Matter of Andazola-Rivas

Cite as 23 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2002) Interim Decision #3467

引用为 23 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2002) 临时决定第3467号

File A91 431 733 - Phoenix

案卷号 A91 431 733 - 凤凰城

Decided April 3, 2002

2002年4月3日裁定

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

美国司法部 移民审查执行办公室 移民上诉委员会

(1) The respondent, an unmarried mother, did not establish eligibility for cancellation of removal under section 240A(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b) (2000), because she failed to demonstrate that her 6- and 11-year-old United States citizen children will suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship upon her removal to Mexico.

(1) 被申请人系未婚母亲，未能证明其符合《移民与国籍法》第240A(b)条、8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b) (2000)规定的取消递解出境资格，因为她未能证明其6岁和11岁的美国公民子女在她被递解至墨西哥后将遭受特殊且极其不寻常的困难。

(2) The factors considered in assessing the hardship to the respondent’s children include the poor economic conditions and diminished educational opportunities in Mexico and the fact that the respondent is unmarried and has no family in that country to assist in their adjustment upon her return.

(2) 评估被申请人子女所受困难时考虑的因素包括墨西哥恶劣的经济条件和减少的教育机会，以及被申请人未婚且在该国没有家人协助其返回后子女的适应。

FOR RESPONDENT: Christopher J. Stender, Esquire, Phoenix, Arizona

被申请人代理律师：Christopher J. Stender，Esquire，亚利桑那州凤凰城

FOR THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE: Barry O’Melinn, Appellate Counsel

移民与归化局代理律师：Barry O'Melinn，上诉法律顾问

BEFORE: Board En Banc: SCIALABBA, Acting Chairman; DUNNE, Vice Chairman; HOLMES, HURWITZ, FILPPU, COLE, GRANT, MILLER, OHLSON, HESS, and PAULEY, Board Members. Dissenting Opinions: ESPENOZA, Board Member, joined by ROSENBERG, Board Member; OSUNA, Board Member, joined by SCHMIDT, VILLAGELIU, GUENDELSBERGER, ROSENBERG, MOSCATO, and BRENNAN, Board Members.

审理法官：全体上诉委员会：SCIALABBA，代理主席；DUNNE，副主席；HOLMES、HURWITZ、FILPPU、COLE、GRANT、MILLER、OHLSON、HESS和PAULEY，委员会成员。反对意见：ESPENOZA，委员会成员，ROSENBERG，委员会成员附议；OSUNA，委员会成员，SCHMIDT、VILLAGELIU、GUENDELSBERGER、ROSENBERG、MOSCATO和BRENNAN，委员会成员附议。

HURWITZ, Board Member:

HURWITZ，委员会成员：

In a decision dated March 16, 2000, an Immigration Judge granted the respondent’s application for cancellation of removal under section 240A(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b) (2000), and certified his decision to us for review. In addition, the Immigration and Naturalization Service filed an appeal from the Immigration Judge’s grant of relief. Oral argument was heard before a panel of the Board on June 22, 2001. The Service’s appeal will be sustained and the respondent will be granted voluntary departure in lieu of removal.

在2000年3月16日的裁定中，一名移民法官批准了被申请人根据《移民与国籍法》第240A(b)条、8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b) (2000)提出的取消递解出境申请，并将其裁定提交本委员会审查。此外，移民与归化局对移民法官批准救济提出上诉。2001年6月22日，本委员会合议庭听取了口头辩论。移民与归化局的上诉将获支持，被申请人将获准自愿离境以代替递解出境。

The parties in this case agree that the respondent has both the continuous physical presence and the good moral character required for cancellation of removal under section 240A(b) of the Act. The only issue on appeal is

本案双方均同意，被申请人具备《移民与国籍法》第240A(b)条规定的取消递解出境所需的连续实际居住和良好道德品质。上诉的唯一问题是

319

319

Cite as 23 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2002) Interim Decision #3467

引用为 23 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2002) 临时决定第3467号

whether her removal from the United States would result in “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to her two United States citizen children, which is also required for relief under that section. The Immigration Judge found that the necessary hardship had been shown, but the Service disagrees.

将其递解出美国是否会导致其两名美国公民子女遭受“特殊且极其不寻常的困难”，这也是该条规定的救济所要求的。移民法官认定已证明存在必要的困难，但移民与归化局不同意。

The record reflects that the respondent is a 30-year-old native and citizen of Mexico who entered the United States without inspection in August 1985. She has two United States citizen children, aged 11 and 6. The respondent has had the same employment for 4 years with a company that provides health insurance for her and her family, as well as a 401K retirement savings plan. The respondent bought her own house, valued at $69,000, in 1998. She owns two vehicles, with a combined value of about $12,000. According to her testimony, she also has savings of about $7,000.

记录显示，被申请人是30岁的墨西哥本土出生公民，于1985年8月未经检查进入美国。她有两名美国公民子女，分别为11岁和6岁。被申请人在一家公司从事同一工作已4年，该公司为她及其家人提供健康保险以及401K退休储蓄计划。被申请人于1998年购买了自己的房屋，价值69,000美元。她拥有两辆车，总价值约12,000美元。据其证词，她还有约7,000美元的储蓄。

The respondent testified that she has no relatives in Mexico who could help her with the children, should she be forced to return there. She further stated that her mother takes the children to school and looks after them while she works. All of the respondent’s siblings live in this country, without valid immigration status, as do her aunts and uncles. The respondent’s older child testified to her very close relationship with her grandmother. She did not indicate that she is close to any other relatives in this country.

被申请人作证称，如果她被迫返回墨西哥，她在该国没有亲属可以帮助她照顾孩子。她还表示，她的母亲在她工作时送孩子上学并照看他们。被申请人的所有兄弟姐妹都居住在美国，没有有效移民身份，她的姑姨叔舅也是如此。被申请人的年长子女作证称她与祖母关系非常亲密。她未表示她与美国的任何其他亲属关系亲密。

Although the respondent is not married, when asked at the hearing about the father of her children, she replied, “We’re okay, we just live together.” She indicated that he has “some form of temporary permit” in this country. Asked if he contributes to the household, the respondent said, “He’s working construction so sometimes he does have a job, sometimes he doesn’t.”

尽管被申请人未婚，但在听证会上被问及孩子的父亲时，她回答说：“我们挺好的，我们只是住在一起。”她表示他在美国持有“某种形式的临时许可”。当被问及他是否对家庭有贡献时，被申请人说：“他在建筑行业工作，所以有时有工作，有时没有。”

The respondent described the children’s health as “fine.” She stated that she has had problems with asthma, which is under control, but that this condition would prevent her from working in the fields in Mexico. She also does not believe she could get an office job in Mexico, as she has only a sixth grade education. She is concerned that she would not be able to obtain any employment in Mexico that would be comparable to the job she has here.

被申请人称孩子们的健康状况“良好”。她表示自己曾有哮喘问题，目前已得到控制，但这一状况会使她无法在墨西哥的田间工作。她也不认为自己能在墨西哥找到办公室工作，因为她只受过六年级教育。她担心自己无法在墨西哥获得任何与她在这里的工作相当的工作。

The respondent also stated that the schools are better in this country than in Mexico, with better facilities and supplies, and access to computers. She is afraid that her children would not be able to get much education in Mexico, especially when they get older and reach the point where she would have to pay for it.

被申请人还表示，美国的学校比墨西哥的学校更好，设施和用品更好，并且可以使用电脑。她担心她的孩子在墨西哥无法获得多少教育，尤其是当他们长大到需要她支付学费的时候。

The respondent testified that the main focus of the family’s social life is the church they attend every week. She also stated that she helps out twice a month at her younger child’s Head Start program.

被申请人作证称，家庭社交生活的主要重心是他们每周参加的教堂。她还表示，她每月两次在她年幼孩子的Head Start项目中帮忙。

Following the removal hearing, the Immigration Judge entered his decision granting the respondent’s application for cancellation of removal. The Immigration Judge concluded, after a lengthy discussion, that the “United States citizen children, particularly Tanya [the 11-year-old], would suffer hardship of an emotional, academic and financial nature.” This hardship

递解出境听证会后，移民法官作出裁定，批准被申请人的取消递解出境申请。移民法官经过长时间讨论后认定，“美国公民子女，特别是Tanya[11岁]，将遭受情感、学业和经济性质的困难。”这种困难

320

320

Cite as 23 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2002) Interim Decision #3467

引用为 23 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2002) 临时决定第3467号

“would be of a daunting level.” The Immigration Judge noted that the children would be uprooted from their current “nurturing environment” and from their support system. He also stated that they would face discrimination in Mexico because they are children of a single mother. The Immigration Judge emphasized the fact that Tanya has little knowledge of “academic Spanish” and might therefore be placed in a lower grade in school in Mexico. In addition, he expressed concern that the children may not be able to stay in school, but rather may have to work to help support the family. He noted that the respondent has a steady, full-time job here, with good benefits.

“将达到令人望而生畏的程度。”移民法官指出，孩子们将被连根拔起，离开他们目前的“养育环境”和支持系统。他还表示，他们在墨西哥将面临歧视，因为他们是单身母亲的孩子。移民法官强调，Tanya几乎不懂“学术西班牙语”，因此可能在墨西哥被安排到较低的年级。此外，他担心孩子们可能无法继续上学，而可能不得不工作以帮助养家。他指出，被申请人在美国有一份稳定的全职工作，福利良好。

Based on these considerations, the Immigration Judge found that the children “face complete upheaval in their lives and hardship that could conceivably ruin their lives.” He concluded that such hardship would be “unconscionable,” and he therefore concluded that the respondent had met the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship requirement.

基于这些考虑，移民法官认定孩子们“面临生活的彻底剧变和可能想象会毁掉他们生活的困难”。他认定这种困难将“不合情理”，因此认定被申请人已满足特殊且极其不寻常困难的要求。

After the Immigration Judge rendered his decision in this case, but before oral argument was held, we issued a precedent decision addressing the meaning of the term “exceptional and extremely unusual” hardship as used in the cancellation of removal statute. In Matter of Monreal, 23 I&N Dec. 56, 65 (BIA 2001), we held that an applicant for cancellation under section 240A(b) of the Act must demonstrate that his or her removal would cause hardship to his or her qualifying relatives that is “substantially different from, or beyond, that which would normally be expected from the deportation of an alien with close family members here.”

在移民法官就本案作出裁定后、口头辩论举行前，本委员会发布了一项先例裁定，阐述取消递解出境法规中使用的“特殊且极其不寻常”困难一词的含义。在 Matter of Monreal, 23 I&N Dec. 56, 65 (BIA 2001)中，本委员会认定，根据《移民与国籍法》第240A(b)条申请取消递解出境者必须证明，其递解出境将对其合格亲属造成“与通常预期外国人被递解出境而其近亲属在美国的情况有实质不同或超出通常预期”的困难。

In Matter of Monreal, supra, the respondent was a 34-year-old man from Mexico who had lived in this country since 1980. He had three United States citizen children. The two older children were 12 and 8 years old, and they lived with the respondent in the United States. His youngest child, an infant, had returned to Mexico with the respondent’s undocumented wife shortly before his removal hearing. The respondent’s lawful permanent resident parents also lived near him.

在 Matter of Monreal, supra中，被申请人是来自墨西哥的34岁男子，自1980年起居住在美国。他有三名美国公民子女。两个较大的孩子分别为12岁和8岁，与父亲居住在美国。他最年幼的孩子是婴儿，在递解出境听证前不久与被申请人无证件的妻子返回墨西哥。被申请人的合法永久居民父母也住在他附近。

We concluded that the respondent in Matter of Monreal, supra, had not shown that his children or his lawful permanent resident parents would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if he was removed from the United States. We recognized that the respondent’s children would suffer some hardship if they accompanied their father to Mexico, and that they would likely have fewer opportunities there. However, emphasizing the high bar Congress had imposed in enacting the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” requirement, we concluded that the bar had not been reached.

本委员会认定，Matter of Monreal, supra中的被申请人未能证明，如果他自美国被递解出境，其子女或其合法永久居民父母将遭受特殊且极其不寻常的困难。本委员会承认，如果被申请人的子女随父亲前往墨西哥，他们将遭受一些困难，并且他们在那里可能机会更少。然而，本委员会强调国会在制定“特殊且极其不寻常困难”要求时设定了高标准，并认定该标准未被达到。

The respondent asserts that her case is “completely distinguishable from Monreal.” She argues that, unlike the respondent in Monreal, she is a single mother who is the sole support of her United States citizen children. She has no family able to help her in Mexico. She claims that single mothers face discrimination in Mexico that will make it even more difficult for her to

被申请人主张她的案件“与Monreal完全不同”。她辩称，与Monreal中的被申请人不同，她是一名单身母亲，是其美国公民子女的唯一抚养人。她在墨西哥没有能够帮助她的家人。她声称单身母亲在墨西哥面临歧视，这将使她更难

321

321

Cite as 23 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2002) Interim Decision #3467

引用为 23 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2002) 临时决定第3467号

provide a decent life for her children in that country. The respondent argues that women do not enjoy equal rights in Mexico. They are paid less and generally hold lower level jobs. There is “institutionalized discrimination against women,” and a single mother returning to this environment would face a particularly difficult time trying to support her children. She also points out that in Monreal, the respondent’s deportation to Mexico was actually going to reunite him with his family, as his wife and one of his children had already moved there.

在该国为子女提供体面的生活。被申请人主张，女性在墨西哥不享有平等权利。她们薪酬更低，通常担任较低级别的工作。存在“对女性的制度化歧视”，单身母亲返回这种环境将面临特别艰难的时期来抚养子女。她还指出，在Monreal中，被申请人被递解至墨西哥实际上将使他与家人团聚，因为他的妻子和其中一个孩子已经搬到那里。

The respondent further argues that the Board should not approach this case with the assumption that there are many other Mexicans whose situation is similar to hers, and that the hardship she presents therefore does not rise to the level of “exceptional and extremely unusual.” The respondent asserts that her case, like all others, must be decided on its particular facts.

被申请人进一步主张，本委员会不应以假设有许多其他墨西哥人的情况与她类似、因此她所呈现的困难未达到“特殊且极其不寻常”水平的思路来处理本案。被申请人主张，她的案件与所有其他案件一样，必须根据其具体事实来裁定。

The Service, on the other hand, argues that the instant case is “squarely governed” by Matter of Monreal, supra. If anything, the Service claims, this case is weaker than that in Monreal because the respondent’s United States citizen children are younger and would therefore have an easier time adapting to life in Mexico. The Service also asserts that this respondent’s return to Mexico would be somewhat easier because she is not penniless, but has some assets that would enable her to “set up a better life for her children than many returnees.”

另一方面，移民与归化局主张，本案“完全受”Matter of Monreal, supra“支配”。移民与归化局称，如果说有什么不同，本案比Monreal案更弱，因为被申请人的美国公民子女年龄更小，因此更容易适应墨西哥的生活。移民与归化局还主张，被申请人返回墨西哥会稍微容易一些，因为她并非身无分文，而是有一些资产，使她能够“为子女建立比许多返回者更好的生活”。

The Service contends that the hardship presented by the respondent is similar to that of many Mexican nationals who sought suspension of deportation under the previous law, and who were found not to have met even the former “extreme hardship” standard. Finding nothing “unusual, unique, or exceptional” in this case, the Service asserts that the respondent is in the same position as hundreds, if not thousands, of other Mexican nationals who have spent a considerable period of time in this country. According to the Service, the Immigration Judge’s decision granting cancellation of removal should therefore be overturned.

移民局主张，受访者所呈现的困难与许多根据先前法律寻求暂停驱逐出境的墨西哥国民相似，这些墨西哥国民被认定甚至未达到以前的“极端困难”标准。移民局认为本案中没有任何“不寻常、独特或例外”之处，并声称受访者与数百甚至数千名在美国居住了相当长时间的墨西哥国民处境相同。因此，根据移民局的说法，移民法官批准取消驱逐出境的决定应被推翻。

We are sympathetic to the respondent’s case and to her situation. We have no doubt that she and her children will suffer some hardship upon moving to Mexico. Indeed, as with Matter of Monreal, supra, we believe that, were this a suspension of deportation case, where only “extreme hardship” must be shown, we might well grant relief. In this regard, we note that the cases cited by the respondent at oral argument, and in her brief, address the meaning of “extreme hardship,” not “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.” See, e.g., Salcido-Salcido v. INS, 138 F.3d 1292 (9th Cir. 1998); Gutierrez- Centeno v. INS, 99 F.3d 1529 (9th Cir. 1996); Casem v. INS, 8 F.3d 700 (9th Cir. 1993). However, Congress has now imposed a standard of hardship that is significantly more burdensome than the former “extreme hardship” standard. We simply cannot find that she has met the very high standard of the current law.

我们对受访者的案件及其处境表示同情。我们毫不怀疑她和她的子女在搬到墨西哥后会遭受一些困难。事实上，正如Matter of Monreal案（同上）一样，我们认为，如果这是一个暂停驱逐出境的案件，只需证明“极端困难”，我们很可能会给予救济。在这方面，我们注意到受访者在口头辩论和她的简报中引用的案件涉及的是“极端困难”的含义，而非“例外且极其不寻常的困难”。参见，例如，Salcido-Salcido v. INS, 138 F.3d 1292 (9th Cir. 1998); Gutierrez-Centeno v. INS, 99 F.3d 1529 (9th Cir. 1996); Casem v. INS, 8 F.3d 700 (9th Cir. 1993)。然而，国会现在施加的困难标准比以前的“极端困难”标准要沉重得多。我们根本无法认定她达到了现行法律非常高的标准。

322

322

Cite as 23 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2002) Interim Decision #3467

引用为 23 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2002) 临时决定 #3467

We also accept the respondent’s contention that her case must be considered on its own individual facts. We note, however, that the relative level of hardship a person might suffer cannot be considered entirely in a vacuum. It must necessarily be assessed, at least in part, by comparing it to the hardship others might face.

我们也接受受访者的主张，即她的案件必须根据其自身的个别事实来考虑。然而，我们注意到，一个人可能遭受的相对困难程度不能完全在真空中考虑。必须至少部分地通过与其他可能面临的困难进行比较来评估。

We have considered the evidence in the record regarding the poor economic conditions in Mexico, and the respondent’s claim that her deportation would result in drastic economic consequences to her and her children. We do not dispute the fact that economic conditions in Mexico are worse than those in this country. However, it has long been settled that economic detriment alone is insufficient to support even a finding of extreme hardship. See Matter of Pilch, 21 I&N Dec. 627 (BIA 1996), and cases cited therein.

我们考虑了记录中关于墨西哥恶劣经济状况的证据，以及受访者声称她的驱逐出境将给她和她的子女带来严重经济后果的主张。我们不否认墨西哥的经济状况比美国更差。然而，长期以来已经确定，仅经济上的不利不足以支持甚至极端困难的认定。参见Matter of Pilch, 21 I&N Dec. 627 (BIA 1996)及其引用的案件。

We have also considered the respondent’s claims regarding educational opportunities for her children. She stated that until 1995, the Mexican Government did not authorize undocumented aliens to attend their schools, and that even now the availability of education to undocumented aliens varies from state to state. She noted further that although the Mexican Government aspires to provide 9 years of education to every child, it has not actually been able to implement this goal. Again, we recognize that Mexico likely will not provide the respondent’s children with an education equal to that which they might obtain in the United States. However, the respondent has not shown that her children would be deprived of all schooling or of an opportunity to obtain any education. 1

我们还考虑了受访者关于其子女教育机会的主张。她表示，直到1995年，墨西哥政府才授权无证外国人进入其学校，而且即使现在，无证外国人能否获得教育也因州而异。她进一步指出，尽管墨西哥政府希望为每个儿童提供9年教育，但实际上未能实现这一目标。我们再次认识到，墨西哥可能无法为受访者的子女提供与美国同等的教育。然而，受访者并未证明她的子女将被剥夺所有学校教育或获得任何教育的机会。1

The fact that the respondent has no family to help her in Mexico will likely make her adjustment to a new life there more difficult. However, we note that, with the exception of her mother, who appears to have temporary resident status under the Special Agricultural Worker program, her siblings are undocumented. In assessing hardship, we should not consider the fact that the respondent’s extended family is here illegally, rather than in Mexico, as a factor that weighs in her favor. Further, there is nothing to prevent the respondent’s family members from sending financial support to her in Mexico, should it be needed.

受访者在墨西哥没有家人帮助她，这可能会使她适应那里的新生活更加困难。然而，我们注意到，除了她的母亲似乎根据特别农业工人计划拥有临时居民身份外，她的兄弟姐妹都是无证的。在评估困难时，我们不应将受访者的大家庭非法居留在此地而非墨西哥的事实视为对她有利的因素。此外，没有任何因素阻止受访者的家庭成员在需要时向她在墨西哥提供经济支持。

1 We note Board Member Espenoza’s comment in her dissenting opinion that our findings regarding educational opportunities in Mexico are “internally inconsistent.” We do not find it inconsistent to recognize that educational opportunities are likely to be fewer in Mexico than in the United States, while also stating that there has been no showing that the respondent’s children would be unable to obtain any education in Mexico. Further, we are fully aware of the importance of education to any child’s future. However, a finding that diminished educational opportunities result in “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” would mean that cancellation of removal would be granted in virtually all cases involving respondents from developing countries who have young United States citizen or lawful permanent resident children. This view is not consistent with congressional intent.

1 我们注意到Board Member Espenoza在她的反对意见中评论说，我们关于墨西哥教育机会的调查结果“内部不一致”。我们认为，承认墨西哥的教育机会可能比美国少，同时指出没有证据表明受访者的子女在墨西哥无法获得任何教育，这并不矛盾。此外，我们完全清楚教育对任何儿童未来的重要性。然而，如果认定教育机会减少导致“例外且极其不寻常的困难”，那就意味着几乎所有涉及来自发展中国家且有年幼美国公民或合法永久居民子女的受访者的案件都会批准取消驱逐出境。这种观点不符合国会的意图。

323

323

Cite as 23 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2002) Interim Decision #3467

引用为 23 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2002) 临时决定 #3467

In addition, the respondent testified that the father of her children lives with her, and that he works in construction and sometimes contributes to the family’s support. Although the respondent characterizes herself as a single mother, her testimony reflects that her children’s father has not abandoned them, but lives with the family. As it is clear that the father has been a part of the children’s lives, it is also certainly possible that he could provide them some support in Mexico, if necessary.

此外，受访者作证说，她子女的父亲与她同住，他从事建筑工作，有时为家庭提供支持。尽管受访者将自己描述为单身母亲，但她的证词反映子女的父亲并未抛弃他们，而是与家人同住。显然，父亲一直是子女生活的一部分，因此他当然有可能在必要时在墨西哥为他们提供一些支持。

We also consider it significant that the respondent has accumulated some assets in this country. She owns a home and two vehicles, has participated in a retirement plan, and has savings of about $7,000. Although the house presumably carries a mortgage, the respondent and her children would not be penniless upon her return to Mexico. The money she does have would surely help her in establishing a new life in Mexico.

我们还认为受访者在美国积累了一些资产这一点很重要。她拥有一所房子和两辆车，参加了退休计划，并有大约7,000美元的储蓄。尽管房子想必有抵押贷款，但受访者和她的子女在返回墨西哥时不会身无分文。她拥有的钱肯定能帮助她在墨西哥建立新生活。

Finally, we do not doubt that the respondent and her children may face some special difficulties in Mexico, because she is an unmarried mother. The evidence presented does suggest that women still do not have equal opportunities in Mexico, and it may be that the respondent will encounter some discrimination as an unmarried mother, in addition to the challenges that unmarried parents everywhere face. However, even considering the potential hardship caused by the respondent’s status as an unmarried mother, together with the other hardships described above, we must conclude that she has not met her burden of establishing that her children will suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if she is removed to Mexico.

最后，我们不怀疑受访者和她的子女在墨西哥可能面临一些特殊困难，因为她是未婚母亲。提供的证据确实表明，墨西哥女性仍然没有平等的机会，受访者作为未婚母亲可能会遇到一些歧视，此外还有各地未婚父母面临的挑战。然而，即使考虑到受访者作为未婚母亲的身份可能造成的困难，加上上述其他困难，我们必须得出结论，她未能履行举证责任，证明如果她被驱逐到墨西哥，她的子女将遭受例外且极其不寻常的困难。

The respondent in this case is young and able to work. Although she reports suffering from asthma, that condition is apparently under control. She has developed some job skills. She does have some financial assets that will aid her in establishing a new life in Mexico. Her children are still relatively young and are in good health. While they certainly will face some problems in adapting to life outside the United States, they will likely be able to make the necessary adjustments.

本案的受访者年轻且能够工作。尽管她报告患有哮喘，但该状况显然已得到控制。她掌握了一些工作技能。她确实有一些金融资产，这将帮助她在墨西哥建立新生活。她的子女还相对年轻且身体健康。虽然他们在适应美国以外的生活时肯定会面临一些问题，但他们很可能能够做出必要的调整。

In sum, we cannot meaningfully distinguish this case from that of Matter of Monreal, supra. While almost every case will present some particular hardship, the fact pattern presented here is, in fact, a common one, and the hardships the respondent has outlined are simply not substantially different from those that would normally be expected upon removal to a less developed country. Although the hardships presented here might have been adequate to meet the former “extreme hardship” standard for suspension of deportation, we find that they are not the types of hardship envisioned by Congress when it enacted the significantly higher “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” standard. Accordingly, we will sustain the Service’s appeal from the Immigration Judge’s grant of cancellation of removal. There being no adverse factors present, we will grant the respondent a period of voluntary departure in lieu of an order of removal.

总之，我们无法有意义地将本案与Matter of Monreal案（同上）区分开来。虽然几乎每个案件都会呈现一些特定的困难，但这里呈现的事实模式实际上是一个常见的模式，受访者概述的困难与通常预期被驱逐到欠发达国家时面临的困难并无实质不同。尽管这里呈现的困难可能足以满足以前暂停驱逐出境的“极端困难”标准，但我们认为它们不是国会在颁布显著更高的“例外且极其不寻常的困难”标准时所设想的那种困难。因此，我们将维持移民局对移民法官批准取消驱逐出境的上诉。由于不存在不利因素，我们将给予受访者一段自愿离境期以代替驱逐令。

324

324

Cite as 23 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2002) Interim Decision #3467

引用为 23 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2002) 临时决定 #3467

FURTHER ORDER: The decision of the Immigration Judge is vacated. FURTHER ORDER: In lieu of an order of removal, the respondent is allowed to voluntarily depart from the United States, without expense to the Government, within 30 days from the date of this order or any extension beyond that time as may be granted by the district director. In the event the respondent fails to so depart, the respondent shall be ordered removed from the United States.

进一步命令：移民法官的决定被撤销。 进一步命令：代替驱逐令，允许受访者在本命令之日起30天内或地区局长可能批准的任何延长期内，自愿离开美国，费用不由政府承担。如果受访者未能如此离境，则应命令将受访者驱逐出美国。

NOTICE: If the respondent fails to depart the United States within the time period specified, or any extensions granted by the district director, the respondent shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $1,000, and not more than $5,000, and shall be ineligible for a period of 10 years for any further relief under section 240B and sections 240A, 245, 248, and 249 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. See section 240B(d) of the Act.

通知：如果受访者未在指定期限内或地区局长批准的任何延长期内离开美国，受访者应受到不低于1,000美元且不超过5,000美元的民事罚款，并且10年内无资格根据《移民和国籍法》第240B条和第240A、245、248和249条获得任何进一步救济。参见该法第240B(d)条。

DISSENTING OPINION: Cecelia M. Espenoza, Board Member, in which Lory Diana Rosenberg, Board Member, joined

反对意见：Board Member Cecelia M. Espenoza，Board Member Lory Diana Rosenberg加入

I join the dissenting opinion of Board Member Osuna. I write separately to address the reasons why Congress’ mandate that hardship is to be determined only by looking at the effect on qualifying relatives who are United States citizens or lawful permanent residents reflects Congress’ principal concern with the impact on stakeholders in United States society. See section 240A(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) (2000).

我加入Board Member Osuna的反对意见。我单独撰写意见，以说明为什么国会规定困难只能通过考察对美国公民或合法永久居民的合格亲属的影响来确定，这反映了国会对美国社会利益相关者影响的主要关注。参见《移民和国籍法》第240A(b)(1)条，8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) (2000)。

Taking the majority opinion to its inevitable conclusion, it appears that no United States citizen child of a Mexican national will be able to demonstrate exceptional and extremely unusual hardship because he or she is deprived of educational opportunities for financial reasons. In fact, under the interpretation announced today, it is more than likely that no respondent from Mexico will qualify for cancellation unless the qualifying relative has severe medical problems. I do not believe that was the directive of Congress. Nor is it consistent with our decision in Matter of Monreal, 23 I&N Dec. 56, 60 (BIA 2001), in which we rejected an “unconscionable standard” as higher than required.

将多数意见推向其必然结论，似乎任何墨西哥国民的美国公民子女都无法证明例外且极其不寻常的困难，因为他或她因经济原因被剥夺了教育机会。事实上，根据今天宣布的解释，来自墨西哥的受访者很可能没有资格获得取消驱逐出境，除非合格亲属有严重的医疗问题。我不认为这是国会的指示。也不符合我们在Matter of Monreal, 23 I&N Dec. 56, 60 (BIA 2001)中的决定，在该决定中我们拒绝了一个“不合情理的標準”作为高于要求的标准。

At the same time that Congress heightened the hardship standard from “extreme hardship” to “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship,” it added additional restrictions. 1 In light of these other restrictions, implementing

与此同时，国会将困难标准从“极端困难”提高至“特殊且极其不寻常的困难”，并增加了额外限制。1 鉴于这些其他限制，实施

1 It is beyond dispute that cancellation of removal is governed by a new standard, which requires a showing that the undocumented alien (1) has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately preceding the date of (continued...)

1 毫无疑问，取消递解出境受一项新标准管辖，该标准要求证明该无证外国人（1）在申请之日紧接之前的连续不少于10年期间内实际居住于美国；（续……）

325

325

Cite as 23 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2002) Interim Decision #3467

引注为 23 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2002) 临时决定第3467号

Congress’ intent need not be accomplished solely by imposing the most narrow reading of the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship standard. Although Congress said that the change was made “to emphasize that the alien must provide evidence of harm to his spouse, parent, or child substantially beyond that which ordinarily would be expected to result from the alien’s deportation,” H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-828, at 213 (1996), Congress did not enact provisions to categorically preclude any nationality from this relief. 2 Thus, our construction of this provision should not result in categorical exclusion of any nationality.

国会意图不必仅通过对特殊且极其不寻常的困难标准作最狭窄解读来实现。尽管国会称作出该变更是“为了强调外国人必须提供其配偶、父母或子女所受损害远超通常可预期因外国人递解出境而产生的损害的证据”，H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-828, at 213 (1996)，但国会并未颁布条款以绝对排除任何国籍获得此救济。2 因此，我们对该条款的构建不应导致对任何国籍的绝对排除。

The majority opinion appears to measure the hardship prong as if that were the only way in which Congress restricted eligibility for relief. In doing so, the majority fails to acknowledge the significance of the statutory language that directs us to focus on the hardship to qualifying relatives. The issue is whose hardship Congress has directed us to examine and under what circumstances that hardship rises to a level substantially beyond that which ordinarily would be expected to result from the alien’s deportation.

多数意见似乎衡量困难要件时，仿佛那是国会限制救济资格的唯一方式。在这样做时，多数意见未能承认法定语言的重要意义，该语言指示我们关注对符合条件亲属的困难。问题在于国会指示我们审查谁的困难，以及在何种情况下该困难升至远超通常可预期因外国人递解出境而产生的水平。

By eliminating the relevance of hardship to the respondent, Congress directed us to focus on the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the United States citizen or lawful permanent resident who would be affected by the removal of the alien. In determining exceptional and extremely unusual hardship, our assessment of the hardship to United States citizen children must take into account both the present and the future impact that ordinarily would be expected to result from their accompanying the respondent upon removal. The repercussions that emerge as a consequence of the deprivation of the opportunity to receive an education in the United States should not be diminished when evaluating the United States citizen children’s forcible return to Mexico.

通过消除对 respondent 困难的相关性，国会指示我们关注对将因外国人递解出境而受影响的美国公民或合法永久居民的特殊且极其不寻常的困难。在确定特殊且极其不寻常的困难时，我们对美国公民子女困难的评估必须考虑通常可预期因他们随 respondent 一同递解出境而产生的当前和未来影响。在评估美国公民子女被强制返回墨西哥时，因被剥夺在美国接受教育的机会而产生的后果不应被淡化。

1 (...continued) application; (2) has been a person of good moral character during such period; (3) has not been convicted of specified criminal offenses; and (4) establishes that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. Section 240A(b)(1) of the Act; see also 8 C.F.R. § 240.20 (2001). It is also generally accepted that Congress enacted the standard it did in response to Matter of O-J-O-, 21 I&N Dec. 381 (BIA 1996); see also H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-828 (1996). 2 Congress knows how to define relief in ways that advantage or disadvantage certain nationalities. See, e.g., Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act, Pub. L. No. 105-100, tit. II, 111 Stat. 2193, amended by Pub. L. No. 105-139, 111 Stat. 2644 (1997) (“NACARA”) (providing adjustment of status only for Nicaraguan and Cuban immigrants, and extending eligibility for suspension of deportation only for certain nationalities); Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649, 104 Stat. 4978 (disadvantaging certain nationalities in the allocation of diversity visas); Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359 (including special provisions for Cuban and Haitian immigrants); cf. Act of Oct. 3, 1965, 79 Stat. 911 (eliminating the national origins quota system, which had precluded immigration from Asia and Latin America).

1 （……续）申请；（2）在该期间内品行良好；（3）未因特定刑事犯罪被定罪；以及（4）证明递解出境将导致该外国人的配偶、父母或子女——其为美国公民或合法获准永久居留的外国人——遭受特殊且极其不寻常的困难。该法第240A(b)(1)条；另见 8 C.F.R. § 240.20 (2001)。普遍认为，国会是针对 Matter of O-J-O-, 21 I&N Dec. 381 (BIA 1996) 而颁布了现行标准；另见 H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-828 (1996)。 2 国会知道如何以有利于或不利于某些国籍的方式界定救济。例如，见 Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act, Pub. L. No. 105-100, tit. II, 111 Stat. 2193, amended by Pub. L. No. 105-139, 111 Stat. 2644 (1997)（“NACARA”）（仅对尼加拉瓜和古巴移民提供调整身份，并仅对某些国籍延长暂停递解出境的资格）；Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649, 104 Stat. 4978（在多样性签证分配中不利于某些国籍）；Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359（包括针对古巴和海地移民的特别条款）；比较 Act of Oct. 3, 1965, 79 Stat. 911（废除原国籍配额制度，该制度曾排除来自亚洲和拉丁美洲的移民）。

326

326

Cite as 23 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2002) Interim Decision #3467

引注为 23 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2002) 临时决定第3467号

To adequately address whether the respondent’s United States citizen children will face exceptional and extremely unusual hardship, we must look at both the conditions of the educational opportunities in Mexico and the loss of educational opportunities in the United States. The majority has failed to properly evaluate the differences in educational opportunities.

为充分处理 respondent 的美国公民子女是否将面临特殊且极其不寻常的困难，我们必须同时考察墨西哥的教育机会条件和在美国教育机会的丧失。多数意见未能正确评估教育机会的差异。

In Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 221-22 (1982), the United States Supreme Court acknowledged the importance of the United States educational process. In Plyler, the Court refused to deny public education to undocumented alien children, acknowledging the critical importance of “education in maintaining our basic institutions, and the lasting impact of its deprivation on the life of the child.” Id. at 221 (distinguishing education as more than merely a public benefit). As the Court recognized, “‘[A]s . . . pointed out early in our history, . . . some degree of education is necessary to prepare citizens to participate effectively and intelligently in our open political system if we are to preserve freedom and independence.’” Id. (quoting Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 221 (1972)). The Court concluded that

在 Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 221-22 (1982) 中，美国最高法院承认美国教育过程的重要性。在 Plyler 案中，法院拒绝拒绝向无证外国人子女提供公共教育，承认“教育在维护我们基本制度中的关键重要性，以及其剥夺对儿童生活的持久影响。”Id. at 221（将教育区分为不仅仅是公共福利）。正如法院所承认，“‘正如……在我们历史早期所指出的，……一定程度的教育是必要的，以准备公民有效且明智地参与我们开放的政治体系，如果我们要维护自由和独立。’”Id.（引用 Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 221 (1972)）。法院得出结论：

education provides the basic tools by which individuals might lead economically productive lives to the benefit of us all. In sum, education has a fundamental role in maintaining the fabric of our society. We cannot ignore the significant social costs borne by our Nation when select groups are denied the means to absorb the values and skills upon which our social order rests.

教育提供了基本工具，个人可借此过上经济上富有成效的生活，造福我们所有人。总之，教育在维护我们社会的结构中具有根本作用。当特定群体被剥夺吸收我们社会秩序所依赖的价值观和技能的手段时，我们不能忽视我们国家承受的重大社会成本。

Plyler v. Doe, supra, at 221.

Plyler v. Doe, supra, at 221。

The Court emphasized that “‘education prepares individuals to be self-reliant and self-sufficient participants in society.’” Id. at 222 (quoting Wisconsin v. Yoder, supra, at 221). Nevertheless, under the majority opinion, the loss of such an education is insufficient to constitute exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. The future cost, however, will be a citizen who is permanently handicapped and thus less capable than others of engaging in the political process.

法院强调，“‘教育使个人成为社会中自力更生和自给自足的参与者。’”Id. at 222（引用 Wisconsin v. Yoder, supra, at 221）。然而，根据多数意见，这种教育的丧失不足以构成特殊且极其不寻常的困难。然而，未来的代价将是一个永久残疾的公民，从而比其他人更无力参与政治过程。

I do not contend that the Plyler Court’s evaluation of the significance of an American public education in insuring acculturation to the American ideals trumps the language used by Congress in section 240A(b) of the Act and requires a grant of cancellation of removal in the case of every Mexican national having school-age children. However, the critical importance of such an education cannot be ignored. The rationalization that a United States citizen child can always return to the United States when he or she reaches the age of majority begs the question.

我并不主张 Plyler 法院对美国公共教育在确保融入美国理想中重要性的评估优先于国会在该法第240A(b)条中使用的语言，并要求在每个有学龄子女的墨西哥国民案件中批准取消递解出境。然而，这种教育的关键重要性不能被忽视。美国公民子女在达到成年年龄时总能返回美国的合理化说法回避了问题。

In the case before us, the Immigration Judge found explicitly that “[the child’s] education would either terminate due to her insufficient knowledge of Spanish or she would struggle academically in a school which is far inferior to that she is currently attending.” The Immigration Judge specifically ruled that “either way, this U.S. citizen child would be denied

在我们面前的案件中，移民法官明确认定，“[该儿童]的教育要么因她西班牙语知识不足而终止，要么她将在远劣于她目前就读的学校中在学业上挣扎。”移民法官具体裁定，“无论哪种方式，这名美国公民儿童都将被剥夺

327

327

Cite as 23 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2002) Interim Decision #3467

引注为 23 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2002) 临时决定第3467号

significant educational opportunities which could secure a decent future . . . [and] such a denial would greatly limit [her] employment and educational options if she decided to return to the United States.”

重要的教育机会，这些机会本可确保一个体面的未来……[并且]这种剥夺将极大地限制[她]如果决定返回美国时的就业和教育选择。”

Nothing in the majority opinion reflects that the majority properly considered or weighed the detailed factual findings relating to the children’s loss of educational opportunities that were made by the Immigration Judge. Rather, without identifying any error in the findings of the Immigration Judge, the majority substituted its own factual findings that the educational opportunities would be diminished but not eliminated altogether.

多数意见中没有任何内容反映多数意见适当考虑或权衡了移民法官就子女丧失教育机会所作的详细事实认定。相反，在没有指出移民法官认定中任何错误的情况下，多数意见以其自身的事实认定取而代之，即教育机会将被减少但不会完全消除。

Moreover, even if it were proper for us to make findings de novo on appeal, the majority opinion is internally inconsistent. One the one hand, the majority states that “the respondent has not shown that her children will be deprived of all schooling or of an opportunity to obtain any education.” Matter of Andazola, 23 I&N Dec. 319, 323 (BIA 2002). On the other hand, the majority acknowledges that “until 1995, the Mexican Government did not authorize undocumented aliens [such as the respondent’s children] to attend their schools” and that “although the Mexican Government aspires to provide 9 years of education to every child, it has not actually been able to implement this goal.” Id.

此外，即使我们在上诉中作出重新认定是适当的，多数意见内部也不一致。一方面，多数意见称“respondent 未证明其子女将被剥夺所有学校教育或获得任何教育的机会。”Matter of Andazola, 23 I&N Dec. 319, 323 (BIA 2002)。另一方面，多数意见承认“直到1995年，墨西哥政府才授权无证外国人[如 respondent 的子女]就读其学校”，并且“尽管墨西哥政府渴望为每个儿童提供9年教育，但实际上未能实施这一目标。”Id.

In Plyler v. Doe, supra, at 222 n.20, the Court recognized that the possibility that only a small proportion of the undocumented children would become citizens “is not decisive, even with respect to the importance of education to participation in core political institutions.” As United States citizens, the children in this case have an unquestionable stake in obtaining an education that will allow them to participate meaningfully in their country of citizenship. Thus, the majority’s conclusion that the children’s loss of educational opportunities is a hardship that is not “substantially different from those that would normally be expected upon removal to a less developed country” blatantly disregards the critical importance of an American education and the future consequences to these children that flow from the deprivation of such an education. Matter of Andazola, supra, at 324. In reaching such a conclusion, the majority has overlooked the specific language used by Congress, which zeroes in specifically on the impact of removal on the stakeholders.

在 Plyler v. Doe, supra, at 222 n.20 中，法院承认只有一小部分无证儿童将成为公民的可能性“不是决定性的，即使就教育对参与核心政治机构的重要性而言也是如此。”作为美国公民，本案中的子女在获得能让他们有意义地参与其国籍国的教育方面具有无可置疑的利益。因此，多数意见的结论——子女丧失教育机会是一种并非“与通常预期递解至欠发达国家时所产生的困难有实质不同”的困难——公然无视美国教育的关键重要性以及剥夺此类教育对这些子女产生的未来后果。Matter of Andazola, supra, at 324。在得出这样的结论时，多数意见忽视了国会使用的具体语言，该语言特别聚焦于递解出境对利益相关者的影响。

The decision to remove these citizen children will undoubtedly diminish their ability to be self-reliant and self-sufficient. Whatever the educational opportunity that might exist in Mexico, it will be substandard to that which would exist here. Indeed, “it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education.” Plyler v. Doe, supra, at 223. In short, the removal of the United States citizen children in this case is not merely a return to a country with a lower standard of living and a poor educational system. It is, in essence, a method of depriving the citizen children of the valued education that they currently

递解这些公民子女的决定无疑将削弱他们自力更生和自给自足的能力。无论墨西哥可能存在何种教育机会，都将低于这里存在的水平。确实，“任何儿童如果被剥夺教育机会，能否合理预期在生活中成功是值得怀疑的。”Plyler v. Doe, supra, at 223。简言之，本案中美国公民子女的递解出境不仅仅是返回一个生活水平较低和教育系统较差的国家。实质上，这是一种剥夺公民子女目前所珍视的教育的方法，他们目前

328

328

Cite as 23 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2002) Interim Decision #3467

引注为 23 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2002) 临时决定第3467号

enjoy in the United States. This, in turn, is likely to result in a lifetime hardship that deprives the children of an opportunity to obtain the skills necessary to meaningfully participate “effectively and intelligently in our open political system.” Wisconsin v. Yoder, supra, at 221.

在美国享有。这反过来又可能导致终身困苦，剥夺子女获得必要技能以“有效且明智地参与我们的开放政治体系”的机会。Wisconsin v. Yoder, supra, at 221。

The Immigration Judge correctly aggregated the economic, educational, and emotional consequences to the United States citizen children to find exceptional and extremely unusual hardship that would be unconscionable in the event of their mother’s removal. I agree, and note that hardship that is unconscionable is a greater degree of hardship than we interpreted the statute to require in Matter of Monreal, supra. Therefore, I dissent.

移民法官正确汇总了对美国公民子女的经济、教育和情感后果，认定若其母亲被驱逐，将造成非同寻常且极其不寻常的困苦，达到不合情理的程度。我同意，并指出不合情理的困苦比我们在Matter of Monreal, supra案中解释法规所要求的困苦程度更高。因此，我持异议。

DISSENTING OPINION: Juan P. Osuna, Board Member, in which Paul W. Schmidt, Gustavo D. Villageliu, John Guendelsberger, Lory Diana Rosenberg, Anthony C. Moscato, and Noel Ann Brennan, Board Members, joined

异议意见：Juan P. Osuna，董事会成员，Paul W. Schmidt、Gustavo D. Villageliu、John Guendelsberger、Lory Diana Rosenberg、Anthony C. Moscato和Noel Ann Brennan，董事会成员，加入

I respectfully dissent. While this is a close case, in my view the respondent has shown that her United States citizen children would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if she is removed from this country. I would dismiss the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s appeal and affirm the Immigration Judge’s grant of cancellation of removal.

我恭敬地持异议。虽然这是一个接近的案例，但我认为 respondent 已证明，如果她被驱逐出美国，她的美国公民子女将遭受非同寻常且极其不寻常的困苦。我会驳回移民和归化局的 appeal，并维持移民法官批准取消驱逐的裁定。

This case requires us to apply the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” standard that Congress created as part of section 304 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Division C of Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-546, 3009-594, and codified at section 240A(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) (2000). That provision allows cancellation of removal for an alien who has been physically present in the United States for at least 10 years, has been a person of good moral character, has not been convicted of specific criminal offenses, and who establishes that removal would result in “exceptional and extremely unusual” hardship to the alien’s spouse, parent, or child who is a United States citizen or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.

本案要求我们适用国会作为1996年《非法移民改革和移民责任法》第304条的一部分所创造的“非同寻常且极其不寻常的困苦”标准，该法为Pub. L. No. 104-208的C部分，110 Stat. 3009-546, 3009-594，并编纂于《移民和国籍法》第240A(b)(1)条，8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) (2000)。该条款允许对已在美国实际居留至少10年、品行良好、未因特定刑事犯罪被定罪，并证明驱逐将对其美国公民或合法永久居民的外籍配偶、父母或子女造成“非同寻常且极其不寻常”困苦的外籍人士取消驱逐。

Determining what constitutes “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” presents a challenge for adjudicators. Reasonable persons can differ on whether a given set of circumstances rises to the requisite hardship. What is clear, however, is that each hardship case, to a large extent, succeeds or fails on its own merits and on whether an applicant for relief is able to present testimony and documentation that is sufficiently compelling to demonstrate exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. For the reasons set forth below, I believe that the respondent in this case has succeeded in doing so.

确定什么构成“非同寻常且极其不寻常的困苦”对裁决者构成挑战。合理的人可能对特定情况是否达到所需困苦程度有不同看法。然而，明确的是，每个困苦案件在很大程度上取决于其自身案情，以及救济申请人是否能够提供足够有说服力的证词和文件，以证明非同寻常且极其不寻常的困苦。基于下述理由，我认为本案的 respondent 已成功做到这一点。

329

329

Cite as 23 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2002) Interim Decision #3467

引用为 23 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2002) 临时决定 #3467

I. MATTER OF MONREAL AND THE PRESENT CASE

I. MATTER OF MONREAL 与本案

In Matter of Monreal, 23 I&N Dec. 56 (BIA 2001), we considered for the first time in a precedent decision the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship standard, by examining the application for cancellation of removal of a 34-year-old Mexican national who was the father of three United States citizen children. In that decision, we held that to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship under section 240A(b) of the Act, an alien must demonstrate that his or her spouse, parent, or child would suffer hardship that is substantially beyond that which would ordinarily be expected to result from the person’s departure. We specifically stated, however, that the alien need not show that such hardship would be of such magnitude that his or her deportation would be “unconscionable” in its effect on a qualifying relative. Matter of Monreal, supra, at 60. After reviewing the case, we dismissed the respondent’s appeal from an Immigration Judge’s finding that he had not satisfied the new hardship standard. The majority finds that the present case cannot be meaningfully distinguished from Matter of Monreal, supra. I find, to the contrary, that this case is wholly distinguishable from Matter of Monreal.

在 Matter of Monreal, 23 I&N Dec. 56 (BIA 2001) 中，我们首次在先例决定中审议了非同寻常且极其不寻常的困苦标准，审查了一名34岁墨西哥国民的取消驱逐申请，他是三名美国公民子女的父亲。在该决定中，我们裁定，要根据该法第240A(b)条确立非同寻常且极其不寻常的困苦，外籍人士必须证明其配偶、父母或子女将遭受实质上超出通常预期因该人离境而产生的困苦。然而，我们特别指出，外籍人士无需证明此类困苦程度如此之大，以至于其驱逐对合格亲属的影响将“不合情理”。Matter of Monreal, supra, at 60。审查案件后，我们驳回了 respondent 对移民法官认定其未满足新困苦标准的上诉。多数意见认为本案无法与 Matter of Monreal, supra 有意义地区分。相反，我认为本案与 Matter of Monreal 完全可区分。

In Matter of Monreal, the respondent was the father of three citizen children, the oldest two being 12 and 8 years of age. The respondent had been working for 10 years for his uncle’s business, but acknowledged that he had a brother living in Mexico who also worked for the uncle’s business. Our decision emphasized that the respondent was in good health, was able to work, and would, in fact, be reunited with family members upon his return to Mexico. Most significantly, we noted that the respondent’s wife, the mother of the three children, had already returned to Mexico, and the respondent would be joining her there if removed. Matter of Monreal, supra, at 64.

在 Matter of Monreal 中，respondent 是三名公民子女的父亲，最大的两个分别为12岁和8岁。respondent 在其叔叔的企业工作了10年，但承认他有一个兄弟住在墨西哥，也为叔叔的企业工作。我们的决定强调，respondent 身体健康，能够工作，并且实际上返回墨西哥后将与家庭成员团聚。最重要的是，我们注意到 respondent 的妻子，即三个孩子的母亲，已经返回墨西哥，如果被驱逐，respondent 将在那里与她团聚。Matter of Monreal, supra, at 64。

In the present case, by contrast, the respondent is a single mother who has no close relatives remaining in Mexico. 1 In this country, she owns her own

相比之下，在本案中，respondent 是一位单身母亲，在墨西哥没有近亲。1 在这个国家，她拥有自己的

1 The majority casts doubt on whether the respondent truly is a single mother, pointing to an exchange during the testimony indicating that the children’s father may at times be a presence in their lives. However, the Immigration Judge, as the fact finder in this case, determined that the respondent is a single mother. Nowhere in his decision is there any indication that the Immigration Judge found the children’s father to be a significant presence in their lives. Moreover, during the hearing the Immigration Judge repeatedly referred to the respondent as a “single mother,” and supporting documents in the record confirm that status. In both its pretrial and appellate briefs, the Service makes no mention of a father, and on the Notice of Appeal (Form EOIR-26) it mentions the presence of “many uncles and cousins in the Phoenix area” and a “maternal grandmother,” but not the father. In fact, it was only at oral argument that the Service argued that the father is a “continuing and real presence” in the lives of the children.

1 多数意见对 respondent 是否真的是单身母亲表示怀疑，指出证词中的一段交流表明孩子的父亲可能有时会出现在他们的生活中。然而，作为本案的事实认定者，移民法官认定 respondent 是单身母亲。在他的决定中没有任何地方表明移民法官认为孩子的父亲在他们的生活中占有重要地位。此外，在听证会期间，移民法官多次将 respondent 称为“单身母亲”，记录中的支持文件证实了这一身份。在庭前和上诉简报中，Service 均未提及父亲，并且在上诉通知（Form EOIR-26）中，它提到“凤凰城地区有许多叔叔和表兄弟”以及“外祖母”，但没有提到父亲。事实上，只有在口头辩论中，Service 才主张父亲是孩子生活中“持续而真实的存在”。

Despite the Immigration Judge’s findings, and the factual weight of the record, the majority speculates that the father’s presence is such that the respondent is not truly a single mother. (continued...)

尽管有移民法官的认定和记录的事实分量，多数意见推测父亲的存在使得 respondent 并非真正的单身母亲。（续...）

330

330

Cite as 23 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2002) Interim Decision #3467

引用为 23 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2002) 临时决定 #3467

home and has steady employment with good benefits, including a retirement plan and health insurance for herself and her children. She depends on the help of her mother to look after the children when she works. With only a sixth grade education and a history of asthma, the respondent quite reasonably fears that she will be unable to find employment in Mexico that will enable her to support her children by herself. While I do not minimize the difficulties that the family in Matter of Monreal will face in Mexico, they are in my view vastly different from the difficulties that this respondent and her children will face upon their return there.

家，拥有稳定的工作和良好的福利，包括退休计划和为自己及子女的健康保险。她依靠母亲的帮助在她工作时照看孩子。respondent 仅受过六年级教育并有哮喘病史，她相当合理地担心自己无法在墨西哥找到工作来独自养活孩子。虽然我不低估 Matter of Monreal 中的家庭在墨西哥将面临的困难，但在我看来，它们与本案 respondent 及其子女返回那里后将面临的困难截然不同。

I am of course cognizant of the fact that, unlike the former “extreme hardship” standard for suspension of deportation, which was discussed most recently in Matter of Kao and Lin, 23 I&N Dec. 45 (BIA 2001), under the cancellation statute we can consider only the hardship to the respondent’s qualifying relatives, and not to the respondent herself. Some factors that we may have considered under the extreme hardship standard as pertaining solely to an applicant for suspension of deportation may not be relevant for cancellation of removal purposes. However, as we recognized in Matter of Monreal, supra, other factors may be considered if they affect the hardship of the qualifying relative, and assessment of which factors are relevant and which are not must be undertaken on a case-by-case basis.

我当然认识到，与以前暂停驱逐的“极端困苦”标准（最近在 Matter of Kao and Lin, 23 I&N Dec. 45 (BIA 2001) 中讨论）不同，根据取消驱逐法规，我们只能考虑对 respondent 的合格亲属的困苦，而不是对 respondent 本人的困苦。根据极端困苦标准，我们可能考虑的一些仅与暂停驱逐申请人有关的因素，对于取消驱逐目的可能不相关。然而，正如我们在 Matter of Monreal, supra 中所承认的，如果其他因素影响合格亲属的困苦，则可以考虑，并且必须根据个案确定哪些因素相关、哪些不相关。

In many cases, it is artificial and defies logic to attempt to consider the relatives’ hardship without some consideration of the hardship to the respondent. In a family unit, hardship on a parent essentially translates to hardship on the rest of the family. This is particularly true where the respondent is the parent of minor children. The hardship is further magnified when, as here, the family has only one parent, who must shoulder the burden of caring and providing for the children by herself. In the present case, we would be removing a single mother with no significant job skills to a poor, developing country where she has no family to help her. The hardships she will encounter will most certainly accrue to her children. For example, the respondent’s difficulties in finding a place to live and finding the type of employment that will enable her to support her children will greatly add to the hardships the children will already face in adjusting to an unknown country.

在许多案件中，试图在不考虑 respondent 困苦的情况下考虑亲属的困苦是人为且不合逻辑的。在家庭单位中，父母的困苦基本上转化为其他家庭成员的困苦。当 respondent 是未成年子女的父母时尤其如此。当家庭只有一位父母，必须独自承担照顾和供养子女的重担时，困苦进一步加剧，如本案。在本案中，我们将把一位没有重要工作技能的单身母亲驱逐到一个没有家人帮助的贫穷发展中国家。她将遇到的困难必然会影响她的孩子。例如，respondent 在寻找住所和找到能够养活孩子的工作方面的困难，将大大增加孩子们在适应一个陌生国家时已经面临的困苦。

I emphasize that, unlike many other cases, we are not talking here about a two-parent family where at least one of the parents has a professional, university, or even secondary level of education. Here, the respondent is a

我强调，与许多其他案件不同，我们在这里谈论的不是双亲家庭，其中至少一位父母具有专业、大学甚至中学教育水平。在这里，respondent 是一位

1 (...continued) In my view, the more appropriate course is to rely on the Immigration Judge’s fact finding that the father is not a significant presence and that this respondent is a single mother responsible for two United States citizen children. According to the Immigration Judge, “The Court shares the respondent’s concern and finds it unlikely that the respondent, a single mother in Mexico, would be able to adequately provide for her United States citizen children.” (Emphasis added.)

1 （续） 我认为，更适当的做法是依赖移民法官的事实认定，即父亲不是重要存在，且本案 respondent 是一位负责两名美国公民子女的单身母亲。根据移民法官的说法，“法院同意 respondent 的担忧，并认为 respondent 作为墨西哥的单身母亲，不太可能充分供养其美国公民子女。”（强调添加。）

331

331

Cite as 23 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2002) Interim Decision #3467

引用为 23 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2002) 临时决定 #3467

single mother who was forced to leave school when she was 13 years of age, and who consequently has only been able to work in relatively low-paying jobs. Such jobs in the United States may provide enough income and benefits to support a family of three. In Mexico, it is much harder or even impossible to do so. It is not a stretch to find that a family placed in that position would face “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship,” especially where there is no evidence that they could rely on a family structure already in place in Mexico.

单身母亲，13岁时被迫辍学，因此只能从事相对低薪的工作。在美国，这样的工作可能提供足够的收入和福利来养活三口之家。在墨西哥，这样做要困难得多甚至不可能。不难认定，处于这种境地的家庭将面临“非同寻常且极其不寻常的困苦”，尤其是在没有证据表明他们可以依靠墨西哥已有的家庭结构的情况下。

II. NINTH CIRCUIT CASE LAW

II. 第9巡回法院判例法

It is also significant that this case arises within the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, whereas Matter of Monreal, supra, arose in the Fifth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit has made it clear that in assessing hardship, we are required to consider all factors presented, including economic conditions and lack of family ties in the country of return. I recognize that Ninth Circuit case law involves the extreme hardship requirement under the former suspension of deportation statute, not the present exceptional and extremely unusual hardship standard for cancellation of removal. However, because assessments of “hardship” are essentially factual, it is appropriate to look to similar contexts for factors to consider. See generally Osuchukwu v. INS, 744 F.2d 1136, 1140 (5th Cir. 1984). 2 It is therefore proper to look to Ninth Circuit precedent for guidance on how to weigh hardship generally, in cases arising in that circuit.

同样重要的是，本案发生在美国联邦第九巡回上诉法院的管辖范围内，而Matter of Monreal（同上）则发生在第五巡回法院。第九巡回法院已明确表示，在评估困难时，我们必须考虑所呈现的所有因素，包括经济状况以及返回国缺乏家庭联系的情况。我认识到，第九巡回法院的判例涉及的是旧驱逐出境暂缓法规下的极端困难要求，而非当前取消驱逐中的特殊且极其不寻常困难标准。然而，由于对“困难”的评估本质上是事实性的，参照类似情境来确定应考虑的因素是适当的。参见Osuchukwu v. INS, 744 F.2d 1136, 1140 (5th Cir. 1984)。2 因此，在该巡回法院发生的案件中，参照第九巡回法院的判例来指导如何一般性地权衡困难是适当的。

In Gutierrez-Centeno v. INS, 99 F.3d 1529 (9th Cir. 1996), the respondents were a single mother and her two minor children. The court chastised the Board for not adequately considering the fact that the respondents had significant family ties in the United States and no real ties remaining in their native Nicaragua. The court emphasized that the adult respondent was a single mother supporting two children who would be returning to an economically deprived country. The court also held that the Board should have considered the fact that the children (who were also suspension applicants, not United States citizens or lawful permanent residents) would likely face difficulty in adjusting to life in Nicaragua. In facts reminiscent of those in the present case, the court was particularly concerned about the children’s education, especially the younger child who could barely read or write Spanish.

在Gutierrez-Centeno v. INS, 99 F.3d 1529 (9th Cir. 1996)中，受访者是一位单身母亲及其两名未成年子女。法院批评Board未能充分考虑受访者在美国有显著家庭联系而在其祖国尼加拉瓜已无实际联系这一事实。法院强调，成年受访者是一位抚养两个孩子的单身母亲，她将返回一个经济贫困的国家。法院还认定，Board本应考虑以下事实：孩子们（他们也是暂缓申请者，而非美国公民或合法永久居民）在适应尼加拉瓜生活方面可能面临困难。在与本案事实相似的情况下，法院特别关注孩子们的教育问题，尤其是那个几乎不会读写西班牙语的年幼孩子。

In Tukhowinich v. INS, 64 F.3d 460 (9th Cir. 1995), the court found that the Board failed to consider political unrest in Thailand, again emphasizing that conditions in the country of return are important in assessing hardship. In that case, the court also noted that it was not necessary for the respondent

在Tukhowinich v. INS, 64 F.3d 460 (9th Cir. 1995)中，法院认定Board未能考虑泰国的政治动荡，再次强调返回国的状况在评估困难时很重要。在该案中，法院还指出，受访者无需

2 Once the hardship factors are identified, a separate assessment must follow as to whether they rise to the required hardship level.

2 一旦确定了困难因素，就必须另行评估这些因素是否达到所要求的困难程度。

332

332

Cite as 23 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2002) Interim Decision #3467

引用为 23 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2002) 临时决定 #3467

to show that she would be completely unemployable in Thailand. It pointed out that with her good job in the United States, the respondent had become the sole support of her parents and other family members in Thailand. It found that her inability to continue to fulfill her duty of supporting her family would be a severe psychological hardship resulting from the economic loss. In so finding, the court noted that “‘the personal hardships that flow from the economic detriment,’” id. at 463 (quoting Ramirez-Gonzalez v. INS, 695 F.2d 1208, 1211 (9th Cir. 1983)), are a factor to consider in assessing hardship, and the Board “should have considered the implications of her economic loss.” Id. at 464. As in Tukhowinich, the respondent in this case would face devastating economic detriment in Mexico, and that factor, because it also affects the citizen children, needs to be carefully considered.

证明她在泰国将完全无法就业。法院指出，由于她在美国有一份好工作，受访者已成为其在泰国的父母和其他家庭成员的唯一抚养人。法院认定，她无法继续履行抚养家庭的义务将因经济损失而造成严重的心理困难。在作出该认定时，法院指出，“‘因经济损害而产生的个人困难’”，id. at 463（引用Ramirez-Gonzalez v. INS, 695 F.2d 1208, 1211 (9th Cir. 1983)），是评估困难时需要考虑的一个因素，而Board“本应考虑其经济损失的影响”。Id. at 464。与Tukhowinich案一样，本案受访者在墨西哥将面临毁灭性的经济损害，而该因素由于也影响公民子女，需要仔细考虑。

The Ninth Circuit has also consistently held that although the birth of United States citizen children is not sufficient in itself to warrant a finding of extreme hardship, the effect of deportation on citizen children must be very carefully considered. See, e.g., Casem v. INS, 8 F.3d 700 (9th Cir. 1993), and cases cited therein. In that case, the court also noted the difference between the adjustments required by very young children accompanying their parents to a new country and the adjustments faced by children already in school. Both of the citizen children in this case are now of school age, and the Immigration Judge noted, as the court did in Gutierrez-Centeno v. INS, supra, that they have little knowledge of “academic Spanish.”

第九巡回法院还一贯认定，尽管美国公民子女的出生本身不足以认定极端困难，但驱逐出境对公民子女的影响必须非常仔细地考虑。参见，例如，Casem v. INS, 8 F.3d 700 (9th Cir. 1993)及其引用的案件。在该案中，法院还指出了随父母前往新国家的非常年幼儿童所需的适应与已在学儿童所面临的适应之间的差异。本案中的两名公民子女现在都已达到入学年龄，移民法官如同法院在Gutierrez-Centeno v. INS（同上）中所做的那样指出，他们对“学术西班牙语”知之甚少。

III. CONGRESSIONAL INTENT

III. 国会意图

I recognize that, in enacting the cancellation statute, Congress intended to substantially narrow the class of aliens who would qualify for cancellation of removal, as opposed to those who qualified under the prior suspension statute. At oral argument in this case, the Service argued that the term exceptional and extremely unusual hardship should be strictly defined to fulfill Congress’ intent in this regard, i.e., to make the class of aliens that would benefit from cancellation of removal much smaller than the class that benefited from suspension of deportation. See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-828 (1996); Matter of Monreal, supra, at 59. The Service’s argument has merit, and I agree that because the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship standard is more demanding than the old extreme hardship standard, fewer aliens will be able to meet the standard and thereby qualify for cancellation. I do not believe, however, that Congress intended to make the standard so demanding that it becomes a bar to all but the rarest of cases.

我认识到，在制定取消驱逐法规时，国会意图大幅缩小有资格获得取消驱逐的外国人群体，相较于根据先前暂缓法规有资格的人群。在本案的口头辩论中，Service主张应严格界定特殊且极其不寻常困难这一术语，以实现国会在这方面的意图，即使受益于取消驱逐的外国人群体远小于受益于驱逐暂缓的群体。参见H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-828 (1996)；Matter of Monreal，同上，at 59。Service的论点有道理，我同意，由于特殊且极其不寻常困难标准比旧的极端困难标准更为严格，能够达到该标准从而有资格获得取消驱逐的外国人将更少。然而，我不认为国会意图使该标准严格到成为除最罕见案件外所有案件的障碍。

In this regard, Congress accomplished its goal of narrowing the class of aliens eligible for nonpermanent resident cancellation of removal in a number of ways, before the hardship standard is even assessed. An applicant for cancellation of removal must have 10 years of physical presence in the

在这方面，国会在评估困难标准之前就已通过多种方式实现了缩小有资格获得非永久居民取消驱逐的外国人群体这一目标。取消驱逐的申请人必须在美国有10年实际居留

333

333

Cite as 23 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2002) Interim Decision #3467

引用为 23 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2002) 临时决定 #3467

United States, as opposed to only 7 years under the suspension statute. Section 240A(b)(1) of the Act. He or she must satisfy the physical presence requirement prior to the issuance of a Notice to Appear. Section 240A(d) of the Act. There is an overall cap of 4000 cancellation grants per year. Section 240A(e) of the Act. Further, as already noted, only hardship to qualifying family members of the cancellation applicant can be considered. In all these ways, the number of aliens for whom cancellation of removal can be granted has already been greatly narrowed. We do not need, in addition, a strict and narrow reading of the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship standard to further Congress’ goal of reducing the number of aliens eligible for relief. 3 In fact, adopting an overly strict reading of the statute carries the danger of rendering cancellation of removal meaningless for all but a very small number of aliens. I do not believe that is what Congress intended.

美国，而暂缓法规下仅需7年。法案第240A(b)(1)条。他或她必须在出庭通知发出之前满足实际居留要求。法案第240A(d)条。每年取消驱逐批准的总上限为4000件。法案第240A(e)条。此外，如前所述，只能考虑对取消驱逐申请人的合格家庭成员造成的困难。通过所有这些方式，可以获准取消驱逐的外国人数量已被大幅缩小。我们不需要额外通过对特殊且极其不寻常困难标准进行严格狭窄的解读来进一步实现国会减少有资格获得救济的外国人数量这一目标。3 事实上，采用过于严格的法规解读存在使取消驱逐对除极少数外国人外的所有人变得毫无意义的危险。我不认为这是国会的意图。

IV. IMMIGRATION JUDGE’S DECISION

IV. 移民法官的决定

The determination of whether an alien has satisfied the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship requirement is inherently fact specific and requires substantial and careful weighing of all the hardship factors presented. For this reason, an Immigration Judge’s factual findings are particularly important in a cancellation of removal case, especially a close case like this one. Here, unlike in Matter of Monreal, supra, the Immigration Judge found that the respondent had shown the requisite level of hardship. Indeed, the Immigration Judge made this finding even after first concluding that the hardship to the respondent’s children had to be “unconscionable” to meet the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship standard. In Matter of Monreal, supra, we specifically rejected an unconscionable standard as too high. Now, the majority rejects the Immigration Judge’s finding that the hardship the

确定外国人是否满足特殊且极其不寻常困难要求本质上是事实特定的，需要对所呈现的所有困难因素进行实质性和仔细的权衡。因此，移民法官的事实认定在取消驱逐案件中尤为重要，尤其是像本案这样接近边缘的案件。在此，与Matter of Monreal（同上）不同，移民法官认定受访者已证明所要求的困难程度。事实上，移民法官甚至在首先认定受访者子女的困难必须达到“不合情理”才能满足特殊且极其不寻常困难标准之后，仍作出了这一认定。在Matter of Monreal（同上）中，我们明确拒绝了不合情理标准，认为其过高。现在，多数意见拒绝了移民法官关于困难的认定，即

3 In my view, nonpermanent resident cancellation of removal cases are different from many other cases coming before the Immigration Judges and the Board. This applicant, like many cancellation applicants, entered the United States illegally. While I do not condone this and believe in the strong enforcement of our laws against illegal entry, I also believe that this respondent’s case, and those of persons like her, should be considered in a different light from the cases of criminal or other undesirable aliens. This respondent and her family exhibit many of the values that we, as a society, purport to value. They are hardworking, law-abiding people with strong family values. They pay taxes, are active in their schools and churches, own their own homes, and do not depend on public assistance. We have always required extraordinary equities from criminal aliens before allowing them to stay. Within the confines of the cancellation of removal statute that we are bound to apply, we should not require the same when confronted with individuals such as this respondent. See generally Eric Schmitt, U.S.-Mexico Talks Produce Agreement on Immigration Policy, N.Y. Times, Aug. 10, 2001, at A4 (quoting United States Secretary of State Colin L. Powell as stating that Mexicans living in the United States illegally but who have jobs, pay taxes, and are raising United States citizen children would be included in policy initiatives designed to promote legal residency in this country).

3 在我看来，非永久居民取消驱逐案件不同于提交至移民法官和Board的许多其他案件。这位申请人如同许多取消驱逐申请人一样，非法进入美国。虽然我不宽恕这种行为并坚信应强力执行我们反对非法入境的法律，但我也认为本案受访者以及像她这样的人的案件，应与犯罪或其他不受欢迎的外国人的案件区别对待。这位受访者及其家庭展现了我们作为社会所声称珍视的许多价值观。他们是勤劳、守法的具有强烈家庭观念的人。他们纳税，积极参与学校和教会活动，拥有自己的住房，不依赖公共援助。我们一直要求犯罪外国人在获准居留前具有非凡的衡平因素。在我们必须适用的取消驱逐法规范围内，面对像这位受访者这样的个人时，我们不应要求同样的条件。参见一般性Eric Schmitt, U.S.-Mexico Talks Produce Agreement on Immigration Policy, N.Y. Times, Aug. 10, 2001, at A4（引用美国国务卿Colin L. Powell的话，称居住在美国非法但拥有工作、纳税并抚养美国公民子女的墨西哥人将被纳入旨在促进该国合法居留的政策倡议）。

334

334

Cite as 23 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2002) Interim Decision #3467

引用为 23 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2002) 临时决定 #3467

respondent’s children would face if removed to Mexico would meet that high standard and concludes that the hardship would not even meet the somewhat lower standard we set forth in Matter of Monreal.

受访者的子女若被驱逐至墨西哥将面临的困难会达到该高标准，并得出结论认为该困难甚至不会达到我们在Matter of Monreal中设定的略低标准。

As the fact finder in this case, the Immigration Judge was meticulous in reviewing the record and in attempting to assess the hardship issue. The Immigration Judge recounted the respondent’s testimony about the hardship that her oldest child, 11-year-old Tanya, would face in Mexico. For example, in the United States, Tanya’s school classes are conducted in English, and she is performing very well in school. In Mexico, Tanya would suffer academically since she has limited knowledge of “academic” Spanish; she would be unable to keep up with her peers and would probably be forced to enroll at a lower grade level, in addition to being placed in an educational system that is substandard when compared to that in the United States. The Immigration Judge supported his findings with documentary evidence in the record pertaining to Mexico’s educational system.

作为本案的事实认定者，移民法官在审查记录和试图评估困难问题方面一丝不苟。移民法官叙述了受访者关于其最年长的孩子、11岁的Tanya在墨西哥将面临的困难的证词。例如，在美国，Tanya的学校课程以英语进行，她在学校表现非常好。在墨西哥，Tanya将在学业上受苦，因为她对“学术”西班牙语知之甚少；她将无法跟上同龄人，可能被迫进入较低的年级，此外还将被置于与美国相比不合格的教育体系中。移民法官以记录中有关墨西哥教育体系的书面证据支持其认定。

The Immigration Judge concluded that the citizen children would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if they accompany their mother to Mexico. Again, the Immigration Judge supported this decision with documentary evidence highlighting the difficulties that persons in the respondent’s position face in Mexico. In considering all of the factors in this case, the Immigration Judge applied a “totality of the circumstances” test to find it appropriate to grant cancellation of removal. That is a reasonable approach. Indeed, each one of the factors considered by the Immigration Judge individually may not be enough to meet the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship standard. Taking those factors together, however, I agree with the Immigration Judge that with this family’s particular set of circumstances, the citizen children would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if the respondent is removed to Mexico.

移民法官认定，如果公民子女随其母亲前往墨西哥，他们将遭受特殊且极其不寻常的困难。移民法官再次以书面证据支持这一裁定，这些证据着重说明了处于 respondent 处境的人在墨西哥所面临的困难。在考虑本案所有因素时，移民法官适用了“总体情况”检验，认定批准取消递解是适当的。这是一种合理的方法。的确，移民法官所考虑的每一项因素单独来看可能都不足以达到特殊且极其不寻常困难的标准。然而，将这些因素综合起来看，我同意移民法官的意见：鉴于这个家庭的特定情况，如果 respondent 被递解至墨西哥，公民子女将遭受特殊且极其不寻常的困难。

The Immigration Judge thoughtfully considered this case, and I find inadequate reasons for reversing his decision. The standard set forth in Matter of Monreal, supra, at 65, is that a cancellation applicant must show hardship to qualifying relatives that is “substantially different from, or beyond, that which would normally be expected from the deportation of an alien with close family members here.” For the reasons discussed above, I believe that the respondent has made such a showing, and that the Immigration Judge’s grant of cancellation should be upheld and the Service’s appeal dismissed.

移民法官审慎地考虑了本案，我认为没有充分理由推翻其裁定。Matter of Monreal, supra, at 65 所确立的标准是，取消递解申请人必须证明符合条件的亲属所遭受的困难“与通常预期一名有近亲属在本国的外国人被递解出境所会造成的困难有实质不同，或超出该困难”。基于上述理由，我认为 respondent 已作出此种证明，移民法官批准取消递解的裁定应予维持，Service 的上诉应予驳回。

Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

因此，我谨提出异议。

335

335