Matter of Lopez-Monzon

Interim Decision #2767

临时决定第2767号

In Exclusion Proceedings

在驱逐程序中

A-22296841

A-22296841

This matter is before the Commissioner, on appeal from the Acting District Director's denial of the application for a waiver of excludabil- ity as an alien who seeks to procure or has sought to procure, or has procured a visa or other documentation, or seeks to enter the United States by fraud, or by willfully misrepresenting a material fact. The appeal is before the Commissioner because the officer who made the initial decision is also occupying the office in which the appeal would normally be decided. The applicant is an unmarried female citizen of Guatemala, born June 11, 1939, in Ratelhuleu, Guatemala. She is a resident of Guatemala, as are her three older children who are citizens of Guatemala and one illegitimate child who is a citizen of the United States by birth in Brooklyn, New York, on August 16, 1969. The three Guatemalan citizen children reside apart from the applicant and the United States citizen child resides with his natural father, also a citizen and resident of Guatemala who is responsible for the child's

本案现由专员审理，系针对代理地区主任拒绝该申请而提出的上诉，该申请为豁免不可入境理由，理由是该外国人寻求获取或已寻求获取、或已获取签证或其他文件，或寻求通过欺诈或故意虚假陈述重大事实进入美国。上诉由专员审理，因为作出初步决定的官员同时担任通常应裁决上诉的职位。 申请人为危地马拉未婚女性公民，1939年6月11日出生于危地马拉拉特胡莱乌。她居住在危地马拉，其三名年长子女亦为危地马拉公民并居住于危地马拉，另有一名非婚生子女，因1969年8月16日出生于纽约布鲁克林而成为美国公民。三名危地马拉公民子女与申请人分开居住，美国公民子女与其生父共同居住，该生父亦为危地马拉公民和居民，负责该子女的

280

280

Interim Decision #2767

临时决定第2767号

care. The applicant's former husband, who is the father of the three older children, died February 14, 1973. The applicant was found exclud- able under section 212(a)(19) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(19), by a United States Consular Officer in Guatemala City, Guatemala, because she obtained a nonimmigrant visa by fraud on February 26, 1968, and thereafter entered the United States where she remained and secured unauthorized employment. Although the record is not clear as to the number of entries the applicant has made into the United States nor the duration of her stays in this country, it appears that her last departure was in February 1978, when she returned to Guatemala. The Acting District Director in his decision of July 14, 1978, has pointed out that the United States citizen child of the applicant lives with his father in Guatemala and would not accompany the applicant to the United States. He concludes therefrom that no economic or emotional hardship would be caused to the child by the applicant remaining outside the United States. In view of this, and in the absence of any persuasive humanitarian consideration, favorable exercise of discretion was not warranted in this case. In the applicant's appeal, she has stated that she obtained the nonimmigrant visa in question legally; her behavior has been good; she has always thought of bringing her child to the United States; and her former employers in the United States want her to return to her former employment with them. Attached to the appeal are letters from her former employers stating their need for her services and from a minister in the United States which attests to the applicant's high moral standards. Eligibility to apply under section 212(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(i), for a waiver of the grounds of ex- cludability specified in section 212(a)(19) of the Immigration and Na- tionality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(19), is limited to aliens who are spouses, parents, or children of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents of the United States. This provision of law was not contained in the original Act, but was added by the Act of September 26, 1961, (75 Stat. 655). The intent of Congress in adding this provision of law, which is evident from its language, was to provide for the unification of families, thereby avoiding the hardship of separation. In the instant case this is not the situation. The applicant's child, upon whom eligibility to apply for the waiver is based, does not live in the United States nor is the evidence persuasive that the applicant intends to bring him with her or live with him here in the future. The past record indicates otherwise and her statement upon appeal merely shows that she has been thinking of doing so. There is no evidence that she has legal custody or would be able to legally obtain custody of the

照料。申请人的前夫，即三名年长子女的父亲，于1973年2月14日去世。危地马拉城的一名美国领事官员认定申请人根据《移民与国籍法》第212(a)(19)条，8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(19)不可入境，因为她于1968年2月26日通过欺诈获得非移民签证，此后进入美国并留在美国，且获得了未经授权的工作。尽管记录未明确申请人进入美国的次数及其在美国停留的时间，但似乎她最后一次离境是在1978年2月，当时她返回危地马拉。 代理地区主任在其1978年7月14日的决定中指出，申请人的美国公民子女与其父亲居住在危地马拉，不会随申请人前往美国。他由此得出结论，申请人留在美国境外不会对该子女造成经济或情感上的困难。鉴于此，且缺乏任何有说服力的人道主义考虑，本案中不应当行使有利的自由裁量权。 申请人在上诉中称，她合法获得了所涉非移民签证；她的行为良好；她一直想着将子女带到美国；她在美国的前雇主希望她回到他们那里恢复原职。上诉附有前雇主的信件，说明他们需要她的服务，以及美国一位牧师的信件，证明申请人道德标准高尚。 根据《移民与国籍法》第212(1)条，8 U.S.C. 1182(i)，申请豁免《移民与国籍法》第212(a)(19)条，8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(19)所规定的不可入境理由的资格，仅限于作为美国公民或美国合法永久居民的配偶、父母或子女的外国人。该法律条款并未包含在原法中，而是由1961年9月26日法案（75 Stat. 655）增加的。国会增加该法律条款的意图从其语言中显而易见，是为家庭团聚提供条件，从而避免分离的困难。 在本案中情况并非如此。作为申请豁免资格依据的申请人的子女并不居住在美国，证据也不足以令人信服地表明申请人打算将其带来或将来与其在此共同生活。过去的记录表明并非如此，她在上诉中的陈述仅表明她一直想着这样做。没有证据表明她拥有法定监护权，或能够合法地从其生父处获得对该

Interim Decision #2767

临时决定第2767号

child from his natural father even if she wished to do so. In view of the factors in this case, it is evident that the applicant wants to return to employment which would benefit her economically, as well as fill a need of her prospective employers. While this is an understandable desire, it would not unite or reunite a family and the intent of the law would not be satisfied. Upon careful consideration, it is concluded that the favorable exercise of the Attorney General's discretion is not warranted in this case, and the Acting District Director's decision will be affirmed and the appeal dismissed. ORDERS The decision of the Acting District Director in Mexico City is affirmed, and the appeal is dismissed.

子女的监护权，即使她希望这样做。 鉴于本案中的各项因素，显然申请人希望重返工作，这将在经济上有利于她，并满足其未来雇主的需要。虽然这是可以理解的愿望，但这不会使家庭团聚或重聚，法律的意图也不会得到满足。经仔细考虑，结论是本案中不应当行使司法部长的有利自由裁量权，代理地区主任的决定将予维持，上诉予以驳回。 命令 代理地区主任在墨西哥城作出的决定予以维持，上诉予以驳回。