Matter of O. Vazquez

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 817 (BIA 2012) Interim Decision #3754

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 817 (BIA 2012) 临时决定 #3754

Decided June 8, 2012

2012年6月8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 alien may satisfy the “sought to acquire” provision of section 203(h)(1)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(h)(1)(A) (2006), by filing an application for adjustment of status or by showing that there are other extraordinary circumstances in the case, particularly those where the failure to timely file was due to circumstances beyond the alien’s control.

外国人可以通过提交调整身份申请或证明案件中存在其他特殊情况，特别是那些未能及时提交是由于外国人无法控制的情况，来满足《移民与国籍法》第203(h)(1)(A)条，8 U.S.C. § 1153(h)(1)(A) (2006) 中的“寻求获得”规定。

FOR RESPONDENT: Jose Bernardo Lovo, Esquire, Dallas, Texas

被申请人代理律师：Jose Bernardo Lovo，Esquire，德克萨斯州达拉斯

FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Margot Merrill-Johnson, Assistant Chief Counsel

国土安全部代理律师： Margot Merrill-Johnson， 助理首席法律顾问

BEFORE: Board Panel: GRANT, MALPHRUS, and MANN, Board Members.

审理：委员会小组：GRANT、MALPHRUS 和 MANN，委员会成员。

MALPHRUS, Board Member:

MALPHRUS，委员会成员：

In a decision dated September 15, 2008, an Immigration Judge found the respondent inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and NationalityAct,8U.S.C.§1182(a)(6)(A)(i)(2006),anddeniedhisapplication for adjustment of status under section 245(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i) (2006). The respondent has appealed from that decision. The Department of Homeland Security(“DHS”) has filed a brief in opposition. The appeal will be dismissed.

在2008年9月15日的决定中，移民法官认定被申请人根据《移民与国籍法》第212(a)(6)(A)(i)条，8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) (2006)，不可入境，并拒绝了其根据该法第245(i)条，8 U.S.C. § 1255(i) (2006) 提出的调整身份申请。被申请人对该决定提出上诉。国土安全部（“DHS”）提交了反对意见书。上诉将被驳回。

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

一、事实与程序历史

The respondent is a 28-year-old native and citizen of Mexico. On September 9, 1996, his father filed a Form I-130 (Petition for Alien Relative) on behalf of his mother, of which the respondent was a derivative beneficiary. The visa petition was approved on November 18, 1996, and an immigrant visa number became available to the respondent on March 1, 2004. Over a year later, on October 14, 2005, when he was 21 years and 9 months of age, the respondent first filed his Form I-485 (Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status) with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”).

被申请人是28岁的墨西哥本土公民。1996年9月9日，其父亲代表其母亲提交了I-130表格（外籍亲属申请），被申请人是衍生受益人。签证申请于1996年11月18日获批，移民签证号码于2004年3月1日可供被申请人使用。一年多后，即2005年10月14日，被申请人时年21岁9个月，首次向美国公民及移民服务局（“USCIS”）提交了I-485表格（登记永久居留或调整身份申请）。

817

817

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 817 (BIA 2012) Interim Decision #3754

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 817 (BIA 2012) 临时决定 #3754

The respondent’s application for adjustment of status was initially denied by the USCIS on the basis of an undisclosed criminal conviction. The respondent sought reopening, and on July 25, 2007, the USCIS denied the application on the ground that the respondent had “aged out” of his derivative beneficiary status. The USCIS concluded that the respondent was not eligible for the ameliorative provisions of the Child Status Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 107-208, 116 Stat. 927 (2002) (“CSPA”), because he did not file his application for adjustment of status within 1 year of the visa number becoming available and therefore had not “sought to acquire” lawful permanent resident status within a year of visa availability, as required by section 203(h)(1)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(h)(1)(A) (2006). 1

被申请人的调整身份申请最初因未披露的刑事定罪被USCIS拒绝。被申请人寻求重新开放，2007年7月25日，USCIS以被申请人已“超龄”失去衍生受益人资格为由拒绝申请。USCIS认定被申请人不符合《儿童身份保护法》Pub. L. No. 107-208, 116 Stat. 927 (2002)（“CSPA”）的救济条款，因为他未在签证号码可用后1年内提交调整身份申请，因此未按该法第203(h)(1)(A)条，8 U.S.C. § 1153(h)(1)(A) (2006) 的要求在签证可用后一年内“寻求获得”合法永久居民身份。1

The respondent was placed in removal proceedings and was charged as an alien who was present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. At a hearing before the Immigration Judge, he conceded removability and applied for adjustment of status, arguing that he sought to acquire permanent residence within 1 year of the visa number becoming available because his parents consulted with a notario about filing an application within that period. Concluding that the phrase “sought to acquire” means an actual filing with the USCIS, the Immigration Judge denied the respondent’s application for adjustment and ordered him removed to Mexico.

被申请人被置于驱逐程序中，并被指控为未经入境或假释而留在美国的外国人。在移民法官的听证会上，他承认可驱逐性并申请调整身份，辩称他在签证号码可用后1年内寻求获得永久居留，因为其父母在该期间咨询了公证人关于提交申请的事宜。移民法官认为“寻求获得”一词意味着向USCIS实际提交申请，因此拒绝了被申请人的调整申请并命令将其驱逐至墨西哥。

II. ANALYSIS

二、分析

Section 203(h)(1)(A) of the Act, which was enacted as part of the CSPA, provides a mechanism for an applicant who has aged out to nevertheless maintain the status of a “child” under the Act. An applicant can take advantage of the age calculation mechanism in this section “but only if the alien has sought to acquire the status of an alien lawfully admitted for

作为CSPA一部分颁布的该法第203(h)(1)(A)条，为已超龄的申请人提供了一种机制，使其仍能保持该法下的“儿童”身份。申请人可以利用本节中的年龄计算机制，“但仅限该外国人已寻求获得合法承认永久居民身份的外国人身份，

1 Section 203(h)(1) of the Act provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

1 该法第203(h)(1)条的相关部分规定如下：

Rules for Determining Whether Certain Aliens Are Children

确定某些外国人是否为儿童的规则

(1) In general

(1) 一般规定

For purposes of [qualified immigrants or children following to join], a determination of whether an alien satisfies the age requirement [to qualify as a child under section 101(b)(1) of the Act] shall be made using—

为[合格移民或随行儿童]之目的，确定外国人是否符合年龄要求[以符合该法第101(b)(1)条下的儿童资格]应使用——

(A) the age of the alien on . . . the date on which an immigrant visa number became available for the alien’s parent[], 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 . . . .

(A) 外国人于……移民签证号码可供其父母使用之日的年龄，但仅限该外国人已在此类可用性后一年内寻求获得合法承认永久居民身份的外国人身份……

818

818

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 817 (BIA 2012) Interim Decision #3754

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 817 (BIA 2012) 临时决定 #3754

permanent residence within one year of . . . availability” of an immigrant visa number. Section 203(h)(1)(A) of the Act (emphasis added).

在移民签证号码“可用性”后一年内。该法第203(h)(1)(A)条（强调添加）。

In interpreting the phrase “sought to acquire,” we must first determine whether it has a plain and unambiguous meaning. See Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 340 (1997) (“Our first step in interpreting a statute is to determine whether the language at issue has a plain and unambiguous meaning with regard to the particular dispute in the case.”). Analyzing whether language is plain and unambiguous is “determined byreference to the language itself, the specific context in which that language is used, and the broader context of the statute as a whole.” Id. at 341. Even when considered in light of the statutory context, the phrase “sought to acquire” does not have a plain and unambiguous meaning. It is sui generis in the Act and is not a legal term of art in applicable regulations or administrative or judicial decisions. However, the context of this statutory provision does explain why Congress may have chosen to employ an ambiguous term.

在解释“寻求获得”一词时，我们必须首先确定其是否具有明确无歧义的含义。见 Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 340 (1997)（“我们解释法规的第一步是确定所涉语言在案件特定争议中是否具有明确无歧义的含义。”）。分析语言是否明确无歧义是“通过参考语言本身、使用该语言的特定语境以及整个法规的更广泛语境来确定的。”同上，第341页。即使结合法规语境考虑，“寻求获得”一词也不具有明确无歧义的含义。它在该法中独树一帜，在适用法规或行政或司法决定中并非法律术语。然而，该法规条款的语境确实解释了国会为何可能选择使用一个模糊的术语。

The respondent contends that the plain meaning of “sought to acquire” must encompass a range of actions broader than “filing” an application for adjustment of status because Congress could simply have used the term “filed,” as it has in other sections in the Act. See, e.g., sections 208(a)(2)(B), 245(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a)(2)(B), 1255(a) (2006). This argument, viewed in isolation, has significant force. However, we agree with the DHS that the flaw in this approach is that section 203(h) applies to the DHS and the Departmentof State(“DOS”),bothofwhichadjudicaterequestsforimmigrant status.

被申请人主张，“寻求获得”的平义必须涵盖比提交调整身份申请更广泛的行为，因为国会本可以简单地使用“提交”一词，如同该法其他条款中所做的那样。见例如该法第208(a)(2)(B)、245(a)条，8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a)(2)(B), 1255(a) (2006)。孤立地看，这一论点具有显著力量。然而，我们同意DHS的观点，即这种方法的缺陷在于第203(h)条适用于DHS和国务院（“DOS”），两者都裁决移民身份请求。

Generally speaking, the DOS (through its consular service) adjudicates applications for immigrant visas from outside the United States, whereas the DHS (through the USCIS) adjudicates requests for adjustment of status from within the country. Thus, in drafting the CSPA, Congress needed to use language that would cover the different processes employed by the DOS and the DHS. The word “filed” is not the term ordinarily employed by the DOS to refer to initiation of the visa application process. Rather, the DOS regulations use the term “submit” when referring to a Form DS-230 (Application for Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration). See 22 C.F.R. § 42.63 (2012). This regulation obligates the consular officer to “ensure that Form DS-230 or Form DS-260 and all other forms an alien is required to submit are fully and properly completed in accordance with the applicable regulations and instructions.” 22 C.F.R. § 42.63(b) (emphasis added). 2

一般来说，DOS（通过其领事服务）裁决来自美国境外的移民签证申请，而DHS（通过USCIS）裁决来自美国境内的调整身份请求。因此，在起草CSPA时，国会需要使用涵盖DOS和DHS所采用的不同程序的措辞。“提交”一词并非DOS通常用来指启动签证申请程序的术语。相反，DOS法规在提及DS-230表格（移民签证和外籍人登记申请）时使用“提交”一词。见 22 C.F.R. § 42.63 (2012)。该法规要求领事官员“确保DS-230表格或DS-260表格以及要求外国人提交的所有其他表格均根据适用法规和指示完整、妥善填写。”22 C.F.R. § 42.63(b)（强调添加）。2

2 Form DS-260 is the online version of the immigrant visa application.

2 DS-260表格是移民签证申请的在线版本。

819

819

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 817 (BIA 2012) Interim Decision #3754

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 817 (BIA 2012) 临时决定 #3754

Likewise, 22 C.F.R. § 42.63(c) requires the “submission of additional information” by the applicant when the consular officer deems it necessary. (Emphasis added.)

同样，22 C.F.R. § 42.63(c) 要求申请人在领事官员认为必要时“提交额外信息”。（强调添加。）

This is not to suggest that the DOS exclusively uses the term “submit” (or a variation of that word) in its regulations or that it does not use the term “filed” at all. The DOS does use the term “filing” in a regulation discussing registration. See 22 C.F.R. § 42.67(b) (“The alien shall be considered to be registered for the purposes of INA 221(b) and 203(g) upon the filing of Form DS-230 or Form DS-260, when duly executed, or the transmission by the Department to the alien of a notification of the availability of an immigrant visa, whichever occurs first.” (emphasis added)). Notably, this use of the term “filing” attaches to events relatively late in the process of acquiring an immigrant visa—well after the “submission” referred to in 22 C.F.R. § 42.63. Indeed, the DOS’s use of the term “filing” made it difficult to use that word in section 203(h)(1)(A) of the Act without the risk of requiring an alien to wait until the end of the application process to essentially stop the 1-year clock under the CSPA.

这并非暗示DOS在其法规中排他性地使用“提交”一词（或该词的变体），或者完全不使用“提交”一词。DOS确实在讨论登记的法规中使用“提交”一词。见 22 C.F.R. § 42.67(b)（“外国人应被视为在正式签署的DS-230表格或DS-260表格提交时，或国务院向外国人传送移民签证可用性通知时（以先发生者为准），为INA 221(b)和203(g)之目的已登记。”（强调添加））。值得注意的是，这种“提交”一词的使用附属于获得移民签证过程中相对较晚的事件——远在22 C.F.R. § 42.63中提到的“提交”之后。事实上，DOS对“提交”一词的使用使得在第203(h)(1)(A)条中使用该词变得困难，否则有可能要求外国人等到申请程序结束才能实质上停止CSPA下的1年时钟。

Because of the differences in usage between the DOS and DHS regulations, it was reasonable for Congress to avoid using the word “filed” in section 203(h)(1)(A) of the Act. This different terminologyfurther supports our conclusion that the term “sought to acquire” is ambiguous. We must therefore apply a reasonable interpretation of that language. See Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-44 (1984); see also Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 980 (2005) (“[A]mbiguities in statutes within an agency’s jurisdiction to administer are delegations of authority to the agency to fill the statutory gap in reasonable fashion. Filling these gaps . . . involves difficult policy choices that agencies are better equipped to make than courts.”).

由于DOS和DHS法规在用法上的差异，国会在该法第203(h)(1)(A)条中避免使用“提交”一词是合理的。这种不同的术语进一步支持了我们的结论，即“寻求获得”一词是模糊的。因此，我们必须对该语言适用合理的解释。见 Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-44 (1984)；另见 Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 980 (2005)（“机构管辖范围内法规中的模糊之处是授权机构以合理方式填补法规空白。填补这些空白……涉及困难的政策选择，机构比法院更有能力做出。”）。

To reasonably interpret the meaning of the phrase “sought to acquire,” we must look at section 203(h)(1)(A) of the Act in its entirety. See K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988). A key phrase of this section establishes the amount of time afforded to the alien to take advantage of “age-out” protection. Congress provided that an alien would have 1 year from the date of visa availability to qualify. In our view, this is a significant amount of time during which an alien can obtain legal assistance, acquire necessary documentation, and execute the appropriate forms. Since Congress has afforded aliens a full year, rather than a mere 30 or 60 days, to take advantage of the age-out rule, it is reasonable to expect the proper filing of an application, when it comes to DHS cases, as a way to unquestionably satisfy the “sought to acquire” element under section 203(h)(1)(A) of the Act.

为了合理解释“寻求获得”一词的含义，我们必须整体看待该法第203(h)(1)(A)条。见 K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988)。本节的一个关键短语确立了给予外国人利用“超龄”保护的时间量。国会规定外国人从签证可用之日起有1年时间符合资格。我们认为，这是一段相当长的时间，外国人可以在此期间获得法律援助、获取必要文件并签署适当表格。由于国会给予外国人整整一年而非仅仅30或60天来利用超龄规则，因此可以合理预期，在DHS案件中，正确提交申请是毫无疑问满足该法第203(h)(1)(A)条下“寻求获得”要素的方式。

This interpretation of the statute comports with the meaning of the words “sought” and “acquire.” Obviously, filing an application for adjustment

这种对法规的解释符合“寻求”和“获得”这两个词的含义。显然，提交调整申请

820

820

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 817 (BIA 2012) Interim Decision #3754

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 817 (BIA 2012) 临时决定 #3754

of status is a critical step that may allow one, if otherwise found to be eligible, to “acquire” lawful permanent resident status on the basis of an available immigrant visa. Interpreting the statute in this manner also “promotes consistency and predictability, which are important principles in immigration law.” Matter of C-T-L-, 25 I&N Dec. 341, 347 (BIA 2010).

调整身份是一个关键步骤，若在其他方面被认定符合资格，该步骤可以允许个人基于可用的移民签证“取得”合法永久居民身份。 以这种方式解释该法条也“促进了连贯性和可预测性，而这是移民法中的重要原则。”Matter of C-T-L-, 25 I&N Dec. 341, 347 (BIA 2010)。

While the proper filing of an application for adjustment of status clearly meets the “sought to acquire” provision in section 203(h)(1)(A) of the Act, the statute may also be satisfied by other actions that fall short of filing. An alien may satisfy the “sought to acquire” requirement by presenting evidence that persuasively establishes that he or she submitted an application to the appropriateagencywithintheDHSinthemannerthattheapplicationprovides, but it was rejected for a procedural or technical reason, such as the absence of a signature. We note that in the context of asylum applications, if an application was filed prior to the expiration of the 1-year deadline but was rejected and returned as not properly filed, the applicant’s subsequent failure to meet the deadline maybe excused if the corrected application is filed within a reasonable period after its return. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5)(v) (2012). An application for adjustment would be considered timely filed for purposes of section 203(h)(1)(A) of the Act in similar circumstances.

虽然正确提交调整身份申请显然符合该法第203(h)(1)(A)条中的“寻求取得”规定，但该法条也可以通过未达到提交程度的其他行为得到满足。外国人可以通过提交证据来满足“寻求取得”要求，该证据具有说服力地证明其以该申请所规定的方式向DHS内适当机构提交了申请，但因程序或技术原因被拒绝，例如缺少签名。我们注意到，在庇护申请的语境下，如果申请在1年期限届满前提交，但因未正确提交而被拒绝并退回，若申请人在退回后的合理期限内提交更正后的申请，其随后未能满足期限要求的情形可以豁免。见8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5)(v) (2012)。在类似情况下，调整身份申请为第203(h)(1)(A)条之目的将被视为及时提交。

Moreover, an alien might also satisfy the “sought to acquire” provision by showing that there are other extraordinary circumstances in the case, particularly those where the failure to timely file was due to circumstances beyond the alien’s control. 3 In that regard, an alien may be able to show that he or she paid an attorneyto assist in filing a timelyadjustment application and completed and executed the application with the attorney’s aid prior to the deadline, but the attorneythen failed to take the ministerial step of timelyfiling the application with the appropriate agency, therebyeffectivelypreventing the

此外，外国人还可以通过表明案件中存在其他特殊情况来满足“寻求取得”规定，特别是那些未能及时提交是由于外国人无法控制的情况所致的情形。3 在这方面，外国人可能能够表明，其付费聘请律师协助及时提交调整申请，并在截止日期前在律师协助下完成并签署了申请，但律师随后未能采取及时向适当机构提交申请这一行政性步骤，从而实际上阻止了

3 We find support for such an “extraordinary circumstances” standard from the provisions of the Act governing the issuance of immigrant visas. Under section 203(g) of the Act, an alien generally must apply for an immigrant visa within 1 year of State Department notification of the availability of a visa to prevent termination of the visa. However, there is an exception to termination if the alien can show, within 2 years of notification, that his or her “failure to apply was due to circumstances beyond the alien’s control.” Section 203(g) of the Act. While the DOS consular process and the DHS adjustment process differ, there are similarities between them. For example, as a general rule an alien applying for an immigrant visa through consular processing or one seeking to maintain his or her child status under the CSPA (whether through the DOS or the DHS) has 1 year to apply. Sound policy reasons support encouraging compliance with a 1-year period for both the DOS visa issuing process and the CSPA’s procedures for maintaining one’s status as a “child.” In the former case, unused visas can be recaptured and reallocated to others awaiting such visas; in the latter, those who seek the ameliorative effects of the CSPA are encouraged to act with reasonable diligence to maintain the benefit of a “child” status.

3 我们从该法关于签发移民签证的规定中找到了对此类“特殊情况”标准的支持。根据该法第203(g)条，外国人通常必须在国务院通知签证可用后1年内申请移民签证，以防止签证终止。但是，如果外国人在通知后2年内能够表明其“未能申请是由于外国人无法控制的情况”，则存在终止的例外。该法第203(g)条。虽然DOS的领事程序与DHS的调整程序不同，但二者之间存在相似之处。例如，作为一般规则，通过领事程序申请移民签证的外国人或寻求根据CSPA维持其子女身份者（无论是通过DOS还是DHS），均有1年时间提出申请。健全的政策理由支持鼓励在DOS签证签发程序和CSPA维持“子女”身份的程序中均遵守1年期限。在前一种情况下，未使用的签证可以被重新捕获并重新分配给等待此类签证的其他人；在后一种情况下，寻求CSPA改善效果者被鼓励以合理勤勉行事，以维持“子女”身份的福利。

821

821

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 817 (BIA 2012) Interim Decision #3754

引用为25 I&N Dec. 817 (BIA 2012) 临时决定#3754

alien from filing. See Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988), aff’d, 857 F.2d 10 (1st Cir. 1988); see also Mai v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 162, 165 (5th Cir. 2006).

外国人提交。见Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988), aff’d, 857 F.2d 10 (1st Cir. 1988)；另见Mai v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 162, 165 (5th Cir. 2006)。

However, actions that do not approximate the filing of an application or extraordinarycircumstances, such as contacting an attorneyabout initiating the process for obtaining a visa that has become available, are insufficient to meet the requirements of section 203(h)(1)(A) of the Act. The alternative suggested by the respondent, that the deadline could be satisfied by simply contacting an organization or an attorney for legal advice, is impractical and leavesopenmanyquestions,includinghowsubstantivethecontactwouldneed to be and what level of proof would need to be provided regarding such contact. See Negusie v. Holder, 555 U.S. 511, 524 (2009) (stating that the Board’s development of a reasoned interpretation may be “influenced by how practical, or impractical, the standard would be in terms of its application to specific cases”).

但是，不近似于提交申请的行为或特殊情况，例如联系律师启动获取已可用签证的程序，不足以满足该法第203(h)(1)(A)条的要求。被上诉人建议的替代方案，即仅通过联系组织或律师获取法律建议即可满足期限要求，是不切实际的，并留下许多问题，包括该联系需要多么实质性以及需要就该联系提供何种程度的证明。见Negusie v. Holder, 555 U.S. 511, 524 (2009)（指出委员会对合理解释的发展可能“受到该标准在适用于具体案件时实际或不实际程度的影响”）。

Recently,theUnitedStatesCourtof AppealsfortheEleventhCircuitstated that the phrase “sought to acquire” does not require that an alien actually file or submit an application but rather can encompass “substantial steps taken toward the filing of the application for permanent residency . . . within the one year period.” Tovar v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 646 F.3d 1300, 1302, 1305 (11th Cir. 2011). 4 In its analysis of section 203(h)(1)(A) of the Act, the Eleventh Circuit discussedthreeunpublishedBoarddecisionsthatappliedabroadinterpretation of the phrase “sought to acquire.” Id. at 1303-05.

最近，美国第十一巡回上诉法院指出，“寻求取得”一语不要求外国人实际提交或递交申请，而是可以涵盖“在1年期限内为提交永久居留申请而采取的实质性步骤……”。Tovar v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 646 F.3d 1300, 1302, 1305 (11th Cir. 2011)。4 在分析该法第203(h)(1)(A)条时，第十一巡回法院讨论了三项未公布的委员会决定，这些决定对“寻求取得”一语适用了宽泛解释。Id. at 1303-05。

However, the Eleventh Circuit did not reference other unpublished Board decisions that interpreted “sought to acquire” more restrictively. 5 Moreover, neither Tovar nor the unpublished Board decisions it cited considered the central, andin our view convincing, argument discussed above: that the inherent vagueness of the phrase “sought to acquire” reflects that section 203(h)(1) of the Act applies to the processing of applications by two separate agencies, which use different nomenclatures.

但是，第十一巡回法院未提及其他未公布的委员会决定，这些决定对“寻求取得”作了更严格的解释。5 此外，无论是Tovar还是其引用的未公布委员会决定，均未考虑上文讨论的核心且在我们看来具有说服力的论点：即“寻求取得”一语固有的模糊性反映出该法第203(h)(1)条适用于两个不同机构对申请的处理，而这两个机构使用不同的术语。

In any event, the Eleventh Circuit ultimately held that the alien’s mere requests for a visa and for reinstatement of a visa registration with the Department of State through the National Visa Center (“NVC”) did not constitute even a substantial step toward the filing of an application for permanent residence. Tovar v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 646 F.3d at 1305. In that case, the alien did not make any effort to file an adjustment application in a timely

无论如何，第十一巡回法院最终认定，外国人仅向国务院通过国家签证中心（“NVC”）提出签证请求和恢复签证登记的请求，甚至不构成提交永久居留申请的实质性步骤。Tovar v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 646 F.3d at 1305。在该案中，外国人未作出任何及时提交调整申请的努力

4 Tovar v. U.S. Attorney General, 646 F.3d 1300, is not binding in this case, which arises in the jurisdiction of the Fifth Circuit. Matter of Anselmo, 20 I&N Dec. 25, 31 (BIA 1989). 5 In any event, we are not bound by our decisions that have not been designated as Board precedents. See Matter of Medrano, 20 I&N Dec. 216, 220 (BIA 1990, 1991); see also Matter of Echeverria, 25 I&N Dec. 512, 519 (BIA 2011); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(g) (2012).

4 Tovar v. U.S. Attorney General, 646 F.3d 1300，在本案中不具有约束力，本案产生于第五巡回法院的管辖区域。Matter of Anselmo, 20 I&N Dec. 25, 31 (BIA 1989)。 5 无论如何，我们不受未被指定为委员会先例的决定约束。见Matter of Medrano, 20 I&N Dec. 216, 220 (BIA 1990, 1991)；另见Matter of Echeverria, 25 I&N Dec. 512, 519 (BIA 2011)；8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(g) (2012)。

822

822

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 817 (BIA 2012) Interim Decision #3754

引用为25 I&N Dec. 817 (BIA 2012) 临时决定#3754

manner or return to Mexico to pursue consular processing of his immigrant visa. He also did not claim that he was prevented from filing bycircumstances beyond his control. Instead, the alien only contacted the NVC to request that his visa petition not be terminated. In fact, the respondent then waited 3 years from the date the visa number became available to file an adjustment application. Although we respectfully do not agree that “substantial steps” is the proper standard and do not adopt all of the Eleventh Circuit’s reasoning and analysis, we would reach the same result given the facts of that case.

方式，或返回墨西哥继续其移民签证的领事处理。他也未声称其因无法控制的情况而被阻止提交。相反，该外国人仅联系NVC请求不要终止其签证申请。事实上，被上诉人在签证名额可用之日起等待了3年才提交调整申请。尽管我们恭敬地不同意“实质性步骤”是适当标准，也不采纳第十一巡回法院的全部推理和分析，但鉴于该案事实，我们会得出相同结果。

In summary, we conclude that an alien may satisfy the “sought to acquire” provision of section 203(h)(1)(A) of the Act by properly filing the application for adjustment of status with the DHS. Additionally, the alien may meet the requirement by establishing, through persuasive evidence, that an application he or she submitted to the appropriate agency was rejected for a procedural or technical reason or that there were other extraordinary circumstances, particularly those where the failure to timely file was due to circumstances beyond the alien’s control. The respondent, through his father, merely sought legal advice and did not actually file his adjustment application within 1 year of visa availability. We conclude that he did not satisfy the “sought to acquire” requirement of section 203(h)(1)(A) of the Act and thus is not eligible to adjust his status to that of a lawful permanent resident as a derivative beneficiary. Accordingly, the respondent’s appeal will be dismissed.

总之，我们认定，外国人可以通过向DHS正确提交调整身份申请来满足该法第203(h)(1)(A)条的“寻求取得”规定。此外，外国人可以通过有说服力的证据证明其向适当机构提交的申请因程序或技术原因被拒绝，或存在其他特殊情况，特别是那些未能及时提交是由于外国人无法控制的情况所致的情形，来满足该要求。被上诉人通过其父亲仅寻求了法律建议，并未在签证可用后1年内实际提交其调整申请。我们认定其未满足该法第203(h)(1)(A)条的“寻求取得”要求，因此没有资格作为衍生受益人将其身份调整为合法永久居民。 因此，被上诉人的上诉将被驳回。

823

823