August 16, 2010 | In: 范毅禹律师
华家伟律师专栏：CIS仍然要捏造规矩
For Now, CIS can still make up their own rules
One of the most important immigration cases to come down this year was Kazarian v. USCIS. For just a moment, Kazarian made it easier for high-achieving individuals to get green cards through EB-1, EB-2, and NIW. Unfortunately, for the time being, CIS is pretending the case doesn’t exist.
今年联邦法院有一个非常重要的EB-1A案例下来：Kazarian v. USCIS。曾经一刻，此案例对杰出人才的EB-1, EB-2, 以及NIW绿卡申请使得更加容易成功， 然而，就目前而言，CIS也假装这一案例不存在。
In that case, the petitioner was denied an EB-1A extraordinary ability visa. CIS denied his application because, in part, his publications had too few citations and his review experience was for an affiliated university. Of course, neither of those bases are supported in the immigration laws or regulations. The invention by CIS of artificially high standards of evidence to prove the impact of an applicant’s work has been a problem faced by immigrants for years.
在Kazarian v. USCIS一案中， 申请人的EB-1A被拒。CIS否决的部分原因是CIS认为申请人Publications里的Citations太少以及其Review Experience 只是来自于一附属大学的。但是以上两点都没有法律原理支持。多年以来，CIS自己设立的一套审核标准对于移民申请人是面临的一大难题。
No regulation says that citations are necessary for successful adjudication, nor do regulations say that review experience must be with an unaffiliated organization. CIS has developed these and other so-called ‘requirements’ to help officers make quick and simple judgments about an applicant. Unfortunately for them, U.S. administrative law doctrine does not allow that much freedom in interpreting the law to agencies like CIS. The Ninth Circuit federal court reversed the Service’s decision regarding those two criteria in Kazarian, stating that neither USCIS nor the AAO can impose “novel substantive or evidentiary requirements” beyond those set fourth in the regulations.
事实上，法律条例中并没有讲到Citations是必要的，同样也没有讲到Review Experience 必需是来自于非附属性机构(Unaffiliated Organization)，只是CIS自己设立了一套标准让移民官可以快速对一个申请作出判定。然而，在美国行政法中还未至于允许CIS这些联邦机构有过分的自由度来诠释法律原文。最后，联邦第九巡回法庭推翻了CIS和AAO对于申请人证据不足问题上的裁决，并指出CIS和AAO不能擅自加以法律以外的“novel substantive or evidentiary requirements”。
For those of us on the immigration bar, Kazarian was a godsend. For years, we had been dealing with RFEs and NOIDs demanding evidence which was not explicitly required by the law or regulations. Kazarian showed that the federal courts finally understood how USCIS was regularly abusing its power.
Kazarian一案可以说是移民申请上的一大福音。多年来，我们一直在处理法律明文规定以外的RFEs和NOIDs证据要求。Kazarian案例也说明联邦法院终于明白CIS权力的滥用并非稀事。
However, our enthusiasm diminished after a recent Nebraska Service Center stakeholder call (See AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 10080662). In the call, CIS was asked why, despite Kazarian, they continued to demand evidence not required by regulations (for example, evidence of citations, the ‘impact factor’ of peer reviewing experience, and reference letters for outstanding researcher petitions). In response, CIS acknowledged Kazarian, but refused to change their policies on RFEs and NOIDs until CIS Headquarters provided “direction” on how to interpret Kazarian. Thus, it appears that CIS officers, for the time being, are ignoring Kazarian as a matter of policy.
然而，CIS在最近的一次厉害关系者电话会议中的解答令人失望（请见AILAInfoNet文件10080662号）。CIS被问到为什么在Kazarian之后仍然继续要求法律规定以外的证据材料（例如像Citations, 同行审查经验的 “impact factor”，以及优秀研究人员申请推荐信）。而CIS的回应是，他们承认Kazarian一案，但是在CIS总部给予进一步明确指示前将不会因此案而改变原有的审核政策。
This leaves EB-1 and EB-2 visa applicants in limbo. The arguments used in Kazarian will likely still be successful though appeal on a case by case basis, but it may take some time before CIS applies the reasoning of Kazarian to their initial review protocol. Thus, despite the support from the ninth circuit, EB-1, EB-2, NIW and other visas available to high-achieving individuals remain vulnerable to arbitrary RFEs and NOIDs.
CIS的答复令EB-1和EB-2申请人处于无人过问的困境。或许Kazarian的论据能运用到个别上诉案中并取得成功，但是如果要CIS真正以此案作为他们审核其它类似申请的标准，那还需要一段时间。因此，尽管第九巡回法院在此案中的支持，对于EB-1, EB-2和NIW等杰出人才移民申请，RFE和NOID这些任意证据材料的要求还是在所难免。
For our future clients, this means that the evidence provided with petitions will still need to over-emphasize the impact of your work, your citations, and other criteria that has evolved from non-binding CIS practice. Immigrants and their attorneys must continue to wait patiently for a day when CIS can be relied on to consistently and fairly apply the immigration laws of the United States.
对于我们未来的申请客人，这意味着在准备申请材料时需针对CIS的标准，充分强调申请人在工作，Citations以及其它层面上的影响，而非单单按照法律原文对申请条件的定义。而申请人及其律师仍需耐心等待CIS本着法律原则公正处理申请的日子到来。
David Wallace is a graduate of the George Washington University Elliot School of International Affairs and the George Washington University Law School, and is a member of the Virginia Bar. He is a former employee of both Shanghai High School and an education subsidiary of Beijing University. In addition, he has worked with the foreign commercial service at the United States Embassy in Beijing. His practice focuses on education and employment-based visas, as well as issues in Chinese-American business cooperation.
华家伟律师
华家伟律师毕业于乔治华盛顿国际关系学院和法学院，并是弗吉尼亚州律师协会成员。华律师早年受雇于著名的上海中学和北京大学的教育子公司,并曾服务于美国驻北京总领事商务处。华律师专长处理留学及劳工移民方面的相关申请以及中美商业合作问题。
本文由范毅禹律师事务所提供
本律师事务所精办各类劳工应聘及专业移民申请 (包括H-1，L-1，EB-1，EB-2，NIW，劳工卡，绿卡等申请)。所有申请由多位美籍律师及拥有15年经验的范毅禹律师亲自处理，我所并特设中英移民网站。内有最新移民新闻资讯及由律师主持的移民问答集，欢迎读者流览查询。
www.fan-law.com (Chinese)
www.fanuslaw.com (English)
CALIFORNIA : Fan, Fitzpatrick & Thompson, LLP.370 E. Glenarm St., Pasadena , CA 91106Tel: 626-799-3999 Fax: 626-799-9966
MARYLAND : Fan, Fitzpatrick & Thompson, LLP.843 Quince Orchard Blvd. Suite I (“eye”) Gaithersburg, MD 20878Tel: 301-330-6903Fax: 301-330-6904
Follow US: http://twitter.com/FanUSLaw