Matter of Varela

Interim Decision #2020

临时决定第2020号

In Visa Petition Proceedings

在签证申请程序中

A-19184691

A-19184691

Decided by Board February 6, 1970

由委员会于1970年2月6日决定

This case is before us on appeal from a decision rendered by the District Director at San Francisco on August 25, 1969, denying the petition because of the petitioner's demise. The appeal will be dismissed. There is no dispute as to the basic facts of this matter. The pe- titioner acquired United States citizenship through naturalization in 1943. On June 23, 1969, in Reno, Nevada, he married the bene- ficiary, a native and national of the Republic of the Philippines. On July 9, 1969, he submitted a petition to have the beneficiary classified as an immediate relative for issuance of an immigrant visa. This petition was received by the Service on the following day, July 10, 1969. In the same month the petitioner, a petty officer in the United States Naval Reserve, was recalled to active duty. On August 2, 1969, while still on active duty, he died of a heart attack. Obviously, the only issue presented for our consideration is whether the District Director properly denied the visa petition cm the ground that, with the death of the petitioner, the beneficiary

本案系基于对旧金山地区主任于1969年8月25日所作决定的上诉，该决定因申请人死亡而驳回申请。上诉将被驳回。 本事项的基本事实并无争议。申请人于1943年通过归化取得美国公民身份。1969年6月23日，他在内华达州里诺与受益人结婚，受益人为菲律宾共和国本土国民。1969年7月9日，他提交申请，要求将受益人归类为直系亲属以便签发移民签证。该申请于次日，即1969年7月10日，由移民局收到。同月，申请人作为美国海军预备役下士被召回现役。1969年8月2日，他仍在现役期间因心脏病发作死亡。 显然，提交我们审议的唯一问题是，地区主任以申请人死亡、受益人

453

453

Interim Decision #2020

临时决定第2020号

was not entitled to status as an immediate relative, as the spouse of a United States citizen. For the following reasons, our answer is in the affirmative. 1 Subsection (a) of section 204 of the Immigration and National- ity Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) provides that a United States citizen claiming that an alien is entitled to immediate relative status under section 201 (b) of the Act (8 U.S.C. 1151) may file a peti- tion with the Attorney General for such classification. Subsection (b) thereof stipulates that the Attorney General shall approve the petition if, after investigation of the facts, he determines that they are true as stated in the petition and that the alien on behalf of whom the petition is made is an immediate relative. Viewing these provisions of the law in the light of the facts te- Ated above, it is clear that the District Director properly denied :he petition. Simply stated, at the time of his decision the benefi- !iary was not the spouse of a United States citizen. His death had tripped her of that status. A question has been raised as to the beneficiary's standing alder the law to prosecute this appeal (oral argument, p. 6) 2 The

无权作为美国公民的配偶获得直系亲属身份为由驳回签证申请是否正确。基于以下理由，我们的答案是肯定的。1 《移民与国籍法》第204条(a)款（8 U.S.C. 1154）规定，声称外国人有权根据该法第201条(b)款（8 U.S.C. 1151）获得直系亲属身份的美国公民，可以向司法部长提交申请要求作出此类分类。该条(b)款规定，司法部长在调查事实后，如认定事实如申请所述属实，且申请所代表的外国人是直系亲属，则应批准该申请。 结合上述事实审视这些法律规定，显然地区主任适当驳回了申请。简言之，在其作出决定时，受益人不是美国公民的配偶。申请人的死亡已剥夺了她的该身份。 有人提出了受益人在法律上是否有资格提起本上诉的问题（口头辩论，第6页）2 该

∎oint requires only this passing comment, however, since we will ispose of her supporting arguments on the merits. We find inapplicable here the case of Pierno v. INS, decided by ie United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on uly 9, 1968 (397 F.2d 949). That case involved revocation of an pproved visa petition, under former section 206 of the Immigra- on and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1156) and the related regula- ons, 8 CFR 206.1 (b) (2), whereas here the petition was never pproved. Second, there was an unduly prolonged delay in corn- etion of the investigation in the Pierno case because of a -oundless suit brought by a person not even a party to the immi- -ation proceedings, while here the death of the petitioner fol- wed the filing of the petition by approximately three weeks, and e District Director's denial followed approximately three weeks

问题仅需此附带评论，因为我们将基于实体理由处理其支持性论点。 我们认为Pierno诉INS案在此不适用，该案由美国第二巡回上诉法院于1968年7月9日判决（397 F.2d 949）。该案涉及根据《移民与国籍法》前第206条（8 U.S.C. 1156）及相关法规8 CFR 206.1(b)(2)撤销已批准的签证申请，而本案申请从未获批准。其次，Pierno案中调查完成存在过度拖延，原因是甚至不是移民程序当事方的人提起了无根据的诉讼，而本案中申请人死亡发生在提交申请后约三周，地区主任的驳回又发生在约三周

454

454

Interim Decision #2020

临时决定第2020号

later. Third, former section 206 of the Act, upon which the revo- cation was predicated in the Pierno case, was permissive, whereas section 204 on which the present case is predicated re- quires the existence of a citizen spouse as a condition precedent to the granting of status as an immediate relative. Finally, we are aware of the sympathetic features of this case stemming from the fact that the beneficiary is the widow Of a cit- izen who died while on active duty status in the Armed Forces of the United States. Nevertheless, we find it of no assistance to her here that section 319 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1430) was amended on June 29, 1968, to provide that a person similarly situated may be naturalized without any re- quired period of residence.3 Suffice it to say, in this connection, that the Congress has not seen fit to similarly amend section 204 of the Act, which controls here, and as that controlling section of the law now stands the District Director has correctly decided the case. Accordingly, no change is warranted in his decision, for the reasons hereinbefore set forth. ORDER: It is ordered that the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed.

之后。第三，Pierno案中撤销所依据的该法前第206条是许可性的，而本案所依据的第204条则要求公民配偶的存在作为授予直系亲属身份的先决条件。 最后，我们注意到本案令人同情的特征，即受益人是美国武装部队现役期间死亡的公民的遗孀。然而，我们认为《移民与国籍法》第319条（8 U.S.C. 1430）于1968年6月29日被修订，规定处于类似情况的人可在无任何所需居住期的情况下归化，3 这对她在此并无帮助。就此而言，只需说明，国会并未认为宜对本案所适用的该法第204条作类似修订，而按该控制性法律条款的现状，地区主任已正确裁决本案。因此，基于上述理由，其决定无需变更。 命令：兹命令，上诉予以驳回。

In the interest of legal precision I find it necessary to file a separate opinion in these proceedings. It is my position that the appellant herein has no legal stand- ing to prosecute an appeal to this Board. Accordingly, any con- sideration of the merits of the appeal is totally unwarranted. The majority decision notes the issue of standing and cites two cases on this issue in its footnote at page 3. With the possible exception of the Hom Sin v. Esperdy case,' which is patently distinguishable from the proceedings herein, the courts have uni- formly and unanimously held that no-alien has a personal vested right to become beneficiary of a visa petition.'

为法律精确性之利益，我认为有必要在本程序中提交单独意见。 我的立场是，本上诉人没有法律资格向本委员会提起上诉。因此，对上诉实体理由的任何审议都完全没有依据。 多数意见注意到资格问题，并在第3页脚注中引用了关于该问题的两个案例。除Hom Sin诉Esperdy案1可能例外（该案与本程序明显不同），法院一致且无异议地裁定，任何外国人都没有成为签证申请受益人的个人既得权利。2

Interim Decision #2020

临时决定第2020号

The instant case suffers from greater infirmities than those cited above in that this petition was never even acted upon by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. For these reasons I would dismiss the appeal solely for lack of standing on the part of the appellant.

本案比上述引用案例存在更大缺陷，因为该申请甚至从未被移民与归化局处理。基于这些理由，我将仅以上诉人缺乏资格为由驳回上诉。

456

456