Matter of Alfred Kebbie Sesay

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 431 (BIA 2011) Interim Decision #3707

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 431 (BIA 2011) 临时决定 #3707

Decided March 17, 2011

2011年3月17日决定

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

(1) Under section 245(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(d) (2006), a fiancé(e) visa holder can only adjust status based on the marriage to the fiancé(e) petitioner. Matter of Zampetis, 14 I&N Dec. 125 (Reg. Comm’r 1972), superseded.

(1) 根据《移民与国籍法》第245(d)条，8 U.S.C. § 1255(d) (2006)，未婚夫（妻）签证持有人只能基于与未婚夫（妻）申请人的婚姻调整身份。Matter of Zampetis, 14 I&N Dec. 125 (Reg. Comm’r 1972)，已被取代。

(2) A fiancé(e) visa holder whose bona fide marriage to the fiancé(e) visa petitioner is more than 2 years old at the time the adjustment application is adjudicated is not subject to the provisions for conditional resident status under section 216 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1186a (2006).

(2) 未婚夫（妻）签证持有人与未婚夫（妻）签证申请人存在真实婚姻，且在调整身份申请裁决时该婚姻已存续超过2年的，不受该法第216条，8 U.S.C. § 1186a (2006) 关于有条件居民身份规定的约束。

(3) A fiancé(e) visa holder satisfies the visa eligibility and visa availability requirements of section 245(a) of the Act on the date he or she is admitted to the United States as a K-1 nonimmigrant, provided that the fiancé(e) enters into a bona fide marriage with the fiancé(e) petitioner within 90 days.

(3) 未婚夫（妻）签证持有人在其作为K-1非移民被准许进入美国之日，即满足该法第245(a)条的签证资格和签证可用性要求，前提是未婚夫（妻）在90天内与未婚夫（妻）申请人缔结真实婚姻。

(4) A fiancé(e) visa holder may be granted adjustment of status under sections 245(a) and (d) of the Act, even if the marriage to the fiancé(e) visa petitioner does not exist at the time that the adjustment application is adjudicated, if the applicant can demonstrate that he or she entered into a bona fide marriage within the 90-day period to the fiancé(e) visa petitioner.

(4) 未婚夫（妻）签证持有人可以根据该法第245(a)和(d)条获得调整身份，即使在与未婚夫（妻）签证申请人的婚姻在调整身份申请裁决时已不存在，只要申请人能够证明其在90天期限内与未婚夫（妻）签证申请人缔结了真实婚姻。

FOR RESPONDENT: Thomas A. Elliot, Esquire, Washington, D.C.

被申请人代理律师：Thomas A. Elliot 律师，华盛顿特区

FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Billy J. Sapp, Senior Attorney

国土安全部代理律师：Billy J. Sapp，高级律师

BEFORE: Board Panel: NEAL, Acting Chairman; GREER and MALPHRUS, Board Members.

审理：委员会合议庭：NEAL，代理主席；GREER 和 MALPHRUS，委员会成员。

GREER, Board Member:

GREER，委员会成员：

This case addresses the issue whether an alien who entered the United States on a nonimmigrant K-1 fiancé(e) visa and met the condition of timely marrying the petitioning spouse remains eligible to adjust status when the marriage has ended. We hold that such an alien is eligible for adjustment. Consequently, we will sustain the respondent’s appeal and remand the record to give him an opportunity to renew his application for adjustment of status

本案涉及的问题是，持非移民K-1未婚夫（妻）签证进入美国并及时与申请配偶结婚从而满足条件的外国人，在婚姻结束后是否仍有资格调整身份。我们裁定，该外国人具有调整身份的资格。因此，我们将维持被申请人的上诉，并将记录发回，以便给予其在移民法官面前重新提出根据《移民与国籍法》第245(a)和(d)条，8 U.S.C. §§ 1255(a) 和 (d) (2006) 调整身份申请的机会。

431

431

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 431 (BIA 2011) Interim Decision #3707

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 431 (BIA 2011) 临时决定 #3707

under sections 245(a) and (d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1255(a) and (d) (2006), before the Immigration Judge.

根据《移民与国籍法》第245(a)和(d)条，8 U.S.C. §§ 1255(a) 和 (d) (2006)，在移民法官面前。

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

I. 事实与程序历史

The respondent, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone, met his future United States citizen wife in 1997 when they were both studying in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. She filed a Petition for Alien Fiancé(e) (Form I-129F) on the respondent’s behalf, which was approved by the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) 1 on October 27, 1999. The respondent was issued a K-1 nonimmigrant fiancé visa pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(K)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(K)(i) (2000), on February 4, 2000. On April 18, 2000, the respondent was admitted to the United States as a fiancé for a 90-day period. He married the fiancée petitioner on April 28, 2000. The couple had a son, born March 29, 2001. On June 20, 2001, the respondent filed an adjustment of status application with the INS. On November 8, 2002, the INS mistakenly denied the respondent’s adjustment application because it had not adjudicated the application within 2 years of his April 28, 2000, marriage. The couple divorced on June 5, 2003. In a Notice to Appear dated October 29, 2003, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) alleged that the respondent was in the United States in violation of law pursuant to section 237(a)(1)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B) (2000). On November 24, 2004, the respondent married his current United States citizen spouse. She filed a family-based immigrant visa petition, Form I-130 (Petition for Alien Relative), on the respondent’s behalf, which the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) approved on July 26, 2005. In removal proceedings, the respondent conceded removability and sought to renew his adjustment application based on the approved fiancé petition filed by his first wife. He also filed an adjustment application based on the approved I-130 filed by his current wife. In a decision dated April 24, 2007, the Immigration Judge denied both adjustment applications. He denied adjustment based on the approved I-130 filed by the second wife because the

被申请人是塞拉利昂本土出生和公民，1997年与其未来的美国公民妻子在埃塞俄比亚亚的斯亚贝巴学习时相识。她代表被申请人提交了《外籍未婚夫（妻）申请》（I-129F表格），该申请于1999年10月27日获得前移民与归化局（“INS”）1 批准。被申请人于2000年2月4日根据该法第101(a)(15)(K)(i)条，8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(K)(i) (2000) 获得K-1非移民未婚夫签证。2000年4月18日，被申请人作为未婚夫被准许进入美国，期限为90天。他于2000年4月28日与未婚妻申请人结婚。这对夫妇育有一子，出生于2001年3月29日。2001年6月20日，被申请人向INS提交了调整身份申请。 2002年11月8日，INS错误地拒绝了被申请人的调整身份申请，因为其未在2000年4月28日婚姻后的2年内裁决该申请。夫妇于2003年6月5日离婚。在2003年10月29日的出庭通知中，国土安全部（“DHS”）指控被申请人根据该法第237(a)(1)(B)条，8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B) (2000) 违反法律滞留美国。2004年11月24日，被申请人与现任美国公民配偶结婚。她代表被申请人提交了亲属移民签证申请，I-130表格（《外籍亲属申请》），美国公民及移民服务局（“USCIS”）于2005年7月26日批准。 在遣返程序中，被申请人承认可遣返性，并寻求基于第一任妻子提交的已批准未婚夫（妻）申请重新提出其调整身份申请。他还基于现任妻子提交的已批准I-130提交了调整身份申请。在2007年4月24日的决定中，移民法官拒绝了这两份调整身份申请。他拒绝了基于第二任妻子提交的已批准I-130的调整身份，因为被申请人以未婚夫签证入境，只能因与未婚妻申请人的婚姻而调整身份。移民法官以缺乏管辖权为由拒绝了基于第一次婚姻的调整身份申请，因为被申请人不再与未婚妻申请人结婚。被申请人已就移民法官的决定提出上诉。2

1 On March 1, 2003, pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, the functions of the Immigration and Naturalization Service were transferred from the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, an agency within the DHS, is authorized to provide immigration and naturalization benefits to aliens, including the adjudication of adjustment of status applications. As part of this restructuring, the regulations were separated into DHS and DOJ counterparts. Aliens and Nationality; Homeland Security; Reorganization of Regulations, 68 Fed. Reg. 9824 (Feb. 28, 2003).

1 2003年3月1日，根据《2002年国土安全法》，Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135，移民与归化局的职能从司法部（“DOJ”）移交至国土安全部（“DHS”）。美国公民及移民服务局是DHS内的一个机构，被授权向外国人提供移民和归化福利，包括裁决调整身份申请。作为此重组的一部分，法规被分为DHS和DOJ对应版本。外国人与国籍；国土安全；法规重组，68 Fed. Reg. 9824（2003年2月28日）。

432

432

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 431 (BIA 2011) Interim Decision #3707

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 431 (BIA 2011) 临时决定 #3707

respondent, having been admitted on a fiancé visa, could only adjust status as a result of the marriage to the fiancée petitioner. The Immigration Judge denied the adjustment application based on the first marriage for lack of jurisdiction because the respondent was no longer married to the fiancée petitioner. The respondent has appealed from the Immigration Judge’s decision. 2

被申请人以未婚夫签证入境，只能因与未婚妻申请人的婚姻而调整身份。移民法官以缺乏管辖权为由拒绝了基于第一次婚姻的调整身份申请，因为被申请人不再与未婚妻申请人结婚。被申请人已就移民法官的决定提出上诉。2

II. ISSUES

II. 问题

A. Fiancé(e) Adjustment Based on a Second Marriage

A. 基于第二次婚姻的未婚夫（妻）调整身份

The respondent now concedes that he cannot adjust status based on the I-130 visa petition filed by his second wife. We agree, because the language of section 245(d) of the Act clearly precludes fiancé(e)s from adjusting status on any basis other than marriage to the fiancé(e) petitioner. See Markovski v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 108, 110 (4th Cir. 2007) (stating that the language of section 245(d) of the Act is clear insofar as it bars K-1 visa holders from adjusting status on any basis other than marriage to the fiancé(e) petitioner); see also Kalal v. Gonzales, 402 F.3d 948, 951 (9th Cir. 2005) (same).

被申请人现在承认他不能基于第二任妻子提交的I-130签证申请调整身份。我们同意，因为该法第245(d)条的措辞明确禁止未婚夫（妻）以与未婚夫（妻）申请人婚姻以外的任何依据调整身份。见 Markovski v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 108, 110 (4th Cir. 2007)（指出该法第245(d)条的措辞明确，禁止K-1签证持有人以与未婚夫（妻）申请人婚姻以外的任何依据调整身份）；另见 Kalal v. Gonzales, 402 F.3d 948, 951 (9th Cir. 2005)（同上）。

B. Jurisdiction Over Fiancé(e) Adjustment

B. 对未婚夫（妻）调整身份的管辖权

On appeal, the DHS acknowledges that the INS improperly denied the respondent’s adjustment application in 2002, because there is no requirement that a fiancé(e) adjust status within 2 years of the marriage. We agree with the parties that the Immigration Judge has jurisdiction to adjudicate the renewal of the respondent’s fiancé adjustment application under section 245(a) of the Act in removal proceedings. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 245.2(c), 1245.2(c) (2010).

在上诉中，DHS承认INS在2002年错误地拒绝了被申请人的调整身份申请，因为没有要求未婚夫（妻）在婚姻后2年内调整身份。我们同意双方的意见，即移民法官有权在遣返程序中根据该法第245(a)条裁决被申请人未婚夫调整身份申请的重新提出。见 8 C.F.R. §§ 245.2(c), 1245.2(c) (2010)。

C. Dissolution of a Fiancé(e)’s Marriage

C. 未婚夫（妻）婚姻的解除

The remaining issue is whether a fiancé(e) visa holder who timely marries the fiancé(e) petitioner remains eligible to adjust status outside the conditional residence period after dissolution of their bona fide marriage. 3

剩余的问题是，及时与未婚夫（妻）申请人结婚的未婚夫（妻）签证持有人，在其真实婚姻解除后，是否仍有资格在有条件居民身份期之外调整身份。3

2 The parties do not dispute the respondent’s removability, so we need not address that issue. 3 The Act lists three nonimmigrant categories under section 101(a)(15)(K): (i) fiancé(e)s seeking to enter the United States to conclude a valid marriage; (ii) aliens married to a United States citizen who has filed a family-based immigrant visa petition that is pending (continued...)

2 双方对被申请人的可遣返性没有争议，因此我们无需处理该问题。 3 该法在第101(a)(15)(K)条下列出了三个非移民类别：(i) 寻求进入美国缔结有效婚姻的未婚夫（妻）；(ii) 与美国公民结婚且该公民已提交正在审理中的亲属移民签证申请的外国人（待续...）

433

433

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 431 (BIA 2011) Interim Decision #3707

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 431 (BIA 2011) 临时决定 #3707

The resolution of this issue depends upon whether the respondent can satisfy the requirements of sections 245(a) and (d) of the Act. These and other statutory provisions governing a fiancé(e)’s adjustment of status have undergone substantial revision over the years. The result is an incomplete statutory construct, requiring us to fill a significant statutory void and interpret ambiguous language. 4 We do so primarily by reference to the law as originally enacted, because the changes to it were designed to address marriage fraud, not the issue presented here regarding termination of an apparently bona fide marriage. Further, the original regulatory and statutory petition procedure for fiancé(e) adjustments remains largely intact. Thus, the former law serves as a guide to congressional intent in this case. We also rely on longstanding consular practice, in addition to DHS guidance interpreting the effect of part of the statutory changes.

该问题的解决取决于被申请人能否满足该法第245(a)和(d)条的要求。这些以及规范未婚夫（妻）调整身份的其他法定条款多年来经历了重大修订。结果是形成了一个不完整的法定结构，要求我们填补重大的法定空白并解释模糊的语言。4 我们主要参照最初颁布的法律，因为对其的修改旨在解决婚姻欺诈问题，而非此处提出的关于明显真实婚姻终止的问题。此外，最初的未婚夫（妻）调整身份的监管和法定申请程序基本保持不变。因此，以前的法在本案中可作为国会意图的指南。我们还依赖长期存在的领事实践，以及DHS解释部分法定修改效果的指南。

III. STATUTORY AMBIGUITIES FOR FIANCÉ(E) ADJUSTMENT

III. 未婚夫（妻）调整身份的法定模糊性

The statutory gaps and ambiguities arise principally from amendments that eliminated fiancé(e) adjustments under former section 214(d) of the Act 8 U.S.C. § 1184(d) (1970), and incorporated them into the adjustment scheme under sections 245(a) and (d) of the Act. First, section 245(a) requires applicants to establish immigrant visa eligibility and availability. However, Congress did not specify the statutory mechanism that would allow nonimmigrant fiancé(e)s to qualify as immigrants. Unless we construe the statute to allow these nonimmigrants to adjust status, we face the absurd result of disqualifying all fiancé(e) visa holders from statutory eligibility. Such a result would clearly be at odds with the entire basis for fiancé(e) visa status and current administrative practice.

法定空白和模糊性主要源于修正案，这些修正案取消了根据前该法第214(d)条，8 U.S.C. § 1184(d) (1970) 的未婚夫（妻）调整身份，并将其纳入该法第245(a)和(d)条下的调整身份机制。首先，第245(a)条要求申请人证明移民签证资格和可用性。然而，国会没有具体规定允许非移民未婚夫（妻）符合移民资格的法定机制。除非我们将法规解释为允许这些非移民调整身份，否则我们将面临取消所有未婚夫（妻）签证持有人法定资格的荒谬结果。这种结果显然与未婚夫（妻）签证身份的全部基础和当前行政实践相悖。

(...continued) adjudication; and (iii) minor children accompanying or following to join aliens described in clauses (i) and (ii). The regulations classify the fiancé(e) visa category as K-1 and the minor children accompanying or following to join the fiancé(e) as K-2. The spouse category is classified for visa purposes as K-3, with the minor children designated as K-4. 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.1(a)(1)(v), (2) (2010). This decision only addresses the K-1 nonimmigrant fiancé(e) visa holders, whom we refer to as fiancé(e)s. 4 Filling these statutory gaps might be better accomplished through clarifying statutory amendments or rulemaking. However, we are required to resolve the dispositive issues in cases before us.

（...待续） 裁决；以及 (iii) 陪同或随后加入第(i)和(ii)款所述外国人的未成年子女。法规将未婚夫（妻）签证类别归类为K-1，陪同或随后加入未婚夫（妻）的未成年子女归类为K-2。配偶类别为签证目的归类为K-3，未成年子女指定为K-4。8 C.F.R. §§ 214.1(a)(1)(v), (2) (2010)。本决定仅涉及K-1非移民未婚夫（妻）签证持有人，我们称之为未婚夫（妻）。 4 填补这些法定空白可能通过澄清性法定修正案或规则制定更好地完成。然而，我们必须解决面前案件中的决定性 issues。

434

434

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 431 (BIA 2011) Interim Decision #3707

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 431 (BIA 2011) 临时决定 #3707

Second, family-based immigrants are not admissible for adjustment purposes under section 245(a) of the Act if the marriage no longer exists. See, e.g., Matter of Bark, 14 I&N Dec. 237, 240 (BIA 1972) (explaining that under section 204(e) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(e) (1970), visa petition procedures do not allow admission if, at the time of arrival or adjustment of status, the alien is not entitled to the immigrant visa classification accorded to him by the visa petition), rev’d on other grounds, Bark v. INS, 511 F.2d 1200 (9th Cir. 1975); see also 8 C.F.R. § 205.1(a)(3) (2010) (providing for the automatic revocation of an immigrant visa petition if the marriage is terminated before adjustment). In the past, former section 214(d) of the Act did not require the fiancé(e)’s qualifying marriage to be intact at the time of adjustment, provided that the fiancé(e) was otherwise admissible. Thus, the effect of dissolution of the fiancé(e)’s marriage on admissibility is unclear where fiancé(e) status is not based on an immigrant visa petition or classification. Third, section 245(d) contemplates that fiancé(e)s will apply for conditional permanent residence under section 216 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1186a (2006), based solely on marriage to the fiancé(e) petitioner. In this case, the respondent’s adjustment application was adjudicated outside the relevant 2-year time frame governing conditional permanent residents. Therefore, whether the respondent’s adjustment application remains subject to the provisions of section 216 is not clear. Accordingly, to resolve these questions, we examine the statutory history of relevant enactments to aid in determining whether nonimmigrant fiancé(e)s (1) can satisfy the immigrant visa eligibility and availability requirements of section 245(a); (2) remain admissible despite divorce from the fiancé(e) petitioner; and (3) are uniformly affected by the conditional permanent resident requirements described in section 245(d) of the Act. Finally, we examine the discretionary aspect of the fiancé(e) adjustment application.

第二，如果婚姻已不存在，基于家庭的移民在《移民与国籍法》第245(a)条下不符合调整身份的准入条件。参见，例如，Matter of Bark, 14 I&N Dec. 237, 240 (BIA 1972)（解释根据该法第204(e)条，8 U.S.C. § 1154(e) (1970)，如果在入境或调整身份时，外国人无权获得签证申请所赋予他的移民签证分类，则签证申请程序不允许其入境），因其他理由被撤销，Bark v. INS, 511 F.2d 1200 (9th Cir. 1975)；另见8 C.F.R. § 205.1(a)(3) (2010)（规定如果婚姻在调整身份前终止，移民签证申请自动撤销）。过去，该法原第214(d)条不要求在调整身份时未婚夫（妻）的合格婚姻仍然存续，只要未婚夫（妻）在其他方面可以入境。因此，在未婚夫（妻）身份并非基于移民签证申请或分类的情况下，未婚夫（妻）婚姻解除对入境资格的影响并不明确。 第三，第245(d)条设想未婚夫（妻）将根据该法第216条，8 U.S.C. § 1186a (2006)，仅基于与未婚夫（妻）申请人的婚姻申请有条件永久居留。在本案中，被申请人的调整身份申请是在管辖有条件永久居民的相关2年时限之外裁定的。因此，被申请人的调整身份申请是否仍受第216条规定的约束并不明确。 因此，为解决这些问题，我们审查相关立法的法定历史，以帮助确定非移民未婚夫（妻）是否(1)能够满足第245(a)条的移民签证资格和可用性要求；(2)尽管与未婚夫（妻）申请人离婚仍可入境；以及(3)统一受该法第245(d)条所述有条件永久居民要求的约束。最后，我们审查未婚夫（妻）调整身份申请的裁量方面。

IV. STATUTORY HISTORY OF PROVISIONS GOVERNING FIANCÉ(E) ADJUSTMENT

IV. 管辖未婚夫（妻）调整身份条款的法定历史

A. Original 1970 Statutory Scheme for Fiancé(e)s

A. 1970年最初的未婚夫（妻）法定方案

In 1970, Congress created a new nonimmigrant category for fiancé(e)s of United States citizens by adding section 101(a)(15)(K) to the Act. 5 See Act of

1970年，国会通过在该法中增加第101(a)(15)(K)条，为美国公民的未婚夫（妻）创设了一个新的非移民类别。5 参见1970年4月7日法案，

5 Section 101(a)(15)(K) of the Act, as it was enacted in 1970, included the following in the definition of a nonimmigrant: (continued...)

5 该法第101(a)(15)(K)条在1970年颁布时，在非移民的定义中包括以下内容： （续...）

435

435

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 431 (BIA 2011) Interim Decision #3707

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 431 (BIA 2011) 临时决定 #3707

Apr. 7, 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-225, § 1(b), 84 Stat. 116, 116. Congress did so “to resolve the problem presented by fiancées of American citizens who seek to enter the United States to be married. Since they intend to remain permanently in the United States, they cannot qualify as bona fide nonimmigrants and, until married, immigrant visas may not be available to them.” See H.R. Rep. No. 91-851, at 2 (1970), reprinted in 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2750, 2752, 1970 WL 5815 at **2. Under the statute as it was originally enacted, fiancé(e)s adjusted status under section 214(d) of the Act, which provided that if the marriage between the petitioner and the alien fiancé(e) occurred within 3 months after the alien’s entry and he or she was found otherwise admissible, the Attorney General was required to record the alien’s lawful admission for permanent residence upon payment of the required visa fees. 6 Pursuant to the regulations then in effect, the alien fiancé(e) had to file an adjustment application (Form I-485) with the INS District Director who had jurisdiction over the alien’s place of residence. 8 C.F.R. § 245.2(d) (1971). At that time, we likened section 214(d) applicants to immediate relatives, which are defined in section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act,

1970年4月7日，Pub. L. No. 91-225, § 1(b), 84 Stat. 116, 116。国会这样做“是为了解决美国公民的未婚夫（妻）寻求进入美国结婚所呈现的问题。由于他们打算永久留在美国，他们不能作为真正的非移民取得资格，而且在结婚之前，移民签证可能无法提供给他们。”见H.R. Rep. No. 91-851, at 2 (1970)，重印于1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2750, 2752, 1970 WL 5815 at **2。 根据最初颁布的该法，未婚夫（妻）根据该法第214(d)条调整身份，该条规定，如果申请人与外籍未婚夫（妻）之间的婚姻在外籍人士入境后3个月内缔结，且他或她被认定在其他方面可以入境，则司法部长必须在支付所需签证费后记录该外籍人士合法获准永久居留。6 根据当时生效的法规，外籍未婚夫（妻）必须向对其居住地有管辖权的INS地区主任提交调整身份申请（Form I-485）。8 C.F.R. § 245.2(d) (1971)。当时，我们将第214(d)条申请人比作直系亲属，直系亲属在该法第201(b)(2)(A)(i)条中定义，

(...continued) an alien who is the fiancée or fiancé of a citizen of the United States and who seeks to enter the United States solely to conclude a valid marriage with the petitioner within ninety days after entry, and the minor children of such fiancée or fiancé accompanying him or following to join him. 6 Section 214(d) of the Act, which was enacted by section 3(b) of the Act of April 7,1970, 84 Stat. at 117, provided as follows:

（...续） 美国公民的未婚妻或未婚夫，且其寻求进入美国仅为了在入境后九十天内与申请人缔结有效婚姻，以及随行或随后加入该未婚妻或未婚夫的未成年子女。 6 该法第214(d)条由1970年4月7日法案第3(b)条颁布，84 Stat. at 117，规定如下：

A visa shall not be issued under the provisions of section 101(a)(15)(K) until the consular officer has received a petition filed in the United States by the fiancée or fiancé of the applying alien and approved by the Attorney General. The petition shall be in such form and contain such information as the Attorney General shall, by regulation, prescribe. It shall be approved only after satisfactory evidence is submitted by the petitioner to establish that the parties have a bona fide intention to marry and are legally able and actually willing to conclude a valid marriage in the United States within a period of ninety days after the alien’s arrival. In the event the marriage with the petitioner does not occur within three months after the entry of the said alien and minor children, they shall be required to depart from the United States and upon failure to do so shall be deported in accordance with sections 242 and 243. In the event the marriage between the said alien and the petitioner shall occur within three months after the entry and they are found otherwise admissible, the Attorney General shall record the lawful admission for permanent residence of the alien and minor children as of the date of the payment of the required visa fees.

在领事官员收到申请人的未婚妻或未婚夫在美国提交并经司法部长批准的申请之前，不得根据第101(a)(15)(K)条的规定签发签证。该申请应采用司法部长通过法规规定的形式和包含的信息。只有在申请人提交令其满意的证据，证明双方有真实的结婚意图，并且在法律上有能力且实际愿意在外国人抵达美国后九十天内缔结有效婚姻之后，才能批准该申请。如果与申请人的婚姻未在所述外国人和未成年子女入境后三个月内发生，则他们必须离开美国，如果未能离开，则应根据第242条和第243条被驱逐出境。如果所述外国人与申请人之间的婚姻在入境后三个月内发生，并且他们被认定在其他方面可以入境，则司法部长应自支付所需签证费之日起记录该外国人和未成年子女的合法永久居留入境。

436

436

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 431 (BIA 2011) Interim Decision #3707

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 431 (BIA 2011) 临时决定 #3707

8 U.S.C. § 1151(b)(2)(A)(i) (2006). See Matter of Dixon, 16 I&N Dec. 355, 357 n.2 (BIA 1977).

8 U.S.C. § 1151(b)(2)(A)(i) (2006)。参见Matter of Dixon, 16 I&N Dec. 355, 357 n.2 (BIA 1977)。

B. 1986 Amendments and the Existing Statutory Scheme for Fiancé(e)s

B. 1986年修正案及现行未婚夫（妻）法定方案

The Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-639, 100 Stat. 3537 (“IMFA”), added to the Act an array of provisions that were expressly designed to combat marriage fraud and other immigration fraud. With regard to fiancé(e)s, the IMFA modified section 214(d) and added section 245(d) to the Act to make four important changes to the fiancé(e) adjustment process. 7 IMFA §§ 2(e), 3(a)-(c), 100 Stat. at 3542. First, the fiancé(e) visa petition could not be approved unless the alien and his or her United States citizen fiancé(e) met in person within the 2-year period preceding the filing of the petition. 8 Congress expected this provision to deter the “many abuses of the ‘mail order bride’ business.” See S. Rep. No. 99-491, at 9 (1986) (report of the Committee on the Judiciary) (“Senate Report”). Second, the IMFA changed the statutory section governing alien fiancé(e) acquisition of lawful permanent resident status. It eliminated the streamlined adjustment procedure under section 214(d) of the Act, which was nearly automatic for fiancé(e)s facing no substantive ground of inadmissibility. Instead, the IMFA incorporated the alien fiancé(e)’s adjustment of status into the statutory scheme under section 245 of the Act. Third, section 245(d) provides that a fiancé(e) can now only adjust status based on the marriage to the fiancé(e) petitioner. Thus, the holding in Matter of Zampetis, 14 I&N Dec. 125 (Reg. Comm’r 1972), that a K-1 nonimmigrant fiancé could establish adjustment eligibility based on to his marriage to a

1986年《移民婚姻欺诈修正案》，Pub. L. No. 99-639, 100 Stat. 3537（“IMFA”），在该法中增加了一系列明确旨在打击婚姻欺诈和其他移民欺诈的条款。关于未婚夫（妻），IMFA修改了第214(d)条，并在该法中增加了第245(d)条，对未婚夫（妻）调整身份程序作出四项重要改变。7 IMFA §§ 2(e), 3(a)-(c), 100 Stat. at 3542。第一，除非外国人和其美国公民未婚夫（妻）在提交申请前2年期间内亲自会面，否则不能批准未婚夫（妻）签证申请。8 国会期望该条款能够遏制“邮购新娘业务的许多滥用行为”。参见S. Rep. No. 99-491, at 9 (1986)（司法委员会报告）（“参议院报告”）。 第二，IMFA改变了管辖外国未婚夫（妻）获得合法永久居民身份的法定条款。它取消了该法第214(d)条下简化的调整身份程序，该程序对于没有实质性不可入境理由的未婚夫（妻）而言几乎是自动的。相反，IMFA将外国未婚夫（妻）的调整身份纳入该法第245条下的法定方案。 第三，第245(d)条规定，未婚夫（妻）现在只能基于与未婚夫（妻）申请人的婚姻调整身份。因此，Matter of Zampetis, 14 I&N Dec. 125 (Reg. Comm’r 1972)中关于K-1非移民未婚夫可以基于其与

7 Section 245(d) of the Act currently provides as follows:

7 该法第245(d)条目前规定如下：

The Attorney General may not adjust, under subsection (a), the status of an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence on a conditional basis under section 216. The Attorney General may not adjust, under subsection (a), the status of a nonimmigrant alien described in section 101(a)(15)(K) except to that of an alien lawfully admitted to the United States on a conditional basis under section 216 as a result of the marriage of the nonimmigrant (or, in the case of a minor child, the parent) to the citizen who filed the petition to accord that alien’s nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15)(K). 8 This requirement may be waived under limited circumstances. See section 214(d)(1) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(k)(2) (2010).

司法部长不得根据(a)款调整根据第216条以有条件基础合法入境美国永久居留的外国人的身份。司法部长不得根据(a)款调整第101(a)(15)(K)条所述非移民外国人的身份，除非调整为根据第216条以有条件基础合法入境美国的外国人身份，且该身份是由于该非移民（或，在未成年子女的情况下，其父母）与提交申请以根据第101(a)(15)(K)条赋予该外国人非移民身份的公民之间的婚姻。 8 该要求可在有限情况下豁免。参见该法第214(d)(1)条；8 C.F.R. § 214.2(k)(2) (2010)。

437

437

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 431 (BIA 2011) Interim Decision #3707

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 431 (BIA 2011) 临时决定 #3707

spouse other than the I-129F petitioner, was superseded by the enactment of section 245(d). See Markovski v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d at 111 n.2. Fourth, fiancé(e)s are subject to conditional resident status under section 216 of the Act. Like other “alien spouses” that are defined in section 216(g)(1) of the Act, fiancé(e) visa holders are lawfully admitted to the United States on a conditional basis under section 216. Two years after obtaining conditional permanent resident status, the couple must seek to waive the conditions on such status. Specifically, the alien spouse and the United States citizen spouse jointly file a petition in which they affirm that they are still married and that they entered into a valid marriage, not one to obtain immigration benefits. See generally Matter of Stowers, 22 I&N Dec. 605, 608-09 (BIA 1999). If the alien is unable to file a joint petition, a waiver of the requirement may be available under section 216(c)(4) of the Act, even if the marriage has ended. Id. at 609-10.

I-129F申请人以外的配偶建立调整身份资格的裁定，已被第245(d)条的颁布所取代。参见Markovski v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d at 111 n.2。 第四，未婚夫（妻）受该法第216条有条件居民身份的约束。与该法第216(g)(1)条中定义的其他“外国配偶”一样，未婚夫（妻）签证持有人根据第216条以有条件基础合法入境美国。在获得有条件永久居民身份两年后，夫妻必须寻求豁免该身份的条件。具体而言，外国配偶和美国公民配偶共同提交申请，在其中确认他们仍然结婚，并且他们缔结的是有效婚姻，而非为获得移民福利而结婚。参见一般性Matter of Stowers, 22 I&N Dec. 605, 608-09 (BIA 1999)。如果外国人无法提交联合申请，即使婚姻已经结束，也可以根据该法第216(c)(4)条获得该要求的豁免。同上，at 609-10。

V. INTERPRETATION OF FIANCÉ(E) ADJUSTMENT

V. 未婚夫（妻）调整身份的解释

A. Section 245(a) of the Act

A. 该法第245(a)条

With the 1970 law and the 1986 amendments as a backdrop to our discussion, we turn to the current governing statute for fiancé(e) adjustment at section 245(a) of the Act, which provides, in part, as follows:

以1970年法律和1986年修正案作为我们讨论的背景，我们转向目前管辖未婚夫（妻）调整身份的该法第245(a)条，其部分规定如下：

The status of an alien who was . . . admitted . . . into the United States . . . may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe, to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if (1) the alien makes an application for such adjustment, (2) the alien is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for permanent residence, and (3) an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed.

曾被……准入……美国的外国人的身份……可以由司法部长在其裁量权下并根据其可能规定的法规，调整为合法入境永久居留的外国人身份，如果(1)该外国人提出此类调整身份申请，(2)该外国人有资格获得移民签证并且可以入境美国永久居留，以及(3)在其申请提交时，有移民签证可立即提供给其。

(Emphasis added.) Despite incorporating fiancé(e) adjustments into section 245, Congress did not alter the prior procedure through which fiancé(e)s were admitted to the United States on a nonimigrant visa or specify a mechanism through which the fiancé(e) could satisfy the “immigrant visa” requirements of section 245(a). To avoid the absurdity of rendering the provision completely unavailable to fiancé(e) entrants, we construe the statute to allow fiancé(e)s to continue to adjust status, even though they cannot satisfy the literal terms of sections 245(a)(2) and (3), which require immigrant visa eligibility and availability. As originally envisioned, fiancé(e) visa holders were recognized as the functional equivalents of immediate relatives for purposes of immigrant visa eligibility and availability. See Matter of Dixon, 16 I&N Dec. at 357 n.2. The

（强调为后加。）尽管国会将未婚夫（妻）调整身份纳入第245条，但国会并未改变此前未婚夫（妻）以非移民签证获准进入美国的程序，也未规定未婚夫（妻）可据以满足第245条(a)款“移民签证”要求的机制。为避免使该规定对未婚夫（妻）入境者完全不可适用这一荒谬结果，我们将该法规解释为允许未婚夫（妻）继续调整身份，即使他们无法满足第245条(a)款第(2)项和第(3)项的字面条款——该两项要求具备移民签证资格且签证名额可用。正如最初设想的那样，未婚夫（妻）签证持有人在移民签证资格和名额可用性方面被认定为直系亲属的功能等同者。见Matter of Dixon, 16 I&N Dec. at 357 n.2。该

438

438

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 431 (BIA 2011) Interim Decision #3707

引用为25 I&N Dec. 431 (BIA 2011) 临时决定#3707

1986 amendments did not alter that treatment of fiancé(e)s. Accordingly, consistent with historical practice, we conclude that fiancé(e) visa holders remain similarly situated to immediate relatives in satisfaction of the section 245(a) immigrant visa requirements. Since the creation of the K-1 visa, a fiancé(e) who entered the United States and married the United States citizen “would be classifiable as an ‘immediate relative,’” because the fiancé(e) adjusts status as the spouse of a United States citizen. See H.R. Rep. No. 91-851, at 8, 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 2758, 1970 WL 5815 at **8; see also Matter of Dixon, 16 I&N Dec. at 357 n.2 (noting that lawful permanent residence is accorded to a section 214(d) applicant as an immediate relative). Consistent with this analogy to immediate relatives, consular officers are instructed to evaluate an alien’s eligibility for a K-1 visa as if it were an immigrant visa. Similarly, consular officers are to determine a fiancé(e)’s eligibility for a waiver of inadmissibility as if the alien was the immigrant spouse of a United States citizen. See Vol. 9, Foreign Affairs Manual § 41.81 note 9.1 (CT: VISA-756; 7-27-2005). On appeal, the DHS does not dispute the analogy of fiancé(e)s to immediate relatives with regard to immigrant visa eligibility and availability. Rather, the DHS would extend the analogy to include admissibility, arguing that the dissolution of the qualifying marriage results in an alien’s inadmissibility for section 245(a) adjustment, as would be the case for immediate relatives. See Matter of Bark, 14 I&N Dec. 237. Yet, the fiancé(e)’s adjustment application is and has always been predicated on the nonimmigrant I-129F visa petition. Further, there is no requirement for a Form I-130 immigrant visa petition to be filed under section 204 of the Act for the fiancé(e), as is the case for family-based immigrants, including spouses admitted under section 101(a)(15)(K)(ii) of the Act. The regulations define different events as terminating these respective petitions. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 205.1(a)(3) provides that an I-130 immigrant visa petition is automatically revoked if the marriage is legally terminated “before the decision on his or her adjustment application becomes final.” In contrast, under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(k)(5) (2010), the I-129F nonimmigrant petition is automatically terminated if the petitioner dies or files a written withdrawal of the petition before the beneficiary arrives in the United States. There is no mention in the regulations of the consequences of a valid marriage being terminated. 9 This distinction makes sense when we consider the time when the fiancé(e) visa holder, as opposed to an immigrant visa holder, satisfies the requirements

1986年修正案并未改变对未婚夫（妻）的这一处理方式。因此，与历史实践相一致，我们认定未婚夫（妻）签证持有人在满足第245条(a)款移民签证要求方面仍与直系亲属处于类似地位。 自K-1签证创设以来，进入美国并与美国公民结婚的未婚夫（妻）“将被归类为‘直系亲属’”，因为该未婚夫（妻）是作为美国公民的配偶调整身份的。见H.R. Rep. No. 91-851, at 8, 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 2758, 1970 WL 5815 at **8；另见Matter of Dixon, 16 I&N Dec. at 357 n.2（指出第214条(d)款申请人作为直系亲属获得合法永久居留权）。与这一直系亲属的类比相一致，领事官员被指示如同评估移民签证一样评估外国人获得K-1签证的资格。同样，领事官员应如同该外国人是美国公民的移民配偶一样，裁定未婚夫（妻）是否符合不可入境豁免的资格。见《外交事务手册》第9卷第41.81节注9.1（CT: VISA-756; 7-27-2005）。 在上诉中，DHS对未婚夫（妻）在移民签证资格和名额可用性方面与直系亲属的类比并无争议。相反，DHS希望将该类比扩展至包括可入境性，主张符合条件婚姻的解除导致外国人在第245条(a)款调整身份方面不可入境，如同直系亲属的情形一样。见Matter of Bark, 14 I&N Dec. 237。然而，未婚夫（妻）的调整身份申请现在且一直是以非移民I-129F签证申请为基础的。此外，与包括根据该法第101条(a)款第(15)项(K)目第(ii)分目获准入境的配偶在内的家庭类移民不同，未婚夫（妻）无需根据该法第204条提交I-130移民签证申请。法规将不同事件规定为终止这些各自申请的事由。8 C.F.R. § 205.1(a)(3)规定，如果婚姻在“其调整身份申请的决定成为最终决定之前”被合法终止，I-130移民签证申请即自动撤销。相比之下，根据8 C.F.R. § 214.2(k)(5) (2010)，如果申请人在受益人抵达美国之前死亡或提交书面撤回申请，I-129F非移民申请即自动终止。法规中未提及有效婚姻被终止的后果。9 当我们考虑未婚夫（妻）签证持有人（而非移民签证持有人）满足要求的时间时，这一区别是合理的

9 In contrast, the nonimmigrant status of an alien admitted on a K-3 visa under section 101(a)(15)(K)(ii) of the Act is automatically terminated by a divorce from the United States citizen spouse. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(k)(11)(iv).

9 相比之下，根据该法第101条(a)款第(15)项(K)目第(ii)分目以K-3签证获准入境的外国人，其非移民身份因与美国公民配偶离婚而自动终止。8 C.F.R. § 214.2(k)(11)(iv)。

439

439

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 431 (BIA 2011) Interim Decision #3707

引用为25 I&N Dec. 431 (BIA 2011) 临时决定#3707

for section 245(a) adjustment. In our view, the section 245(a) eligibility requirements are satisfied at the time the fiancé(e) is admitted to the United States on the K-1 visa, conditioned on a subsequent, timely marriage to the fiancé(e) petitioner. The date of admission best marks visa eligibility and availability, because events that may occur between visa issuance and admission could extinguish the visa under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(k)(5). Further, visa eligibility remains subject to reexamination by the inspecting officer at the port of entry when the fiancé(e) seeks admission. Thus, the fiancé(e) visa holder is not precluded from adjusting by the terms of section 245(a) or the applicable regulations—even if a marriage that was timely and bona fide no longer exists—if he or she is not otherwise inadmissible under section 212(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) (2006), and merits a grant of adjustment in the exercise of discretion. The fiancé(e) must still demonstrate the underlying bona fides of the qualifying marriage. See, e.g., Matter of Boromand, 17 I&N Dec. 450 (BIA 1980) (holding that a marriage that is valid at inception is valid for immigration purposes, even if the parties are separated and the marriage is no longer viable); see also Bark v. INS, 511 F.2d 1200 (finding that the conduct of the parties after marriage is relevant only to the extent it bears upon their subjective state of mind at the time they were married).

第245条(a)款调整身份的要求。我们认为，第245条(a)款资格要求在未婚夫（妻）以K-1签证获准进入美国时即已满足，并以随后及时与未婚夫（妻）申请人结婚为条件。入境日期最能标志签证资格和名额可用性，因为在签证签发与入境之间可能发生的事件可根据8 C.F.R. § 214.2(k)(5)使签证失效。此外，当未婚夫（妻）寻求入境时，签证资格仍须接受入境口岸检查官员的重新审查。 因此，未婚夫（妻）签证持有人不因第245条(a)款或适用法规的条款而被禁止调整身份——即使曾经及时且善意的婚姻已不复存在——只要其根据该法第212条(a)款、8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) (2006)不具有其他不可入境情形，并且在行使自由裁量权时值得获准调整身份。未婚夫（妻）仍必须证明符合条件婚姻的 underlying 善意。见，例如，Matter of Boromand, 17 I&N Dec. 450 (BIA 1980)（裁定在开始时有效的婚姻为移民目的有效，即使双方分居且婚姻不再存续）；另见Bark v. INS, 511 F.2d 1200（认定婚后双方的行为仅在其与结婚时双方主观心态相关的范围内具有相关性）。

B. Fiancé(e) Adjustment Conditioned by Section 245(d) of the Act

B. 该法第245条(d)款对未婚夫（妻）调整身份所设的条件

In addition to examining the respondent’s eligibility to adjust under section 245(a), we must also interpret and apply the requirements of section 245(d). The statutory language of section 245(d) places two requirements on fiancé(e) adjustment applicants. First, fiancé(e)s may not adjust except on a conditional basis under section 216 of the Act. Second, they can only adjust based on the marriage to the fiancé(e) petitioner. After the enactment of the IMFA, the INS General Counsel examined the question whether a fiancé(e) would be subject to conditional resident status if the adjustment application was filed within 2 years of the marriage to the fiancé(e) petitioner, but the application was not adjudicated until more than 2 years after the marriage. The INS General Counsel interpreted section 245(d) of the Act to allow a fiancé(e) whose valid marriage was more than 2 years old to adjust status without the section 216 conditions, provided the fiancé(e)’s adjustment application was filed within 2 years of the qualifying marriage. See Genco Op. No. 93-39, 1993 WL 1503986 (INS) (finding that alien spouses could adjust status unconditionally if, at the time of adjustment, the marriage to the United States citizen was more than 2 years old). The General Counsel opined that if the marriage is over 2 years old and bona fide,

除审查被申请人根据第245条(a)款调整身份的资格外，我们还必须解释和适用第245条(d)款的要求。第245条(d)款的法定语言对未婚夫（妻）调整身份申请人规定了两项要求。第一，未婚夫（妻）除根据该法第216条以有条件 basis 外不得调整身份。第二，他们只能基于与未婚夫（妻）申请人的婚姻调整身份。 IMFA颁布后，INS总法律顾问审查了如下问题：如果调整身份申请在與未婚夫（妻）申请人结婚后2年内提交，但该申请直到结婚2年多后才被裁定，未婚夫（妻）是否应受有条件居民身份约束。INS总法律顾问将该法第245条(d)款解释为允许有效婚姻已超过2年的未婚夫（妻）在没有第216条条件的情况下调整身份，前提是未婚夫（妻）的调整身份申请在符合条件婚姻后2年内提交。见Genco Op. No. 93-39, 1993 WL 1503986 (INS)（认定如果调整身份时与美国公民的婚姻已超过2年，外国人配偶可以无条件调整身份）。总法律顾问认为，如果婚姻已超过2年且是善意的，

440

440

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 431 (BIA 2011) Interim Decision #3707

引用为25 I&N Dec. 431 (BIA 2011) 临时决定#3707

the legislative intent underlying the creation of conditional resident status is satisfied, so that there is no need for conditional status. Id. We agree with this interpretation and conclude that the DHS has adopted a reasonable construction of potentially conflicting statutory directions. There is some tension between the seemingly mandatory terms of section 245(d) regarding the application of section 216 to fiancé(e)s and the definitional terms of section 216(g), which provides that adjustment applicants, including fiancé(e)s, are subject to the conditions only if the qualifying marriage is less than 2 years old at the time of adjustment. It is difficult to interpret 245(d) as applying to fiancé(e) adjustment applicants outside the 2-year time period in light of section 216(g)(1)(B), which provides that fiancé(e)s are subject to section 216 “by virtue of a marriage which was entered into less than 24 months before the date the alien” obtains status as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. The language of section 245(d) is also unclear about whether the marriage to the fiancé(e) petitioner must exist on the date of adjudication or whether the fact that a valid marriage once existed is sufficient. The statutory and regulatory language does not prohibit adjustments based on a valid marriage that is no longer intact, unlike other categories of family-based spouses, including those under section 101(a)(15)(K)(ii) of the Act.

创设有条件居民身份所依据的立法意图即已满足，因此无需有条件身份。同上。 我们同意这一解释，并认定DHS对可能相互冲突的法定指示采用了合理解释。第245条(d)款关于第216条适用于未婚夫（妻）的看似强制性条款，与第216条(g)款的定义性条款之间存在一定张力，后者规定包括未婚夫（妻）在内的调整身份申请人，仅在调整身份时符合条件婚姻不足2年的情况下才受这些条件约束。鉴于第216条(g)款第(1)项(B)目规定未婚夫（妻）“因在外国人”获得合法永久居留身份“之日前不足24个月缔结的婚姻”而受第216条约束，很难将第245条(d)款解释为适用于2年期限之外的未婚夫（妻）调整身份申请人。 第245条(d)款的措辞对于与未婚夫（妻）申请人的婚姻是否必须在裁定之日存在，还是曾经存在有效婚姻这一事实即已足够，也不明确。与包括该法第101条(a)款第(15)项(K)目第(ii)分目在内的其他家庭类配偶类别不同，法定和法规语言并未禁止基于已不再存续的有效婚姻调整身份。

C. Summary of Fiancé(e)’s Eligibility for Adjustment Under Sections 245(a) and (d) of the Act

C. 未婚夫（妻）根据该法第245条(a)款和(d)款调整身份资格概述

We determine that a fiancé(e) visa holder is eligible to adjust under section 245(a) of the Act if, at the time of adjustment, the applicant can demonstrate that he or she entered into a valid marriage to the fiancé(e) petitioner within the 90-day period, provided that the requirements of section 216 do not apply. The statute does not require that the marriage exist at the time that the application is adjudicated outside the section 216 time frame. Also, a divorce before adjustment does not terminate the underlying I-129F petition. Like other adjustment applicants, the fiancé(e) must establish that he or she is admissible to the United States and that adjustment should be granted in the exercise of discretion. Historically, the fiancé(e) was admitted pursuant to a nonimmigrant visa petition that was processed like an immigrant visa petition and could adjust if he or she entered into a bona fide marriage within 90 days and was not otherwise inadmissible. We find nothing in the IMFA’s insertion of fiancé(e) adjustment into the section 245 adjustment scheme to alter this process, beyond explicitly adding both the section 216 requirements and a discretionary element and limiting the avenue to adjustment to the fiancé(e) petition.

我们认定，未婚夫（妻）签证持有人有资格根据该法第245条(a)款调整身份，如果在调整身份时，申请人能够证明其在90天期限内与未婚夫（妻）申请人缔结了有效婚姻，前提是第216条的要求不适用。在section 216时限之外，法规不要求在裁定申请时婚姻仍然存在。此外，调整身份前的离婚并不终止 underlying I-129F申请。与其他调整身份申请人一样，未婚夫（妻）必须证明其可入境美国，并且应在行使自由裁量权时获准调整身份。 历史上，未婚夫（妻）是依据按移民签证申请程序处理的非移民签证申请获准入境的，并且如果其在90天内缔结善意婚姻且不具有其他不可入境情形，即可调整身份。我们认定，IMFA将未婚夫（妻）调整身份纳入第245条调整身份机制，除明确增加第216条要求和自由裁量要素并将调整身份途径限于未婚夫（妻）申请外，并未改变这一程序。

441

441

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 431 (BIA 2011) Interim Decision #3707

引用为25 I&N Dec. 431 (BIA 2011) 临时决定#3707

Our interpretation is further supported by the legislative history of the IMFA. The Senate Report specifically states that the IMFA was introduced to prevent marriage fraud and to preclude the easy entry of “mail order brides” into the United States. See S. Rep. No. 99-491, at 2, 9. In practice, a fiancé(e)’s marriage is evaluated for fraud more often than the marriage of other alien spouses. The fiancé(e) and the United States citizen must establish their bona fide intent to marry when the I-129 is filed, when the fiancé(e) applies for the K-1 nonimmigrant visa, and when the fiancé(e) applies for admission to the United States. In addition, they must establish the marriage is bona fide when the fiancé(e) applies for adjustment of status and, if subject to section 216 conditional residence, when he or she petitions to waive the conditions on residence. Finally, the fiancé(e) must establish that he or she deserves a grant of adjustment in discretion. The fiancé(e) adjustment applicant can only adjust on the basis of the marriage to the fiancé(e) petitioner. Unlike other categories of adjustment applicants, who can adjust through another family relationship or an employer, there is no other option for the fiancé(e). Given these requirements, we believe that our resolution of this issue comports with the concerns about ensuring that only those applicants who entered into a bona fide marriage can adjust.

我们的解释进一步得到《IMFA》立法历史的支持。参议院报告特别指出，引入《IMFA》是为了防止婚姻欺诈，并阻止“邮购新娘”轻易进入美国。见S. Rep. No. 99-491, at 2, 9。在实践中，与其他外籍配偶的婚姻相比，未婚夫（妻）的婚姻更经常受到欺诈审查。未婚夫（妻）和美国公民必须在提交I-129时、在未婚夫（妻）申请K-1非移民签证时以及在未婚夫（妻）申请入境美国时，证明其结婚的真实意图。此外，他们必须在未婚夫（妻）申请调整身份时证明婚姻是真实的，并且，如果受第216条条件性居留约束，在其申请豁免居留条件时也必须证明。最后，未婚夫（妻）必须证明其值得行使自由裁量权批准调整。未婚夫（妻）调整申请人只能基于与未婚夫（妻）申请人的婚姻进行调整。与其他类别的调整申请人不同——他们可以通过其他家庭关系或雇主进行调整——未婚夫（妻）没有其他选择。鉴于这些要求，我们认为，我们对本问题的处理符合确保只有那些缔结真实婚姻的申请人才可以调整身份的关切。

VI. FEDERAL COURT INTERPRETATION

VI. 联邦法院的解释

Our conclusions regarding fiancé(e) adjustment are consistent with the reasoning employed by at least two Federal courts of appeals. In Choin v. Mukasey, 537 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 2008), the fiancée was admitted to the United States on a K-1 visa, married her United States citizen fiancé within 90 days, and filed her adjustment application within the conditional residence period. By the time the USCIS adjudicated the adjustment application more than 2 years later, she had divorced the fiancé petitioner. The court framed the issue as “whether Choin’s divorce after over two years of marriage made her ineligible to adjust to conditional permanent resident.” Id. at 1119. According to the Ninth Circuit, the language of section 245(d) of the Act providing that a fiancé(e) cannot adjust status except on a conditional basis pursuant to section 216 of the Act “as the result of the marriage” is ambiguous. Id. at 1119-20. The court found that the phrase “as the result of the marriage” could be interpreted two ways. It could mean that fiancé(e)s cannot adjust if they are no longer married at the time the adjustment application is adjudicated. Or it could mean that they could adjust even if no longer married, so long as the adjustment application is premised on the marriage to the fiancé(e) petitioner. The court examined the purpose and context of section 245(d) of the Act and determined that the latter interpretation was correct. The court found “nothing

我们关于未婚夫（妻）调整的结论与至少两个联邦上诉法院所采用的推理一致。在Choin v. Mukasey, 537 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 2008)中，未婚妻持K-1签证入境美国，在90天内与其美国公民未婚夫结婚，并在条件性居留期内提交了调整申请。到USCIS在2年多后裁定调整申请时，她已与未婚夫申请人离婚。法院将问题界定为“Choin在结婚两年多后离婚是否使其不符合调整为条件性永久居民的条件”。Id. at 1119。根据第9巡回法院的意见，该法第245(d)条规定未婚夫（妻）除依据该法第216条“由于该婚姻”而按条件性基础外不得调整身份，该规定含义不明确。Id. at 1119-20。法院认为，“由于该婚姻”这一短语可以有两种解释。它可以指如果未婚夫（妻）在调整申请裁定之时不再结婚，则不能调整。或者它可以指即使不再结婚，只要调整申请以与未婚夫（妻）申请人的婚姻为前提，他们也可以调整。法院审查了该法第245(d)条的目的和上下文，并认定后一种解释是正确的。法院认定“第245(d)条的平实语言中没有任何内容

442

442

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 431 (BIA 2011) Interim Decision #3707

引用为25 I&N Dec. 431 (BIA 2011) 临时决定#3707

in the plain language of § 245(d) suggesting that an application that was valid when submitted should be automatically invalid when the [fiancé(e)’s] marriage ends by divorce two years later.” Id. at 1121. The court concluded that to require the marriage to remain in existence until the adjustment application is adjudicated is to read a “durational requirement” into the qualifying marriage. Id. Therefore, Choin was eligible for adjustment under section 245(d) even though she was no longer married to the fiancé petitioner at the time her adjustment application was adjudicated. Id. at 1120-21. In Carpio v. Holder, 592 F.3d 1091 (10th Cir. 2010), the Tenth Circuit adopted the Choin analysis. Carpio involved a child accompanying or following to join the fiancée visa holder. At the time Carpio was admitted to the United States on a K-2 visa, he was under 21 years old. His mother timely married the fiancé petitioner. The USCIS did not complete adjudication of his adjustment application until more than 2 years after it was filed, when Carpio was over 21 and no longer qualified as a child. In rejecting the date the adjustment application was adjudicated as determinative of the child’s age for adjustment eligibility, the court found the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in Choin to be “equally applicable.” Id. at 1101.

以§ 245(d)的平实语言表明，提交时有效的申请应当在[未婚夫（妻）]的婚姻两年后因离婚而结束时自动无效。”Id. at 1121。法院认定，要求婚姻存续至调整身份申请被裁定之时，等于在适格婚姻中读入了一项“期限要求”。Id. 因此，Choin符合第245(d)条规定的调整身份资格，即使在其调整身份申请被裁定之时她已不再与未婚夫（妻）申请人结婚。Id. at 1120-21。 在Carpio v. Holder, 592 F.3d 1091 (10th Cir. 2010)中，第10巡回法院采纳了Choin的分析。Carpio涉及一名随行或后续加入未婚夫（妻）签证持有人的子女。在Carpio以K-2签证获准进入美国时，他未满21岁。其母亲及时与未婚夫（妻）申请人结婚。USCIS直至其调整身份申请提交后超过2年才完成裁定，当时Carpio已超过21岁且不再符合子女资格。法院拒绝以调整身份申请被裁定之日作为确定该子女调整身份资格年龄的依据，认定第9巡回法院在Choin中的推理“同样适用”。Id. at 1101。

VII. DISCRETIONARY FACTORS FOR K-1 ADJUSTMENT APPLICATIONS

VII. K-1调整申请的自由裁量因素

In making discretionary determinations, we balance the equities and the adverse factors presented to decide whether an alien merits a favorable exercise of discretion. See Matter of A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 66, 76-77 (BIA 2009) (stating that the discretionary factors considered should be relevant to the nature and purpose of the specific application at issue). In Matter of Arai, 13 I&N Dec. 494, 495-96 (BIA 1974), which addressed general discretionary factors applicable to adjustment of status, we observed that “[i]t is difficult and probably inadvisable to set up restrictive guide lines for the exercise of discretion. Problems which may arise in applications for adjustment must of necessity be resolved on an individual basis.” The “extraordinary discretionary relief” of adjustment “can only be granted in meritorious cases.” Matter of Blas, 15 I&N Dec. 626, 630 (BIA 1974; A.G. 1976). Immigration Judges and this Board have wide latitude in addressing discretion. See generally INS v. Yueh-Shaio Yang, 519 U.S. 26, 30 (1996) (stating that statutory language establishing certain prerequisites to eligibility does not impose limitations on the factors that may be considered in determining who should be granted discretionary relief). Aliens seeking adjustment under section 245(a), conditioned by section 245(d), do so based on the marriage to a fiancé(e) petitioner. The mere fact that the marriage has been terminated is not automatically an adverse factor

在作出自由裁量决定时，我们权衡所呈现的衡平因素和不利因素，以决定外国人是否值得有利地行使自由裁量权。见Matter of A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 66, 76-77 (BIA 2009)（指出所考虑的自由裁量因素应与所涉具体申请的性质和目的相关）。在Matter of Arai, 13 I&N Dec. 494, 495-96 (BIA 1974)中，该案涉及适用于调整身份的一般自由裁量因素，我们指出，“为行使自由裁量权设定限制性指导方针是困难且可能不可取的。调整申请中可能出现的问题必须根据个案解决。”调整这一“特殊自由裁量救济”“只能在有正当理由的案件中授予”。Matter of Blas, 15 I&N Dec. 626, 630 (BIA 1974; A.G. 1976)。移民法官和本委员会在自由裁量方面拥有广泛裁量空间。一般见INS v. Yueh-Shaio Yang, 519 U.S. 26, 30 (1996)（指出规定某些资格前提条件的法定语言并不对在决定谁应获得自由裁量救济时可考虑的因素施加限制）。 根据第245(a)条寻求调整、并受第245(d)条约束的外国人，是基于与未婚夫（妻）申请人的婚姻而提出申请。婚姻已经终止这一单纯事实并不自动构成不利因素

443

443

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 431 (BIA 2011) Interim Decision #3707

引用为25 I&N Dec. 431 (BIA 2011) 临时决定#3707

and is not so considered unless circumstances surrounding that marriage indicate otherwise. In particular, reasons for the divorce and subsequent developments involving that relationship could be unfavorable if, for example, abuse or deception occurred or, where children are involved, parental obligations have not been met. Issues about the validity of the qualifying marriage are also relevant to the exercise of discretion, and the fact of the divorce and its timing may raise questions about the bona fides of that marriage. The record before us does not contain any negative implications about the respondent’s marriage to the fiancée petitioner. He is now married to another United States citizen. The nature and quality of that relationship, even though it is another marriage, is a relevant consideration in discretion, just as are any other pertinent facts that exist at the time of adjustment.

，除非围绕该婚姻的情况表明并非如此，否则不如此认为。特别是，离婚的原因以及随后涉及该关系的发展可能是不利的，例如，如果发生了虐待或欺骗，或者在涉及子女的情况下，父母义务未得到履行。关于合格婚姻有效性的问题也与自由裁量权的行使相关，离婚的事实及其时间可能引发对该婚姻真实性的疑问。 我们面前的记录不包含关于被申请人与未婚妻申请人婚姻的任何负面含义。他现在与另一名美国公民结婚。该关系的性质和质量，即使它是另一段婚姻，也是自由裁量时的一项相关考虑因素，正如调整时存在的任何其他相关事实一样。

VIII. CONCLUSION

VIII. 结论

The respondent completed the required steps in the fiancé adjustment process. He was not subject to the provisions of section 216 because his marriage was more than 2 years old when his adjustment application was adjudicated. He established his prima facie eligibility for adjustment of status based on his marriage to the fiancée petitioner. The respondent seeks to renew his adjustment application premised on his first marriage, which the INS improperly denied. Based on our interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions and regulations, we conclude that the respondent’s divorce from the fiancée petitioner does not render him ineligible for adjustment of status under sections 245(a) and (d) of the Act. Accordingly, we will sustain the respondent’s appeal and remand the record to give him an opportunity to renew his application for adjustment of status before the Immigration Judge. ORDER: The appeal is sustained. FURTHER ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision.

被申请人完成了未婚夫（妻）调整程序所要求的步骤。他不受第216条规定的约束，因为其调整申请裁定之时其婚姻已存续超过2年。他基于与未婚妻申请人的婚姻确立了调整身份的初步资格。被申请人寻求以其第一次婚姻为前提续展其调整申请，而INS不当拒绝了该申请。基于我们对相关法定条款和法规的解释，我们得出结论，被申请人与未婚妻申请人离婚并不使其不符合根据该法第245(a)和(d)条调整身份的资格。因此，我们将维持被申请人的上诉，并将记录发回，以便其有机会在移民法官面前续展其调整身份申请。 命令：上诉获维持。 进一步命令：记录发回移民法官，以便按照上述意见进行进一步程序并作出新决定。

444

444