Matter of Antonio Calderon-Hernandez

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 885 (BIA 2012) Interim Decision #3763

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 885 (BIA 2012) 临时决定 #3763

Decided August 3, 2012

2012年8月3日决定

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

An applicant for cancellation of removal seeking to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his or her child is not required to provide an affidavit and other documentary evidence regarding the child’s care and support upon the alien’s removal if the child will remain in the United States with another parent, even if the other parent is in this country unlawfully. Matter of Ige, 20 I&N Dec. 880 (BIA 1994), clarified.

申请取消递解出境并试图证明其子女将遭受特殊和极其 不寻常困难的申请人，在外国人被递解出境后子女将与另一名父母留在美国的情况下，无需提供关于子女照护和抚养的宣誓书及其他 书面证据，即使该另一名父母在美国非法居留。Matter of Ige, 20 I&N Dec. 880 (BIA 1994)，予以澄清。

FOR RESPONDENT: Jeremiah W. Stuchiner, Esquire, Las Vegas, Nevada

被申请人代理律师：Jeremiah W. Stuchiner 律师，内华达州拉斯维加斯

FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: An Mai Nguyen, Assistant Chief Counsel

国土安全部代理律师：An Mai Nguyen，助理 首席法律顾问

BEFORE: Board Panel: MILLER and GREER, Board Members; KENDALL CLARK, Temporary Board Member.

审理法官：委员会成员 MILLER 和 GREER；KENDALL CLARK， 临时委员会成员。

KENDALL CLARK, Temporary Board Member:

KENDALL CLARK，临时委员会成员：

In a decision dated April 14, 2011, an Immigration Judge denied the respondent’s applicationforcancellationof removalunder section 240A(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) (2006), finding that he did not establish the requisite hardship to a qualifying relative. The respondent, a native and citizen of Mexico, has appealed from that decision. The record will be remanded to the Immigration Judge for further consideration of the hardship that may result to the respondent’s United States citizen children if he is removed from this country.

在2011年4月14日的决定中，移民法官驳回了被申请人根据《移民和国籍法》第240A(b)(1)条，8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) (2006)，提出的取消递解出境申请，认定其未能证明对合格亲属存在必要的困难。被申请人系墨西哥国民和公民，对该决定提出上诉。案件记录将发回移民法官，以进一步考虑若被申请人被递解出美国，其美国公民子女可能遭受的困难。

To establish eligibility for relief under section 240A(b)(1) of the Act, an alien must prove that he has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately preceding the date of his application; that he has been a person of good moral character during that period; that he has not been convicted of a specified offense; and that his removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his spouse, parent, or child who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.

为根据该法第240A(b)(1)条确立救济资格，外国人必须证明：在申请日期之前紧接的不少于10年的连续期间内，其一直实际居住在美国；在该期间内其一直具有良好道德品质；其未被判定犯有特定罪行；且其递解出境将导致其配偶、父母或身为美国公民或合法永久居民的外国子女遭受特殊和极其不寻常的困难。

The sole issue on appeal is whether the respondent established that any of his three United States citizen children would suffer exceptional and

上诉中的唯一问题是，被申请人是否证明其三名美国公民子女中的任何一人将遭受特殊和

885

885

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 885 (BIA 2012) Interim Decision #3763

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 885 (BIA 2012) 临时决定 #3763

extremely unusual hardship upon his removal to Mexico. The respondent specifically testified that if he were removed to Mexico, his children would remain in the United States with their mother, who is also a native and citizen of Mexico, is unlawfully in the United States, and was not in proceedings at the time of the respondent’s hearing.

极其不寻常的困难，若其被递解至墨西哥。被申请人特别作证称，若其被递解至墨西哥，其子女将与其母亲留在美国，其母亲亦系墨西哥国民和公民，在美国非法居留，且在被申请人听证时并未处于程序中。

We have held, in the context of an application for suspension of deportation, that where an alien alleges that extreme hardship will be suffered by his United States citizen child were the child to remain in the United States upon the parent’s or parents’ deportation, the claim will not be given significant weight absent “an affidavit from the parent or parents stating that it is their intention that the child remain in this country, accompanied by evidence demonstrating that reasonable provisions will be made for the child’s care and support.” Matter of Ige, 20 I&N Dec. 880, 885 (BIA 1994). The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in whose jurisdiction this case arises, upheld our decision in Matter of Ige and concluded that “this is a valid evidentiary requirement.” Perez v. INS, 96 F.3d 390, 393 (9th Cir. 1996).

我们在暂停递解出境申请的语境中裁定，若外国人主张其美国公民子女在父母被递解出境后留在美国将遭受极端困难，则在没有“父母一方或双方声明其意图让子女留在本国的宣誓书，并附证明将为子女的照护和抚养作出合理安排的证据”的情况下，该主张不会获得显著权重。Matter of Ige, 20 I&N Dec. 880, 885 (BIA 1994)。美国第9巡回上诉法院（本案发生在其管辖范围内）维持了我们在 Matter of Ige 案中的裁定，并认定“这是一项有效的证据要求。”Perez v. INS, 96 F.3d 390, 393 (9th Cir. 1996)。

Citing both Matter of Ige and Perez v. INS, the Immigration Judge stated that because the respondent did not submit an affidavit, he would analyze the hardship issue onlyunder the premise that the respondent’s three United States citizen children would accompany him to Mexico upon his removal. The Immigration Judge found that under that scenario, the respondent did not establish that any of his children would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship in Mexico upon his removal.

移民法官援引 Matter of Ige 和 Perez v. INS 两案，指出由于被申请人未提交宣誓书，其将仅在假定被申请人的三名美国公民子女将随其被递解至墨西哥的前提下分析困难问题。移民法官认定，在该情形下，被申请人未能证明其任何子女在其被递解出境后在墨西哥将遭受特殊和极其不寻常的困难。

However, in Matter of Ige and Perez v. INS, both parents were in removal proceedings. We noted in Matter of Ige, 20 I&N Dec. at 885-86, that a claim that the children would remain in the United States “can easily be made for purposes of litigation,” and we emphasized that “it is generally preferable for children to be brought up by their parents.” We imposed a requirement that where the parents intend for their United States citizen child to remain in this countryupon their deportation, theymust provide both an affidavit stating that intention and accompanying evidence to demonstrate who would care for and support the child.

然而，在 Matter of Ige 和 Perez v. INS 两案中，父母双方均处于递解出境程序中。我们在 Matter of Ige, 20 I&N Dec. at 885-86 中指出，子女将留在美国的主张“很容易为诉讼目的而提出”，并强调“子女一般最好由父母抚养”。我们规定了一项要求：若父母意图让其美国公民子女在其被递解出境后留在本国，则必须提供声明该意图的宣誓书以及证明将由谁照护和抚养子女的附随证据。

In this case, by contrast, only one parent is in proceedings. Where both parents are living in the United States and the parent who is in proceedings indicates an intention that a child will remain in the United States upon his orherremoval,anaffidavitandotherdocumentaryevidenceregardingthecare and support of the child is not required. This is so even if the alien intends to leave the child with a parent who is not lawfully in this country. It is reasonable in such cases to assume that the child will be cared for and supported by the parent who remains here, absent evidence to the contrary. Where the remaining parent is not here lawfully but is not in proceedings,

相比之下，本案中仅有一名父母处于程序中。在父母双方均居住在美国，且处于程序中的父母表示其被递解出境后子女将留在美国的意图时，无需提供关于子女照护和抚养的宣誓书及其他书面证据。即使外国人意图将子女留给在美国非法居留的父母一方，亦如此。在此类案件中，在没有相反证据的情况下，合理假定子女将由留在美国的父母一方照护和抚养。若留下的父母一方在美国非法居留但未处于程序中，

886

886

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 885 (BIA 2012) Interim Decision #3763

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 885 (BIA 2012) 临时决定 #3763

we will not speculate on the likelihood that he or she will be placed in proceedings or what will happen if that occurs. The Ninth Circuit has also indicated that an affidavit would not be required where the child would be left in the care of the other parent who remained in the United States. Salcido-Salcido v. INS, 138 F.3d 1292 (9th Cir. 1998).

我们不会推测其被纳入程序的可能性或若发生该情况将有何后果。第9巡回法院亦指出，在子女将留给留在美国的另一名父母照护的情况下，无需提供宣誓书。Salcido-Salcido v. INS, 138 F.3d 1292 (9th Cir. 1998)。

Accordingly, we find that a remand is warranted for further consideration of the respondent’s application for cancellation of removal. On remand, the Immigration Judge should also consider the hardship to the respondent’s United States citizen children if they remain in this country with their mother.

因此，我们认定有必要发回重审，以进一步考虑被申请人的取消递解出境申请。在发回重审时，移民法官还应考虑若被申请人的美国公民子女与其母亲留在本国将遭受的困难。

887

887