Matter of Obaigbena

The United States citizen petitioner applied for immediate rela- tive status on behalf of the beneficiary as her spouse under section 201(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1151(b) (1982). In a decision dated October 31, 1985, the district director denied the visa petition. The petitioner has appealed from that de- cision. The record will be remanded to the district director for fur- ther proceedings.

美国公民申请人根据《移民和国籍法》第201(b)条，8 U.S.C. § 1151(b) (1982)，以受益人配偶的身份为其申请直系亲属身份。在1985年10月31日的决定中，地区主任拒绝了该签证申请。申请人已对该决定提出上诉。记录将发回地区主任进行进一步程序。

The petitioner is a 26-year-old United States citizen. The benefici- ary is a 29-year-old native and citizen of Nigeria. A marriage certif- icate reflects the petitioner and the beneficiary were married on September 25, 1984, in Rockville, Maryland. The record also reflects the petitioner has previously filed with theaim* . ration and Naturalization Service two visa petitions on behalf of the beneficiary as her spouse. The first visa petition was denied by the acting district director in a decision dated January 16, 1985. The second visa petition was terminated by the acting dis- trict director on May 9, 1985, based on the petitioner's written withdrawal of that petition. The instant visa petition was filed on July 24, 1985. In a notice dated October 2, 1985, the district director advised the petitioner of his intention to deny the visa petition on the ground that the petitioner had failed to meet her burden of proving the bona fides of her marriage to the beneficiary from its inception. See Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of McKee, 17 I&N Dec. 332 (BIA 1980). In the district director's notice of inten- tion to deny the visa petition, he granted the petitioner 15 days to rebut the derogatory information cited in that notice and to submit additional evidence in support of the visa petition. The record contains a letter dated October 9, 1985, from counsel for the petitioner, responding to the notice of intention to deny the visa petition. Counsel for the petitioner noted that he did not re- ceive the notice of intention to deny the visa petition until October 7, 1985, 1 and that his letter constituted only a partial rebuttal to the notice of intention to deny as further argument and evidence would be presented within the required time. 2 On October 16, 1985, another letter from counsel for the petitioner was received by the Service, responding to the notice of intention to deny the visa peti- tion and requesting a 2-week extension of time to submit further rebuttal evidence. Counsel for the petitioner explained that he had been hampered in preparing the rebuttal because of the following factors: the petitioner was confined to bed due to a recent miscar- riage; the beneficiary had been out of town for medical school interviews; the district director had failed to provide counsel with necessary information, which is part of the record of proceeding, and had failed to respond to counsel's letter of October 9, 1985; and the notice of intention to deny the visa petition was not received by

申请人是26岁的美国公民。受益人是29岁的尼日利亚本土公民。结婚证显示申请人和受益人于1984年9月25日在马里兰州罗克维尔结婚。 记录还显示，申请人此前已向移民和归化局提交了两份以受益人配偶身份为其申请的签证申请。第一份签证申请由代理地区主任在1985年1月16日的决定中拒绝。第二份签证申请由代理地区主任于1985年5月9日终止，依据是申请人书面撤回该申请。本签证申请于1985年7月24日提交。 在1985年10月2日的通知中，地区主任告知申请人其打算拒绝签证申请，理由是申请人未能履行证明其与受益人婚姻自始善意的举证责任。见Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983)；Matter of McKee, 17 I&N Dec. 332 (BIA 1980)。在地区主任的拒绝签证申请意向通知中，他给予申请人15天时间反驳该通知中引用的不利信息，并提交支持签证申请的额外证据。 记录中包含申请人律师1985年10月9日的一封信，回应拒绝签证申请意向通知。申请人律师指出，他直到1985年10月7日才收到拒绝签证申请意向通知，1 且其信件仅构成对拒绝意向通知的部分反驳，进一步的论点和证据将在规定时间内提交。2 1985年10月16日，移民局收到申请人律师的另一封信，回应拒绝签证申请意向通知，并请求延期2周以提交进一步反驳证据。申请人律师解释称，其准备反驳受到以下因素的阻碍：申请人因近期流产而卧床；受益人因医学院面试而外出；地区主任未能向律师提供必要的资料，这些资料是程序记录的一部分，且未能回应律师1985年10月9日的信；以及拒绝签证申请意向通知直到

counsel until October 7, 1985. In addition, the petitioner submitted evidentiary material attesting to the bona fides of the marital rela- tionship between the petitioner and the beneficiary. Ina letter dated October 18, 1985, the district director denied the petitioner's request for additional time in which to provide evi- dence in rebuttal to the notice of intention to deny the visa peti- tion. The district director stated that all rebuttal evidence had to be submitted by October 21, 1985. Additional correspondence from the petitioner dated October 21, 1985, and October 24, 1985, re- questing an extension of time to submit rebuttal evidence, was re- ceived by the Service. In his October 31, 1985, decision denying the visa petition, the district director found that the October 24, 1985, request for an ex- tension of time to submit additional documentation from the peti- tioner was without merit. The district director noted that the peti- tioner had been granted 19 days to submit a rebuttal, that this was the third visa petition filed by the petitioner on behalf of the bene- ficiary, and that the record of proceeding contained voluminous conflicting and derogatory evidence indicating that the marriage was merely an accommodation. The district director further found that the continuous filing of visa petitions, along with repetitious but conflicting documentation, was a dilatory tactic used to delay the beneficiary's deportation hearing. 3 The district director advised the petitioner that his denial of an extension of time to submit a rebuttal did not preclude the petitioner from presenting additional documentation on appeal. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner states that, as he did not receive the notice of intention to deny the visa petition in a timely manner, he had only 10 days to respond to this notice. The peti- tioner contends that the district director's grant of only 10 days to respond to the notice of intention to deny was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion. It is also contended that the district di- rector's denial of the request for an extension of time to submit a rebuttal to the notice of intention to deny the visa petition was ar- bitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion. The petitioner main- tains that the requests for an extension of time were reasonable and well justified. Subsequent to the filing of the appeal, the petitioner submitted a motion to remand. In support of this motion, the petitioner prof-

律师直到1985年10月7日才收到。此外，申请人提交了证明申请人与受益人之间婚姻关系善意的证据材料。 在1985年10月18日的信中，地区主任拒绝了申请人要求额外时间提供反驳拒绝签证申请意向通知证据的请求。地区主任表示，所有反驳证据必须在1985年10月21日前提交。移民局收到了申请人1985年10月21日和1985年10月24日要求延期提交反驳证据的额外信件。 在1985年10月31日拒绝签证申请的决定中，地区主任认定，申请人1985年10月24日要求延期提交额外文件的请求没有依据。地区主任指出，申请人已获19天时间提交反驳，这是申请人代表受益人提交的第三份签证申请，且程序记录中包含大量相互矛盾和不利的证据，表明该婚姻仅是通融。地区主任进一步认定，连续提交签证申请以及重复但相互矛盾的文件，是用于拖延受益人驱逐听证的拖延策略。3 地区主任告知申请人，其拒绝延期提交反驳并不妨碍申请人在上诉时提交额外文件。 在上诉中，申请人律师称，由于他未及时收到拒绝签证申请意向通知，他只有10天时间回应此通知。申请人主张，地区主任仅给予10天时间回应拒绝意向通知是任意、反复无常和滥用自由裁量权的。还主张，地区主任拒绝延期提交对拒绝签证申请意向通知的反驳的请求是任意、反复无常和滥用自由裁量权的。申请人坚持认为，延期请求是合理且有充分理由的。 在提交上诉后，申请人提交了发回重审的动议。为支持该动议，申请人提

fered documentary evidence, including sworn statements, attesting to the bona fides of the petitioner's marriage with the beneficiary. 4 The federal regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2) (1988) provide, in pertinent part, that if an adverse Service decision is based on de- rogatory evidence of which the petitioner is unaware, the petition- er must be so advised and offered an opportunity to rebut the de- rogatory evidence and to present evidence in his behalf before the decision is rendered. Any explanation, rebuttal, or evidence pre- sented by or in behalf of the petitioner must be included in the record of proceeding. Id. A determination of statutory ineligibility shall not be valid unless based on evidence contained in the record of proceeding. Id.; Matter of Estime, 19 I&N Dec. 450 (BIA 1987); Matter of Calilao, 16 I&N Dec. 104 (BIA 1977); Matter of Holmes, 14 I&N Dec. 647 (BIA 1974). The regulations do not prescribe any time limits for the issuance of a notice of intention to deny a visa petition or for the submission of a rebuttal to such a notice of intention to deny. Inasmuch as the intended purpose of a notice of intention to deny is to provide due process to the petitioner, such purpose is defeated when the peti- tioner is not given a reasonable opportunity to respond. We there- fore conclude that the petitioner must be afforded a reasonable op- portunity to rebut the derogatory evidence cited in the notice of in- tention to deny and to present evidence in his behalf before the de- cision is rendered. Similar regulations governing the time limits for responding to adverse Service decisions, such as filing appeals from a decision denying a visa petition or from a decision revoking the approval of a visa petition, impose a 15-day deadline after the serv- ice of the notification of the decision.s See 8 C.P.R. §§ 204.1(a)(2), 205.2(b) (1988). We therefore do not find that the imposition of a 15- day time limit for submitting a rebuttal to a notice of intention to deny, per se, is unreasonable. 6 However, that is not to say that such a time limit is mandatory or exclusive. Reasonable and timely requests for an extension of time to submit a rebuttal to a notice of intention to deny a visa petition should be dealt with by the district director in a reasonable and

交了书面证据，包括宣誓陈述，证明申请人与受益人婚姻的善意。4 联邦法规8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2) (1988)在相关部分规定，如果移民局的不利决定基于申请人不知情的不利证据，必须如此告知申请人，并在决定作出前给予其反驳不利证据和为其自身提交证据的机会。申请人提出或代表申请人提出的任何解释、反驳或证据必须包含在程序记录中。Id. 对法定不合格的认定不得有效，除非基于程序记录中包含的证据。Id.；Matter of Estime, 19 I&N Dec. 450 (BIA 1987)；Matter of Calilao, 16 I&N Dec. 104 (BIA 1977)；Matter of Holmes, 14 I&N Dec. 647 (BIA 1974)。 法规未规定发出拒绝签证申请意向通知或提交对此类拒绝意向通知的反驳的任何时限。鉴于拒绝意向通知的预期目的是为申请人提供正当程序，当申请人未获得合理机会回应时，该目的即告落空。因此，我们得出结论，在决定作出之前，必须给予申请人合理的机会，以反驳拒绝意向通知中引用的不利证据并为其自身提交证据。类似的规定回应移民局不利决定时限的法规，例如对拒绝签证申请的决定或撤销签证申请批准的决定提出上诉，规定在送达决定通知后15天的截止期限。5 见8 C.P.R. §§ 204.1(a)(2), 205.2(b) (1988)。因此，我们并不认为对提交对拒绝意向通知的反驳设定15天时限本身是不合理的。6 然而，这并不意味着此类时限是强制性的或排他性的。 对于提交对拒绝签证申请意向通知的反驳的延期请求，如果合理且及时，地区主任应以合理和

Interim Decision #3042

临时决定第3042号

fair manner. In particular, when a visa petition has been pending before the district director for a prolonged period of time or where the notice of intention to deny the visa petition includes extensive investigative findings or factual allegations, the district director should grant a petitioner's reasonable and timely request for an ex- tension of time to submit his rebuttal and to present evidence in his behalf. In determining what constitutes a reasonable request for an extension of time, we note that such a request should state with specificity the reasons for making the request and should be limited to a finite period, preferably no more than a few weeks. For example, the petitioner may cite the unavailability of certain per- sons who are necessary affiants and the reasons for such unavail- ability, the need to obtain sworn statements from a significant number of persons, or the need to obtain documents from distant sources. As a caveat, we note that each visa petition must be ac- companied by the documents required by the particular section of the regulations under which the visa petition is submitted and that the Service may also require the submission of additional evidence, particularly when the required documents are unavailable. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(a), (b) (1988). The district director, therefore, may find that a request for an extension of time to submit a document, which should have been submitted initially with the visa petition by regulation, is not a reasonable request for an. extension of time. Conversely, where a notice of intention to deny a visa petition has been issued, and the petitioner, within the required time period, fails to substantively respond to this notice or to make a reasonable request for an extension of time to submit a rebuttal, the Board will not review or consider any evidence first proffered on appeal. The Board's review on appeal is limited to the record of proceeding before the district director. See Matter of Estime, supra. In such. cases, the petitioner must file a new visa petition for fur- ther consideration. In the instant case, the district director issued a notice of inten- tion to deny the visa petition filed by the petitioner on behalf of the beneficiary as her spouse. This notice of intention to deny the visa petition included extensive investigative findings and factual allegations. The petitioner, through counsel, made a timely and reasonable request for an extension of time to file a rebuttal to this notice of intention to deny, citing specific and sufficient reasons for the request and limiting the request to a reasonable period of time. We therefore find that the district director improperly denied the petitioner's request for an extension of time to submit a rebuttal. Also, as a result, the district director has not had an opportunity to review the evidence first proffered by the petitioner on appeal. Ac-

公平的方式。特别是，当签证申请已在地区局长处待决很长时间，或者当拒绝签证申请意向通知包含大量调查结果或事实指控时，地区局长应批准申请人合理且及时的延期请求，以便提交其反驳并为其自身提交证据。在确定何为合理的延期请求时，我们注意到，此类请求应具体说明提出请求的理由，并应限于一个有限的期限，最好不超过几周。例如，申请人可以援引某些作为必要宣誓证人的个人无法到场及此种无法到场的理由、需要取得大量人员的宣誓陈述，或需要从远处来源取得文件。作为一项提醒，我们注意到，每份签证申请都必须附有签证申请所依据的法规特定条款所要求的文件，并且移民局也可以要求提交额外证据，特别是在所需文件无法取得时。见8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(a), (b) (1988)。因此，地区局长可以认定，要求延期提交本应依规定在签证申请之初一并提交的文件的请求，不属于合理的延期请求。相反，在已发出拒绝签证申请意向通知，且申请人在规定期限内未对该通知作出实质性答复，或未提出合理的延期提交反驳请求的情况下，委员会将不会审查或考虑在上诉中首次提供的任何证据。委员会在上诉中的审查限于地区局长面前的程序记录。见Matter of Estime，同上。在此类案件中，申请人必须提交新的签证申请以供进一步审议。 在本案中，地区局长发出了拒绝申请人代表受益人作为其配偶提交的签证申请的意向通知。该拒绝签证申请意向通知包含大量调查结果和事实指控。申请人通过律师及时且合理地提出了延期提交对该拒绝意向通知的反驳的请求，援引了具体且充分的请求理由，并将请求限于合理的时间段。因此，我们认定地区局长不当拒绝了申请人延期提交反驳的请求。此外，因此，地区局长没有机会审查申请人在上诉中首次提供的证据。因

cordingly, we will remand the record to the district director for fur- ther proceedings and the entry of a new decision. ORDER: The record is remanded to the district director for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and the entry of a new decision.

此，我们将记录发回地区局长进行进一步程序并作出新决定。 命令：记录发回地区局长，以按照上述意见进行进一步程序并作出新决定。