Matter of Song

Cite as 27 I&N Dec. 488 (BIA 2018) Interim Decision #3945

引用为 27 I&N Dec. 488 (BIA 2018) 临时决定 #3945

Decided November 19, 2018

2018年11月19日决定

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

美国司法部 移民审查执行办公室

Board of Immigration Appeals

移民上诉委员会

An applicant for adjustment of status who was admitted on a K-1 visa, fulfilled the terms of the visa by marrying the petitioner, and was later divorced must submit an affidavit of support from the petitioner to establish that he or she is not inadmissible as a public charge under section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(4) (2012).

以K-1签证入境、通过与该签证申请人结婚而满足签证条款、后离婚的调整身份申请人，必须提交该申请人的经济担保书，以证明其不因可能成为公共负担而依据《移民与国籍法》第212(a)(4)条、8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(4) (2012) 不可入境。

FOR RESPONDENT: Eli A. Echols, Esquire, Duluth, Georgia FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Hilary Rainone, Assistant Chief Counsel BEFORE: Board Panel: GREER and WENDTLAND, Board Members; DONOVAN, Temporary Board Member WENDTLAND, Board Member: In a decision dated July 7, 2017, an Immigration Judge found the respondent removable under section 237(a)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B) (2012), as a nonimmigrant who remained in the United States longer than permitted, denied her application for adjustment of status under section 245(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) (2012), and ordered her removed. The respondent has appealed from that decision. The appeal will be dismissed.

被申请人代理律师：Eli A. Echols 律师，佐治亚州德卢斯 国土安全部代理律师：Hilary Rainone，助理首席法律顾问 审理法官：委员会合议庭：GREER 和 WENDTLAND，委员会成员；DONOVAN，临时委员会成员 WENDTLAND，委员会成员： 在2017年7月7日的决定中，一名移民法官认定被申请人依据《移民与国籍法》第237(a)(1)(B)条、8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B) (2012) 作为超过许可期限滞留美国的非移民而可被驱逐，驳回其依据该法第245(a)条、8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) (2012) 提出的调整身份申请，并命令将其驱逐。被申请人已对该决定提出上诉。上诉将被驳回。

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

I. 事实与程序历史

The respondent is a native and citizen of Cambodia who entered the United States on a K-1 nonimmigrant fiancée visa on November 25, 2011, and married her United States citizen fiancé, the visa petitioner, within 90 days. On February 3, 2012, the respondent filed an application for adjustment of status with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), along with a Form I-864 (Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA) executed by the petitioner. While the application was pending, the marriage broke down, and on July 10, 2012, the petitioner wrote to the USCIS to withdraw his affidavit of support. On November 21, 2012, the USCIS denied the respondent’s adjustment application, finding that she

被申请人是柬埔寨国民和公民，于2011年11月25日持K-1非移民未婚妻签证进入美国，并在90天内与其美国公民未婚夫即签证申请人结婚。2012年2月3日，被申请人向美国公民及移民服务局（“USCIS”）提交调整身份申请，并附上由申请人签署的I-864表格（根据INA第213A条的经济担保书）。在该申请待决期间，婚姻破裂，2012年7月10日，申请人致函USCIS撤回其经济担保书。2012年11月21日，USCIS驳回被申请人的调整身份申请，认定其

488

488

Cite as 27 I&N Dec. 488 (BIA 2018) Interim Decision #3945

引用为 27 I&N Dec. 488 (BIA 2018) 临时决定 #3945

was inadmissible under section 212(a)(4) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(4) (2012), as an alien who is likely to become a public charge. The couple divorced on December 20, 2012. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) subsequently initiated removal proceedings. Before the Immigration Judge, the respondent renewed her application for adjustment of status and submitted a new affidavit of support from a family friend. Although the Immigration Judge found that the respondent’s divorce did not render her ineligible for adjustment of status, she was required to provide an affidavit of support from the petitioner, her former husband, to establish that she was admissible to the United States. Because the respondent could not do so, the Immigration Judge concluded that she was inadmissible as an alien who is likely to become a public charge and denied her adjustment application.

依据该法第212(a)(4)条、8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(4) (2012) 作为可能成为公共负担的外国人不可入境。双方于2012年12月20日离婚。国土安全部（“DHS”）随后启动驱逐程序。 在移民法官面前，被申请人重新提出调整身份申请，并提交了一份来自家庭朋友的新经济担保书。尽管移民法官认定被申请人的离婚并未使其丧失调整身份资格，但她必须提供其前夫即申请人的经济担保书，以证明其可入境美国。由于被申请人无法做到这一点，移民法官认定其作为可能成为公共负担的外国人不可入境，并驳回其调整身份申请。

II. ISSUE The issue before us is whether an applicant for adjustment of status who was admitted on a valid K-1 nonimmigrant visa, fulfilled the terms of the visa by marrying the petitioner, and was later divorced must submit an affidavit of support from the petitioner to establish that he or she is not inadmissible as a public charge.

II. 问题 我们面前的问题是：以有效K-1非移民签证入境、通过与该签证申请人结婚而满足签证条款、后离婚的调整身份申请人，是否必须提交该申请人的经济担保书，以证明其不因可能成为公共负担而不可入境。

III. ANALYSIS “The fiancé(e) visa petition and adjustment processes are hybrid in the sense that they combine both immigrant and nonimmigrant visa attributes . . . .” Matter of Le, 25 I&N Dec. 541, 544 (BIA 2011). We have therefore held that “fiancé(e) visa holders remain similarly situated to immediate relatives in satisfaction of the section 245(a) immigrant visa requirements.” Matter of Sesay, 25 I&N Dec. 431, 439 (BIA 2011). Under section 245(a) of the Act, an alien may be admitted for lawful permanent residence if, among other things, he or she is admissible. An alien is inadmissible under section 212(a)(4)(A) if, “in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, [the alien] is likely at any time to become a public charge.” Section 212(a)(4)(B)(i)(IV) of the Act states that in determining whether an alien is inadmissible as a public charge, “the Attorney General shall at a minimum consider” various factors, including the alien’s “assets, resources, and financial status.” (Emphasis added.) But according to section 212(a)(4)(B)(ii), “the Attorney General may also consider any affidavit of support.” (Emphasis added.) However, under section 212(a)(4)(C)(ii) of the Act, aliens with immediate relative status or family-based preference

III. 分析 “未婚夫（妻）签证申请和调整身份程序具有混合性质，因为它们结合了移民签证和非移民签证的属性……。” Matter of Le, 25 I&N Dec. 541, 544 (BIA 2011)。因此我们裁定，“未婚夫（妻）签证持有人在满足第245(a)条移民签证要求方面与直系亲属处于类似地位。” Matter of Sesay, 25 I&N Dec. 431, 439 (BIA 2011)。根据该法第245(a)条，外国人可获准成为合法永久居民，条件包括其可入境。根据第212(a)(4)(A)条，如果“在申请入境或调整身份时，司法部长认为[该外国人]可能在任何时候成为公共负担”，则该外国人不可入境。 该法第212(a)(4)(B)(i)(IV)条规定，在确定外国人是否因公共负担而不可入境时，“司法部长至少应考虑”各种因素，包括外国人的“资产、资源和财务状况”。（强调为后加。）但根据第212(a)(4)(B)(ii)条，“司法部长也可以考虑任何经济担保书”。（强调为后加。）然而，根据该法第212(a)(4)(C)(ii)条，具有直系亲属身份或家庭优先

489

489

Cite as 27 I&N Dec. 488 (BIA 2018) Interim Decision #3945

引用为 27 I&N Dec. 488 (BIA 2018) 临时决定 #3945

classification are inadmissible unless “the person petitioning for the alien’s admission . . . has executed an affidavit of support . . . with respect to such alien.” Although fiancé(e) visa holders differ in certain respects from aliens in those categories, see Matter of Sesay, 25 I&N Dec. at 439–40, the governing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 213a.2(b) (2018) explicitly makes them subject to the same statutory requirement. That regulation provides: Affidavit of support sponsors. The following individuals must execute an affidavit of support on behalf of the intending immigrant in order for the intending immigrant to be found admissible on public charge grounds:

类别的外国人不可入境，除非“为该外国人入境提出申请的人……已就该外国人签署了经济担保书……”。尽管未婚夫（妻）签证持有人在某些方面与这些类别中的外国人不同，见 Matter of Sesay, 25 I&N Dec. at 439–40，但8 C.F.R. § 213a.2(b) (2018) 的适用法规明确使其受同一法定要求约束。该法规规定： 经济担保书担保人。下列个人必须代表拟移民签署经济担保书，以便拟移民因公共负担理由被认定可入境：

(1) For immediate relatives and family-based immigrants. The person who filed a relative, orphan or fiancé(e) petition, the approval of which forms the basis of the intending immigrant’s eligibility to apply for an immigrant visa or adjustment of status as an immediate relative or a family-based immigrant, must execute a [sic] an affidavit of support on behalf of the intending immigrant. If the intending immigrant is the beneficiary of more than one approved immigrant visa petition, it is the person who filed the petition that is actually the basis for the intending immigrant’s eligibility to apply for an immigrant visa or adjustment of status who must file the an [sic] affidavit of support.

(1) 对于直系亲属和家庭移民。提交亲属、孤儿或未婚夫（妻）申请且其批准构成拟移民作为直系亲属或家庭移民申请移民签证或调整身份资格基础的人，必须代表拟移民签署一份[sic]经济担保书。如果拟移民是一个以上已批准移民签证申请的受益人，则实际构成拟移民申请移民签证或调整身份资格基础的申请提交人必须提交该[sic]经济担保书。

(Emphases added.) The respondent argues that, as a matter of policy, it is unreasonable for Congress to require a fiancé(e) visa holder who complied with the terms of the visa but was later divorced to provide an affidavit of support only from the petitioner. This assertion is inconsistent with the plain language of the statute and regulations. We find further support for our conclusion in the history and context of the provisions regarding affidavits of support. For well over 100 years, our immigration laws have included a ground of inadmissibility for persons who are likely to become a public charge. See 84 Interpreter Releases, No. 47, Dec. 10, 2007, at 2849, 2850 & n.3. However, the concept of a legally binding affidavit of support was only introduced in 1996 and implemented on December 19, 1997. Id. at 2851; see also Affidavits of Support on Behalf of Immigrants, 62 Fed. Reg. 54,346 (Oct. 20, 1997) (interim rule implementing section 213A of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1183a (Supp. II 1996)). Subsequently, the DHS clarified that although the sponsor of a fiancé(e) or other alien relative is under no legal obligation to file a visa petition or sign an affidavit of support, if a sponsor chooses to facilitate the immigration of such a relative, he or she must comply with the legal requirements for doing so. See Affidavits of Support on Behalf of Immigrants, 71 Fed. Reg. 35,732, 35,744 (June 21, 2006) (final rule) (Supplementary Information). These requirements include the submission of an affidavit of support. See 8 C.F.R. § 213a.2(b)(1); see also Memorandum from Michael Aytes, Acting Dir., Domestic Operations, to USCIS officials 3 (June 27, 2006),

（着重号为后加。） 被申请人主张，作为政策问题，国会要求一名遵守了签证条款但后来离婚的未婚夫（妻）签证持有人仅提供来自申请人的经济担保书是不合理的。这一主张与法规和规章的明文规定不一致。我们在关于经济担保书条款的历史和背景中为我们的结论找到了进一步的支持。 100多年来，我们的移民法一直包含一项针对可能成为公共负担者的不准入境理由。见84 Interpreter Releases, No. 47, Dec. 10, 2007, at 2849, 2850 & n.3。然而，具有法律约束力的经济担保书的概念直到1996年才被引入，并于1997年12月19日实施。Id. at 2851；另见Affidavits of Support on Behalf of Immigrants, 62 Fed. Reg. 54,346 (Oct. 20, 1997)（实施该法第213A条，8 U.S.C. § 1183a (Supp. II 1996)的临时规则）。 随后，DHS澄清，尽管未婚夫（妻）或其他外国亲属的担保人没有法律义务提交签证申请或签署经济担保书，但如果担保人选择促成该亲属的移民，他或她必须遵守这样做的法律要求。见Affidavits of Support on Behalf of Immigrants, 71 Fed. Reg. 35,732, 35,744 (June 21, 2006)（最终规则）（补充信息）。这些要求包括提交经济担保书。见8 C.F.R. § 213a.2(b)(1)；另见Memorandum from Michael Aytes, Acting Dir., Domestic Operations, to USCIS officials 3 (June 27, 2006)，

490

490

Cite as 27 I&N Dec. 488 (BIA 2018) Interim Decision #3945

引用为 27 I&N Dec. 488 (BIA 2018) 临时决定 #3945

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/Static_ Files_Memoranda/Archives%201998-2008/2006/affsuppafm062706.pdf (“Aytes Memorandum”). Further, to successfully complete the process, the affidavit of support must be valid at the time of filing and at the time the adjustment application is adjudicated. See Aytes Memorandum, supra, at 1, 13; see also 8 C.F.R. § 213a.2(e). An affidavit of support is a legally binding contract. See 8 C.F.R. § 213a.2(d). The sponsor assumes the obligation of support when the beneficiary acquires permanent resident status, and that obligation continues until one of four scenarios has occurred: (1) the alien naturalizes; (2) the alien has “acquired 40 quarters of coverage under the Social Security Act” (that is, he or she has been lawfully employed for approximately 10 years); (3) the alien leaves the United States permanently, abandoning his or her permanent resident status; or (4) the alien or the sponsor dies. 71 Fed. Reg. at 35,740; see also sections 213A(a)(2), (3) of the Act. The commentary to the regulation also addresses the situation where the alien and the sponsor divorce.

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/Static_ Files_Memoranda/Archives%201998-2008/2006/affsuppafm062706.pdf （“Aytes备忘录”）。此外，为成功完成该程序，经济担保书在提交时和调整身份申请裁决时必须有效。见 Aytes Memorandum, supra, at 1, 13；另见 8 C.F.R. § 213a.2(e)。 经济担保书是具有法律约束力的合同。见 8 C.F.R. § 213a.2(d)。担保人在受益人获得永久居民身份时承担担保义务，该义务持续至以下四种情形之一发生：(1) 外国人入籍；(2) 外国人“已获得《社会保障法》下40个季度的保险覆盖”（即其已合法就业约10年）；(3) 外国人永久离开美国，放弃其永久居民身份；或 (4) 外国人或担保人死亡。71 Fed. Reg. at 35,740；另见该法第213A(a)(2)、(3)条。 该条例的评注还讨论了外国人与担保人离婚的情况。

Section 213A of the Act does not provide any basis to say that divorce does, or does not, affect a support obligation under an affidavit of support. [The] sponsored immigrant . . . probably can, in a divorce settlement, surrender his or her right to sue the sponsor to enforce an affidavit of support. The sponsored immigrant and the sponsor . . . may not, however, alter the sponsor’s obligations to DHS and to benefit-granting agencies. 71 Fed. Reg. at 35,740. This lends support to the understanding that Congress intended the affidavit of support to be a legally binding commitment, unaltered by the circumstance of divorce. See Form I-864 Instructions (Instructions for Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA), at 13 (“Divorce does not end the sponsorship obligation.”). Whether because of a divorce or some other circumstance, the sponsor may withdraw an affidavit of support for the alien at any time up to adjudication of the adjustment application. See 8 C.F.R. § 213a.2(f); Aytes Memorandum, supra, at 13. However, it is by no means a foregone conclusion that a sponsor will withdraw his or her affidavit of support for a spouse upon their divorce. Conceivably, just as the alien could surrender the right to sue the sponsor to enforce the affidavit of support as part of the divorce settlement, the sponsor might agree not to withdraw the affidavit. That possibility supports our conclusion that the plain language of the statute and regulations does not permit an exception to the affidavit of support requirements in the event of divorce and that none should be implied. Moreover, the law allows two explicit exceptions to the affidavit of support requirement: abuse and death. See USCIS, Affidavit of Support,

《移民与国籍法》第213A条并未提供任何依据，以说明离婚会影响或不会影响经济担保书项下的扶养义务。[受]担保的移民……在离婚协议中，可能可以放弃其起诉担保人以强制执行经济担保书的权利。然而，受担保的移民与担保人……不得改变担保人对DHS及福利发放机构的义务。 71 Fed. Reg. at 35,740。这支持了以下理解：国会意图使经济担保书成为具有法律约束力的承诺，不因离婚情形而改变。见Form I-864 Instructions（《根据INA第213A条提交经济担保书的说明》），第13页（“离婚并不终止担保义务。”）。 无论是因为离婚还是其他情形，担保人可以在调整身份申请裁决之前的任何时间撤回为该外国人提交的经济担保书。见8 C.F.R. § 213a.2(f)；Aytes Memorandum, supra, at 13。然而，绝不能就此断定担保人会在离婚时撤回其为配偶提交的经济担保书。可以设想，正如外国人可以在离婚协议中放弃起诉担保人以强制执行经济担保书的权利一样，担保人也可能同意不撤回该经济担保书。这一可能性支持我们的结论：法规和条例的平实语言不允许在离婚情况下对经济担保书要求作出例外，也不应默示任何例外。 此外，法律允许对经济担保书要求有两项明示例外：虐待和死亡。见USCIS, Affidavit of Support,

491

491

Cite as 27 I&N Dec. 488 (BIA 2018) Interim Decision #3945

引用为27 I&N Dec. 488 (BIA 2018) 临时决定#3945

www.uscis.gov/greencard/affidavit-support (follow When NOT to Submit an Affidavit of Support) (last updated June 26, 2017). First, an alien who is or was married to an abusive spouse is not required to provide an affidavit of support from that petitioner. Sections 204(a)(1)(A)(iii), (iv) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1154(a)(1)(A)(iii), (iv) (2012); 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.1(a)(3), 204.2(c) (2018). Second, in cases where the petitioner has died prior to adjudication of the adjustment application, the alien is permitted to substitute the petitioner’s affidavit of support with one from another qualifying relative. Section 213A(f)(5)(B)(i) of the Act. These two exceptions highlight the absence of any others. See TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 28 (2001) (“Where Congress explicitly enumerates certain exceptions to a general prohibition, additional exceptions are not to be implied, in the absence of evidence of a contrary legislative intent.” (citation omitted)). Congress could have made an exception for the divorce of a K-1 visa holder and the sponsoring petitioner, but it did not. Instead, by requiring that “the person petitioning for the alien’s admission” must be the individual who executes an affidavit of support, Congress clearly indicated its intent that the sponsor who brought the alien to the United States must be financially responsible for the alien through the period of his or her adjustment of status. Section 212(a)(4)(C)(ii) of the Act; see also 8 C.F.R. § 213a.2(b)(1) (stating that the person who filed the petition upon which the alien’s adjustment is based must file the affidavit of support). The respondent argues that we should follow our reasoning in Matter of Sesay, 25 I&N Dec. at 440–41, where we concluded that the K-1 visa holder could adjust his status despite his divorce from the petitioner if he was otherwise admissible. However, as we noted there, the regulations were silent regarding the consequences of the termination of a valid marriage. Id. at 439. By contrast, 8 C.F.R. § 213a.2(b)(1) affirmatively states that a fiancé(e) petitioner must be the person who files an affidavit of support on behalf of the K-1 visa holder. Further, the K-1 visa holder is inadmissible as a public charge if the petitioner declines to submit an affidavit of support or withdraws it before the alien’s adjustment application has been adjudicated. See section 212(a)(4)(C)(ii) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 213a.2(f). Because the language of both the statute and the regulations is plain and unambiguous, we are bound to follow it. K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988); Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842–43 (1984); Matter of Figueroa, 25 I&N Dec. 596, 598 (BIA 2011). In this case, the respondent’s former husband, her petitioning sponsor, wrote to the USCIS and requested that his affidavit of support for her be withdrawn prior to adjudication of her application for adjustment of status. Although the respondent may still adjust her status, she is inadmissible on grounds that she is likely to become a public charge unless she provides

www.uscis.gov/greencard/affidavit-support（见When NOT to Submit an Affidavit of Support）（最后更新于2017年6月26日）。第一，与虐待性配偶结婚或曾经结婚的外国人无须提供该申请人出具的经济担保书。《移民与国籍法》第204(a)(1)(A)(iii)、(iv)条，8 U.S.C. §§ 1154(a)(1)(A)(iii)、(iv) (2012)；8 C.F.R. §§ 204.1(a)(3)、204.2(c) (2018)。第二，在申请人于调整身份申请裁决前死亡的情况下，允许该外国人以另一名符合条件的亲属出具的经济担保书替代申请人的经济担保书。《移民与国籍法》第213A(f)(5)(B)(i)条。 这两项例外凸显了不存在任何其他例外。见TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 28 (2001)（“在国会明确列举对一般禁止的某些例外时，在缺乏相反立法意图证据的情况下，不应默示额外例外。”（引注省略））。国会本可为K-1签证持有人与担保申请人离婚设定例外，但并未这样做。相反，通过要求“为外国人入境提出申请的人”必须是签署经济担保书的个人，国会明确表示其意图：将该外国人带到美国的担保人必须在该外国人调整身份期间对其承担经济责任。《移民与国籍法》第212(a)(4)(C)(ii)条；另见8 C.F.R. § 213a.2(b)(1)（规定提交作为该外国人调整身份依据的申请的人必须提交经济担保书）。 答辩人主张，我们应遵循我们在Matter of Sesay, 25 I&N Dec. at 440–41中的推理，在该案中我们认定，K-1签证持有人即使与申请人离婚，只要其在其他方面可入境，仍可调整其身份。然而，正如我们在该案中指出的，条例对有效婚姻终止的后果未作规定。Id. at 439。相比之下，8 C.F.R. § 213a.2(b)(1)明确规定，未婚夫（妻）申请人必须是为K-1签证持有人提交经济担保书的人。此外，如果申请人在该外国人的调整身份申请裁决之前拒绝提交经济担保书或将其撤回，K-1签证持有人即因可能成为公共负担而不可入境。见《移民与国籍法》第212(a)(4)(C)(ii)条；8 C.F.R. § 213a.2(f)。由于法规和条例的语言均平实且无歧义，我们必须遵循。K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988)；Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842–43 (1984)；Matter of Figueroa, 25 I&N Dec. 596, 598 (BIA 2011)。 在本案中，答辩人的前夫，即其申请担保人，致函USCIS，要求在其调整身份申请裁决之前撤回为其提交的经济担保书。尽管答辩人仍可调整其身份，但除非她提供

492

492

Cite as 27 I&N Dec. 488 (BIA 2018) Interim Decision #3945

引用为27 I&N Dec. 488 (BIA 2018) 临时决定#3945

an affidavit of support from the petitioner. See section 212(a)(4)(C)(ii) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 213a.2(b)(1); see also Matter of Sesay, 25 I&N Dec. at 440–41. Because the respondent acknowledged that she no longer has an affidavit of support from her former husband, the Immigration Judge properly found her to be inadmissible and therefore ineligible for adjustment of status. Accordingly, because the respondent conceded removability and has presented no other applications for relief, her appeal will be dismissed. ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

申请人出具的经济担保书，否则她因可能成为公共负担而不可入境。见《移民与国籍法》第212(a)(4)(C)(ii)条；8 C.F.R. § 213a.2(b)(1)；另见Matter of Sesay, 25 I&N Dec. at 440–41。由于答辩人承认她不再拥有其前夫出具的经济担保书，移民法官正确地认定她不可入境，因而无资格调整身份。因此，由于答辩人承认可被驱逐且未提出其他救济申请，其上诉将被驳回。 命令：上诉驳回。

493

493