行政先例 · 绿卡与身份调整
Matter of Marques
调整身份申请人负举证责任且不得以第五修正案拒绝提供相关材料
16 I&N Dec. 314 (BIA 1977)
申请人依《移民与国籍法》第245条申请调整身份，移民法官询问其被捕时随身携带的大额现金来源，申请人援引第五修正案拒绝回答。移民上诉委员会认定，满足客观条件仅意味着具备资格而非当然有权获得调整身份，申请人负有提供其知悉且与裁量相关的信息的举证责任，拒绝披露导致无法判断其是否值得行使裁量权，故申请被适当否决。
所引用的裁判规则
满足第245条客观条件的申请人仅具备调整身份的资格而非当然有权获得；寻求裁量性救济者负有提供其知悉且与裁量判断相关、重要信息的责任，援引第五修正案拒绝披露相关事实可导致未能履行举证责任。
适用范围
移民上诉委员会全体判决，适用于第245条调整身份等裁量性救济的举证与裁量判断；不涉及对第五修正案权利本身的剥夺，仅说明援引该权利在裁量性申请中可能承担未能举证的风险。
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8章 - 裁量分析
[^ 37] See Matter of Patel (PDF) , 17 I&N Dec. 597 (BIA 1980) (adjustment of status). See Von Pervieux v. INS , 572 F.2d 114, 118 (3rd Cir. 1978). See Ameeriar v. INS , 438 F.2d 1028, 1030 (3rd Cir. 1971). See Matter of Marques (PDF) , 16 I&N Dec. 314 (BIA 1977).
- 第10章 - 法律分析与裁量权的运用
[^ 16] See Von Pervieux v. INS , 572 F.2d 114, 118 (3rd Cir. 1978). See Ameeriar v. INS , 438 F.2d 1028, 1030 (3rd Cir. 1971). See Matter of Marques (PDF) , 16 I&N Dec. 314 (BIA 1977).
- 第10章 - 法律分析与裁量权的运用
[^ 18] See Matter of Marques (PDF) , 16 I&N Dec. 314 (BIA 1977). See Matter of Mariani (PDF) , 11 I&N Dec. 210 (BIA 1965). See Matter of De Lucia (PDF) , 11 I&N Dec. 565 (BIA 1966). See Matter of Francois (PDF) , 10 I&N Dec. 168 (BIA 1963). See Matter of Pires Da Silva (PDF) , 10 I&N Dec. 191 (BIA 1963).
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 #2607
临时决定第2607号
MATTER OF MARQUES
MARQUES案
In Deportation Proceedings
驱逐出境程序
A-17241244
A-17241244
Decided by Board August 18, 1977
由委员会于1977年8月18日决定
(1) An applicant for adjustment of status under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act who meets the objective prerequisites is merely eligible for adjustment of status. He is in no way entitled to adjustment. When an alien seeks favorable exercise of the discretion of the Attorney General, it is incumbent upon him to supply the information that is within his knowledge and relevant and material to a determination of whether he merits adjustment. (2) In this case, respondent was arrested on July 15, 1972 with $54,000 cash in his car and $32,000 in bare( books. He Invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege when questioned about the source of the money by the immigration judge adjudicating his section 245 application. (3) Respondent had every right to assert his fifth amendment privilege. He also had a requirement as an applicant for section 245 discretionary relief to provide information relevant to the exercise of the Attorney General's discretion. The source of this money was such a relevant factor. In refusing to disclose it, the respondent prevented the immigration judge from reaching a conclusion as to respondent's entitlement to section 245 relief. Under these circumstances, respondent has failed to sustain the burden of establishing that he is entitled to the privilege of adjustment of status, and his applica- tion was properly denied.
(1) 依据《移民与国籍法》第245条申请调整身份的申请人，若符合客观前提条件，仅具有调整身份的资格。他无论如何无权获得调整身份。当外国人寻求司法部长酌情作出有利裁量时，他有责任提供其知悉范围内且与判定其是否值得获得调整身份相关且重要的信息。 (2) 在本案中，答辩人于1972年7月15日被捕，其车内带有$54,000现金，账簿中有$32,000。当审理其第245条申请的移民法官询问资金来源时，他援引了第五修正案特权。 (3) 答辩人完全有权主张其第五修正案特权。作为第245条酌情救济的申请人，他也有义务提供与司法部长行使裁量权相关的信息。该资金的来源正是这样一个相关因素。在拒绝披露该信息时，答辩人使移民法官无法就答辩人是否有权获得第245条救济得出结论。在此情况下，答辩人未能承担证明其有权获得调整身份特权的举证责任，其申请被适当驳回。
CHARGE!
指控！
Order Act of 1952—Section 241(a)(9) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(9))—Failed to comply with conditions of nonimmigrant status
1952年法令——第241(a)(9)条 [8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(9)]——未能遵守非移民身份的条件
0014 BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: Ruth G. Finn, Esquire B. J. Rumaker 51 West Weldon Trial Attorney Phoenix, Arizona 85013
0014 代表答辩人： 代表移民局： Ruth G. Finn，律师 B. J. Rumaker 51 West Weldon 庭审律师 Phoenix, Arizona 85013
BY: Milhollan, Chairman; Wilson, Appleman, and Maguire, Board Members
由：Milhollan，主席；Wilson、Appleman和Maguire，委员会成员
This is an appeal from an order of an immigration judge, dated December 3, 1976, denying the respondent's application for adjustment of status under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act in the exercise a discretion. The appeal will be dismissed_ The record relates to a single male alien, a native and citizen of Spain,
这是对移民法官1976年12月3日命令的上诉，该命令在行使裁量权时驳回了答辩人依据《移民与国籍法》第245条提出的调整身份申请。上诉将被驳回。 记录涉及一名单身男性外国人，西班牙本土出生和公民身份，
314
314
原文第 2 页
Interim Decision #2607
临时决定第2607号
43 years of age, who last entered the United States on July 23, 1964, as a nonimmigrant sheepherder. He was found deportable because of his failure to comply with the conditions of his nonimmigrant status- There- after, on March 11, 1975, we dismissed his appeal from denial of his application for suspension of deportation. Then, on January 24, 1975, the respondent's United States citizen brother filed an 1 -130 petition seeking fifth preference for his brother. The petition was approved. The respondent next moved to reopen the proceedings to permit him to apply for relief under the provisions of section 245 of the Act. In our order we made the following observation:
43岁，最近一次于1964年7月23日以非移民牧羊人身份进入美国。因未遵守其非移民身份的条件，他被裁定可被驱逐。此后，于1975年3月11日，我们驳回了其就驱逐出境暂缓申请被拒提出的上诉。然后，于1975年1月24日，被调查人的美国公民兄弟提交了一份1-130申请，为其兄弟寻求第5优先类别。该申请获得批准。被调查人随后申请重新开启程序，以便其根据该法第245条的规定申请救济。在我们的命令中，我们作出了以下评论：
. in applying for adjustment of status (just as in applying for suspension of deportation) the respondent must bear the burden to establish eligibility and it will be incumbent upon him to supply whatever evidence is necessary for proper adjudication of his application. The record discloses that the respondent was arrested on July 15, 1972, when he had $54,000 in the trunk of the automobile that he was driving (mostly in bills of $100 and $50 denominations) and had bank books for accounts totaling more than $32,000. Tn his decision, the immigration judge noted that the respondent invoked the privilege against self-incrimination when asked to state the. source of ownership of the $54,000 he had in hispossession on July 15, ' 1972, or the ownership of approximately $32,000 that was related to the bank books in his possession, thus cutting off an important line of inquiry required for a proper exercise of his discretion. Counsel on appeal contends (1) that the immigration judge abused his discretion in denying the section 245 application because the respondent invoked his constitutional right against self-incrimination, and thus cut off the line of the immigration judge's inquiry whether he merited the privilege of adjustment of status; and (2) -that the immigration judge's determination that the respondent's reliance on his constitutional right against self-incrimination is an adverse factor and was erroneous and contrary to modern constitutional law which forbids' any "penalty" for invoking the Fifth Amendment. Counsel contends that the respondent is entitled to adjustment of status under section 245 of the Act. We have reviewed the record de nova and considered counsel's con- tentions on apical. We have decided that adjustment of status is not warranted in the exercis e of discretion. Section 245 of the Act reposes with the Attorney General and his delegates the discretionary power to grant an adjustment of status. Thomaidis v. INS, 431 F.2d 711 (9 Cir. 1970), cert. denied 401 U.S. 954 (1971); Matter of Arai, 13 I. & N. Dec. -494 (BIA 1970). Adjustment of status is, therefore, a matter. of administrative grace, not mere statut- ory eligibility. Hintopoutos v. Sletcuyhmessy, 363 U.S. 72 (1957); A/724207.- jar v. INS, 438 F.2d 1028 (3 Cir. 1971). Thus, an applicant who meets
. 在申请调整身份时（正如申请暂停驱逐一样），答辩人必须承担证明资格的举证责任，并且有责任提供对其申请进行适当裁决所需的任何证据。 记录显示，答辩人于1972年7月15日被捕，当时他驾驶的汽车后备箱中有$54,000（大部分为$100和$50面额的钞票），并有账户总额超过$32,000的银行账簿。 在其决定中，移民法官指出，当被要求说明1972年7月15日其持有的$54,000的来源或所有权，或其持有的与银行账簿相关的约$32,000的所有权时，答辩人援引了反对自证其罪的特权，从而切断了适当行使裁量权所需的重要调查线索。 上诉律师主张：(1) 移民法官在驳回第245条申请时滥用裁量权，因为答辩人援引了其宪法上的反对自证其罪的权利，从而切断了移民法官关于其是否值得获得调整身份特权的调查线索；以及 (2) 移民法官认定答辩人依赖其宪法上的反对自证其罪的权利是不利因素，这是错误的，且违背了现代宪法法律，该法律禁止因援引第五修正案而施加任何“惩罚”。律师主张，答辩人有权依据该法第245条获得调整身份。 我们重新审查了记录并考虑了律师在上诉中的主张。我们认定，在行使裁量权时，调整身份是不被允许的。 该法第245条将调整身份的裁量权赋予司法部长及其代表。Thomaidis v. INS, 431 F.2d 711 (9 Cir. 1970), cert. denied 401 U.S. 954 (1971); Matter of Arai, 13 I. & N. Dec. -494 (BIA 1970)。因此，调整身份是行政恩惠事项，而不仅仅是法定资格。Hintopoutos v. Sletcuyhmessy, 363 U.S. 72 (1957); A/724207.-jar v. INS, 438 F.2d 1028 (3 Cir. 1971)。因此，符合
315
315
原文第 3 页
Interim Decision #2607
临时决定第2607号
the objective prerequisites is merely eligible for adjustment of status; he is in no way entitled to such relief. Jarecha v. INS, 417 F.2d 220 (5 Cir. 1969); Chen, v. Foley, 385 F.2d 929 (6 Cir. 1967), cert. denied 393 U.S. 838 (1968). The burden of proof is squarely upon the respondent to establish not only that he meets all statutory requirements for eligibil- ity but also that he ie worthy of the exercise of discretion in his favor. 8 C.F.R. 242.17(d); Ameeriar, supra, at 1030; Thomaidis, supra, at 712; Chen, supra, at 934. See, Jarech,a, supra, 4223. Since the adjustment of status of an alien is an extraordinary relief, it should be granted only in meritorious cases. Ameeriar, supra,, at 1032; Chen, supra, at 934. We have consistently taken the position that when an alien seeks the favorable exercise of the Attorney General's discretion, it is incumbent upon him to supply such information that is within his knowledge and is relevant and material to a determination of whether he merits the relief. Matter of Mariani, 11 I. & N. Dec. 210 (BIA 1965); Matter of De Lucia, 11 I. & N. Dec. 565 (BIA 1966); Matter of Francois, 10 I. & N. Dec. 168 (BIA 1963); Matter of Pires Da Silva, 10 I. & N. Dec. 191 (BIA 1963). This position has been judicially upheld; De Lucia v. INS, 370 F.2d 305 (7 Cir. 1966); Kimm v. Rosenberg, 363 U.S. 405 (1960); United States v. Anastasio, 120 F. Supp. 435 (D. N.J. 1954), reversed on other grounds 226 F.2d 912, cert. denied 351 U.S. 931. There is, as counsel argues, no proof of illegality or immorality with respect to the "unexplained large sum of money" which was found in the respondent's possession at the time of his arrest for a traffic violation. Good moral character is not a statutory requirement for relief under section 245, as is the case, for example, with suspension of deportation (244). Nevertheless, an explanation of how one in the respondent's circumstances acquired such a large sum of money-is obviously relevant to the exercise of the Attorney General's discretion. Lacking this infor- mation, the immigration judge was thereby prevented from reaching a conclusion about the respondent's entitlement to the discretionary relief he seeks. The respondent had every right to assert his claim under the Fifth Amendment. However, in so doing he runs the risk that he may fail to carry his burden of persuasion with respect to his application for discretionary relief. In these circumstances, the respondent failed to sustain the burden of establishing that he is entitled to the privilege of adjustment of status. In Jimenez v. Barber, 252 F.2d 550 (9 Cir. 1958), the court stated, at p. 554 as follows:
客观前提条件的申请人仅具有调整身份的资格；他无论如何无权获得此类救济。Jarecha v. INS, 417 F.2d 220 (5 Cir. 1969); Chen, v. Foley, 385 F.2d 929 (6 Cir. 1967), cert. denied 393 U.S. 838 (1968)。举证责任完全在答辩人一方，他不仅必须证明其符合所有法定资格要求，还必须证明其值得获得对其有利的裁量行使。8 C.F.R. 242.17(d); Ameeriar, supra, at 1030; Thomaidis, supra, at 712; Chen, supra, at 934。参见，Jarech,a, supra, 4223。由于外国人的调整身份是一种特殊救济，因此只应在有正当理由的案件中授予。Ameeriar, supra,, at 1032; Chen, supra, at 934。 我们一贯采取的立场是，当外国人寻求司法部长酌情作出有利裁量时，他有责任提供其知悉范围内且与判定其是否值得获得救济相关且重要的信息。Matter of Mariani, 11 I. & N. Dec. 210 (BIA 1965); Matter of De Lucia, 11 I. & N. Dec. 565 (BIA 1966); Matter of Francois, 10 I. & N. Dec. 168 (BIA 1963); Matter of Pires Da Silva, 10 I. & N. Dec. 191 (BIA 1963)。这一立场已得到司法支持；De Lucia v. INS, 370 F.2d 305 (7 Cir. 1966); Kimm v. Rosenberg, 363 U.S. 405 (1960); United States v. Anastasio, 120 F. Supp. 435 (D. N.J. 1954), reversed on other grounds 226 F.2d 912, cert. denied 351 U.S. 931。 正如律师所主张的，对于答辩人因交通违规被捕时在其身上发现的“无法解释的大额款项”，没有证据证明其非法或不道德。良好道德品行并非第245条救济的法定要求，例如暂停驱逐（244）的情况则不同。然而，解释处于答辩人境况的人如何获得如此大额款项，显然与司法部长行使裁量权相关。缺乏这一信息，移民法官因此无法就答辩人是否有权获得其所寻求的酌情救济得出结论。答辩人完全有权主张其第五修正案下的权利。然而，在这样做时，他承担了可能无法就其酌情救济申请承担说服责任的风险。在此情况下，答辩人未能承担证明其有权获得调整身份特权的举证责任。在Jimenez v. Barber, 252 F.2d 550 (9 Cir. 1958)中，法院在第554页指出如下：
. . . the refusal to answer questions was in a proceeding in which the applicant sought nothing to which was entitled as a matter of right. He asked only for an act of grace, dependent upon an official exercise of sound discretion. The hazards in adopting an obstructive attitude in such proceedings must be at least as great as those involved in eases where established rights are sought to be enforced or prnteetod
……拒绝回答问题发生在一项程序中，在该程序中，申请人所寻求的并非其作为权利有权获得的任何事物。他所请求的仅是一项恩惠行为，取决于官员对健全裁量权的行使。在此类程序中采取阻挠态度所面临的风险，必须至少与在寻求强制执行或保护既定权利的案件中所涉及的风险一样大
Counsel cites Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511 (1967), for the proposi-
律师援引Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511 (1967)，以支持以下主张：
216
216
原文第 4 页
Interim Decision #2607
临时决定第2607号
tion that an attorney at a bar disciplinary hearing had a full right to invoke the Fifth Amendment without the imposition of a "penalty," which makes that right costly. We do not perceive the analogy of any penalty in this factual situation. The respondent here had no right to an adjustment of his status, a purely discretionary matter. We adhere to the reasoning in Rin2117, V. Rosenberg, supra. He had a right to file an appliCation and to hdve it fairly considered on the evidence laid before the immigration judge and this Board. This we have done and find a serious gap leaving a question in our minds as to his suitability for the Attorney General's largesse. That doubt we will not resolve against the government as, in effect, he asks us to do. See Jay v. Boyd, 351 U.S. 345, 354 (1956); U.S. ex rel. Kaloudis v. Shaughnessy, 180 F.2d 489 (2 Cir. 1950). Accordingly, the following order will be entered. ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.
即在律师协会纪律听证会上，律师完全有权援引第五修正案而不被施加“惩罚”，从而使该权利代价高昂。在此事实情况下，我们看不出任何惩罚的类比。本案答辩人无权调整其身份，这纯粹是裁量事项。我们坚持Rin2117, V. Rosenberg, supra中的推理。他有权提交申请，并有权根据提交给移民法官和本委员会的证据获得公平审议。我们已这样做，并发现一个严重缺口，使我们对是否适合获得司法部长的恩惠心存疑问。我们不会如他所实际上要求的那样，以不利于政府的方式解决该疑问。参见Jay v. Boyd, 351 U.S. 345, 354 (1956); U.S. ex rel. Kaloudis v. Shaughnessy, 180 F.2d 489 (2 Cir. 1950)。因此，将作出以下命令。 命令：上诉被驳回。
317
317
