Matter of Villanueva

Unless void on its face, a valid United States passport issued to an individual as a citizen of the United States is not subject to col- lateral attack in administrative immigration proceedings but con- stitutes conclusive proof of such person's United States citizenship.

除非表面无效，签发给个人作为美国公民的有效美国护照在行政移民程序中不受附带攻击，而构成该人美国公民身份的结论性证明。

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: Richard Stern-Boswell, Esquire Michael J. Heilman Diana Boruchin, Accredited Representative Acting Appellate Trial Immigration Clinic Attorney George Washington University 2000 L Street, N.W., Suite 307 Benjamin D. Somera Washington, D.C. 20052 General Attorney

代表申请人： 代表服务局： Richard Stern-Boswell，律师 Michael J. Heilman Diana Boruchin，认可代表 代理上诉审判 移民诊所 律师 乔治华盛顿大学 2000 L Street, N.W., Suite 307 Benjamin D. Somera Washington, D.C. 20052 总律师

On November 15, 1983, the district director denied the petition to classify the beneficiary as an immediate relative spouse of a United States citizen under section 201(b) of the Immigration and Nation- ality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1151(b) (1982). The petitioner has appealed from that decision. The record will be remanded. The petitioner is a 58-year-old alleged native and citizen of the United States. The beneficiary is a 51-year-old native and citizen of Mexico. The record contains a certified but unauthenticated copy of the parties' apparent marriage certificate which reflects that they were married in a civil ceremony on August 26, 1947, in Mexico. The petitioner originally submitted a visa petition on behalf of the beneficiary on May 17, 1978. On December 21, 1978, the district di-

1983年11月15日，地区主任根据《移民和国籍法》第201(b)条，8 U.S.C. § 1151(b) (1982)，拒绝了将受益人归类为美国公民的直系亲属配偶的申请。申请人已对该决定提出上诉。记录将被发回。 申请人是一名58岁的据称美国本土出生公民。受益人是一名51岁的墨西哥本土出生公民。记录中包含一份经认证但未经鉴定的双方当事人表面婚姻证书副本，该证书显示他们于1947年8月26日在墨西哥以民事仪式结婚。申请人最初于1978年5月17日代表受益人提交了签证申请。1978年12月21日，地区

rector denied that petition, finding that the petitioner had failed to establish he was a United States citizen, thereby rendering the beneficiary ineligible for classification as an immediate relative under section 201(b) of the Act. The district director's decision was affirmed by this Board and the petitioner's appeal was dismissed on February 5, 1982. The petitioner subsequently filed a new petition for the benefici- ary. In support of this petition, the petitioner submitted a certified copy of two pages from a United States passport issued to him as a United States citizen on February 24, 1981, and valid for 5 years, along with various other documents and affidavits which the dis- trict director considered in his initial 1978 decision. The district di- rector did not find the petitioner's passport to be adequate evidence of United States citizenship because he "assumed" it had been issued to the petitioner on the basis of his delayed Texas birth cer- tificate, the same document which was previously determined to be insufficient proof of his United States citizenship claim. See gener- ally Matter of Serna, 16 I&N Dec. 643 (BIA 1978). Accordingly, the district director also denied the instant petition. On appeal, the petitioner argues that the district director erred by failing to consider the petitioner's United States passport as conclusive proof of his United States citizenship, as required by 22 U.S.C. § 2705 (1982). Based upon the following analysis of this stat- ute, we agree with petitioner's position. Prior to enactment of 22 U.S.C. § 2705 (1982), a United States passport was regarded only as prima facie evidence of United States citizenship. See Peignand v. INS, 440 F.2d 757 (1st Cir. 1971); Gillars v. United States, 182 F.2d 962 (D.C. Cir. 1950). Now, howev- er, United States passports are given the same weight for proof of United States citizenship as certificates of naturalization or citizen- ship. Specifically, this statute provides as follows:

主任拒绝了该申请，认定申请人未能证明他是美国公民，从而使受益人无资格根据该法第201(b)条被归类为直系亲属。地区主任的决定经本委员会维持，申请人的上诉于1982年2月5日被驳回。 申请人随后为受益人提交了新的申请。为支持该申请，申请人提交了一份1981年2月24日签发给他的美国护照两页的认证副本，该护照有效期为5年，以及地区主任在其1978年初次决定中考虑的各种其他文件和宣誓书。地区主任未认定申请人的护照是美国公民身份的充分证据，因为他“假设”该护照是基于其延迟的德克萨斯出生证明签发给申请人的，而该文件此前已被认定不足以证明其美国公民身份主张。参见 generally Matter of Serna, 16 I&N Dec. 643 (BIA 1978)。因此，地区主任也拒绝了本申请。 在上诉中，申请人主张地区主任错误地未将申请人的美国护照视为其美国公民身份的结论性证明，正如22 U.S.C. § 2705 (1982)所要求的那样。基于对该法规的以下分析，我们同意申请人的立场。 在22 U.S.C. § 2705 (1982)颁布之前，美国护照仅被视为美国公民身份的初步证据。参见 Peignand v. INS, 440 F.2d 757 (1st Cir. 1971)；Gillars v. United States, 182 F.2d 962 (D.C. Cir. 1950)。然而，现在美国护照在证明美国公民身份方面被赋予与归化证书或公民身份证书相同的效力。具体而言，该法规规定如下：

(1) A passport, during its period of validity (if such period is the maximum period authorized by law), issued by the Secretary of State to a citizen of the United States. Accordingly, it is next necessary to examine the force and effect given to judicial and administrative certificates of citizenship as proof of United States citizenship. Unless void on its face, a judicial certificate or decree of natural- ization is not subject to impeachment in a collateral proceeding but only can be revoked by a direct attack through court proceedings— a denaturalization suit—prescribed in section 340 of the Act, 8

(1) 由国务卿签发给美国公民的护照，在其有效期内（如果该期限是法律授权的最长期限）。 因此，接下来有必要审查司法和行政公民身份证书作为美国公民身份证明所被赋予的效力和作用。 除非表面无效，司法归化证书或法令在附带程序中不受弹劾，而只能通过该法第340条，8

U.S.C. § 1451 (1982). 41 Op. Att'y Gen. 452 (1960). See generally Jo- hannessen v. United States, 225 U.S. 227 (1912); Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Co. v. Tisdale, 91 U.S. 238 (1876); Spratt v. Spratt, 29 U.S. (4 Pet.) 393 (1830); MacKay v. McAlexander, 268 F.2d 35 (9th Cir. 1959), cert. denied, 362 U.S. 961 (1960). Significantly, section 332(e) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1443(e) (1982), also provides that an adminis- trative certificate of citizenship shall have the same effect in all public offices of the United States as a judicial certificate of citizen- ship. Based upon that provision, the Attorney General has issued his formal opinion that an administrative certificate of citizenship is likewise immune from collateral attack 41 Op. Att'y Gen. 452 (1960).' Therefore, unless void on its face, an administrative certifi- cate of citizenship is conclusive proof of United States citizenship absent its direct cancellation pursuant to section 342 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1453 (1982). The foregoing principles also apply with regard to the force and effect of a United States citizen passport because such a passport is equivalent to a judicial or administrative certificate of citizenship under the terms of 22 U.S.C. § 2705 (1982). Accordingly, we hold that unless void on its face, a valid United. States passport issued to an individual as a citizen of the United States is not subject to col- lateral attack in administrative immigration proceedings but con- stitutes conclusive proof of such person's United States citizen- ship.2 Because the district director did not apply the provisions of 22 U.S.C. § 2705 (1982) in this case, we find it appropriate to remand the record to the district director for his proper consideration under the above holding. Thus, the petitioner's apparently valid United States citizen passport will constitute conclusive proof of his claimed United States citizenship in these visa petition proceedings unless it is invalid on its face. 3 The district director also should ad- dress the validity of the parties' claimed relationship and should satisfy himself as to the authenticity of the various foreign docu- ments contained in the record.`4 Thereafter, the district director

U.S.C. § 1451 (1982)规定的法院程序——取消国籍诉讼——的直接攻击予以撤销。41 Op. Att'y Gen. 452 (1960)。参见 generally Johannessen v. United States, 225 U.S. 227 (1912)；Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Co. v. Tisdale, 91 U.S. 238 (1876)；Spratt v. Spratt, 29 U.S. (4 Pet.) 393 (1830)；MacKay v. McAlexander, 268 F.2d 35 (9th Cir. 1959), cert. denied, 362 U.S. 961 (1960)。值得注意的是，该法第332(e)条，8 U.S.C. § 1443(e) (1982)，还规定行政公民身份证书在美国所有公共机构中应具有与司法公民身份证书相同的效力。基于该规定，司法部长已发布其正式意见，即行政公民身份证书同样免受附带攻击，41 Op. Att'y Gen. 452 (1960)。' 因此，除非表面无效，行政公民身份证书是美国公民身份的结论性证明，除非根据该法第342条，8 U.S.C. § 1453 (1982)被直接取消。 上述原则也适用于美国公民护照的效力和作用，因为根据22 U.S.C. § 2705 (1982)的条款，此类护照等同于司法或行政公民身份证书。因此，我们裁定，除非表面无效，签发给个人作为美国公民的有效美国护照在行政移民程序中不受附带攻击，而构成该人美国公民身份的结论性证明。2 由于地区主任在本案中未适用22 U.S.C. § 2705 (1982)的规定，我们认为适宜将记录发回地区主任，以便其根据上述裁定进行适当考虑。因此，申请人表面有效的美国公民护照在这些签证申请程序中将构成其声称的美国公民身份的结论性证明，除非其表面无效。3 地区主任还应处理双方当事人声称的关系的有效性，并应使自己确信记录中包含的各种外国文件的真实性。`4 此后，地区主任

will render a new decision based upon the entire record as then constituted. ORDER: The record is remanded to the district director for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and entry of a new decision.

将根据当时构成的整个记录作出新决定。 命令：记录发回地区主任，以便按照上述意见进行进一步程序并作出新决定。