Matter of Church Scientology International

The petitioner is the Mother Church of the Church of Scientol- ogy. It seeks the beneficiary's services as an establishment execu- tive. The petitioner claims the beneficiary is eligible for a Schedule A, Group N, labor certification under 20 C.F.R. § 656.10(d)(1) (1988). That regulation relates to an alien in the United States who was admitted to the United States to work in, and is currently working in, a managerial or executive position with the same international corporation or organization with which he or she was continuously working as a manager or executive for 1 year immediately prior to admission. For 1 year prior to her admission to the United States, the beneficiary worked as a deputy commanding officer for tours for the Church of Scientology, Inc. in Sydney, Australia. The director and the Commissioner both determined the benefici- ary does not qualify for a Schedule A, Group N, labor certification. This is based on their findings that the United States and foreign entities are not part of the same international corporation or orga- nization for purposes of such a labor certification. Counsel seeks reconsideration on the following four grounds:

申请人是科学教会的母教会。它寻求受益人的服务作为机构高管。 申请人声称受益人根据20 C.F.R. § 656.10(d)(1) (1988)有资格获得A类表第N组劳工证。该法规涉及在美国的外国人，该外国人被准入美国以在与紧接准入前连续1年作为经理或高管工作的同一国际公司或组织中担任经理或高管职位，且目前正在该职位工作。在受益人准入美国前1年，她在澳大利亚悉尼的科学教公司担任巡演副指挥官。 主任和专员均认定受益人不符合A类表第N组劳工证的资格。这是基于他们的认定，即美国实体和外国实体为此类劳工证目的不是同一国际公司或组织的一部分。 律师基于以下四个理由寻求重新考虑：

(4) Denial of the petition violates the first amendment to the Constitution. Although the beneficiary was found ineligible for a Schedule A, Group IV, labor certification on the ground that the United States and foreign entities are not part of the same international corpora- tion or organization, there is another issue in this proceeding which was not previously explored. This issue is whether or not the beneficiary is eligible for such a labor certification as a manager or executive. Each issue will be addressed separately.

(4) 驳回申请违反了宪法第一修正案。 尽管受益人因美国实体和外国实体不是同一国际公司或组织的一部分而被认定不符合A类表第IV组劳工证的资格，但本程序中还有另一个此前未探讨的问题。该问题是受益人是否有资格作为经理或高管获得此类劳工证。每个问题将分别处理。

A person seeking a Schedule A, Group N, labor certification must meet all eligibility requirements for "L-1" nonimmigrant

寻求A类表第N组劳工证的人必须满足“L-1”非移民

intra-company transferee classification as a manager or executive pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and National- ity Act, 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(15)(L) (1982), including those relating to a qualifying relationship between the entities for which the person has been and would be employed. Title 20 C.F.R. § 656.22(f)(1) (1988) states:

根据《移民和国籍法》第101(a)(15)(L)条，8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(15)(L) (1982)，作为经理或高管的公司内部调动人员分类的所有资格要求，包括与为其曾受雇和将受雇的实体之间的合格关系有关的要求。20 C.F.R. § 656.22(f)(1) (1988)规定：

The only aliens who qualify for Group IV of Schedule A are those in executive or managerial positions who can qualify to enter the United States under an "Mr visa. In an advisory opinion dated January 10, 1986, contained in the record of proceeding, the Department of Labor reasserts its view that this is the correct standard for Schedule A, Group IV.

唯一有资格获得A类表第IV组的是那些能够根据“Mr签证”进入美国的高管或经理职位的外国人。 在1986年1月10日的一份咨询意见中（载于程序记录），劳工部重申其观点，即这是A类表第IV组的正确标准。

Case law has confirmed that ownership and control are the fac- tors for establishing a qualifying relationship between United States and foreign entities for purposes of "L-1" classification. Matter of Siemens Medical Systems, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 362 (Comm. 1986); Matter of Hughes, 18 I&N Dec. 289 (Comm. 1982); see also Matter of Tassel, Inc., 17 I&N Dec. 631 (Acting Assoc. Comm. 1981). Accordingly, to establish the existence of such a relationship, a pe- titioner must demonstrate ownership and control. Ownership refers to the direct or indirect legal right of posses- sion of the assets of an entity with full power and authority to con- trol. Control means the direct or indirect legal right and authority to direct the establishment, management, and operations of an entity. See the definitions of the terms "ownership" and "control" in the Immigration and Naturalization Service Operations Instruc- tions 214.2(1)(4). See also Matter of Hughes, supra. While an entity is usually in the form of a corporation, partnership, or sole propri- etorship and is either a profit or nonprofit organization, the nature and form of the entity are not relevant. Johnson-Laird, Inc. v. INS, 537 F. Supp. 52 (D. Or. 1981). The ownership and control of both entities must be the same for a finding of a same employer, parent/subsidiary, or affiliate rela- tionship, as required by the statute. In each case, the Service must

判例法已确认，所有权和控制权是为“L-1”分类目的确立美国实体与外国实体之间合格关系的要素。Matter of Siemens Medical Systems, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 362 (Comm. 1986); Matter of Hughes, 18 I&N Dec. 289 (Comm. 1982); 另见Matter of Tassel, Inc., 17 I&N Dec. 631 (Acting Assoc. Comm. 1981)。因此，为证明此类关系的存在，申请人必须证明所有权和控制权。 所有权是指对实体资产的直接或间接合法占有权，并具有控制的全部权力和权限。控制是指指导实体的设立、管理和运营的直接或间接合法权利和权限。见移民和归化局行动指示214.2(1)(4)中“所有权”和“控制”术语的定义。另见Matter of Hughes, supra。虽然实体通常采用公司、合伙企业或独资企业的形式，并且是营利或非营利组织，但实体的性质和形式并不相关。Johnson-Laird, Inc. v. INS, 537 F. Supp. 52 (D. Or. 1981)。 两个实体的所有权和控制权必须相同，才能认定同一雇主、母/子公司或关联关系，如法规所要求。在每种情况下，移民局必须

determine whether the same individual(s) or organization owns enough of the assets of both entities to enable the individual(s) or organization to control the management and operations of both en- tities.

确定同一人(s)或组织是否拥有两个实体的足够资产，使该人(s)或组织能够控制两个实体的管理和运营。

Qualifying relationship between religious organizations

宗教组织之间的合格关系

The "L-1" classification was originally created for business, not religious, personnel. House of Representatives Report No. 91-851 (which accompanied Public Law 91-225 (1970) when the "L-1" pro- visions were first enacted into law) states the purpose of the "L-1" provisions is to facilitate the admission of "key personnel" and "managerial personnel" of international businesses. H.R. Rep. No. 851, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1970 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 2750. According to the report:

“L-1”分类最初是为商业人员而非宗教人员设立的。众议院第91-851号报告（伴随公法91-225（1970年）在“L-1”条款首次成为法律时）指出，“L-1”条款的目的是促进国际企业的“关键人员”和“管理人员”的准入。H.R. Rep. No. 851, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1970 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 2750。根据该报告：

This amendment would help eliminate problems now faced by American compa- nies having offices abroad in transferring key personnel freely within the organi- zation This proposal would meet the objectives of American industry which has been seriously hampered in transferring personnel. Id. at 2754. The report, however, makes no mention of religious organiza- tions. The Service does not believe that Congress intended "L-1" visas to be used by employees of religious organizations. There are other statutory and regulatory provisions to facilitate the entry of persons engaged in religious activities. Nonetheless, the lack of a provision for employees of religious or- ganizations to obtain "L-1" visas does not preclude their obtaining these visas if they are otherwise qualified. The following interpre- tation of the Department of State specifically indicates they are al- lowed to do so:

该修正案将有助于消除美国公司在海外设有办事处时在组织内自由调动关键人员所面临的问题。该提案将满足美国工业界在调动人员方面受到严重阻碍的目标。 Id. at 2754。 然而，该报告未提及宗教组织。移民局不认为国会意图让宗教组织的雇员使用“L-1”签证。有其他法定和监管条款促进从事宗教活动的人员入境。 尽管如此，缺乏宗教组织雇员获得“L-1”签证的条款并不妨碍他们在其他方面合格时获得这些签证。国务院的以下解释明确表明他们被允许这样做：

An organized religious, charitable, service, or other nonprofit organization is con- sidered to be 1. . . a firm or corporation or other legal entity or an affiliate or subsidiary , thereof . . .' for purposes of section 101(aX15XL) of the Act. Vol. 9, Foreign Affairs Manual, Part II, 22 C.F.R. § 41.67 note 2.9 ("FAM"). The main thrust of counsel's argument is that a hierarchical reli- gion such as that of the Church of Scientology, in which the Mother Church exercises control over the theology and doctrines of other Scientology churches, has the necessary qualifying relation- ship between its entities to meet the requirements for "L-1" classi- fication. Counsel argues further that, since members of a religious organization, unlike stockholders in a business enterprise, do not own any property, ecclesiastical and doctrinal control, not owner-

有组织的宗教、慈善、服务或其他非营利组织被视为1. . . 公司或法人或其他法律实体或其关联或子公司 . . .' 就本法第101(aX15XL)条而言。 Vol. 9, Foreign Affairs Manual, Part II, 22 C.F.R. § 41.67 note 2.9 （“FAM”）。 律师论点的主旨是，像科学教会这样的等级制宗教，其中母教会对其他科学教教会的神学和教义行使控制权，其实体之间具有必要的合格关系以满足“L-1”分类的要求。律师进一步论证，由于宗教组织的成员与商业企业的股东不同，不拥有任何财产，教会和教义控制，而非所有

ship, should be the standard for determining whether or not there is a qualifying relationship between religious entities. Additionally, counsel submits a copy of an unpublished Service decision (NYC-N-109090) where a qualifying structural link be- tween two separate Catholic religious orders was found for pur- poses of "L-1" classification based on the fact that the transfer of the beneficiary (a Roman Catholic nun) required and received the administrative approval of the Vatican bureaucracy. Counsel also notes the standards for determining qualifying relationships be- tween entities have, in the past, varied from case to case. The Service, in the absence of any legislative history, regula- tions, or precedent decisions on the applicability to religious per- sonnel of the "L-1" and Schedule A, Group IV, provisions, has been attempting to set standards and may have inadvertently rendered some inconsistent decisions. In spite of this, this Service is not re- quired to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals which may have been erroneous. Matter of Khan, 14 I&N Dec. 397 (BIA 1973), by extension; Matter of M-, 4 I&N Dec. 532 (BIA 1951; BIA, A.G. 1952); see also Pearson v. Williams, 202 U.S. 281(1906); Lazarescu v. United States, 199 F.2d 898 (4th Cir. 1952); United States ex rel. Vajta v. Watkins, 179 F.2d 137 (2d Cir. 1950); Mannerfricl v. Brow- nell, 145 F. Supp. 55 (D.D.C.), aff'd, 288 F.2d 32 (D.C. Cir. 1956). In view of the congressional intent that the "L-1" provisions be used for personnel transferred by international businesses, the only appropriate standards for determining "L-1" eligibility are those applied to businesses. Accordingly, this Service withdraws from the decision in NYC-N-109090 involving a Roman Catholic nun (men- tioned above) and any other prior "L-1" or Schedule A, Group IV, decisions which apply other standards. Since personnel of religious organizations are not precluded from obtaining "L-1" visas or Schedule A, Group IV, labor certifications, any religious personnel who are able to meet the same "L-1" requirements which apply to business or other personnel may be granted these benefits. With reference to NYC-N-109090, it should be noted that evi- dence of the Vatican's administrative approval of the beneficiary's transfer, in and of itself, does not establish the existence of a quali- fying relationship between the two religious orders. Based upon a review of the narrative decision only and without reference to the record of proceeding in that case, it is not possible to determine whether or not the petition met the standards articulated here for a qualifying relationship between the relevant entities. Applying the same standards to all business, religious, and other personnel is the only fair way to adjudicate "L-1" and Schedule A,

船舶，应作为判定宗教实体之间是否存在合格关系的标准。此外，律师提交了一份未公布的移民局决定（NYC-N-109090）的副本，该决定认定两个独立的天主教修会之间存在合格的结构联系，以便适用“L-1”分类，依据是受益人（一名罗马天主教修女）的调动需要并获得了梵蒂冈官僚机构的行政批准。律师还指出，判定实体之间合格关系的标准过去因案而异。 在没有任何立法历史、法规或先例决定就“L-1”和A表第IV类规定对宗教人员的适用性作出规定的情况下，移民局一直在尝试设定标准，并可能无意中作出了一些不一致的决定。尽管如此，移民局并不需要在资格未得到证明的情况下批准申请或申请书，仅仅因为先前可能存在错误的批准。Matter of Khan, 14 I&N Dec. 397 (BIA 1973)，类推适用；Matter of M-, 4 I&N Dec. 532 (BIA 1951; BIA, A.G. 1952)；另见 Pearson v. Williams, 202 U.S. 281(1906); Lazarescu v. United States, 199 F.2d 898 (4th Cir. 1952); United States ex rel. Vajta v. Watkins, 179 F.2d 137 (2d Cir. 1950); Mannerfricl v. Brownell, 145 F. Supp. 55 (D.D.C.), aff'd, 288 F.2d 32 (D.C. Cir. 1956)。 鉴于国会的意图是“L-1”规定用于国际企业调动的人员，判定“L-1”资格的唯一适当标准是适用于企业的标准。因此，移民局撤回NYC-N-109090决定中涉及一名罗马天主教修女（上文提及）的部分以及任何其他适用其他标准的先前“L-1”或A表第IV类决定。由于宗教组织的人员并不被排除在获得“L-1”签证或A表第IV类劳工证之外，任何能够满足适用于企业或其他人员的相同“L-1”要求的宗教人员均可获得这些福利。 关于NYC-N-109090，应当指出，梵蒂冈对受益人调动的行政批准证据本身并不确立两个修会之间存在合格关系。仅基于对叙述性决定的审查而未参考该案的诉讼记录，无法确定该申请书是否符合此处阐述的有关相关实体之间合格关系的标准。 对 all 企业、宗教和其他人员适用相同标准是裁决“L-1”和A表

The Immigration and Nationality Act does not define the terms "subsidiary" and "affiliate," but new "L-1" regulations defining these terms went into effect March 30, 1987, after this petition was filed. The new regulations do not reflect a change in Service policy. They merely codify definitions already set forth in administrative case law. See Matter of Siemens Medical Systems, Inc., supra; Matter of Hughes, supra. Title 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1X1)(ii)(K) (1988), effective March 30, 1987, states: `Subsidiary' means a firm, corporation, or other legal entity of which a parent owns, directly or indirectly, more than half of the entity and controls the entity; or owns, directly or indirectly, 50% of a 50-50 joint venture and has equal control and -veto power, or owns, directly or indirectly, less than half of the entity, but in fact controls the entity. Title 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(L) (1988) states:

《移民与国籍法》未定义“子公司”和“关联公司”这两个术语，但定义这些术语的新“L-1”法规于1987年3月30日生效，即本申请书提交之后。新法规并未反映移民局政策的改变。它们只是编纂了行政判例法中已经阐明的定义。见 Matter of Siemens Medical Systems, Inc., supra; Matter of Hughes, supra。 《联邦法规汇编》第8编第214.2(1X1)(ii)(K)节（1988年），1987年3月30日生效，规定： “子公司”指母公司直接或间接拥有该实体一半以上并控制该实体的商号、公司或其他法律实体；或直接或间接拥有50-50合资企业50%的权益并具有同等控制权和否决权，或直接或间接拥有该实体不到一半的权益，但事实上控制该实体。 《联邦法规汇编》第8编第214.2(1)(1)(ii)(L)节（1988年）规定：

`Affiliate' means one of two subsidiaries both of which are owned and controlled by the same parent or individual or one of two legal entities owned and controlled by the same group of individuals, each individual owning and controlling approxi- mately the same share or proportion of each entity. The record in this proceeding attempts to establish the existence of an affiliate relationship between the petitioning Mother Church and the foreign entity. Since it is asserted that the Mother Church controls the subordinate foreign entity in Australia, the actual question in this case is whether a parent/subsidiary relationship exists.

“关联公司”指两个子公司之一，两者均由同一母公司或个人拥有和控制，或指两个法律实体之一，两者均由同一群个人拥有和控制，每个个人在每一实体中拥有和控制大致相同的份额或比例。 本程序的记录试图证明申请人的母教会与外国实体之间存在关联关系。由于主张母教会控制澳大利亚的下属外国实体，本案的实际问题是是否存在母/子公司关系。

In a brief dated August 16, 1985, counsel argues the United States and foreign entities constitute a qualifying association within the meaning of the following discussion of Schedule A, Group IV, on page 13 of the TAG:

在1985年8月16日的简报中，律师主张美国和外国实体构成TAG第13页以下关于A表第IV类论述含义范围内的合格协会：

For Group IV purposes, corporations and organizations shall also include associa- tions, firms, partnerships, joint ventures, joint stock companies, affiliates, and subsidiaries, but shall not include relationships which are only licensor-licensee or franchisor-franchisee. This citation from the TAG explains the types of entities which may have qualifying relationships. It does not mean that all such entities qualify for purposes of Schedule A, Group IV. Further-

就第IV类而言，公司和组织还应包括协会、商号、合伙、合资企业、股份公司、关联公司和子公司，但不包括仅为许可方-被许可方或特许方-被特许方的关系。 TAG中的这一引证解释了可能具有合格关系的实体类型。这并不意味着所有此类实体都符合A表第IV类的目的。此

more, the Commissioner's decision found no evidence establishing the existence of a qualifying association. In the brief dated August 16, 1985, and in the motion to reconsid- er, counsel advances the argument that the United States and foreign entities in question, as "an organized religious . . . organi- zation," are part of the same international organization within the meaning of the State Department interpretation from the FAM cited previously. In the motion, counsel takes issue with the Com- missioner's conclusion that components of international churches have qualifying relationships no more automatically than do com- ponents of international commercial enterprises. Counsel argues the FAM merely requires the religious, charitable, or service orga- nization to be organized. According to counsel, if the organization is organized, no further examination is necessary to determine af- filiation. Nevertheless, as in the case of the above citation from the TAG, the excerpt from the FAM simply explains that religious, charita- ble, and service organizations may have qualifying relationships for purposes of "L-1" nonimmigrant intra-company transferee classifi- cation. It does not mean that all organizations of this type qualify for purposes of "L-1" and Schedule A, Group IV, benefits.

外，局长的决定认定没有证据证明存在合格协会。 在1985年8月16日的简报和重新审议动议中，律师提出论点称，所涉美国和外国实体作为“有组织的宗教……组织”，属于先前引用的国务院FAM解释含义范围内的同一国际组织的一部分。在动议中，律师对局长的结论提出异议，即国际教会的组成部分并不比国际商业企业的组成部分更自动地具有合格关系。律师主张FAM仅要求宗教、慈善或服务组织是组织起来的。据律师称，如果该组织是组织起来的，则无需进一步审查以确定隶属关系。 然而，如同上述TAG引证的情况一样，FAM的摘录仅解释宗教、慈善和服务组织可以为“L-1”非移民公司内部调动人员分类的目的而具有合格关系。这并不意味着所有此类组织都符合“L-1”和A表第IV类福利的目的。

Counsel asserts the hierarchical structure of the Church of Scien- tology is similar to, if not identical to, that of other longer estab- lished hierarchical religions, where the Service has recognized qualifying relationships between entities for purposes of "L-1" clas- sification. Specifically, counsel asserts "the parallels between the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Scientology are particu- larly strong!' While the Mother Church of Scientology controls the doctrine and theology of local Scientology churches, review of the evidence in the record does not support counsel's proposition. The Church of Scientology does exhibit some of the same charac- teristics as the Roman Catholic Church. Both religions have similar structures in that both have separately incorporated individual units. Both also have hierarchies consisting of nonprofit entities. Consequently, neither has stock ownership or accrual of profits. In spite of these similarities, the two hierarchies must be compared with profit-making organizations in many other respects in order to determine ownership of assets and control of the entities. The petitioner has submitted, as a sample of a typical incorpora- tion in the Roman Catholic Church, a copy of an amendment of the articles of incorporation of a Roman Catholic bishop (designated as

律师主张科学教教会的等级结构类似于（如果不是完全相同的话）其他历史更悠久的等级宗教的结构，移民局在这些宗教中已承认实体之间为“L-1”分类目的的合格关系。具体而言，律师主张“罗马天主教会与科学教教会之间的相似之处特别强！”虽然科学教母教会控制地方科学教教会的教义和神学，但对记录中证据的审查并不支持律师的主张。 科学教教会确实表现出与罗马天主教会相同的一些特征。两种宗教在结构上相似，因为两者都有单独注册的个体单位。两者也都有由非营利实体组成的等级体系。因此，两者都没有股票所有权或利润积累。尽管有这些相似之处，但为了确定资产所有权和实体控制权，必须在许多其他方面将这两个等级体系与营利组织进行比较。 申请人提交了一份罗马天主教主教（被指定为

a corporation sole) changing its jurisdiction and changing its name to that of an archbishop. Comparison of this document with a copy of the constitution and general rules of a typical Scientology church reflects markedly different control of the subordinate enti- ties. The sample document indicates that a Roman Catholic bishop or archbishop incorporates a diocese or archdiocese on authority and under order or proclamation of the Pope. The Pope has sole author- ity to appoint or remove the bishop or archbishop. It is the Pope who entrusts the bishop or archbishop with the corporate powers to manage and operate the diocese or archdiocese under rules, regula- tions, and disciplines of the Roman Catholic Church, just as the parent corporation of a business enterprise appoints a board of di- rectors to manage and operate its subsidiaries according to its rules, regulations, and philosophy. In addition, the Pope has au- thority to change jurisdictions and names of dioceses and archdio- ceses and to create new ones. Thue, not only does the Pope have control over theological doc- trines, but he also has control over the assets, management, and operations of each diocese or archdiocese, as well as control over bishops and archbishops. A bishop or archbishop, as shown in the sample document, is designated as a corporation sole. Therefore, the Pope also indirectly owns the assets of the diocese or archdio- cese. Black's Law Dictionary (5th ed. 1979) states:

单独法团）的公司章程修正案副本，作为罗马天主教会典型注册的样本，该修正案变更了其管辖范围并将其名称变更为大主教的名称。将该文件与典型科学教教会的章程和一般规则副本进行比较，反映出对下属实体的控制明显不同。 样本文件表明，罗马天主教主教或大主教根据教皇的授权并依照教皇的命令或公告注册教区或大主教区。教皇拥有任命或罢免主教或大主教的唯一权力。正是教皇委托主教或大主教行使公司权力，按照罗马天主教会的规则、规章和纪律管理和运营教区或大主教区，正如商业企业的母公司任命董事会按照其规则、规章和理念管理和运营其子公司一样。此外，教皇有权变更教区和大主教区的管辖范围和名称，并创建新的教区和大主教区。 因此，教皇不仅控制神学教义，还控制每个教区或大主教区的资产、管理和运营，以及控制主教和大主教。如样本文件所示，主教或大主教被指定为单独法团。因此，教皇还间接拥有教区或大主教区的资产。 《布莱克法律词典》（第5版1979年）规定：

A corporation sole is one consisting of one person only, and his successors in some particular station, who are incorporated by law in order to give them some legal capacities and advantages, particularly that of perpetuity, which in their natural persons they could not have had. The sample document reflects that a bishop or archbishop (the corporation sole) is "authorized to hold, own and administer prop- erties." Since the Pope may appoint, promote, or remove the person who is designated as the corporation sole or change his ju- risdiction, the Pope indirectly owns the corporation sole's property. On the other hand, the foreign entity (local church) in Australia in this case is subject only to the theological and doctrinal control of the petitioning Mother Church. Although a trustee must be a duly ordained minister of Scientology in good standing with the Mother Church, whose tenure may be terminated for failure to con- tinue in this status, the members of the Board of Trustees of the foreign entity are elected by local church members or other trust- ees. They manage the foreign entity's own affairs and elect other church officers.

一人法人是指仅由一人及其在某一特定职位的继任者组成的法人，他们依法被设立为法人，以便赋予其某些法律能力和优势，尤其是永续存在的能力，而这是他们以自然人身份所无法拥有的。 样本文件反映，主教或大主教（该一人法人）"被授权持有、拥有和管理财产"。由于教皇可以任命、晋升或免去被指定为该一人法人的人，或变更其管辖范围，教皇间接拥有该一人法人的财产。 另一方面，本案中澳大利亚的外国实体（地方教会）仅受申请方母教会的科学论教义和教义控制。尽管受托人必须是科学论教会中与母教会保持良好关系的正式受任牧师，其任期可因未能继续维持该身份而终止，但该外国实体董事会受托人成员由地方教会成员或其他受托人选举产生。他们管理外国实体自身的事务并选举其他教会官员。

While the foreign entity must follow the doctrines of the Mother Church and contract with it for trademarks, products, literature, and services used in the practice of Scientology, there is a major distinction between its theological and corporate relationship with the Mother Church. Unlike the Roman Catholic hierarchy, where the Pope alone has the authority to create and change jurisdictions of dioceses and archdioceses, the foreign entity can be dissolved by a majority of four-fifths of the votes at a general meeting. Notwithstanding counsel's assertion that all religious organiza- tions are based on voluntary participation, the Church of Scientol- ogy in Sydney, Australia, according to its constitution and general rules, is bound by the hierarchical structure of the international organisation only through a voluntary and self-determined agree- ment which is not present in the Roman Catholic Church. Such an agreement does not establish control of one entity by the other. Similarly, notwithstanding counsel's assertion to the contrary, approval by the Mother Church of transfers of personnel from one church entity to another, in and of itself, does not establish the ex- istence of a qualifying relationship between entities. As noted above, this is equally true in the case of the Roman Catholic nun (NYC-N-109090), discussed previously. In addition, the agreement for services between the Mother Church and the foreign entity clearly provides for binding arbitra- tion, under the auspices of the Los Angeles office of the American Arbitration Association, of disputes between the two entities. The license agreement between them also provides for arbitration. In the Roman Catholic Church, however, the Pope is the supreme pastor, supreme legislator, and supreme judge_ Other distinctions between the Church of Scientology and the Roman Catholic Church are that, unlike the Roman Catholic Church, the Mother Church of Scientology does not own, either di- rectly or indirectly, or control any of the assets of the foreign entity. Moreover, the Mother Church does not ordain local church ministers. Rather, the assets are owned locally and ordinations are performed, and may be revoked, by the local church. Accordingly, the petitioning Mother Church clearly does not own or have the ul- timate legal right to control the local church. The relationship between the Mother Church and the foreign entity is, in business terms, that of a franchisor/franchisee, not a parent/subsidiary relationship. According to Black's Law Diction- ary:

尽管外国实体必须遵循母教会的教义，并与其就科学论实践中使用的商标、产品、文献和服务签订合同，但其与母教会的教义关系和法人关系之间存在重大区别。与罗马天主教等级制度不同——在后者中，仅教皇有权设立和变更教区和大主教区的管辖范围——该外国实体可在全体会议上以五分之四多数票解散。 尽管律师主张所有宗教组织均以自愿参与为基础，但根据其章程和一般规则，澳大利亚悉尼的科学论教会仅通过一项自愿且自主决定的协议受国际组织等级结构的约束，而罗马天主教会中不存在此类协议。此类协议并不确立一个实体对另一实体的控制。 同样，尽管律师主张相反，母教会对人员从一个教会实体转移到另一教会的批准，其本身并不确立实体之间存在合格关系。如上所述，在先前讨论的罗马天主教修女案（NYC-N-109090）中，这一点同样成立。 此外，母教会与外国实体之间的服务协议明确规定，两个实体之间的争议应在洛杉矶美国仲裁协会办公室的主持下进行有约束力的仲裁。它们之间的许可协议也规定了仲裁。然而，在罗马天主教会中，教皇是最高牧者、最高立法者和最高审判者。 科学论教会与罗马天主教会之间的其他区别在于，与罗马天主教会不同，科学论母教会不直接或间接拥有或控制外国实体的任何资产。此外，母教会不授予地方教会牧师圣职。相反，资产由地方拥有，圣职授予由地方教会进行并可被撤销。因此，申请方母教会显然不拥有或没有控制地方教会的最终法律权利。 母教会与外国实体之间的关系，用商业术语来说，是特许人/被特许人关系，而非母/子公司关系。根据《布莱克法律词典》：

under which the franchisee undertakes to conduct a business or sell a product or service in accordance with methods and procedures prescribed by the franchisor, and the franchisor undertakes to assist the franchisee through advertising, pro- motion, and other advisory services. In this case, the petitioning Mother Church provides continuous religious guidance to the local church, gives training to its minis- ters, and ensures the standardization of its doctrines and practices, much as a franchisor in the business world would guide, give train- ing to and regulate a franchisee. The local church, which is locally owned and solely responsible for acquiring trustees and church offi- cers and managing its affairs, may likewise be compared with the independently owned business of a franchisee. The Mother Church and the foreign entity are joined by a license agreement and an agreement for services. The Mother Church and the religious Technology Center (another Scientology organization) own and control, by trademarks and service marks, the products, literature, and services used in the practice of Scientology. The Mother Church and the Religious Technology Center permit the foreign entity to use (diem under the terms of a license. A contrac- tual relationship of this type is not considered to be a qualifying relationship for purposes of "L-1" classification. See Matter of Schick, 18 I&N Dec 647 (RC. 19'70) The above discussion cannot be construed to mean that there is a qualifying relationship between all organizations associated with the Roman Catholic Church, or that there is not a qualifying rela- tionship between the Church of Scientology and its other associated organizations. Such a determination is made on a case-by-case basis after considering the petitioner's evidence of ownership and con- trol.

根据该协议，被特许人承诺按照特许人规定的方法和程序经营业务或销售产品或服务，特许人承诺通过广告、推广和其他咨询服务协助被特许人。 在本案中，申请方母教会向地方教会提供持续的宗教指导，对其牧师进行培训，并确保其教义和实践的标准化，正如商业世界中的特许人会指导、培训并规范被特许人一样。地方教会由地方拥有，并全权负责获取受托人和教会官员及管理其事务，同样可与被特许人独立拥有的企业相比较。 母教会与外国实体通过许可协议和服务协议相联系。母教会和宗教技术中心（另一个科学论组织）通过商标和服务标记拥有并控制科学论实践中使用的产品、文献和服务。母教会和宗教技术中心允许外国实体根据许可条款使用它们。此类合同关系不被视为"L-1"分类目的的合格关系。见Matter of Schick, 18 I&N Dec. 647 (RC. 19'70)。 上述讨论不能被解释为意味着与罗马天主教会相关的所有组织之间存在合格关系，或科学论教会与其其他相关组织之间不存在合格关系。此类裁定应在考虑申请人关于所有权和控制的证据后逐案作出。

Counsel argues the test and standards of proof applied to the pe- titioner are arbitrary and capricious. In considering the nature of relationships between religious entities for purposes of "L-1" classi- fication, the Service, while applying law and regulation equally, must examine organizational structure and relevant factors. As with nonreligious entities, this must be accomplished by reviewing the documentary evidence of record. In each case, all evidence must be evaluated, and there is no pre- sumption of eligibility. The fact that some religious entities may be able to establish qualifying relationships while others are not able to do so may lead to the erroneous conclusion asserted by counsel that the findings are subjective opinions relating to individual peti-

律师主张，适用于申请人的检验和证明标准是任意和反复无常的。在考虑宗教实体之间关系的性质以进行"L-1"分类时，移民局在平等适用法律和法规的同时，必须审查组织结构和相关因素。与非宗教实体一样，这必须通过审查记录中的书面证据来完成。 在每起案件中，必须评估所有证据，且不存在资格的推定。某些宗教实体可能能够确立合格关系而其他实体则不能，这一事实可能导致律师所主张的错误结论，即认定是与个别申请人相关的

tioners. This is not the case. Varying opinions should be expected where diverse structures are found. The tests and standards of proof utilized in this proceeding have been clearly established through regulation and administrative case law, as discussed at length above. The record demonstrates that all due consideration has been accorded the petitioner in ac- cordance with current Service policy.

主观意见。事实并非如此。在发现不同结构的情况下，出现不同意见是意料之中的。 本程序中使用的检验和证明标准已通过法规和行政判例法明确确立，如上文详细讨论。记录表明，已按照现行移民局政策给予申请人一切适当考虑。

Constitutional issues

宪法问题

Counsel also claims that denial of the petition raises constitu- tional issues. Counsel does not, however, claim that the statute is unconstitutional. Of course, the Service cannot pass upon the con- stitutionality of the statute it administers. Nevertheless, we can ad- dress questions relating to the constitutionality of its application. Since all petitioners who seek "L-1" or Schedule A, Group IV, ben- efits must qualify on the same basis regardless of their religion, no violation of the equal protection or due process clauses can be found. Counsel argues that the Service has denied the petitioner a mechanism for bringing its personnel to the United States, thereby violating the free exercise clause. The fact is the Service treats all religions the same. Whether or not religious employees qualify for "L-1" classification on merits not relating to religious preference or practice is a different matter. Counsel asserts that the Service's review of the petitioning reli- gion's internal organization is a violation of the establishment clause. Matter of Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966), holds that, in visa petition proceedings, the burden of proof to establish eligibility for the benefit sought rests with the petitioner. In carry- ing out its obligation to ensure compliance with the congressional intent of the immigration laws, the Service must examine the orga- nizational structure of an entity seeking "L-1" or Schedule A, Group IV, benefits in order to determine whether or not it has met its burden of proof. This does not violate the establishment clause_

律师还主张，拒绝申请引发宪法问题。然而，律师并未主张该法规违宪。当然，移民局不能裁定其执行的法规的合宪性。尽管如此，我们可以处理与其适用合宪性相关的问题。由于所有寻求"L-1"或附表A第IV类福利的申请人无论其宗教如何都必须在相同基础上符合资格，因此不能认定违反平等保护或正当程序条款。 律师主张，移民局剥夺了申请人将其人员带到美国的机制，从而违反了自由行使条款。事实是，移民局平等对待所有宗教。宗教雇员是否符合"L-1"分类资格取决于与宗教偏好或实践无关的实质，这是另一回事。 律师主张，移民局对申请宗教内部组织的审查违反了确立条款。Matter of Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966) 裁定，在签证申请程序中，证明寻求福利资格的举证责任由申请人承担。在履行确保遵守国会移民法意图的义务时，移民局必须审查寻求"L-1"或附表A第IV类福利的实体的组织结构，以确定其是否履行了举证责任。这并不违反确立条款。

As in the case of the definitions of the terms "subsidiary" and "affiliate," the new "L-1" regulations, effective March 30, 1987, define qualifying managerial and executive capacities. The defini- tions of "managerial capacity" and "executive capacity" also do not reflect a policy change. As noted on February 26, 1987, when the new regulations were published, "The standards included the pro-

如同"子公司"和"关联公司"术语的定义一样，1987年3月30日生效的新"L-1"法规定义了合格的管理和行政能力。"管理能力"和"行政能力"的定义也不反映政策变化。正如1987年2月26日新法规公布时所指出的，"标准包括

posed regulations were intended to clarify the Service's interpreta- tion of the statute and current regulations, not to make a change in policy." 52 Fed. Reg. 5739 (1987). Generally speaking, under either the old or new regulations, two factors identify a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, as defined in 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(1)(1)(i1)(A) and (B) (1987), now cited at 8 C.F.R. §§ 214-2(1)(1Xii)(B) and (C) (1988), and both must be present. First, the position must involve significant authority over general- ized policy of an organization or a major subdivision of an organiza- tion. Second, the employee's duties must be primarily at the mana- gerial or executive level. An employee who primarily performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide services is not considered to be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. Moreover, a managerial or executive employee must have author- ity over day-to-day operations beyond the level normally vested in a first-line supervisor. Having discretionary authority and a managerial or executive title (such as establishment executive and deputy commanding offi- cer for tours) does not, in and of itself, mean a person is employed in a managerial or executive capacity. Here, the beneficiary's posi- tions for both. the United States and foreign entities have manage- rial or executive titles and discretionary authority. While working for the foreign entity, the beneficiary was respon- sible for a staff of 20, including 2 division heads, but she also "wrote programs which she implemented" to ensure that Church policy was followed regarding "dissemination tours for Church ex- pansion." This appears to be the function of a staff officer or spe- cialist not usually performed by a manager or executive. In her current position with the petitioning United States entity, the ben- eficiary is responsible for running an entire division, but she super- vises only five other employees. The record does not contain sufficiently detailed descriptions of the beneficiary's job duties, the job duties of her subordinates, and the organizational structures at her job sites to determine whether her employment is in a qualifying managerial or executive capac- ity. This issue was not raised in prior decisions. As the petition is otherwise not approvable, it does not need to be addressed further. It is simply noted for the record..

拟议法规旨在澄清移民局对法规和现行法规的解释，而非改变政策。”52 Fed. Reg. 5739 (1987)。 一般而言，根据旧法规或新法规，有两个因素可识别出符合条件的管理或行政能力，如8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(1)(1)(i1)(A)和(B) (1987)所定义，现引用于8 C.F.R. §§ 214-2(1)(1Xii)(B)和(C) (1988)，且两者必须同时具备。第一，该职位必须涉及对组织或组织主要分支机构的普遍政策的重大权限。第二，雇员的职责必须主要在管理或行政层面。主要执行生产产品或提供服务所必需任务的雇员，不被视为以管理或行政能力受雇。此外，管理或行政雇员必须对日常运营拥有超出通常赋予一线主管水平的权限。 拥有自由裁量权和经理或行政头衔（如机构行政主管和巡回副指挥官）本身并不意味着某人以管理或行政能力受雇。在此，受益人在美国实体和外国实体的职位均具有经理或行政头衔及自由裁量权。 在为外国实体工作期间，受益人负责管理20名员工，包括2名部门主管，但她还“编写了她实施的计划”，以确保在“教会扩张的传播巡回”方面遵循教会政策。这似乎是参谋或专家的职能，通常不由经理或行政人员履行。在她目前与请愿美国实体的职位中，受益人负责管理整个部门，但她仅监督另外五名雇员。 记录未包含对受益人工作职责、其下属工作职责及其工作地点组织结构的足够详细描述，以确定其就业是否属于符合条件的管理或行政能力。此问题在先前裁决中未提出。由于请愿书在其他方面不可批准，无需进一步处理。仅记录在案。

For the reasons discussed above, the decisions of the director and the Commissioner will be affirmed. This action is without prejudice to consideration of a new sixth-preference visa petition accompa-

基于上述理由，主任和专员的决定将予维持。此行动不影响考虑新的第六优先签证请愿，该请愿附有基于具体工作邀请的劳工证，依据20 C.F.R. § 656.21 (1988)。

nied by a labor certification based upon a specific job offer pursu- ant to 20 C.F.R. § 656.21 (1988). This action also does not preclude a finding of a qualifying rela- tionship between the petitioner and a foreign entity which it owns and controls. The Church of Scientology, as with all other religious or nonreligious organizations, may secure "L-1" or Schedule A, Group IV, benefits for its employees when all requirements of the statute and related regulations are met. ORDER: The decision of May 29, 1986, dismissing the appeal is affirmed.

依据20 C.F.R. § 656.21（1988）基于特定工作邀请的劳工证。 本行动也不排除认定申请人与其拥有并控制的外国实体之间存在合格关系。科学教会，如同所有其他宗教或非宗教组织一样，在其雇员满足法规及相关规章的所有要求时，可以为其雇员获得“L-1”或A类第IV组的福利。 命令：1986年5月29日驳回上诉的决定予以维持。