Matter of Saif Ur Rehman

Cite as 27 I&N Dec. 124 (BIA 2017) Interim Decision #3903

引用为 27 I&N Dec. 124 (BIA 2017) 临时决定 #3903

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

美国司法部 移民审查执行办公室

Where a petitioner seeking to prove a familial relationship submits a birth certificate that was not registered contemporaneously with the birth, an adjudicator must consider the birth certificate, as well as all the other evidence of record and the circumstances of the case, to determine whether the petitioner has submitted sufficient reliable evidence to demonstrate the claimed relationship by a preponderance of the evidence. FOR PETITIONER: Eric H. Singer, Esquire, Bethesda, Maryland FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Michael Ammerman, Associate Counsel BEFORE: Board Panel: ADKINS-BLANCH, Vice Chairman; MANN and KELLY, Board Members. MANN, Board Member:

当寻求证明家庭关系的申请人提交的出生证明并非在出生时同期登记时，裁决者必须考虑该出生证明以及记录中的所有其他证据和案件情况，以确定申请人是否提交了足够可靠的证据，以优势证据证明所主张的关系。 申请人代表：Eric H. Singer，Esquire，马里兰州贝塞斯达 国土安全部代表：Michael Ammerman，副法律顾问 审理：委员会小组：ADKINS-BLANCH，副主席；MANN 和 KELLY，委员会成员。 MANN，委员会成员：

In a decision dated March 24, 2015, the Service Center Director (“Director”) denied the Petition for Alien Relative (Form I-130) that the United States petitioner filed on behalf of the beneficiary to accord him status as his brother under section 203(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(a)(4) (2012). The petitioner has appealed from that decision. The record will be remanded.

在2015年3月24日的决定中，服务中心主任（“主任”）拒绝了美国申请人代表受益人提交的外籍亲属申请（I-130表格），该申请旨在根据《移民和国籍法》第203(a)(4)条，8 U.S.C. § 1153(a)(4) (2012)，授予其作为申请人兄弟的身份。申请人已对该决定提出上诉。案件将发回重审。

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In support of his visa petition, the petitioner submitted a birth certificate that was registered in 1958, indicating that the beneficiary was born in Pakistan in 1956. The Director denied the visa petition, concluding that the petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to meet his burden of establishing that the beneficiary qualifies as his brother for immigration purposes. Specifically, the Director found that the beneficiary’s Pakistani birth certificate did not prove his parentage because it was registered 2 years after his birth, and the petitioner did not submit sufficient secondary evidence to support the delayed registered birth certificate.

I. 事实和程序历史 为支持其签证申请，申请人提交了一份1958年登记的出生证明，表明受益人于1956年出生在巴基斯坦。主任拒绝了签证申请，结论是申请人未提交足够证据以满足其证明受益人符合其兄弟移民目的的举证责任。具体而言，主任认定受益人的巴基斯坦出生证明不能证明其父母身份，因为该证明是在其出生2年后登记的，且申请人未提交足够的次要证据来支持延迟登记的出生证明。

124

124

Cite as 27 I&N Dec. 124 (BIA 2017) Interim Decision #3903

引用为 27 I&N Dec. 124 (BIA 2017) 临时决定 #3903

II. ANALYSIS

II. 分析

In this case, we will address the factors to be considered when assessing whether a petitioner has established a familial relationship by a preponderance of the evidence where a birth certificate submitted to prove the relationship reflects that it was not registered contemporaneously with the birth. We review all questions arising in visa petition proceedings de novo. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iii) (2017).

在本案中，我们将讨论在申请人提交的用于证明关系的出生证明显示其并非在出生时同期登记的情况下，评估申请人是否以优势证据建立了家庭关系时应考虑的因素。我们重新审查签证申请程序中出现的所有问题。见 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iii) (2017)。

A. Preponderance of the Evidence

A. 优势证据

In visa petition proceedings, the petitioner bears the burden of establishing the claimed relationship by a preponderance of the evidence. See, e.g., Matter of Ruzku, 26 I&N Dec. 731, 731 (BIA 2016). We have defined a “preponderance of the evidence” as “evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.” Matter of Lemhammad, 20 I&N Dec. 316, 320 n.5 (BIA 1991) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1064 (5th ed. 1979)). Whether evidence is sufficient to meet the preponderance of the evidence standard

在签证申请程序中，申请人承担以优势证据证明所主张关系的举证责任。见，例如，Matter of Ruzku, 26 I&N Dec. 731, 731 (BIA 2016)。我们将“优势证据”定义为“整体上表明所寻求证明的事实更可能而非不可能的证​​据。”Matter of Lemhammad, 20 I&N Dec. 316, 320 n.5 (BIA 1991)（引用 Black's Law Dictionary 1064 (5th ed. 1979)）。证据是否足以满足优势证据标准

will often turn upon the factual circumstances of each case. There are no magic words or mathematical formulas that can describe a preponderance of the evidence so it can be applied mechanically in every case. Nonetheless, when we consider that the purpose of evidence is to ascertain the truth, then we can make certain generalizations. For example, when something has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the proof must demonstrate that something must be almost certainly true. And when something has to be proved by clear and convincing evidence, the proof must demonstrate that it is highly probably true. But, when something is to be established by a preponderance of the evidence it is sufficient that the proof only establish that it is probably true.

往往取决于每个案件的事实情况。没有魔法词或数学公式可以描述优势证据，以便在每个案件中机械地应用。尽管如此，当我们考虑到证据的目的是查明真相时，我们可以做出某些概括。例如，当某事必须被证明到排除合理怀疑的程度时，证明必须表明某事几乎肯定是真实的。而当某事必须通过清晰和令人信服的证据证明时，证明必须表明它是高度可能真实的。但是，当某事要通过优势证据来确立时，证明只需确立它可能是真实的就足够了。

. . . [T]he application of the “preponderance of the evidence” standard may require the examination of each piece of relevant evidence and a determination as to whether such evidence, either by itself or when viewed within the totality of the evidence, establishes that something to be proved is probably true. Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79–80 (Comm. 1989) (citation omitted).

. . . [T]“优势证据”标准的适用可能需要审查每一件相关证据，并确定该证据本身或在整体证据中审视时是否确立所要证明的某事可能是真实的。 Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79–80 (Comm. 1989)（引用省略）。

B. Primary Evidence To establish a claimed family relationship in visa petition proceedings by a preponderance of the evidence, a petitioner should submit primary evidence, if it is available. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b), 204.1(f)(1) (2017). For siblings, that primary evidence includes birth certificates showing a common parent. 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(g)(2)(i) (2017). To determine whether primary

B. 主要证据 要在签证申请程序中以优势证据建立所主张的家庭关系，申请人应在可获得的情况下提交主要证据。8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b), 204.1(f)(1) (2017)。对于兄弟姐妹，主要证据包括显示共同父母的出生证明。8 C.F.R. § 204.2(g)(2)(i) (2017)。为确定主要

125

125

Cite as 27 I&N Dec. 124 (BIA 2017) Interim Decision #3903

引用为 27 I&N Dec. 124 (BIA 2017) 临时决定 #3903

evidence is unavailable, adjudicators may refer to the Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual (“FAM”) Reciprocity Schedule and may consider any other evidence in the record regarding the availability of such evidence.

证据是否不可获得，裁决者可以参考国务院外交事务手册（“FAM”）互惠日程表，并可以考虑记录中关于此类证据可获得性的任何其他证据。

In assessing whether a petitioner has met his or her burden of proof in cases where a birth certificate is submitted to establish a family relationship, “we have been reluctant to accord delayed birth certificates the same weight we would give birth certificates issued at the time of birth.” Matter of Bueno, 21 I&N Dec. 1029, 1032 (BIA 1997) (citing Matter of Ma, 20 I&N Dec. 394 (BIA 1991)). We reasoned that birth certificates with delayed registration dates are less reliable because “the opportunity for fraud is much greater with a delayed birth certificate.” Matter of Serna, 16 I&N Dec. 643, 645 (BIA 1978). However, we have noted the difficulty in balancing situations in which a delayed birth certificate may be the only type of birth certificate available. Id. at 644–45 (“To penalize these persons because they were not born in hospitals or other facilities where births are registered would be unjust.”). To balance the competing concerns of fraud and fairness, we have held that a delayed birth certificate is not generally conclusive evidence and must instead “be evaluated in light of the other evidence of record and the circumstances of the case.” Matter of Bueno, 21 I&N Dec. at 1033.

在评估申请人是否在提交出生证明以建立家庭关系的案件中履行了举证责任时，“我们一直不愿给予延迟出生证明与出生时签发的出生证明相同的权重。”Matter of Bueno, 21 I&N Dec. 1029, 1032 (BIA 1997)（引用 Matter of Ma, 20 I&N Dec. 394 (BIA 1991)）。我们的理由是，延迟登记日期的出生证明可靠性较低，因为“延迟出生证明的欺诈机会要大得多。”Matter of Serna, 16 I&N Dec. 643, 645 (BIA 1978)。然而，我们注意到在延迟出生证明可能是唯一可获得的出生证明类型的情况下进行平衡的困难。Id. at 644–45（“因这些人未在医院或其他登记出生的设施出生而惩罚他们是不公正的。”）。为了平衡欺诈和公平的相互关切，我们裁定延迟出生证明通常不是结论性证据，而是必须“根据记录中的其他证据和案件情况进行评估。”Matter of Bueno, 21 I&N Dec. at 1033。

Although we have never specified that a birth certificate must reflect registration within a specific period of time after the birth in order to be valid evidence of parentage, we have seen a pattern in decisions where the Director has determined that birth certificates registered 1 year or more after the birth are considered delayed. Such a bright-line standard has no basis in the regulations or our precedent.

尽管我们从未明确规定出生证明必须在出生后特定时间内登记才能作为父母身份的有效证据，但我们在主任认定出生后1年或更长时间登记的出生证明被视为延迟的决定中看到了一种模式。这种明确标准在法规或我们的先例中没有依据。

Instead, we have consistently considered the record as a whole to determine whether there is sufficient evidence of the relationship. In Matter of Bueno, the beneficiary’s birth was registered in the Dominican Republic 7 years after he was born and only 9 months prior to the filing of the visa petition. We concluded that these circumstances raised questions regarding the beneficiary’s paternity, particularly given that the FAM did not reflect whether independent verification of paternity was necessary in the Dominican Republic to obtain a birth certificate after the birth date. Id. (citing Vol. 9, Foreign Affairs Manual, Part IV, Appendix C, “Dominican Republic”). We held that additional proof was needed to establish paternity in that case and that the sole additional relevant document—an affidavit— was insufficient to establish the relationship by a preponderance of the evidence.

相反，我们一直考虑整体记录以确定是否有足够的关系证据。在 Matter of Bueno 中，受益人的出生在多米尼加共和国在其出生7年后登记，且仅在签证申请提交前9个月。我们得出结论，这些情况引起了关于受益人亲子关系的疑问，特别是考虑到FAM未反映在多米尼加共和国在出生日期后获得出生证明是否需要独立验证亲子关系。Id.（引用 Vol. 9, Foreign Affairs Manual, Part IV, Appendix C, “Dominican Republic”）。我们裁定在该案中需要额外证据来确立亲子关系，且唯一额外的相关文件——一份宣誓书——不足以以优势证据建立关系。

Similarly, in Matter of Ma, 20 I&N Dec. at 397, we evaluated the reliability of a Chinese notarial certificate that was issued 40 years after the beneficiary’s birth. We determined that although such certificates were generally reliable, the delay in the registration of the birth raised a concern

同样，在 Matter of Ma, 20 I&N Dec. at 397 中，我们评估了一份在受益人出生40年后签发的中国公证书的可靠性。我们确定，尽管此类证书通常可靠，但出生登记的延迟引起了担忧

126

126

Cite as 27 I&N Dec. 124 (BIA 2017) Interim Decision #3903

引用为 27 I&N Dec. 124 (BIA 2017) 临时决定 #3903

about fraud, so the case should be considered in light of “any and all supporting evidence that the petitioner may be able to produce.” Id.

关于欺诈，因此案件应根据“申请人可能能够提供的任何和所有支持证据”来考虑。Id.

Having reviewed the regulations, our precedent decisions, and the arguments of the parties, we conclude that in evaluating whether a birth certificate is “delayed” and therefore raises concerns about fraud, an adjudicator must consider all the other evidence of record and the circumstances of the case to determine whether a petitioner has submitted sufficient reliable evidence to demonstrate the claimed familial relationship by a preponderance of the evidence. See Matter of Bueno, 21 I&N Dec. at 1033. The adjudicator should always examine the evidence for its reliability and persuasiveness, given the circumstances presented.

在审查了法规、我们的先例决定和双方的论点后，我们得出结论，在评估出生证明是否“延迟”从而引起欺诈担忧时，裁决者必须考虑记录中的所有其他证据和案件情况，以确定申请人是否提交了足够可靠的证据以优势证据证明所主张的家庭关系。见 Matter of Bueno, 21 I&N Dec. at 1033。裁决者应始终根据所呈现的情况审查证据的可靠性和说服力。

Even if a birth certificate does not reflect that its registration was contemporaneous with the birth, an adjudicator may conclude that it is sufficiently reliable to establish parentage, depending on the circumstances. In making this determination, the adjudicator should consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, (1) information in the FAM regarding the availability and reliability of birth registrations in the country of birth during the time period at issue; (2) the length of time between the birth and the registration; (3) any credible explanation proffered by the petitioner as to the personal, societal, or historical circumstances that prevented a particular birth certificate from being registered contemporaneously, and any evidence in support of that explanation; (4) any credible explanation for why a particular birth certificate was lost or destroyed; (5) any evidence that the parental relationship was independently corroborated prior to the registration of the birth; (6) the length of time between the birth registration and the filing of the visa petition; and (7) information regarding whether the document was based on facts that were contemporaneous with the birth or on facts that were more recently established.

即使出生证明未反映其登记与出生同期，裁决者也可以根据情况得出结论，认为其足够可靠以确立父母身份。在做出这一决定时，裁决者应考虑所有相关因素，包括但不限于：(1) FAM中关于出生国在有关时间段内出生登记的可用性和可靠性的信息；(2) 出生与登记之间的时间长度；(3) 申请人提供的关于阻止特定出生证明同期登记的个人、社会或历史情况的任何可信解释，以及支持该解释的任何证据；(4) 关于特定出生证明为何丢失或毁坏的任何可信解释；(5) 在出生登记之前亲子关系已独立得到佐证的任何证据；(6) 出生登记与签证申请提交之间的时间长度；以及 (7) 关于该文件是基于与出生同期的事实还是基于最近确立的事实的信​​息。

C. Secondary Evidence

C. 次要证据

If the adjudicator determines that a birth certificate is not sufficiently reliable to meet the preponderance of the evidence standard in light of all of the circumstances, he or she should require and consider secondary evidence to determine whether the petitioner has established parentage. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2); see also Matter of Pagan, 22 I&N Dec. 547, 550 (BIA 1999).

如果裁决者根据所有情况确定出生证明不够可靠以满足优势证据标准，他或她应要求并考虑次要证据，以确定申请人是否已确立父母身份。见 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)；另见 Matter of Pagan, 22 I&N Dec. 547, 550 (BIA 1999)。

The regulations do not specify the secondary evidence to be considered in sibling petition cases like the one before us. However, we find instructive the regulation that lists the types of secondary evidence petitioners may submit to establish their United States citizenship or lawful permanent resident status. 8 C.F.R. § 204.1(g)(2) (providing that secondary evidence may include, but is not limited to, baptismal certificates, affidavits sworn by

这些法规并未具体规定在像本案这样的兄弟姐妹申请案件中应考虑哪些次要证据。然而，我们认为，列举申请人可提交以证明其美国公民身份或合法永久居民身份的次要证据类型的法规具有指导意义。8 C.F.R. § 204.1(g)(2)（规定次要证据可以包括但不限于洗礼证书、由

127

127

Cite as 27 I&N Dec. 124 (BIA 2017) Interim Decision #3903

引用为 27 I&N Dec. 124 (BIA 2017) 临时决定第3903号

persons with personal knowledge of the event to which they attest, early school records, and census records). Similarly, we consider relevant the secondary evidence listed in the regulations pertaining to petitions filed on behalf of sons and daughters, because in sibling petition cases, it is the siblings’ relationship through the parent that must be established. See, e.g., 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(d)(2)(v), (vi) (providing that secondary evidence may include historical evidence issued contemporaneously with the birth or other event that it documents, such as medical records, school records, religious documents, affidavits by those with personal knowledge of the event, and DNA evidence). All secondary evidence should be evaluated for its authenticity and credibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.1(g)(2).

对所述事件有亲身了解的人宣誓的宣誓书、早期学校记录和人口普查记录）。同样，我们认为与为子女提交的申请相关的法规中所列的次要证据具有相关性，因为在兄弟姐妹申请案件中，必须证明的是兄弟姐妹通过父母而形成的关系。参见，例如，8 C.F.R. § 204.2(d)(2)(v)、(vi)（规定次要证据可以包括与其所记录的出生或其他事件同时签发的历史证据，例如医疗记录、学校记录、宗教文件、对事件有亲身了解的人的宣誓书以及DNA证据）。所有次要证据都应就其真实性和可信度进行评估。8 C.F.R. § 204.1(g)(2)。

Thus, the types of secondary evidence that a petitioner may submit to establish his or her relationship with a sibling beneficiary include, but are not limited to, (1) governmental, medical, religious, school, financial, employment, insurance, or residential records that reflect the names of the parent(s) and child; (2) family photographs with notations indicating the persons photographed, as well as the date and place they were taken; (3) correspondence, preferably with the original envelope, showing the date written and referring to the parent(s) and child; (4) affidavits by persons who have personal knowledge of the birth; and (5) the results of DNA testing conducted in a prescribed manner, as explained to the petitioner by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). Given the advances in DNA testing in recent years, the USCIS should encourage petitioners to pursue this option, particularly if little other secondary evidence is available. A Request for Evidence should provide detailed guidance with regard to secondary forms of evidence.

因此，申请人可提交以证明其与兄弟姐妹受益人关系的次要证据类型包括但不限于：(1) 反映父母和子女姓名的政府、医疗、宗教、学校、财务、就业、保险或居住记录；(2) 附有说明照片中人物以及拍摄日期和地点的标注的家庭照片；(3) 显示书写日期并提及父母和子女的信件，最好附有原始信封；(4) 对出生有亲身了解的人的宣誓书；以及 (5) 按美国公民及移民服务局（“USCIS”）向申请人解释的规定方式进行的DNA检测结果。鉴于近年来DNA检测的进步，USCIS应鼓励申请人寻求这一选择，特别是在其他次要证据很少的情况下。证据请求应就次要形式的证据提供详细指导。

Although we agree with the petitioner that all secondary evidence should be considered, we also agree with counsel for the USCIS that secondary evidence that was created contemporaneous with the birth will be the most persuasive. As with all visa petitions, an adjudicator’s decision should explain his or her reasoning in evaluating the reliability and persuasiveness of all the evidence in the record and state whether it is sufficient to meet the preponderance of the evidence standard.

尽管我们同意申请人的意见，即应考虑所有次要证据，但我们也同意USCIS律师的意见，即与出生同时形成的次要证据最具说服力。与所有签证申请一样，裁决者的决定应解释其在评估记录中所有证据的可靠性和说服力时的推理，并说明该证据是否足以达到优势证据标准。

D. Application to the Beneficiary

D. 适用于受益人

In this case, the beneficiary’s birth was registered in 1958, when he was 2 years old. Unlike in Matter of Bueno, where the birth was registered just months before the visa petition was filed, the petitioner filed the visa petition 52 years after the beneficiary’s birth was registered. Under these circumstances, the risk of fraud is greatly reduced.

在本案中，受益人的出生于1958年登记，当时他2岁。与Matter of Bueno案中出生仅在签证申请提交前几个月才登记不同，本案申请人是在受益人出生登记52年后才提交签证申请的。在此情况下，欺诈风险大大降低。

128

128

Cite as 27 I&N Dec. 124 (BIA 2017) Interim Decision #3903

引用为 27 I&N Dec. 124 (BIA 2017) 临时决定第3903号

In addition, the Director did not indicate that she considered the FAM, which states the following in regard to birth records in Pakistan:

此外，主任并未表示她考虑了FAM，该文件就巴基斯坦的出生记录规定如下：

Birth certificates for older Pakistanis, particularly those born before partition in 1947, are often unavailable. These Pakistanis may present a “No Entry Certificate” issued by the Municipal Corporation or a late-registered birth certificate. . . . Even today, birth records are not uniformly kept, particularly in rural areas. . . . . . . . In lieu of a birth certificate, Pakistanis often use school records attested by the headmaster or principal of the school or matriculation certificates, both of which identify the father and the date of birth. “B” Forms, which are family registration forms listing all family members, are also available [to show’ family relationships. These documents are issued by [the National Database and Registration Authority (“NADRA”)], though pre-NADRA versions are sometimes available as well. U.S. Dep’t of State, Pakistan Country Reciprocity Schedule, https://travel. state.gov/content/visas/en/fees/reciprocity-by-country/PK.html (follow the hyperlink to “Birth, Death, Burial Certificates”). The FAM indicates that birth certificates for those Pakistanis of the beneficiary’s generation— namely, those born shortly after the 1947 partition of India—may often be unavailable. The Director should weigh this fact when considering the persuasiveness of the beneficiary’s birth certificate, which was registered in 1958.

较年长的巴基斯坦人，特别是1947年分治前出生的人，其出生证明往往无法获得。这些巴基斯坦人可能出示由市政公司签发的“无记录证明”或迟登记的出生证明。…… 即使在今天，出生记录也并非统一保存，特别是在农村地区。…… …… 在无法提供出生证明的情况下，巴基斯坦人通常使用经学校校长或负责人认证的学校记录或入学证书，两者均载明父亲和出生日期。“B”表是列明所有家庭成员的家庭登记表，也可用于[显示]家庭关系。这些文件由[国家数据库和登记局（“NADRA”）]签发，不过有时也可获得NADRA之前的版本。 美国国务院，巴基斯坦国家对等互惠时间表，https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/fees/reciprocity-by-country/PK.html（点击超链接至“出生、死亡、埋葬证明”）。FAM指出，受益人这一代巴基斯坦人——即在1947年印度分治后不久出生的人——的出生证明可能往往无法获得。主任在考虑受益人于1958年登记的出生证明的说服力时，应权衡这一事实。

III. CONCLUSION We will remand this case for the Director to apply the framework set forth above and determine whether the beneficiary’s birth certificate is sufficient to establish his parentage by a preponderance of the evidence. If the Director determines that the birth certificate alone is not sufficiently reliable, the Director should consider whether the birth certificate, in combination with the secondary evidence submitted by the petitioner, is sufficient to meet his burden of proof. As with all decisions, the Director must discuss the facts and weigh the evidence in light of the applicable legal standards and determine whether the burden of proof has been met. Accordingly, the record will be remanded for further proceedings.

III. 结论 我们将发回本案，由主任适用上述框架，并确定受益人的出生证明是否足以以优势证据证明其亲子关系。如果主任认定仅凭出生证明不够可靠，主任应考虑出生证明与申请人提交的次要证据相结合是否足以满足其举证责任。与所有决定一样，主任必须讨论事实，并根据适用的法律标准权衡证据，并确定举证责任是否已满足。因此，记录将被发回以进行进一步程序。

129

129