Matter of Bueno-Almonte

File A73 654 749 - Vermont Service Center

案卷号A73 654 749 - 佛蒙特服务中心

Decided September 24, 1997

1997年9月24日裁定

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

美国司法部 移民审查执行办公室 移民上诉委员会

In a decision dated November 14, 1996, the Regional Service Center (“RSC”) director denied the visa petition filed by the petitioner to accord the beneficiary preference status as his legitimated son under section 203(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(a)(2) (1994). The petitioner has appealed from this decision. The appeal will be dismissed.

在1996年11月14日的决定中，区域服务中心（“RSC”）主任拒绝了申请人提交的签证申请，该申请旨在根据《移民与国籍法》第203(a)(2)条、8 U.S.C. § 1153(a)(2) (1994)授予受益人作为其婚生子女的优先地位。申请人已对该决定提出上诉。上诉将被驳回。

I. BACKGROUND

I. 背景

The petitioner is a 32-year-old native and citizen of the Dominican Repub- lic. On November 18, 1995, he filed a visa petition on behalf of his son, the beneficiary. He included a copy of his alien registration receipt card and a copy of the beneficiary’s birth certificate in support of his petition. Accord- ing to the birth certificate, the beneficiary was born on August 6, 1987, but his birth was not registered until February 16, 1995.

申请人是32岁的多米尼加共和国本土公民。1995年11月18日，他代表其儿子即受益人提交了签证申请。他附上了其外国人登记收据卡的副本和受益人出生证明的副本以支持其申请。根据出生证明，受益人出生于1987年8月6日，但其出生直到1995年2月16日才登记。

On July 29, 1996, the RSC director sent a notice to the petitioner request- ing additional evidence. The RSC director noted that the beneficiary’s birth was registered 7 years after the fact and asked the petitioner to submit “the oldest available evidence” which establishes that he is the father of the bene- ficiary. According to the notice, such evidence could include, but was not limited to a baptismal certificate or other religious document showing the date and place of birth or baptism, affidavits sworn to by two or more persons who have personal knowledge of the beneficiary’s birth, early school records showing the beneficiary’s date and place of birth and the names of his par- ents, or medical records which name the parents and the child. The RSC director also asked the petitioner to submit evidence to demonstrate that the petitioner and the beneficiary shared a bona fide parent-child relationship before the beneficiary reached the age of 21 years. The petitioner did not respond to the RSC director’s request and the RSC director subsequently denied the petitioner’s visa petition. The petitioner has appealed from the RSC director’s decision. On appeal, he has provided additional documentation and has explained that he did not submit the information earlier because he had been waiting for it to arrive from the Dominican Republic. The documentation he submitted includes a baptismal certificate dated June 1, 1996, an affidavit from the beneficiary’s mother stating that the petitioner is his father, a certification from the director of the beneficiary’s school which does not contain any reference to the child’s parents, a certification from the beneficiary’s doctor which does not mention the beneficiary’s parents, a certification from the Secretary of Edu- cation of the Dominican Republic which does not identify the beneficiary’s parents, and two photos of the beneficiary and the petitioner. The Immigration and Naturalization Service has filed a brief in opposition to the petitioner’s appeal. In its brief, the Service argues that the RSC direc- tor’s decision should be upheld because the petitioner has failed to meet his burden of proof in the present case. The Service contends that the petitioner has failed to provide adequate proof of paternity because the birth certificate he provided was obtained 7 years after the beneficiary’s birth. Since there is no other evidence of record to establish paternity, the Service claims that the petitioner’s visa petition must be denied for lack of proof.

1996年7月29日，RSC主任向申请人发送通知，要求提供额外证据。RSC主任指出受益人的出生是在事后7年才登记的，并要求申请人提交“可获取的最早证据”以证明他是受益人的父亲。根据该通知，此类证据可以包括但不限于显示出生或洗礼日期和地点的洗礼证明或其他宗教文件、由两名或多名对受益人出生有亲身了解的人宣誓的宣誓书、显示受益人的出生日期和地点及其父母姓名的早期学校记录，或载明父母和子女姓名的医疗记录。RSC主任还要求申请人提交证据，证明申请人和受益人在受益人年满21岁之前共享真实的亲子关系。申请人未回应RSC主任的要求，RSC主任随后拒绝了申请人的签证申请。 申请人已对RSC主任的决定提出上诉。在上诉中，他提供了额外文件，并解释说他未早些提交信息是因为他一直在等待从多米尼加共和国寄来。他提交的文件包括1996年6月1日的洗礼证明、受益人母亲声明申请人是他父亲的宣誓书、受益人学校校长的证明（其中未提及该儿童的父母）、受益人医生的证明（其中未提及受益人的父母）、多米尼加共和国教育部长出具的证明（其中未指明受益人的父母），以及受益人和申请人的两张照片。 移民与归化局已提交反对申请人上诉的辩护状。在辩护状中，该局主张应维持RSC主任的决定，因为申请人在本案中未能履行其举证责任。该局争辩说，申请人未能提供充分的亲子关系证明，因为他提供的出生证明是在受益人出生7年后才获得的。由于记录中没有其他证据可确立亲子关系，该局声称申请人的签证申请必须因缺乏证明而被拒绝。

II. ANALYSIS

II. 分析

In visa petition proceedings, the petitioner bears the burden of establishing the claimed relationship. Matter of Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966). The petitioner must prove by a preponderance of evidence that the benefi- ciary is fully qualified for the preference classification sought under section 203(a) of the Act. Matter of Patel, 19 I&N Dec. 774 (BIA 1988); Matter of Soo Hoo, 11 I&N Dec. 151 (BIA 1965).

在签证申请程序中，申请人承担证明所主张关系的责任。Matter of Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966)。申请人必须以优势证据证明受益人完全符合该法第203(a)条所寻求的优先分类资格。Matter of Patel, 19 I&N Dec. 774 (BIA 1988)；Matter of Soo Hoo, 11 I&N Dec. 151 (BIA 1965)。

In the present case, the petitioner has filed a visa petition on behalf of the beneficiary under section 203(a)(2)(A) of the Act. This section of the Act allows a lawful permanent resident of the United States to obtain a visa for his child if the child meets the definition of the term “child” set forth in section 101(b)(1) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(b)(1) (1994). The relevant portion of section 101(b)(1) provides as follows:

在本案中，申请人根据该法第203(a)(2)(A)条代表受益人提交了签证申请。该法该条允许美国合法永久居民为其子女获得签证，前提是该子女符合该法第101(b)(1)条、8 U.S.C. § 1101(b)(1) (1994)所规定的“子女”一词的定义。第101(b)(1)条的相关部分规定如下：

The evidence of record contains no indication that the petitioner is or was ever married to the mother of the beneficiary. The beneficiary therefore can- not qualify as the petitioner’s child under sections 101(b)(1)(A) or (B) of the Act. The beneficiary must instead meet the requirements set forth in section 101(b)(1)(C) or (D) of the Act in order to qualify as the petitioner’s child for immigration purposes.

记录中的证据没有任何迹象表明申请人现在或曾经与受益人的母亲结婚。因此，受益人不能根据该法第101(b)(1)(A)或(B)条符合申请人子女的资格。受益人必须改为满足该法第101(b)(1)(C)或(D)条规定的要求，才能为移民目的符合申请人子女的资格。

A. Qualification as a Legitimated Child Under Section 101(b)(1)(C) of the Act

A. 根据该法第101(b)(1)(C)条符合婚生子女资格

1. Requirements of Section 101(b)(1)(C) of the Act

1. 该法第101(b)(1)(C)条的要求

As stated above, section 101(b)(1)(C) contains essentially four require- ments: (1) the beneficiary must be under 21 years of age; (2) the beneficiary must have been legitimated under the laws of his or her residence or domicile or that of his or her father; (3) this legitimation must have taken place before the beneficiary reached the age of 18; and (4) the beneficiary must have been in the legal custody of his or her father at the time of legitimation. In addition, section 101(b)(1)(C) contains the inherent requirement that the beneficiary be the biological child of the petitioner. While section 101(b)(1)(C) does not explicitly set forth the requirement of natural paternity, this requirement is implied by the very nature of legitima- tion. In prior decisions, we have defined legitimation as the act of placing a child born out of wedlock in the same legal position as a child born in

如上所述，第101(b)(1)(C)条基本上包含四项要求：(1) 受益人必须未满21岁；(2) 受益人必须已根据其居住地或住所地法律或其父亲居住地或住所地法律被准正；(3) 该准正必须发生在受益人年满18岁之前；以及(4) 受益人在准正时必须处于其父亲的法定监护之下。此外，第101(b)(1)(C)条包含受益人必须是申请人亲生子女的内在要求。 虽然第101(b)(1)(C)条未明确规定自然亲子关系的要求，但该要求由准正的性质本身所隐含。在以往的裁决中，我们将准正定义为使非婚生子女处于与婚生子女相同法律地位的行为。

wedlock. See Matter of Reyes, 17 I&N Dec. 512, 514 (BIA 1980). 1 A legiti- mated child is, therefore, the biological offspring of unmarried parents, who, by some act, has been placed in the same legal position the child would have been in if his or her parents had been married at the time of the child’s birth. Given this fact, a beneficiary cannot qualify as the legitimated child of the petitioner unless the evidence of record establishes that he is the petitioner’s biological child. To meet the above requirements, the petitioner must provide evidence of natural paternity and evidence of legitimation. According to the regulations, such evidence should include “the beneficiary’s birth certificate and the par- ents’ marriage certificate or other evidence of legitimation issued by civil authorities.” 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(d)(2)(ii) (1997). If the petitioner establishes that such evidence is not available, he may present secondary evidence, such as affidavits or other records, which will be evaluated for its authenticity and credibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(d)(2)(v). In the present case, the key issue is whether the petitioner has provided adequate evidence to establish paternity. We will therefore address this issue before we turn to the other requirements of section 101(b)(1)(C).

参见Matter of Reyes, 17 I&N Dec. 512, 514 (BIA 1980)。1 因此，婚生子女是未婚父母的亲生后代，通过某种行为被置于如果其父母在子女出生时已婚则子女本应处于的相同法律地位。鉴于这一事实，除非记录中的证据确立受益人是申请人的亲生子女，否则受益人不能符合申请人婚生子女的资格。 为满足上述要求，申请人必须提供自然亲子关系的证据和准正的证据。根据法规，此类证据应包括“受益人的出生证明和父母的结婚证书或民事当局出具的其他准正证据”。8 C.F.R. § 204.2(d)(2)(ii) (1997)。如果申请人证明此类证据无法获取，他可以提交次要证据，如宣誓书或其他记录，这些证据将就其真实性和可信度进行评估。8 C.F.R. § 204.2(d)(2)(v)。在本案中，关键问题是申请人是否提供了充分的证据以确立亲子关系。因此，我们将在转向第101(b)(1)(C)条的其他要求之前先处理这一问题。

2. Establishment of Paternity

2. 亲子关系的确立

To support his petition on behalf of the beneficiary, the petitioner submit- ted a copy of the beneficiary’s birth certificate. The birth certificate lists the petitioner as the beneficiary’s father, but it was not issued until 7 years after the beneficiary’s birth. This delay in the registration of the birth caused the RSC director to request additional proof of paternity from the petitioner, and we believe that the RSC director was correct to request this proof. In prior cases, we have been reluctant to accord delayed birth certificates the same weight we would give birth certificates issued at the time of birth due to the potential for fraud. See, e.g., Matter of Ma, 20 I&N Dec. 394 (BIA 1991). In Matter of Serna, 16 I&N Dec. 643 (BIA 1978), a case involving the establishment of United States citizenship through the presentation of a delayed United States birth certificate, we explained this approach. We acknowledged that a delayed birth certificate might be the only type of birth certificate available to some applicants and noted that it would be unjust to penalize these persons; however, we recognized that “there can be little dis- pute that the opportunity for fraud is much greater with a delayed birth

为支持其代表受益人的申请，申请人提交了受益人出生证明的副本。出生证明将申请人列为受益人的父亲，但该证明直到受益人出生7年后才签发。这种出生登记的延迟促使RSC主任要求申请人提供额外的亲子关系证明，我们认为RSC主任要求该证明是正确的。 在以往的案件中，由于存在欺诈的可能性，我们不愿给予迟延出生证明与出生时签发的出生证明相同的权重。参见，例如，Matter of Ma, 20 I&N Dec. 394 (BIA 1991)。在Matter of Serna, 16 I&N Dec. 643 (BIA 1978)一案中，该案涉及通过出示迟延美国出生证明来确立美国公民身份，我们解释了这一做法。我们承认迟延出生证明可能是某些申请人唯一可获得的出生证明类型，并指出惩罚这些人将是不公正的；然而，我们认识到“毫无疑问，迟延出生证明的欺诈机会要大得多

certificate.” Matter of Serna, supra, at 645. Given these competing concerns, we ruled that a delayed birth certificate, even when unrebutted by contradic- tory evidence, will not in every case establish the petitioner’s status as a United States citizen. Each case must be decided on its own facts with regard to the sufficiency of the evidence presented. Id. While the present case involves a foreign rather than a United States birth certificate and proof of paternity rather than proof of citizenship, we believe that the same principles apply. In particular, we find that a delayed birth cer- tificate does not necessarily offer conclusive evidence of paternity even if it is unrebutted by contradictory evidence. The delayed birth certificate must be evaluated in light of the other evidence of record and the circumstances of the case. In the case at hand, the beneficiary’s birth was registered 7 years after he was born and 9 months prior to the filing of the visa petition. These circum- stances raise serious questions regarding the truth of the facts asserted in the certificate, particularly since we have no evidence to indicate that paternity was independently verified prior to the issuance of the document. See, e.g., Matter of Ma, supra (holding that the opportunity for fraud is a major con- cern when the birth certificate was issued 40 years after the beneficiary’s birth and was based on information provided by the beneficiary); cf. Matter of Bautista, 17 I&N Dec. 122 (BIA 1979) (holding that acknowledgment of paternity which occurred a few days after birth was sufficient to establish paternity). The Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Manual states that births in the Dominican Republic which are declared over 30 days after the birth has occurred “may be registered upon compliance with the formalities concern- ing delayed certification of birth,” but it does not explain what these formali- ties are. See Vol. 9, Foreign Affairs Manual, Part IV, Appendix C, “Dominican Republic.” In the absence of such information and in light of the above concerns, we believe additional proof of paternity is required before the petitioner may satisfy his burden of proof. See Matter of Ma, supra (hold- ing that because of the potential for fraud in visa petition proceedings where Chinese notarial birth certificates are issued a period of time after the sub- ject’s birth, any and all supporting evidence should accompany such certifi- cates as evidence of the claimed relationship). We do not believe that such a requirement is unduly burdensome since evidence of paternity should be readily available to the petitioner, if he is in fact the father of the beneficiary. On appeal, the petitioner has submitted several documents in an attempt to provide additional proof of paternity, but the only document which identifies the petitioner as the beneficiary’s father is the affidavit from the beneficiary’s mother. Given this document’s source and the absence of further independent corroboration, we cannot conclude that it is sufficient on its own to prove that the petitioner is the beneficiary’s father. Cf. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). We therefore must conclude that the petitioner has failed

证书。”Matter of Serna, supra, at 645。鉴于这些相互冲突的关切，我们裁定，迟延出生证明即使未被相反证据反驳，也并非在每个案件中都能确立申请人作为美国公民的身份。每个案件必须根据其自身事实，就所提交证据的充分性作出判断。Id. 虽然本案涉及的是外国出生证明而非美国出生证明，涉及的是亲子关系证明而非公民身份证明，但我们认为同样的原则适用。特别是，我们认为，迟延出生证明即使未被相反证据反驳，也不一定提供亲子关系的决定性证据。迟延出生证明必须结合记录中的其他证据和案件情况进行评估。 在本案中，受益人的出生在其出生7年后、签证申请提交前9个月才登记。这些情况对证书中所主张事实的真实性提出了严重疑问，特别是因为我们没有证据表明在签发该文件之前亲子关系经过了独立核实。See, e.g., Matter of Ma, supra（裁定：当出生证明在受益人出生40年后签发且基于受益人提供的信息时，欺诈的可能性是一个主要关切）；cf. Matter of Bautista, 17 I&N Dec. 122 (BIA 1979)（裁定：出生后几天内作出的亲子关系承认足以确立亲子关系）。 国务院《外交事务手册》规定，在多米尼加共和国，出生后超过30天才申报的出生“可在遵守有关迟延出生证明的手续后予以登记”，但该手册未解释这些手续是什么。See Vol. 9, Foreign Affairs Manual, Part IV, Appendix C, “Dominican Republic.”在缺乏此类信息且鉴于上述关切的情况下，我们认为申请人需要提供额外的亲子关系证明才能满足其举证责任。See Matter of Ma, supra（裁定：由于在中国公证书在当事人出生后一段时间才签发的情况下签证申请程序存在欺诈可能性，任何及所有佐证证据均应随附此类证书作为所主张关系的证据）。我们认为这一要求并非过度繁重，因为如果申请人确实是受益人的父亲，亲子关系证据应当 readily available to the petitioner。 在上诉中，申请人提交了几份文件以试图提供额外的亲子关系证明，但唯一将申请人认定为受益人之父的文件是受益人母亲的宣誓书。鉴于该文件的来源以及缺乏进一步的独立佐证，我们不能认定其本身足以证明申请人是受益人的父亲。Cf. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988)。因此我们必须认定申请人未能

to provide adequate evidence to establish that he is the father of the beneficiary. Having concluded that the petitioner has failed to establish paternity, we must also conclude that he has failed to satisfy the requirements of section 101(b)(1)(C) of the Act. 2 He has failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary qualifies as his legitimated child for immigration purposes, and we therefore cannot grant a visa petition on this basis.

提供充分证据以确立其为受益人之父。 在认定申请人未能确立亲子关系后，我们还必须认定其未能满足该法第101(b)(1)(C)条的要求。2 他未能证明受益人为移民目的符合其经准正子女的资格，因此我们不能在此基础上批准签证申请。

B. Qualification as a Child Born Out of Wedlock Under Section 101(b)(1)(D) of the Act

B. 根据该法第101(b)(1)(D)条作为非婚生子女的资格

Like section 101(b)(1)(C) of the Act, section 101(b)(1)(D) contains the inherent requirement that the petitioner present proof of paternity. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(d)(2)(iii)(requiring the petitioner to provide evidence to show that he is the natural father of the beneficiary). Since the petitioner has failed to meet this requirement in the present case, he has also failed to dem- onstrate that the beneficiary qualifies as his “child” under this section. We therefore find that the beneficiary is ineligible for preference classification under this provision.

与该法第101(b)(1)(C)条一样，第101(b)(1)(D)条包含申请人提交亲子关系证明的内在要求。See 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(d)(2)(iii)（要求申请人提供证据表明其为受益人的生父）。由于申请人在本案中未能满足这一要求，其也未能证明受益人符合该条下其“子女”的资格。因此我们认定受益人无资格根据该规定获得亲属移民分类。

III. CONCLUSION

III. 结论

In light of the foregoing, we find that the petitioner has failed to meet his burden of establishing that the beneficiary qualifies as his child under section 101(b)(1) of the Act. We therefore must deny his visa petition under section 203(a)(2) of the Act and dismiss his appeal. However, we note that the peti- tioner may file a new visa petition on behalf of the beneficiary, if he should obtain additional evidence of paternity. ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

鉴于上述情况，我们认定申请人未能履行其举证责任，证明受益人符合该法第101(b)(1)条下其子女的资格。因此我们必须根据该法第203(a)(2)条拒绝其签证申请并驳回其上诉。但是，我们指出，如果申请人获得额外的亲子关系证据，其可以代表受益人提交新的签证申请。 命令： 上诉被驳回。