Matter of V-S-G- Inc.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Office of the Director (MS 2000) Washington, DC 20529-2000

美国公民及移民服务局 局长办公室（MS 2000） 华盛顿特区 20529-2000

Policy Memorandum

政策备忘录

SUBJECT: Matter of V-S-G- Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-06 (AAO Nov. 11, 2017)

主题：Matter of V-S-G- Inc.，Adopted Decision 2017-06（AAO 2017年11月11日）

Purpose This policy memorandum (PM) designates the attached decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in Matter of V-S-G- Inc. as an Adopted Decision. Accordingly, this adopted decision establishes policy guidance that applies to and binds all U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) employees. USCIS personnel are directed to follow the reasoning in this decision in similar cases.

目的 本政策备忘录（PM）将行政上诉办公室（AAO）在Matter of V-S-G- Inc.一案中所附的裁决指定为“采纳裁决”（Adopted Decision）。因此，本采纳裁决确立了适用于并约束所有美国公民及移民服务局（USCIS）雇员的政策指导。USCIS人员被指示在类似案件中遵循本裁决的推理。

Matter of V-S-G- Inc. clarifies that beneficiaries of valid employment-based immigrant visa petitions who are eligible to change jobs or employers (“port”) and who have properly requested to do so under section 204(j) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(j), are “affected parties” under DHS regulations for purposes of revocation proceedings of their visa petitions and must be afforded an opportunity to participate in those proceedings. Other kinds of visa petition beneficiaries, and the subsequent employers of beneficiaries who have ported or sought to port, are not affected parties under DHS regulations and may not participate in visa revocation proceedings.

Matter of V-S-G- Inc.澄清：有效就业类移民签证申请的受益人，如果符合更换工作或雇主的条件（“port”），并且已根据《移民与国籍法》第204(j)条、8 U.S.C. § 1154(j) 正确请求这样做，则就撤销其签证申请的程序而言，属于DHS法规下的“受影响方”（affected parties），必须被给予参与这些程序的机会。其他类型的签证申请受益人，以及已port或寻求port的受益人的后续雇主，不属于DHS法规下的受影响方，不得参与签证撤销程序。

Use This PM is intended solely for the guidance of USCIS personnel in the performance of their official duties. It is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or by any individual or other party in removal proceedings, in litigation with the United States, or in any other form or manner.

使用 本PM仅供USCIS人员在履行公务时作为指导。其无意、也不得被依赖以创设任何权利或利益，无论是实体性的还是程序性的，可由任何个人或其他当事人在遣返程序中、在与美国的诉讼中或以任何其他形式或方式在法律上或通过其他方式强制执行。

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

行政上诉办公室 美国公民及移民服务局 国土安全部

November 11, 2017 [1]

2017年11月11日 [1]

FOR THE PETITIONER: Leena Snellman, Esquire, Owings Mills, Maryland

申请人代理律师：Leena Snellman，Esquire，马里兰州奥因斯米尔斯

This decision settles a tension between longstanding agency regulations and subsequent developments in the law regarding who is a cognizable party to a Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker. Most immigration benefit proceedings involve one recognized party, either an “applicant” seeking a benefit for himself or herself (and possibly for derivative family members as well) or a “petitioner” who seeks a benefit on behalf of someone else (who is known as a “beneficiary”). Traditionally, the applicant or petitioner is the only recognized party to the proceeding; that is, the beneficiary of a petition generally does not have the ability to participate in the immigration proceeding initiated by the petitioner. Today, we explore a scenario in which a Form I-140 beneficiary may become a recognized party in certain limited circumstances in light of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 (AC21) and one of its

本裁决解决了长期存在的机构法规与法律后续发展之间关于谁是Form I-140（外籍工人移民申请）可承认当事方的紧张关系。大多数移民福利程序涉及一个被承认的当事方，要么是为自己（可能也为衍生家庭成员）寻求福利的“申请人”（applicant），要么是代表他人（称为“受益人”）寻求福利的“申请人”（petitioner）。传统上，申请人或呈请人是程序中唯一被承认的当事方；也就是说，申请的受益人一般无权参与呈请人发起的移民程序。今天，我们探讨一种情形：鉴于2000年《二十一世纪美国竞争力法》（AC21）及其对移民法的一项修正，Form I-140受益人在某些有限情况下可能成为被承认的当事方。在此过程中，我们将解释USCIS对适用法规的当前解释，以允许下文所述的此类受益人参与相关行政程序。

Matter of V-S-G- Inc. Adopted Decision

Matter of V-S-G- Inc. 采纳裁决

amendments to the immigration laws. In so doing, we will explain the current USCIS interpretation of applicable regulations to allow such a beneficiary, described below, to participate in relevant administrative proceedings.

修正案。在此过程中，我们将解释USCIS对适用法规的当前解释，以允许下文所述的此类受益人参与相关行政程序。

I. INTRODUCTION

I. 引言

First, we need to set the stage by introducing the case-specific facts and procedural history, as well as the evolving legal landscape that informs our analysis. The Petitioner in this case, Vision Systems Group Inc. (VSG), is (or was) an information technology services company that sought to employ the Beneficiary, an Indian national, in a permanent position as a software engineer. 2 More specifically, the Petitioner sought second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification of the Beneficiary as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 3 To this end, the Petitioner first secured a labor certification from the Department of Labor (DOL) in 2005, the first step in the process, and, in 2006, filed the certification with a Form I-140 immigrant petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). USCIS later approved the Form I-140 petition.

首先，我们需要通过介绍本案具体事实和程序历史，以及影响我们分析的不断演变的法律环境，来奠定基础。本案的申请人Vision Systems Group Inc.（VSG）是（或曾是）一家信息技术服务公司，寻求雇用受益人（一名印度国民）担任软件工程师的永久职位。2 更具体地说，申请人寻求将受益人作为持有高级学位的专业人士归类为第二优先（EB-2）移民。3 为此，申请人首先于2005年从劳工部（DOL）获得劳工证，这是流程的第一步，并于2006年将劳工证与Form I-140移民申请一起提交给美国公民及移民服务局（USCIS）。USCIS后来批准了Form I-140申请。

A beneficiary of an approved I-140 visa petition may file a Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (the adjustment of status application), which, if approved, affords the beneficiary lawful permanent residence in the United States. Before such an application can be filed, however, a visa must be immediately available to the beneficiary. Visa availability is determined by a beneficiary’s “priority date,” which, in this context, is set on the date of filing the labor certification with DOL. This priority date is essential to each I-140 petition, and particularly for nationals of certain countries (such as India, at present) where the demand for certain visa categories greatly exceeds visa availability. 4 When demand exceeds supply for a particular visa category or foreign state and, therefore, the preference visa category or foreign state is oversubscribed, the Department of State must impose a cut-off date. When the Department of State imposes a cut-off date, only beneficiaries with a priority date earlier than the cut-off date may apply for adjustment. In 2007, the Beneficiary’s 2005 priority date became current (meaning, a visa became immediately available), and he accordingly filed his adjustment of status application.

已批准I-140签证申请的受益人可提交Form I-485（登记永久居留或调整身份申请，即调整身份申请），该申请如获批准，即赋予受益人在美国的合法永久居留权。然而，在此类申请可以提交之前，必须立即有签证可供受益人使用。签证可用性由受益人的“优先日期”决定，在此背景下，优先日期定为向DOL提交劳工证的日期。该优先日期对每份I-140申请都至关重要，特别是对于某些国家（如目前的印度）的国民，这些国家对某些签证类别的需求大大超过签证可用性。4 当某一特定签证类别或外国国家的需求超过供应，因此该优先签证类别或外国国家超额认购时，国务院必须设定截止日期。当国务院设定截止日期时，只有优先日期早于截止日期的受益人才能申请调整身份。2007年，受益人2005年的优先日期变为当前（即签证变为立即可用），他因此提交了调整身份申请。

Priority dates generally advance with time, but when more people apply for a visa in a particular category than there are visas available, a priority date that is current one month may not be current the next month. This is called visa retrogression. Retrogression, along with general limits on visa availability, can result in applicants from certain countries in certain preference categories waiting years to be eligible to receive a visa number after filing an application for adjustment. This is what

优先日期通常随时间推进，但当某一特定类别申请签证的人数多于可用签证数时，一个月为当前的优先日期下个月可能不再当前。这称为签证倒退（visa retrogression）。倒退以及对签证可用性的一般限制，可能导致某些国家某些优先类别的申请人在提交调整身份申请后等待数年才有资格获得签证号码。这就是本案发生的情况，当受益人的优先日期不再当前时，USCIS将其调整身份申请搁置，直到其优先日期在第二优先移民类别和其原籍国两方面再次充分推进。5

2

2

Matter of V-S-G- Inc. Adopted Decision

Matter of V-S-G- Inc. 采纳裁决

happened in this case, when the Beneficiary’s priority date was no longer current, USCIS placed his adjustment application on hold until his priority date had again sufficiently advanced, both for the second preference immigration category and his country of origin. 5

本案发生的情况，当受益人的优先日期不再当前时，USCIS将其调整身份申请搁置，直到其优先日期在第二优先移民类别和其原籍国两方面再次充分推进。5

Prior to 2000, if the beneficiary changed jobs or employers while waiting for his priority date to become current, the new employer would have needed to file a new labor certification and Form I­ 140 petition. Otherwise, the beneficiary would be bound to the same job with his sponsoring employer until a priority date became current and he adjusted status to that of a lawful permanent resident.

在2000年之前，如果受益人在等待优先日期变为当前期间更换工作或雇主，新雇主将需要提交新的劳工证和Form I-140申请。否则，受益人将受限于其担保雇主的同一工作，直到优先日期变为当前并且其身份调整为合法永久居民。

In 2000, however, Congress enacted the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 (AC21). 6 As explored further below, AC21 included a “portability” provision – codified at section 204(j) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1154(j), that allows a beneficiary of a valid employment-based immigrant visa petition, whose adjustment of status application has been pending for 180 days or more, to change the intended job or employer if the new job is in the same or similar occupational classification, without relying upon the new employer to file a new labor certification or Form I-140 to support his or her adjustment of status. 7

然而，在2000年，国会颁布了2000年《二十一世纪美国竞争力法》（AC21）。6 如下文进一步探讨，AC21包含一项“可携带性”（portability）条款——编纂于《移民与国籍法》（INA）第204(j)条、8 U.S.C. § 1154(j)，该条款允许有效就业类移民签证申请的受益人，其调整身份申请已待决180天或以上，在相同或相似职业分类中更换预期工作或雇主，而无需依赖新雇主提交新的劳工证或Form I-140来支持其调整身份。7

And that is what happened here. The Beneficiary first changed employers and took a new position with Z, Inc. in 2010 and then changed employers a second time to Marlabs, Inc. in 2011. 8

本案发生的就是这种情况。受益人首先更换雇主，于2010年在Z, Inc.担任新职位，然后于2011年第二次更换雇主至Marlabs, Inc.。8

Meanwhile, the president of VSG (the original Petitioner) was convicted of mail fraud in connection with another USCIS petition. As a result, USCIS sought to revoke the approval of this immigrant visa petition filed by VSG on behalf of the Beneficiary (along with those of other VSG beneficiaries). Following the then applicable regulations and practice, 9 USCIS sent a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) the approval of the petition to Petitioner’s counsel (who also happened to represent the Beneficiary in this case). The NOIR stated that VSG’s two principals had pled guilty

与此同时，VSG（原申请人）的总裁因涉及另一份USCIS申请的邮件欺诈被定罪。因此，USCIS寻求撤销VSG代表受益人提交的这份移民签证申请的批准（以及其他VSG受益人的申请）。按照当时适用的法规和惯例，9 USCIS向申请人律师（恰好也在本案中代表受益人）发送了撤销批准意向通知（NOIR）。NOIR指出，VSG的两名负责人已认罪

3

3

Matter of V-S-G- Inc. Adopted Decision

Matter of V-S-G- Inc. 采纳决定

to charges related to fraud, and that this fact cast doubt on the validity of this (and other) VSG petitions. Counsel responded on behalf of the Beneficiary, contesting the NOIR; Petitioner VSG did not respond to the NOIR through counsel or in its own right. USCIS revoked the petition’s approval due to the Petitioner’s failure to respond. The Beneficiary appealed the revocation to this office, and we dismissed the appeal. The matter is currently before us on a motion to reopen and reconsider.

与欺诈相关的指控，且这一事实使本（及其他）VSG申请的有效性受到质疑。律师代表受益人回应，对NOIR提出异议；申请人VSG未通过律师或自行回应NOIR。USCIS因申请人未回应而撤销了申请的批准。受益人向本办公室对撤销提出上诉，我们驳回了上诉。此事目前因重新开放和重新考虑的动议而摆在我们面前。

This situation points to a tension between a benefit an I-140 beneficiary may request under AC21 and pre-existing USCIS regulations establishing who may be recognized or be an affected party in proceedings relating to I-140 petitions. As noted above, AC21 allows certain I-140 petition beneficiaries to move a valid, permanent offer of employment to a different employer than the one who filed the original petition if his or her adjustment application has been pending for 180 days or more. Even if the beneficiary seeks to “port” to another employer, however, the initial visa petition may be subject to revocation in certain circumstances which, if revoked, could harm the beneficiary by making him or her ineligible for adjustment of status. But the applicable revocation regulation, which was originally promulgated 10 years before the enactment of AC21, provides that “[r]evocation of the approval of a petition . . . will be made only on notice to the petitioner” who is given an opportunity to reply in opposition. 8 C.F.R. § 205.2(b) (emphasis added). 10 That section also states that notice of any revocation and its underlying reasons, as well as the right to appeal any decision to revoke, will also be provided to the petitioner without reference to the beneficiary. 8 C.F.R. § 205.2(c), (d). Moreover, the agency’s broadly applicable appeal and motion regulations explicitly deny beneficiaries the right to file motions or appeals in these case types. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(iii)(B) (“For purposes of [appeals, motions, and decisions certified for review], affected party . . . means the person or entity with legal standing in a proceeding. It does not include the beneficiary of a visa petition.”) (emphasis in original).

这种情况指向I-140受益人根据AC21可能请求的福利与USCIS现有法规之间的紧张关系，后者确立了在I-140申请相关程序中谁可以被认可或成为受影响方。如上所述，AC21允许某些I-140申请受益人在其调整身份申请已待决180天或更长时间的情况下，将有效的永久性工作邀请转移至不同于提交原始申请的雇主。然而，即使受益人寻求“转换”至另一雇主，初始签证申请在某些情况下仍可能被撤销，如果撤销，可能通过使受益人失去调整身份资格而对其造成损害。但适用的撤销法规——最初在AC21颁布前10年颁布——规定“[撤销]申请的批准……仅在对申请人发出通知后进行”，申请人有机会提出反对答复。8 C.F.R. § 205.2(b)（强调添加）。10 该条还规定，任何撤销的通知及其 underlying 理由，以及上诉任何撤销决定的权利，也将提供给申请人，而不提及受益人。8 C.F.R. § 205.2(c), (d)。此外，该机构广泛适用的上诉和动议法规明确否认受益人在这些案件类型中提交动议或上诉的权利。见8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(iii)(B)（“就[上诉、动议和认证审查决定]而言，受影响方……指在程序中具有法律地位的人或实体。它不包括签证申请的受益人。”）（原文强调）。

While AC21 lets a beneficiary port a permanent job offer to a new employer, the pre-existing regulations contemplate the original petitioning employer as the only recognized party to an immigration proceeding that may continue to affect the beneficiary’s immigration future. As discussed below, these regulations do not take into account the fact that, under AC21, and as in this case, while the original petitioner-employer and beneficiary may no longer intend to enter into an employment relationship, they can remain connected for immigration law purposes.

虽然AC21允许受益人将永久性工作邀请转换至新雇主，但现有法规将原始申请雇主视为移民程序中唯一被认可的一方，该程序可能继续影响受益人的移民未来。如下文所讨论，这些法规未考虑到以下事实：根据AC21，且如本案所示，虽然原始申请人-雇主和受益人可能不再打算建立雇佣关系，但为了移民法目的，他们仍可保持关联。

4

4

Matter of V-S-G- Inc. Adopted Decision

Matter of V-S-G- Inc. 采纳决定

II. DISCUSSION

II. 讨论

A. Legal Background

A. 法律背景

1. Traditional Petitioner-Beneficiary Relationship

1. 传统申请人-受益人关系

Immigration law has long recognized that petitioners control the visa petitions that they file; a beneficiary cannot compel a petitioner to pursue a visa petition on the beneficiary’s behalf. 11 Were this not the case, awkward and undesirable circumstances would arise, in which employers could be compelled to pursue immigration benefits for foreign workers whose services they no longer need. 12

移民法长期以来承认申请人控制其提交的签证申请；受益人不能强迫申请人代表受益人追求签证申请。11 若非如此，将出现尴尬和不可取的情况，即雇主可能被迫为其不再需要服务的外国工人追求移民福利。12

As introduced in the previous section, the long-standing general rule – that beneficiaries do not receive notice relating to the adjudication or revocation of a petition’s approval and are not accorded standing to administratively challenge any unfavorable result – is codified in the regulations. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(a)(3) (“A beneficiary of a petition is not a recognized party in [a benefit request] proceeding.”), 103.3(a)(1)(iii)(B) (for administrative appeals, certifications, and motions, a beneficiary is not an “affected party” with legal standing in a proceeding). Generally, unless a beneficiary is permitted by law to self-petition, USCIS only communicates with petitioners, not the beneficiaries of petitions that those petitioners have filed. 13

如上一节所介绍，长期存在的一般规则——受益人不会收到有关申请裁决或撤销批准的通知，也不被赋予行政挑战任何不利结果的法律地位——已编纂在法规中。见8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(a)(3)（“申请的受益人不是[福利请求]程序中的认可方。”），103.3(a)(1)(iii)(B)（对于行政上诉、认证和动议，受益人不是程序中具有法律地位的“受影响方”）。通常，除非法律允许受益人自行申请，USCIS仅与申请人沟通，而不与这些申请人提交的申请的受益人沟通。13

In like manner, USCIS currently serves NOIRs only to the petitioners, not the petitions’ beneficiaries. 8 C.F.R. § 205.2(b) (“Revocation of the approval of a petition [or] self-petition . . . will be made only on notice to the petitioner or self-petitioner.”). The same applies to notifications of the revocations themselves and of the resultant right to appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 205.2(c)-(d). And, as noted above, beneficiaries are explicitly prohibited from filing a motion on or an appeal from a denied or revoked immigration benefit. 8 C.F.R § 103.3(a)(1)(iii)(B).

同样，USCIS目前仅向申请人送达NOIR，而非申请的受益人。8 C.F.R. § 205.2(b)（“撤销申请[或]自行申请的批准……仅在对申请人或自行申请人发出通知后进行。”）。这同样适用于撤销通知本身以及由此产生的上诉权。8 C.F.R. § 205.2(c)-(d)。并且，如上所述，受益人明确被禁止对被拒绝或撤销的移民福利提交动议或上诉。8 C.F.R § 103.3(a)(1)(iii)(B)。

5

5

Matter of V-S-G- Inc. Adopted Decision

Matter of V-S-G- Inc. 采纳决定

Thus, in this immigrant visa petition scenario, two distinct parties exist: the petitioner, who is the individual or entity with the legal authority to request and pursue an immigration benefit, and the beneficiary of such a request, who is dependent on the petitioner for that benefit. The regulations mentioned above contemplate this context, and accordingly were drafted to limit USCIS’ interactions to the petitioner as the sole party to the immigration proceeding.

因此，在这种移民签证申请场景中，存在两个不同的当事方：申请人，即拥有请求和追求移民福利的法律权力的个人或实体，以及此类请求的受益人，其依赖申请人获得该福利。上述法规考虑了这种背景，因此起草时将USCIS的互动限制在申请人作为移民程序的唯一当事方。

2. Individuals Described in Section 204(j) of the Act

2. 法案第204(j)条所述的个人

The traditional distinction of petitioner, beneficiary, and affected party breaks down, however, when the law allows the beneficiary to leave the employ of the original petitioner and take a job elsewhere without disrupting the validity of the underlying immigrant visa petition on which the pending adjustment application depends. As noted above, under AC21, when the beneficiary of a valid I-140 employment-based immigrant visa petition files an adjustment application, and that application remains pending for 180 days or more, the beneficiary may then request to “port” the valid immigrant petition to a new job if that job is the same or similar to the original one. See 8 C.F.R. § 245.25(a). 14 When such a request is submitted, the intent of the original petitioner to employ the beneficiary and of the beneficiary to work for that employer in a permanent position may cease to exist, although the original petition would remain valid for purposes of the beneficiary’s adjustment of status if the request is approved. 15

然而，当法律允许受益人离开原始申请人的雇佣并在其他地方工作，而不破坏待决调整身份申请所依赖的 underlying 移民签证申请的有效性时，申请人、受益人和受影响方的传统区分就瓦解了。如上所述，根据AC21，当有效的I-140就业-based移民签证申请的受益人提交调整身份申请，且该申请待决180天或更长时间，受益人随后可以请求将有效移民申请“转换”至新工作，如果该工作与原工作相同或相似。见8 C.F.R. § 245.25(a)。14 当提交此类请求时，原始申请人雇佣受益人的意图以及受益人为该雇主永久工作的意图可能不复存在，尽管如果请求被批准，原始申请将为受益人的调整身份目的保持有效。15

But if USCIS later discovers fraud, material misrepresentation, or an overlooked material deficiency in the underlying petition, and in turn takes steps to revoke its approval, the original petitioner and the beneficiary may again become intertwined. Following the regulations, USCIS currently provides the NOIR solely to the petitioner. Because the petitioner may no longer intend to employ the beneficiary in a permanent position and thus may have no real interest in the petition’s ongoing validity, the petitioner may elect not to reply to the NOIR, nor notify the beneficiary of its possible revocation. If that happens, USCIS would then revoke the approval of the petition for the reason(s) set forth in the NOIR. Consequently, USCIS would also deny the beneficiary’s pending adjustment application for lack of an approved visa petition. Without prior notice of the NOIR or the petition revocation, the beneficiary would typically learn that his ability to become a lawful permanent resident is in jeopardy only at the time his or her adjustment application is denied. At that point, there is no mechanism for the beneficiary to directly challenge the final agency decision revoking the approval of the underlying visa petition.

但是，如果USCIS后来发现在基础申请中存在欺诈、重大虚假陈述或被忽视的重大缺陷，并进而采取措施撤销其批准，则原申请人和受益人可能再次交织在一起。根据法规，USCIS目前仅向申请人提供NOIR。由于申请人可能不再打算永久雇用受益人，因此可能对申请的持续有效性没有真正利益，申请人可以选择不回复NOIR，也不通知受益人其可能的撤销。如果发生这种情况，USCIS将基于NOIR中所述的理由撤销申请的批准。因此，USCIS还将因缺乏批准的签证申请而拒绝受益人待决的调整身份申请。在没有事先收到NOIR或申请撤销通知的情况下，受益人通常只会在其调整身份申请被拒绝时才知道其成为合法永久居民的能力处于危险之中。此时，受益人没有机制直接质疑撤销基础签证申请批准的最终机构决定。

6

6

Matter of V-S-G- Inc. Adopted Decision

Matter of V-S-G- Inc. 采纳决定

3. Mantena v. Johnson

3. Mantena v. Johnson

In a case very similar to this one, involving the same Petitioner, VSG, the beneficiary’s approved I­ 140 was revoked for the same reasons as in this case. Mantena v. Johnson, 809 F.3d 721 (2d Cir. 2015). In that case, the Second Circuit observed that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations dictating that the petitioner, and not the beneficiary, must be afforded notice of revocation and an opportunity to respond to the notice or challenge the revocation, were originally promulgated a decade before the 2000 enactment of the AC21 statute, which, for the first time, gave beneficiaries the ability to port to new prospective employment from an approved I-140 petition. The court went on to conclude that, in enacting AC21, Congress had altered the traditional relationship between a petitioner and beneficiary such that beneficiaries who are porting under its provisions now had standing to challenge the revocation of the petition’s approval in federal court. Id. at 730-732.

在一个与本案非常相似的案件中，涉及同一申请人VSG，受益人的已批准I-140因与本案相同的原因被撤销。Mantena v. Johnson, 809 F.3d 721 (2d Cir. 2015)。在该案中，第二巡回法院观察到，国土安全部（DHS）法规规定必须向申请人而非受益人提供撤销通知和回应通知或质疑撤销的机会，这些法规最初是在2000年颁布AC21法规之前十年发布的，该法规首次赋予受益人从已批准的I-140申请调动到新的预期就业的能力。法院接着得出结论，在颁布AC21时，国会改变了申请人与受益人之间的传统关系，使得根据其条款调动的受益人现在有资格在联邦法院质疑申请批准的撤销。Id. at 730-732。

The court in Mantena also rejected the argument that the regulations regarding beneficiary standing in administrative proceedings at 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(a)(3) and 103.3(a)(1)(iii)(B) deprived the beneficiary in that case of standing in federal court. The court stated: “the fact that Mantena may not have satisfied USCIS’s definition of ‘legal standing’ before the agency does not mean she does not have standing to bring this lawsuit in federal court.” Id. at 732 (citing Kurapati v. USCIS, 732 F.3d 1255, 1260 (11th Cir. 2014)) (emphasis in original).

Mantena法院还驳回了关于8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(a)(3)和103.3(a)(1)(iii)(B)中有关行政程序中受益人资格的法规剥夺了该案受益人在联邦法院资格的论点。法院表示：“Mantena可能未满足USCIS在机构面前对‘法律资格’的定义，并不意味着她没有资格在联邦法院提起此诉讼。”Id. at 732（引用Kurapati v. USCIS, 732 F.3d 1255, 1260 (11th Cir. 2014)）（原文强调）。

Having thus established the beneficiary’s standing to challenge the sufficiency of the notice of the visa petition’s revocation, the court turned to the issue of the sufficiency of the notice itself and found it to be inadequate, reasoning: “Because the [AC21] portability provisions altered the parties who have an interest in opposing the revocation of a ported I-140 petition, we believe that the regulations must be read to require notice to the real parties in interest.” Mantena, 809 F.3d at 734. The court recognized the possibility that, even if the beneficiary had been given notice, the result may have been the same. Id. at 730. Nevertheless, the court held:

在 thus 确立了受益人质疑签证申请撤销通知充分性的资格后，法院转向通知本身充分性的问题，并认为其不充分，理由如下：“由于[AC21]调动条款改变了在反对已调动I-140申请撤销中有利害关系的当事方，我们认为法规必须被解读为要求通知实际利害关系方。”Mantena, 809 F.3d at 734。法院认识到，即使受益人获得了通知，结果也可能相同。Id. at 730。尽管如此，法院裁定：

USCIS acted inconsistently with the statutory portability provisions of AC21 by providing notice of an intent to revoke neither i) to an alien beneficiary who has availed herself of the portability provisions to move to a successor employer nor ii) to the successor employer, who is not the original I–140 petitioner, but who, as contemplated by AC21, has in effect adopted the original I–140 petition. 16

USCIS在提供撤销意向通知方面与AC21的法定调动条款不一致，既未向已利用调动条款调动到继任雇主的外籍受益人提供通知，也未向继任雇主提供通知，后者不是原始I–140申请人，但如AC21所设想，实际上已采纳了原始I–140申请。16

Id. at 736. It accordingly remanded the case to the district court with instructions to examine what notice to which party, the beneficiary or the new employer, is required under AC21. 17

Id. at 736。因此，它将案件发回地区法院，并指示审查根据AC21需要向哪一方（受益人或新雇主）提供通知。17

7

7

Matter of V-S-G- Inc. Adopted Decision

Matter of V-S-G- Inc. 采纳决定

B. Amicus Curiae Briefing

B. 法庭之友简报

Prior to the Second Circuit decision, but in light of this developing jurisprudence, 18 we solicited amicus curiae briefing on the question of whether beneficiaries of certain employment-based immigrant visa petitions, especially beneficiaries who are subject to the portability provisions of AC21, have standing to participate in the administrative adjudication process, including standing to appeal to this office. 19

在第二巡回法院裁决之前，但鉴于这一发展中的判例法，18 我们就某些就业型移民签证申请的受益人，特别是受AC21调动条款约束的受益人，是否有资格参与行政裁决程序，包括向本办公室上诉的资格问题，征求了法庭之友简报。19

Most of the briefs advocated generally for AC21 beneficiary standing. For example, one noted that AC21 significantly changed the law by permitting beneficiaries who met its criteria to complete the adjustment of status process independent of the original petitioner, and thus recommended that DHS interpret the regulations to permit these beneficiaries – whether or not their adjustment of status applications had been pending for more than 180 days – to receive notice and an opportunity to respond to any adverse actions relating to their visas. This amicus also recommended that DHS amend its regulations to afford all beneficiaries notice and an opportunity to respond in all visa petitions.

大多数简报普遍主张AC21受益人资格。例如，一份简报指出，AC21通过允许符合其标准的受益人独立于原申请人完成调整身份程序，显著改变了法律，因此建议DHS解释法规，允许这些受益人——无论其调整身份申请是否已待决超过180天——收到通知并有机会回应与其签证相关的任何不利行动。该法庭之友还建议DHS修改其法规，在所有签证申请中为所有受益人提供通知和回应机会。

Another amicus advocated for beneficiary standing in cases where the beneficiary of an employment-based visa petition has an application for adjustment of status pending for at least 180 days, whether the visa petition has been approved or is still pending. This amicus noted that AC21 exists to protect the interests of sponsored workers and that, pursuant to recent developments in the case law, a beneficiary who falls under AC21’s provisions must be given standing to defend the employment-based visa petition in all contexts in which the petition’s validity is placed in question.

另一位法庭之友主张，在就业型签证申请的受益人调整身份申请已待决至少180天的案件中，无论签证申请已批准还是仍在待决，受益人均有资格。该法庭之友指出，AC21的存在是为了保护担保工人的利益，并且根据判例法的最新发展，属于AC21条款范围的受益人必须在申请有效性受到质疑的所有情境中被赋予捍卫就业型签证申请的资格。

A third amicus stated that AC21 beneficiaries should have standing to prevent bad-faith employers from taking advantage of beneficiaries’ dependence on employers for their immigration benefits. Finally, one amicus noted that the employment-based immigration framework is designed to protect U.S. workers, in that it permits U.S. employers to hire foreign nationals only if U.S. workers are not available and there will be no adverse effect on U.S. wages or working conditions. Although arguing for a general rule of a lack of judicial or administrative standing for employment-based immigrant visa beneficiaries, this amicus apparently conceded an exception for AC21 beneficiaries.

第三位法庭之友表示，AC21受益人应有资格防止恶意雇主利用受益人对雇主的依赖来获取移民福利。最后，一位法庭之友指出，就业型移民框架旨在保护美国工人，因为它允许美国雇主雇用外国国民，仅当美国工人不可用且不会对美国工资或工作条件产生不利影响时。尽管主张就业型移民签证受益人普遍缺乏司法或行政资格的一般规则，该法庭之友显然承认AC21受益人的例外。

8

8

Matter of V-S-G- Inc. Adopted Decision

Matter of V-S-G- Inc. 采纳决定

C. Analysis

C. 分析

1. Standing in Federal Courts and Administrative Proceedings

1. 联邦法院和行政程序中的资格

First, we will explain the distinction between “standing” as it relates to federal litigation and the ability to pursue matters before USCIS under its regulations. “Article III,” or “case-and­ controversy” standing, is a constitutional limitation on the power of U.S. courts to entertain suits brought before them. See Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377, 1368 (2014) (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)). This kind of standing is not at play in this case.

首先，我们将解释“资格”与联邦诉讼相关以及根据USCIS法规在USCIS面前推进事项的能力之间的区别。“第三条”或“案件或争议”资格是美国法院审理提交给它们的诉讼权力的宪法限制。参见Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377, 1368 (2014)（引用Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)）。这种资格在本案中不适用。

Federal courts also apply a related filter called “prudential standing,” which is often described as comprising at least three principles: “the general prohibition on a litigant’s raising another person’s legal rights, the rule barring adjudication of generalized grievances more appropriately addressed in the representative branches, and the requirement that a plaintiff’s complaint fall within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In Lexmark, the Supreme Court clarified that prudential standing, whatever its boundaries, does not include a “zone-of-interests” test. Rather, the zone-of-interests test is a determination, under traditional approaches to statutory construction, “whether a legislatively conferred cause of action encompasses a particular plaintiff’s claim.” Id. at 1387. Or, put another way, the proper inquiry is whether a plaintiff is a member of a class of persons Congress has authorized to sue under a particular statute. Id.; see also Clarke v. Sec. Indus. Ass’n, 479 U.S. 388, 401 (1987) (“[T]he [“zone of interest”] test denies a right of review if the plaintiff’s interests are so marginally related to or inconsistent with the purposes implicit in the statute that it cannot reasonably be assumed that Congress intended to permit the suit.”).

联邦法院还适用一项相关的过滤标准，称为“审慎性起诉资格”，通常被描述为至少包含三项原则：“普遍禁止诉讼当事人主张他人的法律权利；禁止裁决更适合由代表分支处理的普遍性不满的规则；以及要求原告的申诉属于所援引法律保护的利益范围之内。”同上（引文和内部引号省略）。在Lexmark案中，最高法院澄清，审慎性起诉资格，无论其边界如何，都不包括“利益范围”测试。相反，利益范围测试是根据传统的成文法解释方法，确定“立法赋予的诉讼原因是否涵盖特定原告的索赔”。同上，第1387页。或者，换句话说，适当的调查是原告是否属于国会授权根据特定法规提起诉讼的人员类别。同上；另见Clarke v. Sec. Indus. Ass’n, 479 U.S. 388, 401 (1987)（“[‘利益范围’]测试拒绝审查权利，如果原告的利益与法规隐含的目的如此边际相关或不一致，以至于不能合理假定国会打算允许该诉讼。”）。

Several courts have noted that these limitations on the ability to sue in federal court are distinct from the ability to pursue immigration benefits in administrative proceedings before USCIS. See, e.g., Mantena, 809 F.3d at 732 (citing Kurapati, 775 F.3d at 1260). Nonetheless, after finding that AC21 beneficiaries have standing to sue in federal court, the Mantena court stated that the regulations barring beneficiary standing as a general matter must be read in light of the AC21 portability provisions to require notice and an opportunity to respond to “the real parties in interest.” Id. at 734. The court remanded the case for consideration of “how to read the regulation so that it best comports with the notice requirements implicit in, but nonetheless mandated by, AC21.” Id. Although there is a distinction between a zone-of-interests analysis for purposes of the ability to sue in federal court and the opportunity to participate in administrative revocation proceedings, the same or similar factors and concerns apply in both circumstances, and the court so concluded in remanding the case for further inquiry.

若干法院指出，这些在联邦法院起诉能力的限制不同于在USCIS行政程序中寻求移民福利的能力。见，例如，Mantena, 809 F.3d at 732（引用Kurapati, 775 F.3d at 1260）。然而，在认定AC21受益人具有在联邦法院起诉的资格后，Mantena法院表示，作为一般事项禁止受益人起诉资格的法规必须结合AC21可携带性条款来解读，以要求通知并有机会回应“真正的利害关系方”。同上，第734页。法院将案件发回重审，以考虑“如何解读该法规，使其最符合AC21隐含但 nonetheless 强制要求的通知要求”。同上。尽管为在联邦法院起诉能力之目的进行的利益范围分析与参与行政撤销程序的机会之间存在区别，但相同或类似的因素和关切在两种情况下均适用，法院在发回重审进一步调查时如此结论。

In sum, Congress in enacting AC21 gave a specifically delineated class of beneficiaries the ability to choose another employer or job. The regulations regarding administrative standing for these individuals, however, have never been amended or their application altered in light of this significant change in the traditional stance of the parties. Consonant with the Mantena court’s invitation to do so, and as set forth more fully below, we now interpret those regulations to recognize two affected

总之，国会在颁布AC21时赋予了一个明确界定的受益人群体选择另一雇主或工作的能力。然而，关于这些个人行政起诉资格的法规从未被修订，或其适用从未因当事人传统立场的这一重大变化而改变。与Mantena法院的邀请相一致，并如下文更全面阐述，我们现在解释这些法规，以在AC21可携带性背景下承认两个受影响的

9

9

Matter of V-S-G- Inc. Adopted Decision

Matter of V-S-G- Inc. 采纳决定

parties in the context of AC21 portability: (1) a beneficiary who is eligible to port and has properly requested to port an immigrant petition under AC21; and (2) the original petitioner-employer. However, we decline to revisit our interpretation of 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.3(a)(1)(iii)(B), 205.2(b), (c)-(d) to include any other immigrant or nonimmigrant beneficiaries, or any subsequent employers of ported or porting beneficiaries as entitled to any notice in this context.

AC21 可携带性语境下的当事人：(1) 有资格携带并已根据 AC21 适当请求携带移民申请的受益人；以及 (2) 原申请人-雇主。但是，我们拒绝重新审视我们对 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.3(a)(1)(iii)(B)、205.2(b)、(c)-(d) 的解释以将任何其他移民或非移民受益人，或已携带或正在携带的受益人的任何后续雇主纳入在此语境下有权获得任何通知的范围。

2. The AC21 Beneficiary

2. AC21受益人

First, we agree with the Second Circuit, amici, and the Beneficiary on this general proposition: AC21 places certain beneficiaries of Form I-140 petitions within the zone of interests of its statutory provisions that authorize porting to eligible new employment. As discussed above, a beneficiary might not, by virtue of porting, become entirely independent of his or her petitioning employer. Even so, or especially so, AC21 gives some beneficiaries a statutory interest in job flexibility that we will recognize in our administrative immigration proceedings. But further analysis is necessary to determine precisely which beneficiaries fall within the statute’s zone of interests.

首先，我们同意第二巡回法院、法庭之友和受益人的这一一般主张：AC21将I-140申请表的某些受益人置于其法定条款的利益范围之内，这些条款授权携带至合格的新就业。如上所述，受益人可能不会因携带而完全独立于其申请雇主。即便如此，或尤其如此，AC21赋予某些受益人在工作灵活性方面的法定利益，我们将在行政移民程序中予以承认。但需要进一步分析以确定哪些受益人确切属于法规的利益范围。

Although the zone-of-interests analysis applies to standing in federal court, we conclude by analogy that it is also appropriate for USCIS to interpret its agency regulations regarding standing in administrative proceedings in a manner equally mindful of the benefit AC21 makes available to certain beneficiaries. We will accordingly allow beneficiaries who are eligible to port and have properly requested to port under AC21 to participate in proceedings to revoke underlying I-140 petitions filed on their behalf, including any appeals or motions in those proceedings.

尽管利益范围分析适用于联邦法院的起诉资格，但我们通过类比得出结论，USCIS同样适合以同等关注AC21为某些受益人提供的利益的方式解释其关于行政程序起诉资格的机构法规。因此，我们将允许有资格携带并根据AC21妥善请求携带的受益人参与撤销代表其提交的 underlying I-140申请的 program，包括这些程序中的任何上诉或动议。

We emphasize that, to fall within the statute’s zone of interests, a beneficiary must be eligible to and have properly requested to port under AC21, which requires, among other things, that the new employment be in the same or similar position. Therefore, USCIS must assess the characteristics of the new position to ascertain if this is the case, and will only be able to do so if made aware of the new job and its details. 20 If USCIS determines that a beneficiary is eligible to and has properly requested to port under AC21 to a qualifying new job, USCIS will now afford that person notice of any intent to revoke the underlying I-140 visa petition filed on his or her behalf, and an opportunity to reply before it is revoked. In Mantena, the Court noted the relevance of the fact that the plaintiff had, in fact, requested to port. 809 F.3d at 733 (“[T]he INA, as amended by AC-21, requires some form of such notice for post-porting beneficiaries, at least as to those aliens who have notified USCIS of their change in employment, ….”) (emphasis added).

我们强调，要属于法规的利益范围，受益人必须有资格并根据AC21妥善请求携带，这要求，除其他事项外，新就业处于相同或类似职位。因此，USCIS必须评估新职位的特征以确定是否如此，并且只有在获知新工作及其细节时才能这样做。20 如果USCIS确定受益人有资格并根据AC21妥善请求携带至合格的新工作，USCIS现在将向该人提供任何撤销代表其提交的 underlying I-140签证申请意向的通知，并在撤销前有机会回复。在Mantena案中，法院指出原告事实上已请求携带这一事实的相关性。809 F.3d at 733（“[经AC-21修订的]INA要求对携带后受益人提供某种形式的此类通知，至少对于已通知USCIS其就业变化的那些外国人，……”）（强调 added）。

10

10

Matter of V-S-G- Inc. Adopted Decision

Matter of V-S-G- Inc. 采纳决定

3. Other Beneficiaries

3. 其他受益人

We are not, however, persuaded by assertions of some amici that a broader universe of beneficiaries in various or even all immigration categories should receive similar consideration as affected parties under the immigration regulations. Neither the statutory language in AC21 nor its legislative history suggests that Congress was concerned with other beneficiaries beyond the specific scenario redressed by AC21. 21 Other classes of beneficiaries have been subject to long delays in their immigration benefits due, for example, to statutory caps, but Congress has taken no similar actions to allow those beneficiaries any measure of independence from their original petitioners.

然而，我们不被一些法庭之友的主张所说服，即各种甚至所有移民类别中更广泛的受益人应在移民法规下作为受影响方获得类似考虑。AC21中的法定语言及其立法历史均未表明国会关注AC21所解决的具体场景之外的其他受益人。21 其他类别的受益人因其移民福利长期延误，例如由于法定上限，但国会未采取类似行动允许这些受益人以任何程度独立于其原申请人。

We do not agree with those courts that have suggested that a broader class of employment-based beneficiaries have standing to challenge their denied or revoked I-140 visa petitions in federal court. See e.g., Patel, 732 F.3d at 636 (stating that, for purposes of Article III and prudential standing, the immigration laws make the visa available to the immigrant, not the employer, suggesting that the immigrant had a stake in whether he was granted the visa). 22 We do not see in the relevant statutes that Congress intended for beneficiaries to be within the statute’s zone of interests – in fact, the opposite is the case. The immigration laws quite clearly place the power to pursue immigration benefits with petitioners and self-petitioners, and the AC21 framework is a unique exception for the reasons explained above. Upon careful review of the evolution of the statutory scheme and the associated legislative history, we conclude that Congress did not intend all beneficiaries to be within

我们不同意那些法院的建议，即更广泛的就业类受益人有资格在联邦法院质疑其被拒绝或撤销的I-140签证申请。见例如，Patel, 732 F.3d at 636（指出，为第三条和审慎性起诉资格之目的，移民法使签证可供移民而非雇主，表明移民在是否获得签证方面有利益）。22 我们在相关法规中看不到国会打算让受益人属于法规的利益范围——事实上，情况相反。移民法相当清楚地将寻求移民福利的权力赋予申请人和自我申请人，而AC21框架是出于上述原因的独特例外。经仔细审查法定计划的演变和相关立法历史，我们得出结论，国会不打算让所有受益人属于

11

11

Matter of V-S-G- Inc. Adopted Decision

Matter of V-S-G- Inc. 采纳决定

the Act’s zone of interest. 23 We therefore decline to extend our construction of DHS regulations to afford standing in revocation proceedings beyond the specific class of AC21, employment-based beneficiaries outlined above.

该法的利益范围。23 因此，我们拒绝将我们对DHS法规的解释扩展至在上述特定类别的AC21就业类受益人之外，赋予撤销程序中的原告资格。

4. The Petitioner

4. 申请人

We also find that the original petitioner-employer remains an affected party under the regulations, even if a beneficiary has properly requested to port to a new employer. We recognize some petitioners may not be interested in the immigration outcome of beneficiaries who seek to port to a new employer under AC21, but this will not always be so. As an initial matter, the regulations still require that the petitioner be given notice and an opportunity to respond to a NOIR. In addition to regulatory-prescribed standing, even if a beneficiary has properly requested to port to a new employer under AC21, a petitioner remains interested because it may wish to protect itself against USCIS questions (in a NOIR) of fraud or noncompliance that could impact its other and future petitions. The petitioner may also remain interested because the departed beneficiary’s immigration outcome may impact the petitioner’s efforts to recruit and retain other employees. Alternatively, the petitioner may seek to support the beneficiary to encourage him or her to return to the petitioner’s employ in the future (albeit to assume a permanent position rather than a temporary one). Finally, and more simply, the petitioner is the party who filed the petition, paid the filing fee, and attested to the accuracy of the filing. For all of these reasons, we will presume the original petitioner’s potential interest in the participation in future proceedings and continue to permit them to participate in the administrative proceedings.

我们还认定，即使受益人已适当请求根据AC21转换至新雇主，原始申请人-雇主仍属法规下的受影响方。我们认识到，部分申请人可能对根据AC21寻求转换至新雇主的受益人的移民结果不感兴趣，但情况并非总是如此。首先，法规仍要求向申请人发出NOIR通知并给予回应机会。除法规规定的原告资格外，即使受益人已适当请求根据AC21转换至新雇主，申请人仍具有利益，因为其可能希望保护自身免受USCIS在NOIR中提出的可能影响其其他及未来申请的欺诈或不合规问题的影响。申请人也可能因离职受益人的移民结果可能影响申请人招聘和留住其他雇员的努力而仍具有利益。或者，申请人可能寻求支持受益人，以鼓励其未来返回申请人的工作（尽管是担任永久职位而非临时职位）。最后，更简单地说，申请人是提交申请、支付申请费并证明申请准确性的当事方。基于所有这些理由，我们将推定原始申请人对参与未来程序的潜在利益，并继续允许其参与行政程序。

5. Subsequent Employer(s)

5. 后续雇主

Lastly, we conclude that a subsequent employer to whom an AC21 beneficiary is porting is not an affected party who may participate in proceedings related to the underlying visa petition. We acknowledge that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has recently held to the contrary in a case involving facts very similar to this one. 24 In Musunuru v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 880 (7th Cir.

最后，我们认定，AC21受益人转换至的后续雇主不是可参与与基础签证申请相关程序的受影响方。我们承认，美国第七巡回上诉法院近期在一件事实与本案非常相似的案件中作出了相反裁定。24 在Musunuru v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 880 (7th Cir.

12

12

Matter of V-S-G- Inc. Adopted Decision

Matter of V-S-G- Inc. 采纳决定

2016), the same petitioner as here (VSG) filed a Form I-140 immigrant visa petition on behalf of a beneficiary who later sought to port to a different employer. USCIS revoked the approval of that petition on similar grounds as in this case, i.e., the fraud VSG committed in another case. The court did not find, however, that the beneficiary was entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond, but rather the beneficiary’s current employer was. 25

2016)，与本桉相同的申请人（VSG）代表一名受益人提交了I-140移民签证申请，该受益人后来寻求转换至不同雇主。USCIS以与本桉类似的理由撤销了该申请的批准，即VSG在另一案件中实施的欺诈。然而，法院并未认定受益人有权获得通知和回应机会，而是认定受益人当前的雇主有权。25

We respectfully disagree with this conclusion. The new employer did not pay for the filing, is not responsible for maintaining the petition, is not liable for the original petitioner’s compliance or malfeasance associated with it, and cannot withdraw the petition if it no longer requires the beneficiary’s services. Nor can the new employer prevent the beneficiary from porting to yet another employer (as happened here).

我们恭敬地不同意这一结论。新雇主未支付申请费，不负责维持申请，不对原始申请人与之相关的合规或不当行为承担责任，且若不再需要受益人的服务也无法撤回申请。新雇主也无法阻止受益人转换至另一雇主（如本桉所发生的那样）。

In this case, for example, the beneficiary has already moved on to a third employer. Although AC21 does contemplate new employers in the porting scheme it creates, it does so only as a result of giving the beneficiary the independence to choose a new employer. Indeed, the title of INA section 204(j) is “Job Flexibility for Long Delayed Applicants for Adjustment of Status to Permanent Residence.” That title implies that the focus of the provision was job flexibility for adjustment of status applicants, and not the availability of foreign workers to subsequent employers. Furthermore, as noted above, the legislative history that discusses AC21 porting provisions only evidences Congressional concern with beneficiaries who were enduring lengthy processing delays, no one else.

例如，在本桉中，受益人已转至第三位雇主。尽管AC21在其创设的转换方案中确实考虑了新雇主，但其这样做仅是因为赋予受益人选择新雇主的独立性。事实上，INA第204(j)条的标题是“长期延迟调整身份至永久居民申请人的工作灵活性”。该标题暗示该条款的重点是调整身份申请人的工作灵活性，而非后续雇主可获得外籍工人。此外，如上所述，讨论AC21转换条款的立法历史仅表明国会关注的是经历漫长处理延迟的受益人，而非任何其他人。

Also as a practical matter, in the case of a proposed revocation, any issues related to deficiencies in the underlying immigrant visa petition would relate to either the original petitioner or to the beneficiary. The new employer is presumably in no position to answer questions related to the evidence the petitioner submitted in support of the petition, or to produce such evidence. 26 And beneficiaries do not need the participation of a subsequent employer to answer questions about their education or experience. Furthermore, because a beneficiary must be eligible for a requested benefit at the time of filing and throughout the adjudication period, a subsequent employer cannot cure any deficiencies that relate to the initial petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1).

此外，作为实际问题，在拟议撤销的情况下，与基础移民签证申请缺陷相关的任何问题将涉及原始申请人或受益人。新雇主推定无法回答与申请人提交的支持申请的证据相关的问题，也无法出示此类证据。26 且受益人无需后续雇主的参与即可回答有关其教育或经验的问题。此外，由于受益人必须在提交时及整个裁决期间符合所请求福利的资格，后续雇主无法弥补与初始申请相关的任何缺陷。参见8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1)。

Consistent with the finding in Clarke v. Sec. Indus. Ass’n, that that there is no right of review if the interests are only marginally related to or inconsistent with the purposes implicit in the statute, we conclude that new employers’ interests are so marginally related to and inconsistent with the purposes implicit in the AC21 statute that we do not believe Congress intended to permit their participation in other employers’ administrative proceedings. Clarke v. Sec. Indus. Ass’n, 479 U.S. 388, 399 (1987). Therefore, we are not revising our interpretation of 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.3(a)(1)(iii)(B), 205.2(b), (c)-(d) to include the beneficiary’s subsequent employers, Z, Inc. or Marlabs, Inc., as

与Clarke v. Sec. Indus. Ass’n案中认定若利益仅与法规隐含宗旨边际相关或不一致则无审查权相一致，我们认定新雇主的利益与AC21法规隐含宗旨如此边际相关且不一致，以至于我们认为国会无意允许其参与其他雇主的行政程序。Clarke v. Sec. Indus. Ass’n, 479 U.S. 388, 399 (1987)。因此，我们不会修订对8 C.F.R. §§ 103.3(a)(1)(iii)(B)、205.2(b)、(c)-(d)的解释以将受益人的后续雇主Z, Inc.或Marlabs, Inc.纳入

13

13

Matter of V-S-G- Inc. Adopted Decision

Matter of V-S-G- Inc. 采纳决定

eligible to receive notice in this context or to participate in this administrative proceeding relating to a petition that they did not file and to a beneficiary whom they may or may not still employ or intend to employ. 27

在此背景下有资格获得通知或参与与其未提交的申请以及其可能仍雇用或打算雇用的受益人相关的本行政程序。27

III. CONCLUSION

III. 结论

Because we find that beneficiaries who are eligible to port and properly request to port under AC21 are within the statute’s zone of interests, USCIS interprets that statute as requiring a change in the agency’s historical interpretation of the applicable DHS regulations. Our new interpretation is to treat these beneficiaries as affected parties who may participate in revocation proceedings related to their underlying immigrant visa petitions. Because the Beneficiary in this case, who is eligible to port and properly requested to port in compliance with the requirements under AC21, did not have an opportunity to so participate, we will reopen these proceedings and reinstate the Form I-140 immigrant visa petition relating to the Beneficiary and remand these proceedings to the Director, who must afford the Beneficiary an opportunity to respond to any future NOIR related to this I-140 petition. Should the Director thereafter revoke the immigrant petition’s approval, the Beneficiary may appeal or file a motion to reopen or reconsider from the revocation or he may participate in proceedings arising from an appeal or motion filed by the Petitioner relating to this petition.

因为我们认定，根据AC21有资格转换且适当请求转换的受益人属于该法规的利益范围内，USCIS将该法规解释为要求改变该机构对适用DHS法规的历史解释。我们的新解释是将这些受益人视为可能参与与其基础移民签证申请相关的撤销程序的受影响当事方。由于本案中的受益人，其有资格转换且已按照AC21的要求适当请求转换，却没有机会如此参与，我们将重新开启这些程序，恢复与受益人相关的Form I-140移民签证申请，并将这些程序发回主任，主任必须给予受益人对未来与该I-140申请相关的任何NOIR作出回应的机会。如果主任此后撤销该移民申请的批准，受益人可以对该撤销提出上诉或提交重新开启或重新考虑的动议，或者他可以参与由申请人就该申请提起的上诉或动议所产生的程序。

Cite as Matter of V-S-G- Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-06 (AAO Nov. 11, 2017)

引用为 Matter of V-S-G- Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-06 (AAO Nov. 11, 2017)

14

14