August 24, 2010 | In: 范毅禹律师
华家伟律师专栏：有关USCIS Kazarian案件备忘录的分析
ANALYSIS: GUIDANCE MEMO ON THE KAZARIAN CASE
上周的文章中，我写到对于Kazarian v. USCIS一案，尽管联邦法院案件最终判决否定了USCIS在审理此案上的标准，但USCIS对此并没有马上更改他们原有的审理标准，而是声称仍在等待上层的指引。有关指引已在这个星期公布。
Last week, I wrote about how USCIS was not changing how they adjudicated EB-1 and EB-2 petitions, despite the fact that the Kazarian decision ruled that their adjudication methods were illegal. Instead of changing their methods, USCIS claimed they were waiting for “guidance” on Kazarian from USCIS headquarters. That guidance came down this week.
新的备忘录指引试图通过增加一项审理分析步骤“法律理据的判定”（Final Merits Determination）”来遵从Kazarian案件。USCIS将采用两个部分的审理步骤，首先机械式的计算申请人的条件及提出的证据是否满足其类别的2或3个申请条件，然后USCIS将采取“法律理据的判定”，即移民官按照绝大多数的证据来判断申请人是否杰出而获得美国永久居民身份。
The guidance memo attempts to comply with Kazarian by adding a new analytical step to their adjudication called a “Final Merits Determination.” USCIS will adopt a “two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered in the context of a final merits determination.” This means that USCIS will first count, mechanically, whether or not the applicant has met the required 2 or 3 criteria for her preference. Second, USCIS will perform a “final merits” judgment where the officer determines whether, by a preponderance of the evidence, the applicant is sufficiently distinguished to receive American permanent residence.
这个“法律理据的判定“其实并没有实质上的新意。这么多年以来，本律师事务所很清楚USCIS并不是仅仅要求满足法律原文上的条件就批准EB-1和EB-2。解释申请人工作或其特殊才能的影响，一直是EB-1和EB-2成功申请的必要步骤。现在USCIS最终承认这一事实，并更新移民官的审核指引，对于每一种申请类别都需要进行第2步来判定申请人是否超越最基本的申请标准，从而显示出个人在领域上的特殊性。
This “final merits determination” is really nothing new. Our firm has recognized for years that USCIS demands more than mere satisfaction of the evidentiary requirements to win approval in EB-1 and EB-2 petitions. Explaining the impact of the applicants’ work, or the applicants’ unique abilities, has always been a necessary step in successful petitions. Now USCIS has finally admitted that fact, updating the Adjudicator’s Field Memo for each type of preference to include a second step that considers how the applicant, above and beyond the threshold criteria, has somehow distinguished herself in her field.
对于每一种杰出人才的签证类别，USCIS的新备忘录都提供了具体指引在“法律理据的判定”中如何证明申请人的特殊性。 例如EB-1A申请人必须显示其“持续”的国家或国际声誉。EB-1B则必须显示出在其“特定”学术领域上的“国际” 声誉（例如，一位量子物理学教授应与其他量子物理学教授作比较，而非经典物理学教授）。对于EB-2，申请人的专业才能应“远远高于” 一般同行，最好是有具体成就的证明，而不仅仅是专家推荐信证明文件。
For each high-achievement category, USCIS has provided guidance into how an applicant can prove their distinction in a Final Merits Determination. EB-1A applicants must demonstrate “sustained” national or international acclaim. EB-1B applicants must demonstrate “international” acclaim in their “specific” academic area (for example, a quantum physics professor can only be compared with other quantum physics professors, and not classical physics professors). EB-2 applicants must demonstrate expertise “significantly above that ordinarily encountered,” preferably with documentary evidence of specific achievements and not merely expert testimony in reference letters.
以上的新标准都受到美国移民与国籍法案（The Immigration and Nationality Act/INA）法律原文的支持。然而，新的标准有点任意性， 而且留着一定的自由空间让USCIS行使权力否决一些申请。例如，在INA之下，EB-1A申请人必须证明在其领域上获得“持续”的国家或国际声誉。在这里，USCIS强调“持续”这一字眼要求证明申请人的声誉是持续至申请递交时。为什么强调“持续” 而非“声誉”？我们如何才知道怎样才算“持续”，或者这声誉什么时候结束？这些问题都没有明确的解释，也意味着USCIS可轻而易举的创造一些伪造原因来否决申请。
Each of these new criteria is supported by language in the INA. However, they are somewhat arbitrary, and still leave USCIS the freedom to deny petitions. For example, under the INA, an EB-1A applicant must demonstrate “sustained national or international acclaim that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise.” From this sentence, USCIS chose to focus on the word “sustained”, demanding proof that an applicant’s acclaim must be maintained until the time of application. Why focus on the word “sustain” instead of the word “acclaim”? How do we know what is being “sustained”, or when an applicant’s “acclaim” ends? These questions have no clear answer, meaning that USCIS can easily manufacture bogus reasons to deny a petition.
这只是一项临时性的备忘录，经过评论后它可仍能会改变。然而，USCIS的意图是很清楚的，尽管经过Kazarian一案，他们仍然想保留随意设立审核标准的权力。USCIS紧紧只是把他们的标准从原来申请条件阶段转移到所谓的“最终优势裁定”。USCIS仍旧在非是基于法律原文创造新的标准。
This is only an interim memo; after comment it may change. However, the intention of USCIS is clearly that they intend to preserve their ability to create novel criteria despite Kazarian. USCIS has merely shifted their practice of creating novel criteria from the evidentiary stage to the new “final merits determination” stage. They are still creating new criteria not firmly based in the written law.
如果这份备忘录最终确定，EB-1和EB-2申请将进入一个非常不明朗的时期。移民律师和USCIS都需要时间来适应新的审核标准。在此，我也很费解为什么在当前经济低迷时期, USCIS仍继续刁难这些能为美国做出贡献的杰出人才。作为移民律师，我们需谨慎地与USCIS合作从而确保社会所需的人才能顺利获得美国永久居民身份。
If this memo does become final, EB-1 and EB-2 immigration practice will enter a period of high uncertainty. It will take time for lawyers and USCIS to learn how to apply these new standards. I question why, during these hard economic times, USCIS continues to make it difficult for high-achieving individuals to contribute to our national recovery. We on the immigration bar need to be vigilant in working with USCIS to ensure that the talented individuals we need are granted legal permanent residence in the United States.
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