Matter of Avila-Perez

Cite as 24 I&N Dec. 78 (BIA 2007) Interim Decision #3551

引用为 24 I&N Dec. 78 (BIA 2007) 临时决定 #3551

File A96 035 732 - Houston

案卷 A96 035 732 - 休斯顿

Decided February 9, 2007

2007年2月9日决定

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

美国司法部 移民审查执行办公室 移民上诉委员会

(1) Section 201(f)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1151(f)(1) (Supp. II 2002), which allows the beneficiary of an immediate relative visa petition to retain his status as a “child” after he turns 21, applies to an individual whose visa petition was approved before the August 6, 2002, effective date of the Child Status Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 107-208, 116 Stat. 927 (2002), but who filed an application for adjustment of status after that date.

(1) 《移民与国籍法》第201(f)(1)条，8 U.S.C. § 1151(f)(1) (Supp. II 2002)，允许直系亲属签证申请的受益人在年满21岁后保留其“子女”身份，该条适用于签证申请在《儿童身份保护法》2002年8月6日生效日之前获批，但在该日期之后提交调整身份申请的个人，Pub. L. No. 107-208, 116 Stat. 927 (2002)。

(2) The respondent, whose visa petition was approved before August 6, 2002, and who filed his adjustment of status application after that date, retained his status as a child, and therefore an immediate relative, because he was under the age of 21 when the visa petition was filed on his behalf.

(2) 被申请人的签证申请在2002年8月6日之前获批，且在该日期之后提交了调整身份申请，因其在代表其提交签证申请时未满21岁，故保留了子女身份，并因此保留了直系亲属身份。

FOR RESPONDENT: Timothy S. Hart, Esquire, Houston, Texas

被申请人代理律师：Timothy S. Hart，Esquire，德克萨斯州休斯顿

FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Monica Thompson, Assistant Chief Counsel

国土安全部代理：Monica Thompson，助理首席法律顾问

BEFORE: Board Panel: OSUNA, Acting Chairman; FILPPU and PAULEY, Board Members.

审理法官：委员会合议庭：OSUNA，代理主席；FILPPU和PAULEY，委员会成员。

PAULEY, Board Member:

PAULEY，委员会成员：

In a decision dated September 13, 2005, an Immigration Judge found the respondent statutorily ineligible for adjustment of status under section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) (2000), because he did not have a visa immediately available to him at the time his adjustment application was filed, having lost his status as the child of a United States citizen, and therefore as an immediate relative, when he turned 21 years of age. The respondent has appealed from that decision. The appeal will be sustained, and the record will be remanded for further proceedings.

在2005年9月13日的决定中，移民法官认定被申请人依据《移民与国籍法》第245(a)条，8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) (2000)，在法律上不符合调整身份资格，因为在其提交调整身份申请时，没有可立即向其提供的签证，其已因年满21岁而丧失美国公民子女身份，并因此丧失直系亲属身份。被申请人对该决定提出上诉。上诉将获支持，案件记录将发回进一步审理。

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

I. 事实与程序历史

The relevant events in this case are undisputed. The respondent was born on April 4, 1976. On August 30, 1996, his mother filed a Petition for Alien Relative (Form I-130) to accord him immediate relative status as the child of

本案相关事件无争议。被申请人出生于1976年4月4日。1996年8月30日，其母亲提交了《外籍亲属申请》（Form I-130），以赋予其作为美国公民子女的直系亲属身份。

78

78

Cite as 24 I&N Dec. 78 (BIA 2007) Interim Decision #3551

引用为 24 I&N Dec. 78 (BIA 2007) 临时决定 #3551

a United States citizen. The visa petition was approved on November 1, 1996, with a priority date of August 29, 1996. The respondent overstayed the period of his nonimmigrant visa and subsequently filed an Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (Form I-485) on October 15, 2003.

该签证申请于1996年11月1日获批，优先日期为1996年8月29日。被申请人超过其非移民签证期限滞留，随后于2003年10月15日提交了《登记永久居留或调整身份申请》（Form I-485）。

The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), formerly the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”), initiated removal proceedings against the respondent and moved to pretermit his adjustment application. The DHS argued that the respondent was ineligible to be classified as a child pursuant to the provisions of the Child Status Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 107-208, 116 Stat. 927 (2002) (“CSPA”), because he had “aged out,” i.e., reached the age of 21, prior to its August 6, 2002, enactment date. According to the DHS, the CSPA only applies to an individual who “aged out” before August 6, 2002, if his visa petition remained pending on that date or, if his visa petition had been previously approved, an adjustment application had been filed on or before August 6, 2002, on which no final determination had been made as of that date. The DHS argued that the respondent did not qualify for CSPA benefits and was therefore ineligible to adjust his status because he was properly classified as the unmarried son of a United States citizen, to whom a visa was not immediately available.

国土安全部（“DHS”），前身为移民与归化局（“INS”），对被申请人启动遣返程序，并动议预先驳回其调整身份申请。DHS主张，依据《儿童身份保护法》的规定，Pub. L. No. 107-208, 116 Stat. 927 (2002)（“CSPA”），被申请人不符合子女分类资格，因为其在CSPA于2002年8月6日颁布之前已经“超龄”，即已达到21岁。据DHS称，CSPA仅适用于在2002年8月6日之前“超龄”的个人，如果其签证申请在该日期仍待决，或者，如果其签证申请此前已获批，则调整身份申请已在2002年8月6日或之前提交，且截至该日期尚未作出最终裁定。DHS主张，被申请人不符合CSPA福利资格，因此不符合调整身份资格，因为其被正确归类为美国公民的未婚子女，而该类别的签证并非可立即提供。

The respondent opposed the DHS’s motion, contending that he was eligible for the benefits of the CSPA because his visa petition was approved before the statute’s August 6, 2002, effective date and because his October 15, 2003, adjustment application was the first use of his approved visa petition. Thus, he argued that he retained his status as the child of a United States citizen and was therefore an immediate relative, who was not subject to visa availability.

被申请人反对DHS的动议，主张其符合CSPA福利资格，因为其签证申请在该法2002年8月6日生效日之前获批，且其2003年10月15日的调整身份申请是其获批签证申请的首次使用。因此，其主张保留了美国公民子女身份，并因此属于直系亲属，不受签证可用性限制。

II. PROVISIONS OF THE CSPA

II. CSPA的规定

The CSPA amended the Act to provide “age-out” protection for certain individuals who were classified as “children” at the time that a visa petition or application for permanent residence was filed on their behalf, but who turned 21 before their petition or application was ultimately processed. The relevant provision of the CSPA in this case is section 2, which is codified at section 201(f)(1) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1151(f)(i) (Supp. II 2002). 1 That section provides that an alien’s status as a child is determined as of the date

CSPA修订了该法，为某些在代表其提交签证申请或永久居留申请时被归类为“子女”，但在其申请最终处理之前年满21岁的个人提供“超龄”保护。本案中CSPA的相关规定是第2条，编纂于该法第201(f)(1)条，8 U.S.C. § 1151(f)(i) (Supp. II 2002)。1 该条规定，外籍人士的子女身份截至

Section 201(f)(1) of the Act provides as follows:

该法第201(f)(1)条规定如下：

Rules for Determining Whether Certain Aliens Are Immediate Relatives

确定某些外籍人士是否为直系亲属的规则

(1) Age on petition filing date [F]or purposes of subsection (b)(2)(A)(i), a determination of whether an alien satisfies the age requirement in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) of section 101(b)(1) shall be made using the age of the alien on the date on which the petition is filed with the Attorney General under section 204 to classify the alien as an immediate relative under subsection (b)(2)(A)(i).

(1) 申请提交日的年龄 就第(b)(2)(A)(i)款而言，确定外籍人士是否满足第101(b)(1)条(A)项前段中的年龄要求，应使用该外籍人士依据第204条向司法部长提交申请以将其归类为第(b)(2)(A)(i)款下的直系亲属之日的年龄。

79

79

Cite as 24 I&N Dec. 78 (BIA 2007) Interim Decision #3551

引用为 24 I&N Dec. 78 (BIA 2007) 临时决定 #3551

on which a visa petition to classify him as an immediate relative is filed. Thus, under the provisions of the CSPA, if the beneficiary of a visa petition is under the age of 21 at the time of filing, he retains his status as a “child,” even after he turns 21. See section 101(b)(1) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(b)(1) (2000).

提交将其归类为直系亲属的签证申请之日确定。因此，根据CSPA的规定，如果签证申请的受益人在提交时未满21岁，即使其年满21岁后，仍保留“子女”身份。参见该法第101(b)(1)条，8 U.S.C. § 1101(b)(1) (2000)。

The effective date portion of the CSPA is section 8, which states the following:

CSPA的生效日期部分为第8条，其规定如下：

The amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act [August 6, 2002] and shall apply to any alien who is a derivative beneficiary or any other beneficiary of —

本法所作的修订应自本法颁布之日[2002年8月6日]起生效，并应适用于任何外籍人士，其为以下申请的衍生受益人或任何其他受益人——

(1) a petition for classification under section 204 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) approved before such date but only if a final determination has not been made on the beneficiary’s application for an immigrant visa or adjustment of status to lawful permanent residence pursuant to such approved petition;

(1) 依据《移民与国籍法》第204条（8 U.S.C. 1154）提交的归类申请，在该日期之前获批，但仅限于尚未依据该获批申请对该受益人的移民签证申请或调整身份为合法永久居民的申请作出最终裁定；

(2) a petition for classification under section 204 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) pending on or after such date; or

(2) 依据《移民与国籍法》第204条（8 U.S.C. 1154）提交的归类申请，在该日期或之后待决；或

(3) an application pending before the Department of Justice or the Department of State on or after such date.

(3) 在该日期或之后在司法部或国务院待决的申请。

CSPA § 8, 116 Stat. at 930 (emphasis added).

CSPA § 8, 116 Stat. at 930（强调为后加）。

In interpreting this provision, the Immigration Judge concluded that the benefits of the CSPA did not apply to the respondent because: (1) he turned 21 before August 6, 2002; and (2) although he was the beneficiary of a visa petition approved before August 6, 2002, he had no pending adjustment application filed on or before that date. Thus, the Immigration Judge implicitly interpreted section 8(1) to include a requirement that the application for adjustment of status must be filed before August 6, 2002, the effective date of the CSPA.

在解释该规定时，移民法官认定CSPA的福利不适用于被申请人，因为：(1) 其在2002年8月6日之前年满21岁；(2) 尽管其是2002年8月6日之前获批的签证申请的受益人，但其没有在该日期或之前提交的待决调整身份申请。因此，移民法官隐含地将第8(1)条解释为包含一项要求，即调整身份申请必须在CSPA生效日2002年8月6日之前提交。

III. ISSUES PRESENTED ON APPEAL

III. 上诉中提出的问题

The outcome of this case depends on whether the effective date provision in section 8(1) of the CSPA applies only to individuals who filed an adjustment application on or before August 6, 2002. If the CSPA requires an alien with an approved visa petition to have filed his adjustment application before August 6, 2002, then the CSPA does not apply to the respondent, whose adjustment application was filed on October 15, 2003. 2 Without the

本案的结果取决于CSPA第8(1)条中的生效日期规定是否仅适用于在2002年8月6日或之前提交调整身份申请的个人。如果CSPA要求持有获批签证申请的外籍人士必须在2002年8月6日之前提交其调整身份申请，则CSPA不适用于被申请人，其调整身份申请于2003年10月15日提交。2 若无

We note that the respondent asserts on appeal for the first time that he applied for an immigrant visa in 1996 in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, and that a final determination has never been made on that application. We recognize that if this is true, the respondent would clearly be eligible for the benefits of the CSPA, and we would not need to address the timeliness of his adjustment application to obtain the benefits of the CSPA. Nonetheless, we cannot rely on the respondent’s assertion to resolve this appeal. First, we note that the respondent’s statement in his brief is directly contrary to his statement in his opposition to

我们注意到，被申请人在上诉中首次主张其于1996年在墨西哥华雷斯城申请了移民签证，且该申请从未作出最终裁定。我们认识到，如果属实，被申请人显然符合CSPA福利资格，我们无需处理其调整身份申请为获得CSPA福利的及时性问题。尽管如此，我们不能依赖被申请人的主张来解决本上诉。首先，我们注意到被申请人在其简报中的陈述与其在反对意见中的陈述直接矛盾

(continued...)

（续...）

80

80

Cite as 24 I&N Dec. 78 (BIA 2007) Interim Decision #3551

引用为 24 I&N Dec. 78 (BIA 2007) 临时决定 #3551

benefit of the CSPA, the respondent aged out on his 21st birthday on April 4, 1997, and, consequently, could only obtain a visa as a first-preference unmarried son of a United States citizen, to whom an immigrant visa was not immediately available at the time of his immigration proceedings. 3 See sections 201(a)(1), 203(a)(1) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1151(a)(1), 1153(a)(1) (2000); Department of State Visa Bulletin, Vol. VIII, No. 85 (Sept. 2005). Accordingly, if the CSPA does not apply, then the respondent is ineligible to adjust his status under section 245(a) of the Act.

CSPA的福利，被申请人于1997年4月4日其21岁生日时超龄，因此，只能作为美国公民的第一优先未婚子女获得签证，而在其移民程序进行时，该类别的移民签证并非可立即提供。3 参见该法第201(a)(1)、203(a)(1)条，8 U.S.C. §§ 1151(a)(1)、1153(a)(1) (2000)；国务院签证公告，第VIII卷，第85号（2005年9月）。因此，如果CSPA不适用，则被申请人不符合该法第245(a)条下的调整身份资格。

If, however, the CSPA does not require an alien with an approved visa petition to have filed his adjustment application before its effective date, then the CSPA applies to the respondent because his visa petition was approved before August 6, 2002. In that case, the respondent retained his status as a child because he was 20 years old and unmarried when his mother filed the visa petition on his behalf. See sections 101(b)(1), 201(b)(2)(A)(i), (f)(1) of the Act. When the visa petition was approved, the respondent had an immigrant visa immediately available to him because it was not subject to the annual numerical limitations that can delay the availability of family-based preference petitions. Compare section 201(a)(1) of the Act with section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Consequently, if the CSPA provisions apply to this case, the respondent, who appears to be otherwise admissible, may be eligible to adjust his status under section 245(a) of the Act.

然而，如果CSPA不要求持有获批签证申请的外籍人士在其生效日期之前提交调整身份申请，则CSPA适用于被申请人，因为其签证申请在2002年8月6日之前获批。在此情况下，被申请人保留了子女身份，因为其母亲代表其提交签证申请时，其20岁且未婚。参见该法第101(b)(1)、201(b)(2)(A)(i)、(f)(1)条。签证申请获批时，被申请人有可立即向其提供的移民签证，因为其不受可能延迟家庭类优先申请可用性的年度数量限制。比较该法第201(a)(1)条与该法第201(b)(2)(A)(i)条。因此，如果CSPA规定适用于本案，被申请人似乎在其他方面可予入境，可能有资格依据该法第245(a)条调整其身份。

IV. APPLICABILITY OF THE CSPA

IV. CSPA的适用性

A. Plain Language

A. 平文含义

We must employ the principles of statutory construction to ascertain whether section 8(1) of the CSPA requires an alien with a visa petition that was approved before August 6, 2002, to have filed his adjustment application on or before that date. Proper statutory construction begins with the words of the statute, which should be given their ordinary and natural meaning. Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 144-45 (1995); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 431 (1987); INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183, 189 (1984). If an

我们必须运用法定解释原则来确定CSPA第8(1)条是否要求持有2002年8月6日之前获批签证申请的外籍人士在该日期或之前提交其调整身份申请。适当的法定解释始于法规的文字，应赋予其普通和自然含义。Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 144-45 (1995)；INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 431 (1987)；INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183, 189 (1984)。如果

2 (...continued) the Government’s motion to pretermit that his October 15, 2003, adjustment application was his first use of his approved visa petition. Second, the respondent has not provided a copy of his 1996 visa application, and there is no other evidence in the record to corroborate that such a visa application was filed. While it is certainly possible that the respondent filed a visa application in 1996 on which no final determination has been made, we cannot dispose of this case on that basis because of the ambiguities and omissions in the record currently before us. 3 We note that even under the most recent Department of State Visa Bulletin, a visa would not be immediately available to the respondent as an unmarried son of a United States citizen with an August 29, 1996, priority date. See Department of State Visa Bulletin, Vol. VIII, No. 102 (Feb. 2007).

2（……续） 政府提出的动议，要求认定其2003年10月15日的调整身份申请是其首次使用其已获批准的签证申请。其次，被申请人未提供其1996年签证申请的副本，且记录中没有其他证据可佐证曾提交过该签证申请。虽然被申请人确有可能在1996年提交了一份尚未作出最终裁定的签证申请，但由于目前提交给我们的记录存在模糊之处和遗漏，我们无法以此为由处置本案。 3 我们注意到，即使根据国务院最新的《签证公告》，对于优先日期为1996年8月29日的美国公民的未婚子女，签证也不会立即向其提供。见国务院《签证公告》，第VIII卷第102号（2007年2月）。

81

81

Cite as 24 I&N Dec. 78 (BIA 2007) Interim Decision #3551

引注为24 I&N Dec. 78（BIA 2007） 临时决定第3551号

ambiguity is perceived when a provision of the statute is read in isolation, it is often clarified when it is interpreted in the context of the remainder of the statutory scheme. Bailey v. United States, supra, at 146.

当孤立地阅读某一法律条文时，会察觉到模糊之处，但将其置于其余法律体系的语境中解释时，往往能得到澄清。Bailey v. United States, supra, at 146。

Reading section 8(1) of the CSPA in isolation, we find an ambiguity in that provision. Section 8(1) contains no explicit requirement that an adjustment application be pending as of the effective date of the CSPA. On the other hand, it is certainly possible to construe the CSPA as having an implicit requirement that an adjustment application must have been pending on its effective date. That is, to make the CSPA applicable to a beneficiary of a previously approved visa petition for whom “no final determination has been made” on his adjustment application would seem to imply that such an application was already filed on or before the effective date of the CSPA. 4 Because section 8(1) of the CSPA is subject to two reasonable interpretations, we look to the remaining provisions of that section for clarification. See Bailey v. United States, supra, at 145-46 (providing that the meaning of statutory language depends on context).

孤立地阅读CSPA第8(1)条，我们发现在该条文中存在模糊之处。第8(1)条并未明确要求调整身份申请必须在CSPA生效之日处于待决状态。另一方面，确实可以将CSPA解释为含有一项隐含要求，即调整身份申请必须在其生效之日已经处于待决状态。也就是说，要使CSPA适用于此前已获批准的签证申请的受益人、且其调整身份申请“尚未作出最终裁定”，似乎意味着该申请已在CSPA生效之日或之前提交。4 由于CSPA第8(1)条存在两种合理解释，我们转而寻求该节其余条文以求澄清。见Bailey v. United States, supra, at 145-46（规定法律语言的含义取决于语境）。

Sections 8(2) and 8(3) of the CSPA expressly provide that the statute applies to the beneficiary of an immigrant petition whose application for an immigrant visa or adjustment of status is “pending” on or after August 6, 2002. See CSPA §§ 8(2), 8(3), 116 Stat. at 930. Where Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same statute, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally in the inclusion or exclusion. INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, supra, at 432; Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983). Had Congress intended to restrict the protections of the CSPA under section 8(1) to only those individuals who had visa or adjustment applications “pending” as of the date of enactment, it presumably would have expressly so stated, as it stated that the petitions and applications must be “pending” in the immediately following subsections. Cf. Russello v. United States, supra, at 23 (stating that if Congress had intended to restrict “an interest” in a particular subsection to one

CSPA第8(2)条和第8(3)条明确规定，该法适用于移民申请的受益人，其移民签证或调整身份申请在2002年8月6日或之后处于“待决”状态。见CSPA §§ 8(2), 8(3), 116 Stat. at 930。当国会在某一法律的一节中列入特定语言而在同一法律的另一节中省略该语言时，通常推定国会是在有意为之。INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, supra, at 432; Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983)。如果国会意图将第8(1)条下CSPA的保护限于那些在颁布之日签证或调整身份申请处于“待决”状态的个人，它想必会明确如此规定，正如其在紧随其后的各小节中规定申请和请求必须处于“待决”状态一样。比较Russello v. United States, supra, at 23（指出如果国会意图将某一特定小节中的“一项权益”限于某一

4 We observe that before the functions of the INS were transferred to the DHS, the INS issued an internal policy memorandum on February 14, 2003, offering guidelines to its field officers as to the proper interpretation of the CSPA. See Memorandum of Johnny N. Williams, Executive Associate Commissioner, Office of Field Operations, to INS Officials (Feb. 14, 2003), reprinted in 80 Interpreter Releases, No. 11, Mar. 17, 2003, at 414. In that memorandum, the INS construed section 8(1) of the CSPA to require that the adjustment application must have been filed on or before August 6, 2002. While such policy guidelines are not binding on the Board, we will nonetheless adopt an agency’s policy where appropriate. See Matter of Singh, 21 I&N Dec. 427, 430-31 (BIA 1996). However, in the instant case, the policy memorandum offers no guidance on why the DHS chose to construe section 8(1) in such a manner or on how its construction furthers the objectives and policy of the CSPA.

4 我们注意到，在INS的职能移交DHS之前，INS于2003年2月14日发布了一份内部政策备忘录，向其外勤官员提供关于CSPA正确解释的指导方针。见Johnny N. Williams，外勤业务办公室执行副专员，致INS官员的备忘录（2003年2月14日），重印于80 Interpreter Releases, No. 11, Mar. 17, 2003, at 414。在该备忘录中，INS将CSPA第8(1)条解释为要求调整身份申请必须在2002年8月6日或之前提交。虽然此类政策指导方针对委员会不具有约束力，但我们仍将在适当情况下采纳行政机关的政策。见Matter of Singh, 21 I&N Dec. 427, 430-31（BIA 1996）。然而，在本案中，该政策备忘录未就DHS为何选择以这种方式解释第8(1)条、或其解释如何促进CSPA的目标和政策提供任何指导。

82

82

Cite as 24 I&N Dec. 78 (BIA 2007) Interim Decision #3551

引注为24 I&N Dec. 78（BIA 2007） 临时决定第3551号

involving an enterprise, it presumably would have done so expressly, as it did in the immediately following subsection). 5

涉及某一企业，它想必会明确如此规定，正如其在紧随其后的 subsection 中所做的那样）。5

We find further support for a broader interpretation of section 8(1) in section 3 of the CSPA, 116 Stat. at 928. In that substantive section, Congress expressly provided that the age of a child of a lawful permanent resident would be determined based on a special mathematical formula, but “only if the alien has sought to acquire the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence within one year of such availability.” See CSPA § 3, 116 Stat. at 928. If Congress had intended to require aliens under section 8(1) to have filed their adjustment applications within a specified time, it presumably would have expressly so stated, as it did in section 3 of the CSPA. Cf. Russello v. United States, supra, at 23.

我们在CSPA第3条（116 Stat. at 928）中找到了对第8(1)条作更宽泛解释的进一步支持。在该实质性条文中，国会明确规定，合法永久居民子女的年龄将根据一项特殊的数学公式确定，但“仅当该外国人在该签证可用之日起一年内寻求取得合法永久居民身份时”方适用。见CSPA § 3, 116 Stat. at 928。如果国会意图要求第8(1)条下的外国人必须在特定时间内提交其调整身份申请，它想必会明确如此规定，正如其在CSPA第3条中所做的那样。比较Russello v. United States, supra, at 23。

Nevertheless, we cannot conclude that section 8(1) of the CSPA is unambiguous, even when read in conjunction with section 3, as well as within the context of section 8. While it is certainly reasonable to interpret section 8(1) more broadly in light of the other CSPA provisions, those provisions do not clearly resolve the textual ambiguity in section 8(1). Where Congress’s intent is not plainly expressed, we must determine a reasonable interpretation of the language that effectuates its intent. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843 (1984). To discern congressional intent, we turn to the legislative history of the CSPA. See Matter of Rodriguez-Tejedor, 23 I&N Dec. 153, 160 (BIA 2001).

然而，即使结合第3条以及第8节的语境来阅读，我们也不能认定CSPA第8(1)条是明确无歧义的。虽然根据CSPA其他条文对第8(1)条作更宽泛的解释确实合理，但这些条文并未明确解决第8(1)条在文本上的模糊之处。当国会的意图未被明确表达时，我们必须确定一种能实现其意图的对该语言的合理解释。Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843 (1984)。为辨明国会意图，我们转而求诸CSPA的立法史。见Matter of Rodriguez-Tejedor, 23 I&N Dec. 153, 160（BIA 2001）。

B. Legislative History

B. 立法史

Upon review of the legislative history of the CSPA, we find no indication that Congress intended to exclude from coverage of the CSPA those individuals whose visa petitions were approved before its effective date, but who waited until after its effective date to file an adjustment application. The CSPA was created to remedy the problem of minor children of United States citizens losing their immediate relative status and being demoted to the family first-preference category as a result of the INS’s backlog in adjudicating visa

经审查CSPA的立法史，我们未发现任何迹象表明国会意图将那些签证申请在其生效日期之前已获批准、但等到生效日期之后才提交调整身份申请的个人排除在CSPA的适用范围之外。CSPA的制定是为了解决美国公民的未成年子女因INS在审理签证

We note that the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the only court that has addressed the effective date language of the CSPA in a published decision, has construed section 8(1) of the CSPA to broaden the statute’s applicability beyond individuals whose applications were awaiting agency determinations, so as to also include those individuals whose appeals were pending in the courts. Padash v. INS, 358 F.3d 1161, 1171- 72 (9th Cir. 2004). In so holding, the court observed that to construe the phrase “final determination” in section 8(1) to mean a final determination before the agency would render section 8(1) duplicative of section 8(3). Id. at 1171. Although that decision is not on point and not binding in this case (which is governed by Fifth Circuit jurisprudence), it is still noteworthy that the Ninth Circuit ultimately concluded that section 8(1) broadened the applicability of the CSPA beyond individuals whose applications were pending before an agency. Id.; see also Matter of Anselmo, 20 I&N Dec. 25 (BIA 1989) (providing that the Board follows circuit precedent in cases arising in that circuit).

我们注意到，美国第9巡回上诉法院是唯一在已公布判决中处理CSPA生效日期语言的法院，其将CSPA第8(1)条解释为将该法的适用范围扩大到申请正等待行政机关裁定的个人之外，从而也包括那些上诉正在法院待决的个人。Padash v. INS, 358 F.3d 1161, 1171-72（9th Cir. 2004）。在作出该裁定时，法院指出，如果将第8(1)条中的“最终裁定”解释为行政机关作出的最终裁定，将使第8(1)条与第8(3)条重复。Id. at 1171。尽管该判决并非针对本案争点，且在本案中不具有约束力（本案受第5巡回法院判例管辖），但仍值得注意的是，第9巡回法院最终认定第8(1)条将CSPA的适用范围扩大到申请正等待行政机关裁定的个人之外。Id.; 另见Matter of Anselmo, 20 I&N Dec. 25（BIA 1989）（规定委员会在该巡回法院辖区内产生的案件中遵循该巡回法院的判例）。

83

83

Cite as 24 I&N Dec. 78 (BIA 2007) Interim Decision #3551

引注为24 I&N Dec. 78（BIA 2007） 临时决定第3551号

petitions and applications for adjustment of status. See H.R. Rep. No. 107-45 at 1-3 (2001), reprinted in 2002 U.S.C.C.A.N. 640, 641-42, 2001 WL 406244; see also 147 Cong. Rec. H2901-01 (daily ed. June 6, 2001) (statements of Reps. Gekas, Jackson-Lee, and Smith), 2001 WL 617985. To prevent these individuals from “aging out” because of INS processing delays, Congress decided that a child’s age should be determined by the date his visa petition was filed, not as of the date the INS reviewed his application, as it would have been under the former law. H.R. Rep. No. 107-45 at 4.

申请和调整身份申请方面积压而失去其近亲属身份、被降为家庭第一优先类别的未成年子女问题。见H.R. Rep. No. 107-45 at 1-3（2001），重印于2002 U.S.C.C.A.N. 640, 641-42, 2001 WL 406244；另见147 Cong. Rec. H2901-01（daily ed. June 6, 2001）（Gekas、Jackson-Lee和Smith议员的发言），2001 WL 617985。为防止这些个人因INS处理延误而“超龄”，国会决定，子女的年龄应根据其签证申请提交之日确定，而非按INS审查其申请之日确定，后者是原法律下的做法。H.R. Rep. No. 107-45 at 4。

There is no indication in the legislative history that Congress intended to exclude from coverage of the CSPA those aliens whose visa petitions were approved before the effective date of the statute merely because they waited until after its enactment to file an adjustment application. Indeed, it would effectuate Congress’s intent to protect a child whose visa petition was approved before August 6, 2002, and whose adjustment application was filed after that date, but who would have otherwise “aged out” because of processing delays.

立法史中没有任何迹象表明，国会意图仅因某些外国人在该法颁布之后才提交调整身份申请，就将那些签证申请在该法生效日期之前已获批准的外国人排除在CSPA的适用范围之外。事实上，这将实现国会的意图，即保护那些签证申请在2002年8月6日之前已获批准、调整身份申请在该日期之后提交、但否则会因处理延误而“超龄”的子女。

We turn to the evolution of the effective date language of the CSPA for further guidance. In the earliest draft of the bill, which only protected children of United States citizens, the provisions of the statute were to apply to all beneficiaries of visa petitions filed before, on, or after its date of enactment. H.R. Rep. No. 107-45 at 6. The Department of Justice expressed its concern that the unlimited scope of this retroactivity provision would create a huge administrative burden on the agency by potentially requiring the reopening of completed adjudications as far back as 1952. Id. The Department recognized, however, that Congress “may seek to address cases of children who have aged out in the past” and proposed a “reasonable limit to retroactivity.” Id.

我们转而考察CSPA生效日期语言的演变以寻求进一步指导。在该法案最早的草案中，其仅保护美国公民的子女，该法条文将适用于在其颁布之日之前、当日或之后提交的签证申请的所有受益人。H.R. Rep. No. 107-45 at 6。司法部表示关切，认为这一溯及力条款的无限范围将可能要求重新开启最早可追溯至1952年的已完成的裁定，从而给行政机关造成巨大的行政负担。Id. 然而，该部认识到，国会“可能寻求处理过去已经超龄的子女的案件”，并提出“对溯及力的合理限制”。Id.

When the bill subsequently passed the United States House of Representatives, the sweeping retroactivity provision was replaced by language applying the CSPA to “all petitions and applications pending before the Department of Justice or the Department of State on or after such date.” H.R. 1209, 107th Cong. (2001); see also 147 Cong. Rec. H2901-01 (daily ed. June 6, 2001) (statement of Rep. Sensenbrenner), 2001 WL 617985. Subsequently, the United States Senate, in addition to extending the protections of the CSPA to children of lawful permanent residents, temporary residents, asylees, and refugees, created the effective date language that was ultimately enacted. S. 672, 107th Cong. (2002); see also 148 Cong. Rec. S5558-02 (daily ed. June 13, 2002) (statement of Sen. Reid), 2002 WL 1300166. The Senate’s effective date provision essentially subsumed the House’s language into sections 8(2) and 8(3) of the CSPA and created the new provisions of section 8(1).

当该法案随后在美国众议院通过时，宽泛的溯及力条款被替换为将CSPA适用于“在该日期或之后待决于司法部或国务院的所有申请和请求”的措辞。H.R. 1209, 107th Cong. (2001)；另见147 Cong. Rec. H2901-01（每日版，2001年6月6日）（Sensenbrenner众议员发言），2001 WL 617985。随后，美国参议院除将CSPA的保护扩展至合法永久居民、临时居民、庇护者和难民的子女外，还创设了最终获得通过的生效日期措辞。S. 672, 107th Cong. (2002)；另见148 Cong. Rec. S5558-02（每日版，2002年6月13日）（Reid参议员发言），2002 WL 1300166。参议院的生效日期条款实质上将众议院的措辞纳入CSPA第8(2)条和第8(3)条，并创设了第8(1)条的新条款。

The Senate offered no explanation for why it created a new effective date provision aimed explicitly at individuals, like the respondent, whose visa petitions were approved before the effective date of the CSPA. It is

参议院未解释为何创设一项新的生效日期条款，明确针对像被上诉人这样签证申请在CSPA生效日期之前已获批准的个人。可以

84

84

Cite as 24 I&N Dec. 78 (BIA 2007) Interim Decision #3551

引用为24 I&N Dec. 78 (BIA 2007) 临时决定第3551号

reasonable to conclude, however, that by including section 8(1) in the CSPA, the Senate intended to expand the coverage of the statute beyond those individuals whose visa petitions and applications were pending on the date of the CSPA to also protect those individuals whose visa petitions were approved before the effective date, but only if their applications had not already been finally adjudicated. That is, the House’s revised effective date language plainly would have covered all individuals whose adjustment applications were pending before the agency on or after August 6, 2002, without regard to when their visa petitions were approved. H.R. 1209, 107th Cong. In that regard, the new language in section 8(1) extended more protection by ensuring that certain individuals whose visa petitions were approved before August 6, 2002, were protected, without affording reopening to those whose applications for a visa or adjustment of status had already been subject to a final determination. 6

合理得出结论，参议院通过在CSPA中纳入第8(1)条，意图将法规的覆盖范围扩大至那些签证申请和请求在CSPA生效日期待决的个人之外，还保护那些签证申请在生效日期之前已获批准、但其申请尚未最终裁定的个人。也就是说，众议院修订后的生效日期措辞显然会涵盖所有在2002年8月6日或之后调整身份申请待决于该机构的个人，而不论其签证申请何时获批。H.R. 1209, 107th Cong. 在这方面，第8(1)条的新措辞通过确保某些签证申请在2002年8月6日之前已获批准的个人受到保护，提供了更多保护，但未向那些签证或调整身份申请已经受到最终裁定的个人提供重新开启。6

We conclude that section 8(1) of the CSPA, as enacted, does not require an individual whose visa petition was approved before its effective date to have an adjustment application pending as of the date of its enactment. Our interpretation of section 8(1) is based on the language of that section, viewed both in isolation and in context. We also find support for our interpretation of the section in the legislative history of the CSPA that recounts its purpose, as well as in the evolution of its effective date language. 7

我们认定，已通过的CSPA第8(1)条并不要求签证申请在其生效日期之前已获批准的个人在法规颁布之日有调整身份申请待决。我们对第8(1)条的解释基于该条的措辞，既孤立地看也结合上下文看。我们还从CSPA叙述其目的的立法历史以及其生效日期措辞的演变中，找到对我们对该条解释的支持。7

V. CONCLUSION

五、结论

In light of the foregoing, we disagree with the Immigration Judge’s conclusion that the respondent was required to have his adjustment application pending as of August 6, 2002, to receive the benefits of the CSPA. Consequently, because he was still a “child” pursuant to the provisions of the CSPA, he was an immediate relative and a visa was immediately available to him. See sections 101(b)(1)(A), 201(b)(2)(A)(i), (f)(1) of the Act. He also otherwise appears to be statutorily eligible for adjustment of status. Accordingly, the respondent’s appeal will be sustained.

鉴于上述，我们不同意移民法官的结论，即被上诉人必须使其调整身份申请在2002年8月6日待决，才能获得CSPA的利益。因此，由于他根据CSPA的规定仍属“儿童”，他是直系亲属，且签证可立即向其提供。见该法第101(b)(1)(A)条、第201(b)(2)(A)(i)条、(f)(1)条。他在其他方面似乎也符合调整身份的法定资格。据此，被上诉人的上诉将获支持。

Given the passage of time since the Immigration Judge rendered her decision and the fact that she did not fully consider all the relevant factors,

鉴于移民法官作出裁决以来时间的流逝，以及她未充分考虑所有相关因素的事实，

6 We note that in Padash v. INS, supra, at 1171-72, the Ninth Circuit also found support for its expansion of the CSPA’s applicability in the evolution of section 8. 7 We recognize that the issue presented in the respondent’s case does not reflect the principal concern expressed by Congress in the legislative history of the CSPA. As we have already discussed, Congress voiced concern for children who, under the former law, “aged out” during the INS’s delay in processing visa petitions and applications for adjustment of status. Nevertheless, nothing in the language or legislative history of the CSPA indicates that Congress intended to foreclose individuals in the respondent’s circumstances from obtaining relief under the CSPA.

6 我们注意到，在Padash v. INS, supra, at 1171-72中，第9巡回法院也从第8条的演变中找到对其扩大CSPA适用性的支持。 7 我们认识到，被上诉人案件中提出的问题并不反映国会在CSPA立法历史中所表达的主要关切。正如我们已讨论的，国会表达了对在前法下因INS处理签证申请和调整身份申请的延迟而“超龄”的儿童的关切。然而，CSPA的措辞或立法历史中没有任何内容表明国会意图排除处于被上诉人情况的个人根据CSPA获得救济。

85

85

Cite as 24 I&N Dec. 78 (BIA 2007) Interim Decision #3551

引用为24 I&N Dec. 78 (BIA 2007) 临时决定第3551号

however, we find it appropriate to remand the record to the Immigration Judge to determine whether the respondent is eligible for adjustment of status and whether he merits a favorable exercise of discretion. If necessary, the appropriate background and security checks should also be conducted before the entry of a final order. See Background and Security Investigations in Proceedings Before Immigration Judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals, 70 Fed. Reg. 4743, 4752-54 (Jan. 31, 2005).

然而，我们认为将记录发回移民法官是适当的，以裁定被上诉人是否有资格调整身份以及他是否值得行使有利的自由裁量权。如有必要，在作出最终命令之前还应进行适当的背景和安全调查。见《移民法官和移民上诉委员会程序中的背景和安全调查》，70 Fed. Reg. 4743, 4752-54（2005年1月31日）。

86

86