Matter of L-L-

MArrna or L—L-

MArrna或L—L-

In EXCLUSION Proceedings

在排除程序中

BEFORE THE BOARD DISCUSSION: The Acting District Director at El Paso, Texas, appeals from an order entered by the special inquiry officer, Febru- ary 2, 1961, directing the applicant's admission to the United States as a nonquota immigrant. A brief in support of the appeal has been submitted. Counsel for the applicant has submitted a brief in support of the special inquiry officer's decision. The applicant, a native and citizen of Mexico, male, unmarried, 24 years of age, applied for admission at the port of El Paso, Texas, on February 1, 1961. He presented a nonquota immigration visa (classification 0-1) issued by the American Consul at Juarez, Mexico,. on January 30, 1961, valid to May 29, 1961. He also was in posses- sion of, and presented, a Mexican passport issued to him on Octo- ber 4, 1960, and valid to October 3, 1962. He was detained for a hearing by a special inquiry officer on the charge that he has pro- cured documentation by fraud (8 U.S.C. 1182(a) (19)). The issue before us is whether the applicant "procured" a "Form I-151" (alien registration receipt card) by fraud and then used said "Form . I-151" to effect his entry into the United States on March 26, 1959. Concerning this issue, the applicant testified that on or about March 15, 1959, he was "talking with several men in the small plaza . . . in front of La Reforma theater in Cd. Juarez

委员会审理 讨论：德克萨斯州埃尔帕索代理地区主任对特别调查官1961年2月2日作出的命令提出上诉，该命令指示准许申请人作为非配额移民入境美国。已提交支持上诉的简报。申请人的律师已提交支持特别调查官裁决的简报。 申请人系墨西哥本土出生公民，男性，未婚，24岁，于1961年2月1日在德克萨斯州埃尔帕索口岸申请入境。他出示了由墨西哥华雷斯美国领事于1961年1月30日签发的非配额移民签证（类别0-1），有效期至1961年5月29日。他还持有并出示了1960年10月4日签发给他的墨西哥护照，有效期至1962年10月3日。他因被指控以欺诈方式取得证件（8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(19)）而被拘留，等待特别调查官听证。 我们面前的问题是，申请人是否以欺诈方式“取得”了一份“Form I-151”（外国人登记收据卡），然后使用该“Form I-151”于1959年3月26日实现其进入美国。关于这一问题，申请人作证称，1959年3月15日前后，他“正在华雷斯城La Reforma剧院前的小广场上与几个男人交谈

(Mexico), . . . we were discussing various things including my efforts to get a visa. A man was standing outside my circle of acquaintances listening to our conversation. When I went into the theater . . . this man came and took the seat right behind me. He told me that he had heard the conversation and asked me if I really wanted to live in the United States. I told him I did and he said that he could get me a passport. I asked him what I need to do and he told me that all 1w needed was my photograph. I agreed to his plan . . . gave him the picture and he told me to meet him at the same place the next day at ... about 7 PM." The applicant further testified that he met the "stranger" as agreed and purchased the "mica" for $20 and it was agreed that "some time after I got a job, I could send him or hand him another $20. I never sent him the money because he never told me his name or where he lived." The applicant's exclusion is sought under section 212(a) (19) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a) (19)). This provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act is composed of two parts which may be divided as follows: (1) Any alien who seeks to procure, or has sought to procure, or has procured a visa or other documentation, by fraud, or by willfully misrepresenting a material fact; (2) Any alien who seeks to enter the United States by fraud, or by willfully misrepresenting a material fact. We have held that the first clause concerning procuring a visa or other documentation by fraud or by willfully misrepresenting a material fact is retrospective as well as prospective in its applica- tion. The second clause which refers to' "any alien who seeks to enter the United States" has been held to be prospective in applica- tion only and, therefore, prior fraud or misrepresentation falling within that clause does not result in a finding of inadmissibility. Matter of M — , 6-149 (Atty. tjen., Sept. 13, 1954) ; Matter of M — , 6-752 (B.I.A., Oct. 18, 1955). The Immigration Service concedes that the applicant is not excludable under the second clause of section 212(a) (19), supra. The burden here is upon the applicant to establish that he is ad- missible under the immigration laws. The Immigration Service maintains that the applicant is subject to exclusion under the first clause of section 212(a) (19), supra, because a preponderance of the evidence establishes that he obtained the document presented by him on the occasion of his entry on March 26, 1959, by fraudulently participating in its procurement. Two arguments are advanced in support of their position. The first argument is based on the premise that the applicant did actively participate in whatever fraud practiced because (1) he

（墨西哥）……我们当时在讨论各种事情，包括我为获得签证所做的努力。一个男人站在我的熟人圈子外听我们的谈话。当我走进剧院……这个男人过来，正好坐在我后面。他告诉我他听到了谈话，并问我是否真的想住在美国。我告诉他我想，他说他能给我弄到一本护照。我问他我需要做什么，他告诉我我只需要我的照片。我同意了他的计划……把照片给了他，他让我第二天在同一地点……大约晚上7点见他。” 申请人进一步作证说，他按约定见到了那个“陌生人”，以20美元购买了那张“mica”，并约定“在我找到工作后一段时间，我可以再寄给他或交给他20美元。我从未寄给他钱，因为他从未告诉我他的名字或他住在哪里。” 申请人的排除是根据《移民和国籍法》第212(a)(19)条（8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(19)）寻求的。《移民和国籍法》的这一条款由两部分组成，可划分如下： (1) 任何外国人，凡以欺诈方式，或故意虚假陈述重大事实，寻求取得、或曾寻求取得、或已取得签证或其他文件的； (2) 任何外国人，凡以欺诈方式，或故意虚假陈述重大事实，寻求进入美国的。 我们曾裁定，关于以欺诈方式或故意虚假陈述重大事实取得签证或其他文件的第1款，其适用既是追溯性的也是前瞻性的。关于“任何寻求进入美国的外国人”的第2款，已被裁定仅具有前瞻性适用，因此，属于该款范围内的先前欺诈或虚假陈述不会导致不可入境认定。Matter of M —，6-149（Atty. Gen.，1954年9月13日）；Matter of M —，6-752（B.I.A.，1955年10月18日）。移民局承认，申请人不能根据上述第212(a)(19)条第2款被排除。 此处的举证责任在申请人，须证明其根据移民法可入境。移民局主张，申请人应根据上述第212(a)(19)条第1款被排除，因为优势证据证明，他于1959年3月26日入境时出示的文件，是通过欺诈性参与其取得而获得的。为支持其立场，提出了两个论点。 第一个论点基于这样一个前提：申请人确实积极参与了所实施的任何欺诈，因为(1)他

furnished a photograph of himself in a deliberate preconceived plan to procure an entry document, (2) he paid a sum of money for a document executed in a name other than his own, (3) he received the document with his photograph attached thereto, and (1) he knew the document did not relate to him. The Servieo argument, in our opinion, is directed to the issuance of the alien registration receipt card (Form 1-151) rather than its procurement. Sectipn 221(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1201(h)) requires an alien to "furnish copies of his photograph" in connection with his registration when applying for an immigration visa. Section 261 of the same Act (8 U.S.C. 1301) precludes the issuance of an immigration visa "until such alien has keen registered and fingerprinted in accordance with section 221(b), supra, with certain exemptions not pertinent here. The second argument is based on the premise that the applicant fraudulently procured the entry document. (Form T -151) during the inspection procedure accorded him at the time he entered the United States on March 26, 1959. The Service reasons, in substance, that an alien immigrant surrenders the Form 1-151 in his possession when subjected to primary inspection at the port of entry. Subsequent examination and determination of admissibility which results in the return of the Form 1-151 is in fact a reissuance of the entry docu- ment presented upon arrival. A fortiori, the acceptance of an ir- regular Form 1-151 by an alien applicant, when it is returned by the inspection officer ; amounts to fraud in the procurement on the part of the alien applicant. The difficulty with the second argument is that it seeks to inject the procurement of any entry document into a procedure concerned solely with an alien's application to enter. The hypothesis adopted by the Immigration Service relates to the ground of exclusion con- templated by the second clause of section 212(a) (19), supra, which reads "any alien who seeks to enter the United States by fraud, or by willfully misrepresenting a material fact." We have held that the second clause of section 212(a) (19) is prospective in its application and has no relation to past entries. Matter of M—,. 6-752 (B.I.A., Oct. 18, 1955) -. The Immigration Service makes no claim that the applicant now seeks to enter the United States by fraud or misrepresentation. The evidence affirmatively establishes that the applicant informed the consul of his entry in 1959 when he applied for the visa issued to him on January 30, 1961. The Service does claim, however, that the applicant is now excludable by reason of his fraudulent procurement of an entry document that antedates the granting of a lawfully issued visa. The case of Duran. Garciav. Neelly, 246 F.2d 287 (C.A. 5, 1957), is cited in support of this claim.

（1）在一项蓄意预谋的计划中提供了他本人的照片，以获取入境证件，（2）他支付了一笔钱，用于取得一份以非其本人姓名签发的证件，（3）他收到了附有其照片的该证件，并且（1）他知道该证件与他无关。 我们认为，Servieo 的论点针对的是外国人登记收据卡（Form 1-151）的签发，而非其取得。《移民与国籍法》第221(b)条（8 U.S.C. 1201(h)）要求外国人在申请移民签证时，在其登记过程中“提供其照片副本”。同一法律第261条（8 U.S.C. 1301）规定，在“该外国人已按照上述第221(b)条进行登记并采集指纹之前”，不得签发移民签证，但某些与本案无关的豁免情形除外。 第二个论点基于这样一个前提：申请人在1959年3月26日进入美国时对其进行的检查程序中，以欺诈方式取得了入境证件（Form T-151）。移民局实质上认为，外国移民在入境口岸接受初步检查时，会交出其持有的 Form 1-151。随后进行的审查和入境准许裁定若导致 Form 1-151 被退还，实际上就是对抵达时出示的入境证件的重新签发。更有甚者，当检查官员退还一份不合规的 Form 1-151 时，外国申请人接受该证件，即构成该外国申请人在取得过程中的欺诈。 第二个论点的困难在于，它试图将任何入境证件的取得塞入一个仅涉及外国人入境申请的程序中。移民局所采用的假设涉及上述第212(a)(19)条第二句所设想的排除理由，该句规定“任何外国人以欺诈方式，或故意虚假陈述重大事实，寻求进入美国”。我们已裁定，第212(a)(19)条第二句在适用上是前瞻性的，与过去的入境无关。 Matter of M—, 6-752 (B.I.A., Oct. 18, 1955)。 移民局并未主张申请人现在以欺诈或虚假陈述方式寻求进入美国。证据肯定地证明，申请人在1961年1月30日申请签发给他的签证时，已告知领事其1959年的入境情况。然而，移民局确实主张，申请人现在因欺诈取得一份早于合法签发签证的入境证件而应被排除。Duran. Garcia v. Neelly, 246 F.2d 287 (C.A. 5, 1957) 一案被引用来支持这一主张。

section 212(a) (19), supra. The aliens in both cases procured docu- mentation by means of fraud practiced upon officials of the United States Government duly authorized to issue the entry documents presented by them at the time of their unlawful entry. This Board in Matter of G—M—, 2 on the other hand, did not sustain a section 212(a) (19) "procurement charge" on 'the basis of evidence which established that the Service officer did not comply with existing regulations when he issued the border-crossing card used by the alien to effect an entry in 1941. We said that an unlawful issuance of the border-crossing card would not support a "procure- ment of documentation" charge because, as a matter of law, "the alien's acceptance thereof did not constitute a valid 'procurement of documentation' within the meaning of section 212(a) (19)." Matter of G—M—, supra, at page 73? Our decisions in the section 212(a) (19) cases cited by the Service are consistent in that before a "pro- .curement of documentation" charge has been sustained there was an issuance of documentation by an authorized official of the United States Government. The fraud was upon a Government officer in inducing him to issue a document on the basis of material misrepre- sentations by the alien involved. This factor is not present in the case before us. The instant case does not present a factual situation unique in the administration of the excluding provisions of the immigration laws. Although we find no published decisions directly concerned with a purchased entry document and its relation to the first clause of section 212(a) (19), supra, there are two elementary principles of law which we have always applied to such cases: (1) the purchase of a document does not amount to procurement by fraud or 'willfully misrepresenting a material fact because the alien who acquires pos- session by purchase does so by the tender of something of value and not by the practice of fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact; (2) as a condition precedent to the procurement of documenta- tion by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact within the meaning of section 212(a) (19) of the Immigration and National- ity Act (8 U.S.C. 1182 (a) (19)), there must be an issuance to the alien of the said documentation by ah authorized official of the United States Government. We will affirm the order entered by the special inquiry officer admitting the alien as a nonquota immigrant. An appropriate order will be entered dismissing the Acting District Director's appeal. ORDER: It is directed that the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed. The alien's admission as a nonquota immigrant under the provisions of section 101(a) (27) (C) of the Immigration and Na- tionality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a) (27) (C)) is hereby affirmed.

即上述第212(a)(19)条。两案中的外国人均通过向经正式授权签发其非法入境时所出示入境文件的美国政府官员实施欺诈而获取了文件。 另一方面，本委员会在Matter of G—M—, 2 中并未依据证明移民局官员在签发外国人1941年用于入境的边境过境卡时未遵守现行规定的证据，维持第212(a)(19)条“获取文件”的指控。我们表示，边境过境卡的非法签发不能支持“获取文件”的指控，因为作为法律问题，“外国人接受该卡不构成第212(a)(19)条意义上的有效‘获取文件’。”Matter of G—M—，见前引，第73页？我们在移民局所引第212(a)(19)条案件中的裁决是一致的，即在维持“获取文件”指控之前，存在美国政府授权官员对文件的签发。欺诈是针对政府官员实施的，诱使其基于相关外国人的重大虚假陈述而签发文件。本案中不存在这一因素。 本案并未呈现移民法排除条款适用中独一无二的事实情形。尽管我们未发现直接涉及购买入境文件及其与上述第212(a)(19)条第一句关系的已公布裁决，但有两项我们始终适用于此类案件的基本法律原则：(1) 购买文件不构成通过欺诈或故意虚假陈述重大事实获取文件，因为通过购买取得占有的外国人是通过提供有价值之物而非通过实施欺诈或故意虚假陈述重大事实来做到的；(2) 作为《移民与国籍法》第212(a)(19)条（8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(19)）意义上通过欺诈或故意虚假陈述重大事实获取文件的前提条件，必须由美国政府授权官员向该外国人签发上述文件。 我们将维持特别调查官作出的接纳该外国人为非配额移民的命令。将作出适当命令，驳回代理地区主任的上诉。 命令：兹指示，上诉予以驳回，且特此驳回。该外国人依据《移民与国籍法》第101(a)(27)(C)条（8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)(C)）规定作为非配额移民被接纳，特此维持。