U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

MATTER OF M-C -D-S-

Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office

DATE: NOV. 28. 2017

MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION

APPLICATION: FORM I-485, APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR ADJUST STATUS

The Applicant, a native of the Philippines, seeks to adjust status to that of a lawful permanent resident under section 13 of the 1957 Immigration Act. 1 Section 13 allows an applicant previously in diplomatic status to adjust status if he or she satisfies cet1ain eligibility requirements.

The Director of the National Benefits Center denied the Form 1-485. Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, as the Applicant didn't establish the existence of compelling reasons rendering her unable to return to the Philippines. We dismissed a subsequent appeal. concluding that in addition to the lack of compelling reasons preventing her return to her home country, the Applicant did not establish that her father (the principal applicant) performed diplomatic or semi-diplomatic duties on behalf of the Filipino Consulate. On motion. the Applicant submits additional evidence. asserting that our prior decision was in error.

Upon review, we will deny the motion to reopen and the motion to reconsider.

I. LAW

A motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence of nel1' facts, and a motion to reconsider is based on an incorrect application r~llaw or policy. The requirements of a motion to reopen arc located at 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5(a)(2), and the requirements of a motion to reconsider arc located at 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5(a)(3 ). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit.

II. ANALYSIS

This matter previously came before us when the Applicant appealed the Director's decision to deny her section 13 application. In our appeal decision. which we incorporate here by reference. we concurred with the Director that no compelling reasons existed rendering the Applicant unable to

1 See section 13 of the Act of September II, 1957, Pub. L. No. 85-3 16, 71 Stat. 642. amended hy Pub. L. No. 97-1 16. 95

Stat. 161 ( 1981 ). 8 U .S.C. § 1255b (section 13).

.

Matter of M-C-D-S-

return to the Philippines and made an additional finding that the Applicant did not offer evidence to demonstrate that her father's duties were diplomatic or semi-diplomatic in nature. 2

For the reasons discussed below, the Applicant's motion submission does not demonstrate th<Jt our previous decision was in error.

A. Duties

In our appellate decision, we noted that the Applicant entered the United States on an A-2 nonimmigrant visa as a family member of her father who served as a for the Consulate General of the Philippines in California. The Applicant asserted that her father's duties included collaborating with traveL business, and community groups in 10 states and two Canadian provinces to implement various marketing and promotional projects. Based on the evidence in the record, we found that the Applicant's father did not perf()rm diplomatic or semi-diplomatic duties because the Applicant did not demonstrate that her father represented the Philippines in relations with U.S. Government officials. negotiated with U.S. Government representatives on behalf of the Philippines, or performed duties in direct support of such activities.

On motion, the Applicant argues that our appellate determination failed '"to recognize the authority of applicant's father's office conferred upon it by virtue of the long-standing bilateral relations between the Philippines and the United States." The Applicant states that as the

her father represented the Philippines at numerous events, making presentations on his country's culture, traditions, trade, as well as investment and opportunities. She also claims that her father liaised with various groups for cultural projects in the 10 U.S. states under his oftice's jurisdiction. As evidence of these functions. the Applicant submits. in part, a letter tl·om

The Applicant argues that her father's duties involved the required level of diplomacy. and refers to two functions listed in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations ( 1961) (Vienna Convention):

• "Protecting in the receiving State the interests of the sending State and of its nationals. within the limits permitted by international law;"3 and

• "Promoting friendly relations between the sending State and the receiving State. and developing their economic, cultural and scientific relations.''4

The Applicant references the below events or evidence in support of her assertion that her father protected and promoted interests of the Philippines in the United States under Article 3(b) of the Vienna Convention. 5

2 See Matter o{M-C-D-S, ID# 222668 (AAO May 2. 20 17). 3 Vienna Convention, Article 3(b). 4 Vienna Convention, Article 3( e) 5 Although we will discuss the Applicant's claims under this function, the Applicant misconstrues the convention's text. Specifically, Article 3(b) of the Vienna Convention does not mention promoting a foreign country's interests: only

2

.

Matter of M-C-D-S-

1.

The Applicant explains that her father provided assistance to the 111

conducting its research relating to an expedition to the Philippines. The Applicant submits an email exchange that relates to promoting in the area to Filipino

and travel agents. and an email from the with an attachment that purportedly outlines the organization's plans for an upcoming expedition in the Philippines. The Applicant does not explain how this evidence demonstrates the diplomatic nature of her father's consular role. Rather. this evidence supports our prior conclusion that her father's duties were to further in the Philippines. and they had no direct link to engaging 111

diplomacy on behalf of the Filipino Government with national-level U.S. Government entities.

2. Memorandum ofUnderstanding

Further, the Applicant claims that her father coordinated and arranged the "signing .. of an agreement between the and a conservation group to preserve a historic Spanish-built walled city in the Philippines. While we don't dispute the Applicant" s claim. we note that the agreement her father coordinated was with a private conservation group. This type of function is not diplomatic or semi-diplomatic in nature because it did not involve negotiating with U.S. Government representatives as a representative of the Filipino Government

3. Letter

confirms the principal applicant's position in and states that he held .. an assimilated rank of We note that titles, by themselves, do not automatically denote a diplomatic or semi-diplomatic position with associated duties. and without further elaboration by

on the meaning of this rank in terms of the consulate's organizational structure. her assertions do not demonstrate that the Applicant's father performed diplomatic or semi-diplomatic duties.

Additionally, provides a list of projects and activities the Applicant's father was associated with while assigned to the consulate. First she identifies several low to mid-level events such as the father's responsibilities at weaving demonstrations. book launchings, and art events. but we note that these types of activities do not involve negotiations with U.S. Government entities. also indicates that the Applicant's father assisted a committee in organizing a trade mission to that was led by the mayor: however, this type of activity is similarly neither diplomatic nor semi-diplomatic in nature because it involved participation on a local city committee and was not an assignment that required the

protecting them. Further, the Applicant presents only part of the actual text from the Vienna Convention while leaving out "and of its nationals, within the limits permitted by international law." The Applicant has not argued how he protected the interests of Filipino nationals, and as a result, he has not fully explained how his duties were sutllcient to meet Article 3(b ).

.

Matter of M-C-D-S-

Applicant's father to negotiate on a national level as a representative of the Philippines with U.S. Government officials.

Furthermore, indicates the Applicant's father accompanied her on ··missions to meet with congressional , state and city officials" in nine states situated in the northwestern United States to promote closer relations between the states and the Philippines. does not detail the Applicant's father's specific activities at these functions, and the Applicant only submits a photograph of personnel , to include her father, at a meeting with the of in 2005. While the photograph confirms the Applicant's father's presence at a meeting. 1t IS

insufficient to establish his actions that might comprise diplomatic or semi-diplomatic duties. The Applicant has not demonstrated that her father's presence on such missions. the number of frequency ofwhich are unknown, equates to performing diplomatic or semi-diplomatic duties between national governments, or that it meets the requirements of the regulation.

Accordingly, the record does not establish that the Applicant's father' s role as a promoter of trade and involved the type of diplomatic or semi-diplomatic duties required for eligibility under section 13.

B. Compelling Reasons for Inability to Return

In our appellate decision, we determined that no compelling reasons existed for the Applicant's inability to return to the Philippines. Specifically, we noted that there had not been a fundamental political change that rendered her unable to return because of her father ' s prior diplomatic service. We further concluded that the Applicant did not demonstrate that the alleged land dispute between her father ' s family and tenant farmers resulted from his employment with the government but instead it appeared to be a personal or family matter. We recognized the Applicant's concern of returning to a country with some localized terrorist activity, but concluded that she did not establish she is in any specific danger because ofher father ' s former position with the Filipino Government.

Within the motion, the Applicant references topics and legal decisions related to asylum claims in the United States. However, the Applicant's eligibility for asylum holds no bearing on her section 13 application, as asylum claims are considered under section 208 of the Act. 8 U.S.C. ~ 1158. Regarding her reasons for being unable to return to her home country, the Applicant argues that because her father worked as a representative for the Filipino Government, the New People's Army (NPA). which seeks to overthrow the current government. will take interest in him. She supports this claim with information from Wikipedia, news articles. and correspondence from her father-in law's former caregiver.

Regarding the information from Wikipedia, there are no assurances about the reliability of the content from this open, user-edited internet site. Laamilem Badas v. Michael Mukasey. 540 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008); United States v. Lawson, 677 F.3d 629, 650 (4th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted) (observing that it is not the first federal court to be troubled by Wikipedia 'slack of reliability). The Applicant's fear of the NPA, while understandable, is not a compelling reason . As we noted in our appeal decision. compelling reasons are those factors that result from a fundamental political change in the

4

Matter of M-C-D-,~'-

government that represented an applicant and that, because of such change. constrains an applicant from returning to the country that granted her father accreditation. There has not been a fundamental political change in the Philippines that constrains her return; rather. the Applicant fears a non­governmental actor, the NP A. not the Filipino Government itself. Similarly. her claim that she is unable to return due to a dispute between her father's family and other farmers that she perceives could result in the NPA targeting her and her family also is not a compelling reason. as it is a private matter. Accordingly, the record does not establish that compelling reasons. as they are considered under section 13, render the Applicant unable to return to the Philippines.

III. CONCLUSION

The Applicant has not established that her father performed diplomatic or semi-diplomatic duties on behalf of the Filipino Government or that compelling reasons exist rendering her unable to return to her home country. Consequently, we will not disturb our prior decision dismissing the Applicant's appeal and affirming the denial of her section 13 application.

ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied.

FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied.

Cite as Matter o{M-C-D-S, ID# 709873 (AAO Nov. 28, 2017)