailed letter identifying numerous evidentiary deficiencies in the HCF Petition. Specifically, the INS requested (1) evidence estab- lishing that Ogundipe had two years of full-time work experi- ence in religious work prior to August 1997; (2) evidence establishing that Ogundipe was authorized to conduct reli- gious worship; (3) evidence establishing that Ogundipe would be employed full time in religious work, including Ogundipe’s job title, description, commencement and termi- nation dates of employment, weekly hours required, and wage and benefits offered; (4) evidence that HCF was able to pay the offered wage; (5) evidence of the number of members of HCF; (6) a list of HCF’s salaried employees; and (7) evidence of HCF’s net and gross annual income for 1995 and 1996. HCF failed to respond fully to the INS’s requests, and the INS denied the petition. HCF appealed but failed to submit a brief; consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

在一封详细信函中要求HCF提供补充信息，指出HCF申请中存在众多证据缺陷。具体而言，INS要求（1）证明Ogundipe在1997年8月之前有两年全职宗教工作经验的证据；（2）证明Ogundipe获授权主持宗教礼拜的证据；（3）证明Ogundipe将全职从事宗教工作的证据，包括Ogundipe的职位名称、描述、雇佣开始和终止日期、每周所需工时以及提供的工资和福利；（4）证明HCF有能力支付所提供工资的证据；（5）HCF成员人数的证据；（6）HCF受薪雇员名单；以及（7）HCF 1995年和1996年净收入和总收入的证据。HCF未能完全回应INS的要求，INS拒绝了该申请。HCF提出上诉但未提交简报；因此，上诉被驳回。

In June 2001, Ark of Salvation International Church of Christ ("AS"), located in New Carrollton, Maryland, submit- ted a second I-360 petition (the "AS Petition") on Ogundipe’s behalf. Like the HCF Petition, the AS Petition sought a visa

2001年6月，位于马里兰州新卡罗尔顿的Ark of Salvation International Church of Christ（"AS"）代表Ogundipe提交了第二份I-360申请（"AS申请"）。与HCF申请一样，AS申请寻求签证

4 OGUNDIPE v. MUKASEY

4 OGUNDIPE诉MUKASEY

for Ogundipe on the basis that he qualified as a special immi- grant religious worker, specifically, the Senior Pastor of AS. The AS Petition was granted in 2002.

为Ogundipe申请，理由是他有资格作为特殊移民宗教工作者，具体为AS的高级牧师。AS申请于2002年获批。

In 2004, the INS initiated removal proceedings against Ogundipe for remaining in the United States longer than per- mitted. Ogundipe then filed an Application to Register Perma- nent Residence or Adjust Status, based on § 245(i) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act ("INA"), 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i). Section 245(i) permitted certain aliens who were otherwise ineligible to adjust their status — such as an alien, who, like Ogundipe, "continue[d] in or accept[ed] unautho- rized employment prior to filing an application for adjustment of status" — to pay a penalty and have their status adjusted without having to leave the United States. Section 245(i) expired as of April 30, 2001, except for those aliens who are "grandfathered." "Grandfathered alien" is defined in 8 C.F.R. § 1245.10(a) to include "an alien who is the beneficiary . . . of . . . [a] petition for classification," such as an I-360 petition, "which was properly filed with the Attorney General on or before April 30, 2001, and which was approvable when filed." 2

2004年，INS因Ogundipe在美国居留超过许可期限而对其启动遣返程序。Ogundipe随后根据《移民和归化法》（"INA"）第245(i)条，8 U.S.C. § 1255(i)，提交了登记永久居留或调整身份申请。第245(i)条允许某些原本不符合调整身份资格的外国人——例如像Ogundipe这样"在提交调整身份申请之前继续或接受未经授权就业"的外国人——支付罚款并在不必离开美国的情况下调整身份。第245(i)条于2001年4月30日到期，但"祖父条款"外国人除外。"祖父条款外国人"在8 C.F.R. § 1245.10(a)中定义为包括"作为……[分类]申请……受益人的外国人"，例如I-360申请，"该申请于2001年4月30日或之前适当地向司法部长提交，且在提交时不可批准。" 2

"Approvable when filed" is in turn defined in § 1245.10(a)(3):

"提交时不可批准"又在§ 1245.10(a)(3)中定义：

Approvable when filed means that, as of the date of the filing of the qualifying immigrant visa petition under section 204 of the Act . . . , the qualifying peti- tion . . . was properly filed, meritorious in fact, and non-frivolous ("frivolous" being defined herein as patently without substance). This determination will be made based on the circumstances that existed at the time the qualifying petition or application was filed.

提交时不可批准是指，截至根据该法第204条提交合格移民签证申请之日……，该合格申请……已适当提交、事实上具有法律依据且非轻率（"轻率"在此定义为明显缺乏实质内容）。该认定将基于提交合格申请或请求时存在的情况作出。

5 OGUNDIPE v. MUKASEY

5 OGUNDIPE诉MUKASEY

Ogundipe argued in the removal proceedings that he was grandfathered on the basis of the HCF Petition and therefore eligible to adjust his status without leaving the United States. The IJ disagreed, finding that the HCF Petition was not "meri- torious in fact" because there had never been a prima facie showing that Ogundipe was eligible for classification as a special immigrant. The IJ noted that the ultimate denial of the HCF Petition by the INS, standing alone, did not preclude a finding that the petition was approvable when filed. Neverthe- less, she concluded that numerous evidentiary deficiencies in the petition, which HCF never remedied despite the INS’s request for additional information, demonstrated that the HCF Petition was not meritorious in fact at the time it was filed. Accordingly, the IJ denied Ogundipe’s application for adjust- ment of status, but granted his alternative request for volun- tary departure.

Ogundipe在遣返程序中主张，他基于HCF申请属于祖父条款外国人，因此有资格在不离开美国的情况下调整身份。IJ不同意，认定HCF申请"事实上不具有法律依据"，因为从未有初步证据表明Ogundipe有资格被分类为特殊移民。IJ指出，INS最终拒绝HCF申请本身并不排除认定该申请在提交时不可批准。然而，她得出结论，该申请中的众多证据缺陷，尽管INS要求补充信息，HCF从未补救，表明HCF申请在提交时事实上不具有法律依据。因此，IJ拒绝了Ogundipe的调整身份申请，但批准了他自愿离境的替代请求。

Ogundipe appealed to the BIA, which dismissed his appeal. The BIA agreed with the IJ that Ogundipe had failed to dem- onstrate that the HCF Petition was approvable when filed based on the circumstances that existed at the time of its fil- ing. Ogundipe then filed a motion for reconsideration, which the BIA denied. Ogundipe now petitions for review of both BIA orders.

Ogundipe向BIA提出上诉，BIA驳回了他的上诉。BIA同意IJ的意见，即Ogundipe未能证明HCF申请基于提交时存在的情况在提交时不可批准。Ogundipe随后提交了重新考虑动议，BIA拒绝了该动议。Ogundipe现申请复审BIA的两项命令。

II

II

We review the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Gandarillas-Zambrana v. BIA, 44 F.3d 1251, 1255 (4th Cir. 1995). We review de novo the legal determinations below, according appropriate deference to the BIA’s interpre- tations of the INA and attendant regulations. See Perez- Vargas v. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 191, 194 (4th Cir. 2007). We will uphold the factual findings below if they are "supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole." INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, (1992) (internal citation omitted).

我们审查IJ经BIA补充的决定。见Gandarillas-Zambrana诉BIA，44 F.3d 1251, 1255（第4巡回法院1995年）。我们重新审查下级法律认定，并对BIA对INA及相关法规的解释给予适当尊重。见Perez-Vargas诉Gonzales，478 F.3d 191, 194（第4巡回法院2007年）。如果下级事实认定"得到整体记录中合理、实质性和有证明力的证据支持"，我们将予以维持。INS诉Elias-Zacarias，502 U.S. 478, 481（1992）（内部引文省略）。

6 OGUNDIPE v. MUKASEY

6 OGUNDIPE诉MUKASEY

A.

A.

Because the parties agree that the HCF Petition was prop- erly filed and non-frivolous, the only issue presented in this appeal is whether it was meritorious in fact. 3 Before analyzing this question, we first address the scope of the evidence the IJ may consider in making that determination. Ogundipe con- tends that the determination of whether a visa petition is meri- torious in fact must be based on the "totality of the circumstances" that existed at the time of the initial filing and not merely on the evidence the petitioner actually possessed at the time or submitted with the petition. The government disagrees, arguing that only the evidence on record at the time of the initial filing may be considered, and thus the actual denial of the HCF petition by the INS forecloses any finding that it was meritorious in fact and therefore approvable when filed.

由于双方同意HCF申请已适当提交且非轻率，本上诉中提出的唯一问题是该申请事实上是否具有法律依据。 3 在分析此问题之前，我们首先讨论IJ在作出该认定时可以考虑的证据范围。Ogundipe主张，签证申请事实上是否具有法律依据的认定必须基于初次提交时存在的"总体情况"，而不仅仅是申请人当时实际拥有或随申请提交的证据。政府不同意，主张只能考虑初次提交时记录在案的证据，因此INS实际拒绝HCF申请排除了任何认定其事实上具有法律依据从而在提交时不可批准的可能。

We agree with Ogundipe that the determination of whether a visa petition is approvable when filed is not limited to the question of whether the petition was actually approved. We find nothing in the applicable statutes or regulations that pre- vents an IJ in removal proceedings from considering other evidence that a petition was approvable when filed, even if that evidence was never submitted in conjunction with the original petition. This conclusion flows from the text of § 1245.10(a)(3). "Meritorious" means "meriting a legal vic- tory" or "having legal worth," Black’s Law Dictionary (8th

我们同意Ogundipe的意见，即签证申请在提交时是否不可批准的认定不限于该申请是否实际获批的问题。我们在适用法规或条例中未发现任何规定阻止遣返程序中的IJ考虑其他证据证明申请在提交时不可批准，即使该证据从未与原始申请一并提交。这一结论源于§ 1245.10(a)(3)的文本。"具有法律依据"意为"值得法律胜利"或"具有法律价值"，Black's Law Dictionary（第8版

7 OGUNDIPE v. MUKASEY

7 OGUNDIPE诉MUKASEY

ed. 2004), but does not require actual legal success. More- over, § 1245.10(a)(3) requires that the determination of whether a petition is meritorious in fact "be made based on the circumstances that existed at the time the qualifying peti- tion or application was filed." This provision contemplates that evidence other than that actually submitted in support of the petition might be considered for purposes of determining whether an alien is grandfathered.

2004年版），但不要求实际的法律成功。此外，§ 1245.10(a)(3) 要求，关于申请是否在事实上具有价值的认定“必须基于提出符合条件的申请或请求时所存在的情形作出”。该条款设想，为确定外国人是否属于祖父条款适用对象之目的，可以考虑除实际提交以支持该申请的证据之外的证据。

The BIA’s decisions support our conclusion. In this case, the BIA explained that the IJ properly based her decision on "the circumstances that existed at the time" the HCF Petition was filed, J.A. 24, and "did not rely on the ultimate denial" of the petition in concluding it was not approvable when filed, J.A. 2. The BIA’s subsequent decision in In re Jara Riero, 24 I&N Dec. 267 (BIA 2007), discussed the issue more fully. When considering whether an alien was grandfathered on the basis of a visa petition filed by his U.S. citizen wife, the BIA noted that the denial of that petition was not itself dispositive of whether the petition was meritorious in fact. Rather, that determination was properly made by the IJ based both on the visa petition itself and on evidence offered in removal pro- ceedings. See also Lasprilla v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 98, 101 (1st Cir. 2004) (indicating that alien could present evidence in removal proceedings that previously denied visa petition was meritorious in fact).

BIA的裁决支持我们的结论。在本案中，BIA解释称，IJ正确地将其裁决建立在HCF申请提交时“所存在的情形”之上，J.A. 24，并且“没有依赖”该申请的最终否决来认定其在提交时不可批准，J.A. 2。BIA随后在In re Jara Riero, 24 I&N Dec. 267 (BIA 2007)中的裁决更全面地讨论了该问题。在考虑外国人是否基于其美国公民妻子提交的签证申请而属于祖父条款适用对象时，BIA指出，对该申请的否决本身并不决定该申请是否在事实上具有价值。相反，该认定由IJ适当地基于签证申请本身以及遣返程序中提供的证据作出。另见Lasprilla v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 98, 101 (1st Cir. 2004)（表明外国人可以在遣返程序中提供证据，证明先前被否决的签证申请在事实上具有价值）。

We therefore hold that a visa petition is meritorious in fact for purposes of grandfathering under 8 C.F.R. § 1245.10 if, based on the circumstances that existed at the time the petition was filed, the beneficiary of the petition qualified for the requested classification. An alien seeking to adjust his status may prove that a previously denied visa application was meri- torious in fact by making an appropriate factual showing in removal proceedings, subject to any applicable evidentiary and procedural rules.

因此，我们裁定：如果基于申请提交时所存在的情形，申请的受益人符合所请求的分类资格，则就8 C.F.R. § 1245.10下的祖父条款适用而言，该签证申请在事实上具有价值。寻求调整身份的外国人可以通过在遣返程序中作出适当的事实证明，证明先前被否决的签证申请在事实上具有价值，但须遵守任何适用的证据和程序规则。

8 OGUNDIPE v. MUKASEY

8 OGUNDIPE v. MUKASEY

B.

B.

Although we agree with Ogundipe that the denial of the HCF petition is not determinative of his petition to adjust sta- tus, we agree with the government that on the record here, Ogundipe has failed to demonstrate that the HCF Petition was meritorious in fact. In order for the HCF Petition to have been meritorious in fact, it was required to meet both the statutory and regulatory requirements for approval as of August 1997, when it was filed. The most basic such requirement was that Ogundipe meet the definition of "special immigrant," a predi- cate for qualification for a visa. See 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(4) (1997). The relevant definition of special immigrant here is an immigrant who:

尽管我们同意Ogundipe关于HCF申请的否决对其调整身份申请不具有决定性的主张，但我们同意政府的主张，即根据本案记录，Ogundipe未能证明HCF申请在事实上具有价值。为使HCF申请在事实上具有价值，其必须在1997年8月提交时同时满足法定和监管的批准要求。此类要求中最基本的一项是Ogundipe符合“特殊移民”的定义，这是获得签证资格的前提条件。见8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(4) (1997)。此处相关的特殊移民定义是指符合以下条件的外国人：

(i) for at least 2 years immediately preceding the time of application for admission, has been a mem- ber of a religious denomination having a bona fide nonprofit, religious organization in the United States;

(i) 在申请入境前至少2年内，一直是拥有美国真实非营利宗教组织的宗教教派的成员；

(ii) seeks to enter the United States–-

(ii) 寻求进入美国——

(I) solely for the purpose of carrying on the vocation of a minister of that religious denomination;

(I) 仅为从事该宗教教派牧师职业之目的；

. . .

. . .

(iii) has been carrying on such vocation, professional work, or other work continuously for at least the 2- year period described in clause (i).

(iii) 在(i)项所述至少2年期间内连续从事该职业、专业工作或其他工作。

8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(C) (1997).

8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(C) (1997)。

The evidence in the record fails to demonstrate that Ogundipe met this definition in 1997. Specifically, the record does not contain evidence establishing that Ogundipe had the

记录中的证据未能证明Ogundipe在1997年符合该定义。具体而言，记录中不包含证明Ogundipe具备

9 OGUNDIPE v. MUKASEY

9 OGUNDIPE v. MUKASEY

required two years’ denominational membership or experi- ence in full-time religious work prior to the filing of the HCF Petition. In addition, the fact that Ogundipe was admitted to the United States on a B2 nonimmigrant visitor visa suggests that he did not enter the United States "solely for the purpose of carrying on the vocation of a minister" as required.

在提交HCF申请前所需的两年教派成员资格或全职宗教工作经验。此外，Ogundipe以B2非移民访客签证获准进入美国这一事实表明，他并非如要求的那样“仅为从事牧师职业之目的”进入美国。

Ogundipe also has not demonstrated that the HCF Petition met the regulatory requirements for approval. These require- ments are set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5 (1997), which provides that each visa petition for a religious worker must be accom- panied by, inter alia:

Ogundipe也未能证明HCF申请符合监管批准要求。这些要求载于8 C.F.R. § 204.5 (1997)，其中规定，每份宗教工作者签证申请必须附有以下材料，其中包括：

(g)(2) [E]vidence that the prospective United States employer has the ability to pay the proffered wage . . .

(g)(2) 证明预期美国雇主有能力支付所提供工资的证据……

. . .

. . .

(m)(3)(i) Evidence that the organization qualifies as a nonprofit organization . . .

(m)(3)(i) 证明该组织符合非营利组织资格的证据……

. . .

. . .

(ii) A letter from an authorized official of the reli- gious organization in the United States which (as applicable to the particular alien) estab- lishes:

(ii) 由美国宗教组织授权官员出具的函件，该函件（视特定外国人情况而定）证明：

(A) That, immediately prior to the filing of the petition, the alien has the required two years of membership in the denomination and the required two years of experience in the reli- gious vocation, professional religious work, or other religious work; and

(A) 在提交申请之前，该外国人已具备该教派所需的两年成员资格以及宗教职业、专业宗教工作或其他宗教工作所需的两年经验；以及

. . .

. . .

10 OGUNDIPE v. MUKASEY

10 OGUNDIPE v. MUKASEY

(C) That, if the alien is a religious professional, he or she has at least a United States baccalau- reate or its foreign equivalent required for entry into the religious profession. In all professional cases, an official academic record showing that the alien has the required degree must be sub- mitted;

(C) 如果该外国人是宗教专业人士，其至少具有进入宗教职业所需的美国学士学位或其外国同等学历。在所有专业案件中，必须提交显示该外国人具有所需学位的官方学术记录；

. . .

. . .

(4) Job offer. The letter from the authorized official of the religious organization in the United States must also state how the alien will be solely carrying on the vocation of a minister (including any terms of payment for services or other remuneration), or how the alien will be paid or remunerated if the alien will work in a professional religious capacity or in other religious work. The documentation should clearly indicate that the alien will not be solely dependent on supplemental employment or solicitation of funds for support. In doubtful cases, additional evidence such as bank letters, recent audits, church member- ship figures, and/or the number of individuals cur- rently receiving compensation may be requested.

(4) 工作邀请。美国宗教组织授权官员的函件还必须说明该外国人将如何仅从事牧师职业（包括任何服务报酬或其他报酬条款），或者如果该外国人将以专业宗教身份或其他宗教工作身份工作，其将如何获得报酬或薪酬。文件应清楚表明，该外国人不会仅依赖补充就业或募集资金作为支持。在有疑问的案件中，可以要求提供额外证据，如银行函件、近期审计、教会成员人数和/或目前领取报酬的个人人数。

Here again, as detailed in the INS letter requesting addi- tional information from HCF, much of the evidence required to establish that the HCF Petition was approvable when filed is absent. For example, the record does not establish that HCF qualified as a nonprofit organization in 1997. It also does not contain a copy of Ogundipe’s academic record. Moreover, as we explained in our discussion of the statutory definition of "special immigrant," the evidence does not demonstrate that Ogundipe had the required two years’ denominational mem- bership or work experience. Nor does it demonstrate that Ogundipe would "be solely carrying on the vocation of a min- ister." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(m)(4) (1997). Indeed, Ogundipe’s 1996 and 1998 tax returns list his occupation as "sales" and

在此再次说明，正如INS要求HCF提供补充信息的函件中详细所述，证明HCF申请在提交时可批准所需的许多证据均缺失。例如，记录未证明HCF在1997年符合非营利组织资格。记录也不包含Ogundipe学术记录的副本。此外，正如我们在讨论“特殊移民”法定定义时所述，证据未证明Ogundipe具备所需的两年教派成员资格或工作经验。证据也未证明Ogundipe将“仅从事牧师职业”。8 C.F.R. § 204.5(m)(4) (1997)。事实上，Ogundipe 1996年和1998年的纳税申报表分别将其职业列为“销售”和

11 OGUNDIPE v. MUKASEY

11 OGUNDIPE v. MUKASEY

"asst. manager" respectively. J.A. 257, 248. Finally, the evi- dence does not establish that, in 1997, Ogundipe had been offered a qualifying job or that HCF was capable of providing for his support. On the contrary, HCF’s letters to the INS stated that HCF "hope[d]" that Ogundipe would be able to receive compensation for his work and that all HCF staff were volunteers. J.A. 188, 193. The financial data HCF submitted to the INS indicated that it had no salary expenses in 1997. J.A. 201. Although HCF did report a $3200 "ministerial" expense, there is no indication that any of these funds went to Ogundipe.

“助理经理”。J.A. 257, 248。最后，证据未证明在1997年Ogundipe获得了符合条件的工作邀请，或HCF有能力为其提供支持。相反，HCF致INS的函件称，HCF“希望”Ogundipe能够因其工作获得报酬，且HCF所有工作人员均为志愿者。J.A. 188, 193。HCF提交给INS的财务数据表明，其1997年没有工资支出。J.A. 201。尽管HCF确实报告了3200美元的“牧师”费用，但没有迹象表明这些资金中有任何部分支付给了Ogundipe。

We reject Ogundipe’s argument that the later-filed AS Peti- tion remedied any evidentiary deficiencies in the HCF Peti- tion. Neither the evidence in the record supporting the AS Petition nor the fact of its approval in 2002 demonstrate that the HCF Petition was meritorious in fact when it was filed in 1997. Nor is there merit in Ogundipe’s argument that the IJ erroneously failed to consider the totality of the circumstances in making her decision. The IJ recognized that this determina- tion was to be made based on the circumstances that existed in August 1997 and that the ultimate denial of the HCF Peti- tion was not dispositive. J.A. 64-66. 4

我们驳回Ogundipe关于后来提交的AS申请弥补了HCF申请中任何证据缺陷的主张。记录中支持AS申请的证据以及该申请于2002年获批的事实，均不能证明HCF申请在1997年提交时在事实上具有价值。Ogundipe关于IJ在作出裁决时错误地未考虑全部情形的主张也没有依据。IJ认识到，该认定应基于1997年8月存在的情形作出，且HCF申请的最终否决不具有决定性。J.A. 64-66。 4

12 OGUNDIPE v. MUKASEY

12 OGUNDIPE v. MUKASEY

III

III

Finally, we address Ogundipe’s argument that the BIA erred in denying his motion for reconsideration. We review the BIA’s denial of reconsideration for abuse of discretion, Jean v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 475, 481 (4th Cir. 2006), and find none here. Ogundipe’s motion for reconsideration repeated his original appellate contention that the BIA and IJ failed to consider the totality of the circumstances that existed at the time the HCF Petition was filed. As the BIA explained in its first decision and in its order denying reconsideration, how- ever, the IJ and the BIA did not treat the ultimate denial of the HCF Petition as dispositive. Rather, the IJ determined that "based on the circumstances that existed at the time the quali- fying petition or application was filed, the respondent failed to demonstrate that the original petition was ‘approvable when filed’ within the meaning of 8 C.F.R. § 1245.10(a)(3)" (quotation omitted). J.A. 24; see also J.A. 2. Accordingly, Ogundipe did not demonstrate legal or factual error warrant-

最后，我们处理Ogundipe关于BIA错误地否决其重新考虑动议的主张。我们以滥用裁量权标准审查BIA对重新考虑的否决，Jean v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 475, 481 (4th Cir. 2006)，并认为此处不存在滥用裁量权。Ogundipe的重新考虑动议重复了其最初的上诉主张，即BIA和IJ未能考虑HCF申请提交时存在的全部情形。然而，正如BIA在其第一份裁决和否决重新考虑的裁定中所解释的，IJ和BIA并未将HCF申请的最终否决视为决定性。相反，IJ认定，“基于提出符合条件的申请或请求时所存在的情形，被申请人未能证明原始申请属于8 C.F.R. § 1245.10(a)(3)含义内‘在提交时可批准’”（引文省略）。J.A. 24；另见J.A. 2。因此，Ogundipe未能证明存在法律或事实错误足以

13 OGUNDIPE v. MUKASEY

13 OGUNDIPE v. MUKASEY

ing reconsideration. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6) (motions to reconsider "shall specify the errors of law or fact in the previ- ous order and shall be supported by pertinent authority").

复议。见8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)（复议动议“应指明先前命令中的法律或事实错误，并应有相关权威依据支持”）。

IV

IV

For the foregoing reasons, we deny Ogundipe’s petitions for review.

基于上述理由，我们驳回Ogundipe的复审申请。

PETITIONS DENIED

复审申请驳回

GREGORY, Circuit Judge, dissenting:

GREGORY，巡回法官，持异议：

Albeit in a footnote, the majority concedes that the Immi- gration Judge ("IJ") in this case erred by not allowing Ogundipe and his witnesses to testify concerning the factual circumstances that existed at the time he filed his first petition for Amerasian, Widow, or Special Immigrant ("I-360 peti- tion") status. My colleagues find no harm in this error. But, ironically, they hold that "nothing in the applicable statutes or regulations [ ] prevent[ ] an [Immigration Judge] in removal proceedings from considering other evidence that a petition was approvable when filed, even if that evidence was never submitted in conjunction with the original petition." (Majority Op. 6.) Because it is unreasonable to conclude that the IJ’s decision to deny Ogundipe and his witnesses the opportunity to testify did not effect the IJ’S final determination, I must dissent.

多数意见尽管是在脚注中，但承认本案中的移民法官（“IJ”）在不允许Ogundipe及其证人就他首次申请亚裔美国人、寡妇或特殊移民（“I-360申请”）身份时存在的事实情况进行作证方面存在错误。我的同事们认为这一错误无害。但讽刺的是，他们又认为“适用法规或条例中没有任何内容[ ]阻止[移民法官]在驱逐程序中考虑其他证据，以证明申请在提交时是可批准的，即使该证据从未与原始申请一并提交。”（多数意见第6页。）由于得出IJ拒绝给予Ogundipe及其证人作证机会的决定未影响IJ最终裁定的结论是不合理的，我不得不持异议。

At his removal proceedings, Ogundipe offered to present personal testimony and other witnesses from the He Cares Fellowship Church ("HCF") to support his claim that he worked at the church for at least two years as a full-time reli- gious worker prior to filing his I-360 petition. The IJ, for rea- sons that are unclear from the record, chose not to hear from either Ogundipe or his witnesses.

在其驱逐程序中，Ogundipe提出提供个人证言以及He Cares Fellowship Church（“HCF”）的其他证人，以支持其关于在提交I-360申请之前已在教会作为全职宗教工作者工作至少两年的主张。IJ基于记录中不清楚的理由，选择不听取Ogundipe或其证人的陈述。

14 OGUNDIPE v. MUKASEY

14 OGUNDIPE v. MUKASEY

Put simply, the issue in this case is whether Ogundipe’s ini- tial I-360 petition requesting "special immigrant status" was "meritorious in fact." The relevant statutes and regulations do not precisely define "meritorious." Religious workers, as defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(C), may be classified as "special immigrants." 1

简言之，本案的问题在于Ogundipe最初请求“特殊移民身份”的I-360申请是否“在事实上具有价值”。相关法规和条例并未精确界定“具有价值”。根据8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(C)定义的宗教工作者，可以被归类为“特殊移民”。 1

On August 18, 1997, HCF filed an I-360 petition on behalf of Ogundipe with the Vermont Service Center ("VSC") requesting that Ogundipe be classified as a religious worker. The VSC requested additional evidence supporting HCF’s claim that Ogundipe had been "continuously performing the duties of a qualifying religious vocation or occupation during

1997年8月18日，HCF代表Ogundipe向佛蒙特服务中心（“VSC”）提交了I-360申请，请求将Ogundipe归类为宗教工作者。VSC要求提供额外证据，以支持HCF关于Ogundipe在

15 OGUNDIPE v. MUKASEY

15 OGUNDIPE v. MUKASEY

Admittedly, Ogundipe did not provide all the requested docu- ments. 3 As a result, VSC denied the petition stating that Ogundipe failed to establish that he was a "special immigrant" as defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(C). And, due to the inef- fectiveness of his counsel – who was subsequently disbarred – Ogundipe’s appeal was summarily denied.

诚然，Ogundipe未提供所有要求的文件。 3 因此，VSC拒绝了该申请，称Ogundipe未能证明其是8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(C)所定义的“特殊移民”。而且，由于其律师的无效代理——该律师随后被取消律师资格——Ogundipe的上诉被简易驳回。

In reviewing the VSC’s decision, the IJ correctly stated that the success of Ogundipe’s second I-360 petition, and the cir- cumstances underlying that petition, had no bearing on whether Ogundipe qualified as a religious worker. Yet, Ogundipe’s testimony regarding the factual circumstances at the time of HCF’s initial filing was directly relevant to the sole issue at hand. Inexplicably, the IJ would not hear from Ogundipe and his witnesses. The majority holds that the IJ’s error does not entitle Ogundipe to relief because he did not raise this argument in his opening brief. We, however, make exceptions to this general rule when, as here, the refusal to consider the newly-raised issue would result in plain error or

在审查VSC的决定时，IJ正确指出，Ogundipe第二次I-360申请的成功以及该申请所依据的情况，与Ogundipe是否符合宗教工作者资格无关。然而，Ogundipe关于HCF首次提交申请时事实情况的证言与手头的唯一问题直接相关。令人费解的是，IJ不愿听取Ogundipe及其证人的陈述。多数意见认为，IJ的错误不能使Ogundipe获得救济，因为他未在开场陈述中提出这一论点。然而，我们在此类情况下对该一般规则作出例外，即如本案中，拒绝考虑新提出的问题将导致明显错误或

16 OGUNDIPE v. MUKASEY

16 OGUNDIPE v. MUKASEY

in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Muth v. U.S., 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993).

根本性司法不公。Muth v. U.S.，1 F.3d 246，250（4th Cir. 1993）。

Errors raised for the first time on appeal are reviewed for plain error. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993); see also Celotex Corp. v. Rapid American Corp., 124 F.3d 619, 630-31 (4th Cir. 1997) (applying the plain error standard for criminal cases to civil litigants). Plain error review requires the defendant to establish that: (1) there was error; (2) the error was "plain;" and (3) the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights. Id. If the three elements of the plain error standard are met, this Court may exercise its discretion to notice the error only "if the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings." Id. at 736. In my view, the IJ’s error was plain and affected Ogundipe’s substantial rights. Since the majority agrees there was error, I move directly to address whether the error was "plain."

首次在上诉中提出的错误按明显错误标准审查。United States v. Olano，507 U.S. 725，732，113 S.Ct. 1770，123 L.Ed.2d 508（1993）；另见Celotex Corp. v. Rapid American Corp.，124 F.3d 619，630-31（4th Cir. 1997）（将刑事案件中的明显错误标准适用于民事当事人）。明显错误审查要求被告证明：(1) 存在错误；(2) 该错误是“明显的”；以及(3) 该错误影响了被告的实质性权利。同上。如果明显错误标准的三项要素均满足，本法院只有在“该错误严重影响司法程序的公平、完整性或公信力”时，才可以行使裁量权认定该错误。同上，第736页。在我看来，IJ的错误是明显的，并影响了Ogundipe的实质性权利。既然多数意见同意存在错误，我直接讨论该错误是否“明显”。

Foremost, the error was "plain" because nothing precluded the IJ from hearing Ogundipe’s witnesses at the removal pro- ceeding. Indeed, in order to consider the "totality of the cir- cumstances," the IJ had to hear from Ogundipe and his witnesses. Ogundipe or his witnesses could have provided sound reasons for why he had a second job during the two years preceding his application: perhaps he volunteered forty hours at the church and worked a second job to support him- self. Such a scenario would not, on its face, nullify Ogundipe’s claim that he entered the United States "solely for the purpose of carrying on the vocation of a minister of that religious denomination." 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(C). To the contrary, it would have been powerful evidence of Ogundipe’s commitment to his religious work. Second, Ogundipe’s personal testimony could have shed light on his credibility and enabled him to address any concerns the IJ had regarding the authenticity of his ministerial calling and cre- dentials.

首先，该错误是“明显的”，因为没有任何内容阻止IJ在驱逐程序中听取Ogundipe的证人。事实上，为了考虑“全部情况”，IJ必须听取Ogundipe及其证人的陈述。Ogundipe或其证人本可以为其在申请前两年期间从事第二份工作提供合理理由：也许他在教会志愿服务四十小时，并从事第二份工作以维持生计。这种情况从表面上看并不会否定Ogundipe关于他进入美国“仅为从事该宗教教派的牧师职业”的主张。8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(C)。相反，这将成为Ogundipe对其宗教工作投入的有力证据。其次，Ogundipe的个人证言本可以阐明其可信度，并使他能够回应IJ对其牧师召唤和资历真实性的任何疑虑。

17 OGUNDIPE v. MUKASEY

17 OGUNDIPE v. MUKASEY

Third, the witnesses could have discussed how HCF planned to provide Ogundipe with a livable wage. While true that prior to Ogundipe’s initial I-360 petition HCF had no paid employees, Ogundipe could have been the first. Indeed, many "storefront" churches that started with a few parishio- ners and meager funds have blossomed into megachurches with bountiful resources to pay their religious leaders. More- over, many churches manage to provide for their clerics in spite of what their balance sheets would indicate. Thus, even if HCF’s cash assets were "insufficient" to support Ogundipe, the HCF community could have supported him by other means.

第三，证人本可以讨论HCF计划如何向Ogundipe提供可维持生活的工资。虽然确实在Ogundipe首次I-360申请之前HCF没有带薪员工，但Ogundipe本可以成为第一个。事实上，许多从少数教区居民和微薄资金起步的“店面”教会已经发展成为拥有丰富资源支付其宗教领袖的巨型教会。此外，许多教会尽管资产负债表显示的情况如此，仍设法供养其神职人员。因此，即使HCF的现金资产“不足以”支持Ogundipe，HCF社区本可以通过其他方式支持他。

For example, HCF could have provided Ogundipe free room and board. Ogundipe, in fact, listed Arc of Salvation Church, HCF’s sister church, as his place of residence on the first I-360 petition. Similarly, HCF may have sought increased donations from the congregation to provide a weekly stipend or even food and clothing. The IJ plainly erred, therefore, by not hearing the testimony of Ogundipe, at the very least, and his witnesses, all of whom could have pro- vided evidence directly relevant to ascertaining the "totality of the circumstances" and determining whether his petition was "meritorious in fact."

例如，HCF本可以向Ogundipe提供免费食宿。事实上，Ogundipe在首次I-360申请中将Arc of Salvation Church（HCF的姊妹教会）列为其居住地。同样，HCF本可以寻求增加会众的捐款，以提供每周津贴甚至食物和衣物。因此，IJ至少未听取Ogundipe的证言，也未听取其证人的证言，而这些证言本可以提供与查明“全部情况”和确定其申请是否“在事实上具有价值”直接相关的证据，这显然是错误的。

Finally, without question, the IJ’s error affected Ogundipe’s substantial rights. In assessing this prong of the plain error test, we must consider "what effect the error had or reasonably may be taken to have had upon" the outcome of the proceedings. United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 548 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 764 (1946)). Again, here, the IJ’s failure to hear tes- timony from Ogundipe and his witnesses affected her ability to assess the full circumstances surrounding the initial I-360 petition. Given that Ogundipe’s subsequent petition was granted and denial of Ogundipe’s I-360 petition renders him deportable, it is particularly egregious that the IJ would not hear the witnesses, including the possible deportee himself

最后，毫无疑问，移民法官的错误影响了Ogundipe的实质性权利。在评估明显错误标准的这一要件时，我们必须考虑该错误对程序结果"产生了或合理可被认为产生了何种影响"。United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 548 (4th Cir. 2005)（引用Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 764 (1946)）。在此，移民法官未能听取Ogundipe及其证人的证言，再次影响了她评估初始I-360申请相关全部情况的能力。鉴于Ogundipe其后的申请已获批准，而驳回Ogundipe的I-360申请将使其可被驱逐出境，移民法官不愿听取证人（包括可能被驱逐者本人）

18 OGUNDIPE v. MUKASEY

18 OGUNDIPE v. MUKASEY

with respect to the circumstances surrounding Ogundipe’s Christian ministry in 1997. "[I]f one cannot say, with fair assurance, after pondering all that happened without stripping the erroneous action from the whole, that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error, it is impossible to con- clude that substantial rights were not affected." Id. (quoting Kotteakos, 328 U.S. at 765.) Since the IJ failed to consider readily available evidence that would have been crucial to her decision, I find that all three elements of the plain error stan- dard are met.

就1997年Ogundipe基督教事工相关情况作证，尤为恶劣。"[I]f one cannot say, with fair assurance, after pondering all that happened without stripping the erroneous action from the whole, that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error, it is impossible to conclude that substantial rights were not affected." Id.（引用Kotteakos, 328 U.S. at 765。）由于移民法官未能考虑本可随时获得且对其裁决至关重要的证据，我认为明显错误标准的三项要件均已满足。

I would, thus, recognize this error because it undermines the fairness of Ogundipe’s removal proceedings and the pub- lic reputation of our immigration system. The IJ’s refusal to hear testimony from Ogundipe and HCF denied Ogundipe his only opportunity to explain the ways in which his church community had and would continue to support him. Surely, the absence of this explanation played a role in the IJ’s deter- mination of whether Ogundipe would be deported or allowed to remain in this country. Yet, Ogundipe and his witnesses were readily available. Thus, the IJ’s refusal to allow Ogundipe and his witnesses to testify not only denied Ogundipe a fair hearing but also left the removal proceedings bereft of integrity.

因此，我愿认定这一错误，因为它损害了Ogundipe驱逐出境程序的公正性以及我们移民制度的公共声誉。移民法官拒绝听取Ogundipe和HCF的证言，剥夺了Ogundipe解释其教会群体曾经并将继续支持他的方式的唯一机会。诚然，这一解释的缺失对移民法官关于Ogundipe应被驱逐出境还是获准留在本国的裁定起了作用。然而，Ogundipe及其证人是随时可以到场的。因此，移民法官拒绝允许Ogundipe及其证人作证，不仅剥夺了Ogundipe获得公正听审的机会，也使驱逐出境程序丧失了完整性。

America’s founding was due in no small measure to the many immigrants who dared to pursue the call of their reli- gious beliefs and practices. In that pursuit they found freedom and in turn ordained and established a constitution to secure the "Blessings of Liberty" to all posterity. U.S. CONST. pmbl. To deny Ogundipe the opportunity to pursue his religious calling in America without allowing him and his witnesses even to speak is unconscionable. Accordingly, I dissent.

美国的建立在很大程度上归功于众多敢于追求其宗教信仰和实践召唤的移民。在这一追求中，他们找到了自由，并进而制定和确立了一部宪法，以保障子孙万代的"自由之福"。U.S. CONST. pmbl. 剥夺Ogundipe在美国追求其宗教召唤的机会，甚至不允许他和他的证人发言，是昧于良知的。因此，我持异议。