第一次 控美案 2006年

回文章列表

2014-02-06 第一次控美案 2006年

[NOT YET SCHEDULED FOR ARGUMENT]

[尚未安排進行辯論]

No. 08-5078

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

在美國哥倫比亞特區巡迴上訴法院

DR. ROGER C.S. LIN, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

博士羅傑C.S.林等人

原告 - 上訴人

訴

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee,

美利堅合眾國

被告，被上訴人

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

在上訴從美國哥倫比亞特區聯邦地區法院

BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE

簡要介紹被告，被上訴人

CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND.RELATED CASES

當事人、裁定和相關案件的證明

Pursuant to Circuit Rule 28(a) (1), counsel for Defendant/Appellee certifies as follows:

根據巡迴法庭的規則28(a) (1)，被告的律師/被上訴人證明如下：

A) Parties And Amici:

A)當事人和Amici：

1) The named plaintiffs in this lawsuit are Roger C.S. Lin, Chien-Ming Huang, Chou Chang, Ching-Yao Hou, Chen-Hua Liu, Chen-Ni Wu, Yang-Lung Yang, Yao-Jhih Ye, Ching-Wen Yen, and A-Chu Yu chiang. Also appearing as a plaintiff is the Taiwan Nation Party, on behalf of itself and its members

1) 這起訴訟中的起訴原告有Roger C.S. Lin, Chien-Ming Huang, Chou Chang, Ching-Yao Hou, Chen-Hua Liu, Chen-Ni Wu, Yang-Lung Yang, Yao-Jhih Ye, Ching-Wen Yen, and A-Chu Yu chiang。台灣民族黨也以原告的身份出現，代表其本身及其成員。

2) The defendant is the United States of America.

2) 被告是美利堅合眾國。

3) There have been no intervenors or amici in this case, either in the district court or in this Court

3) 在這種情況下，沒有任何干預者或迷信，無論是在地方法院還是在本法院。

B) Ruling Under Review:

B)審查裁定：

The ruling under review is the district court’s order and memorandum opinion dated March 18, 2008, published at 539 F. Supp. 2d 173 (D.D.C. 2008). The court’s opinion is reproduced in the Joint Appendix at JA23.

正在審查的裁決是2008年3月18日的地方法院命令和備忘錄意見，發表於539 F. Supp. 2d 173 (2008年D.D.C.)。法院的意見轉載於JA23的聯合附錄。

C) Related Cases:

C) 相關案例：

This case has not been before this or any other Court.

Counsel for appellee are not aware of any related cases.

這種情況一直沒有或任何其他法院審理。

被上訴人的律師不知道任何相關案件。

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES

關於各方，規則和相關案例的證明

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .................... 1

管轄權聲明.................... 1

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES .................... 2

問題陳述.................... 2

STATUTES AND REGULATIONS .................. 2

章程及規例.................. 2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ..................... 2

案例陳述..................... 2

STATEMENT OF FACTS ....................... 3

事實陳述....................... 3

I. Factual Background ................ .. . 3

I.事實背景................ ..3

II. Procedural History .................. 8

II.案件歷史.................. 8

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .................... 10

理由的內容.................... 10

STANDARD OF REVIEW ..................... 10

評審標準..................... 10

ARGUMENT ..................... 11

主目..................... 11

I. Plaintiffs’ Challenge Is Nonjusticiable Under The Political Question Doctrine ..................... 11

I. 原告在政治問題原則下的挑戰是不可以的..................... 11

II. Plaintiffs Fail To State A Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be G ..................... 19

II. 原告未能提出可以獲得救濟的索賠..................... 19

conclusion..................... 23

結論..................... 23

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

合規的證書

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

服務證書

ADDENDUM

附錄

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

當局的表格

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

司法管轄權聲明

Plaintiffs invoked the district court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 704, and the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1503. See JA6 (Amended Complaint). The district court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims on March 18, 2008. JA 23-37 (Order and Memorandum Opinion). Plaintiffs filed a timely notice of appeal on March 31, 2008. JA39 This Court has appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

原告援引地區法院的管轄權28 U.S.C. § 1331，行政程序法，5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 704，而移民和國籍法，8 U.S.C. 1503。參閱JA6(經修改的投訴)。地方法院於2008年3月18日駁回了原告的訴訟請求。JA 23-37(命令和備忘錄意見)。原告於2008年3月31日及時提出上訴通知。JA39該法庭已根據上訴管轄權28 U.S.C. § 1291。

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

聲明中的問題

1. Whether the district court correctly concluded that the political question doctrine barred adjudication of plaintiffs’ claims that they qualify as United States nationals by virtue of their residence in Taiwan.

1.地方法院是否正確地認定，政治問題原則禁止原告聲稱他們因在台灣居住而有資格成為美國公民的裁決。

2. Whether, assuming that this action were justiciable, plaintiffs’ suit should be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

2.不論，假設這一行為是否可行，原告的訴訟因未能提出主張而被駁回。

STATUTES AND REGULATIONS

法規和條例

The relevant statutory and regulatory provisions are reproduced in the addendum to this brief

相關的法定和監管條款轉載於本簡報的附錄中

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

案例陳述

Plaintiffs are residents of Taiwan and members of the Taiwan Nation Party, which is also a plaintiff. Plaintiffs allege that they are "United States nationals" by virtue of their residence in Taiwan and seek a declaration that they are entitled to passports and to other "rights and privileges as United States nationals." JA19. Plaintiffs invoked the equal protection and due process protections of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Eighth Amendment, and the First Amendment right to petition the government. JA19-20. The district court dismissed the complaint under the political question doctrine . JA23-37; Lin v.United States, 539 F. Supp. 2d 173 (D.D.C. 2008). Plaintiffs filed a timely notice of appeal.

原告是台灣居民和台灣民族黨員，這也是原告。原告通過在台灣居住而聲稱自己是”美國國民”，並尋求宣布他們有權獲得護照和其他”美國國民的權利和特權”。JA19。原告援引了第5修正案和第14修正案的平等保護和正當程序保護，第8修正案和第1修正案向政府請願的權利。JA19-20。地方法院根據政治問題原則駁回了申訴。JA23-37; 林訴美國，539 F. Supp. 2d 173 (2008年D.D.C.)原告及時提出上訴通知。

STATEMENT OF FACTS

事實的敘述

I. Factual Backqround

I. 事實背景

A. The status of Taiwan has long been a subject of international dispute. At the close of the Sino-Japanese War in 1895, China ceded sovereignty over Taiwan (then called Formosa) to Japan. JA23-24. Japan retained control of the island until the conclusion of World War II in 1945. Upon the surrender of Japan to the United States and its allies, General Douglas MacArthur issued an order instructing all Japanese forces in Taiwan to surrender to the Republic of China. Id.

A.台灣地位長期以來一直是國際爭端的主題。在1895年的抗日戰爭結束時，中國放棄了對台灣（當時稱為福爾摩沙）對日本的主權。JA23-24。日本在1945年繼續控制該島，直到第二次世界大戰結束。日本向美國及其盟友投降後，道格拉斯麥克阿瑟將軍發布命令，指示台灣所有日本軍隊向中華民國投降。附件索引。

In 1952, Japan and the Allied Powers, including the United States, signed a peace treaty which provided that "Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores," but did not otherwise address Taiwan’s status.

Treaty of Peace with Japan, Article 2(b), Treaties and International Acts Series 2490 (1952); JA42-43. In 1954, the United States and the Republic of China ("ROC") signed a mutual defense treaty wherein the United States recognized the Republic of China as the government of China and recognized Taiwan to be among its territories.

See Mutual Defense Treaty Between the United States and the Republic of China, Dec. 2, 1954, 6 U.S.T. 433, Article VI (stating that "the terms ’territorial’ and ’territories’ shall mean in respect of the Republic of China, Taiwan and the Pescadores").

在1952年，日本與同盟國，包括美國，簽署了一項和平條約，規定”日本放棄所有權利，對福爾摩沙和澎湖的標題和要求”但沒有以其他方式處理台灣的地位。和平條約與日本，第2條(b)，條約和國際法案系列2490(1952年); JA42-43。在1954年，美國和中華民國(“ROC”)簽署了一項共同防務條約，其中美國承認中華民國為中國政府，承認台灣屬於其領土。參閱美國和中華民國的共同防禦條約，1954年12月2日，6 U.S.T. 433，第6條(指出”領土”和”領地”這兩個詞對於中華民國來說意味著，台灣和澎湖”)。

B. In 1972, the United States issued a joint communique with the People’s Republic of China ("PRC"), acknowledging that from China’s perspective, the "Taiwan question is the crucial question obstructing the normalization of relations between China and the United States." JA359; United States of America-People’s Republic of China Joint Communique of Feb. 27, 1972 [Shanghai Communique], U. S. Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 66 (1972), No. 17~8, at 437. The United States acknowledged the Chinese position that "Taiwan is a part of China," and confirmed that "[t]he United States government does not challenge that position." JA359-360;

B. 在1972年，美國與中華人民共和國("PRC")發布聯合公報，承認從中國的角度來看，”台灣問題是阻礙中美關係正常化的關鍵問題。”JA359; 美利堅合眾國-中華人民共和國1972年2月27日聯合公報[上海公報]，美國國務院公報，66冊(1972年)，No. 17~8，在437。美國承認中國的立場，也就是”台灣是中國的一部分” 並證實”美國政府不會質疑這一立場。” JA359-360;

In 1978, President Carter announced that as of January 1, 1979, the United States "is recognizing the government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal government of China and is terminating diplomatic relations with the Republic of China." 44 Fed. Reg. 1075 (December 30, 1978); see JA 362; U.S. Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 79 (1979), No. 2023 at 25. The President’s memorandum stated that the "[e]xisting international agreements and arrangements in force between the United States and Taiwan shall continue in force." Id. In his memorandum, President Carter also stressed that the "American people will maintain commercial, cultural, and other relations with the people of Taiwan without official government representation and without diplomatic relations." 44 Fed. Reg. 1075. An executive order further detailed the manner in which the United States is to maintain unofficial relations with the people of Taiwan. See Exec. Order No. 12143 (June 22, 1979).

在1978年，卡特總統宣布，從1979年1月1日起，美國”承認中華人民共和國政府是中國的唯一合法政府，並正在與中華民國結束外交關係。” 44 Fed. Reg. 1075(1978年12月30日) ;參閱JA 362; 美國國務院公報，79冊(1979年)，No. 2023在25。總統的備忘錄指出，”美國和台灣之間現行的國際協定和現行安排應繼續有效。” 附件索引。在他的備忘錄中，卡特總統還強調，”美國人將保持商業，卡特總統還強調，”沒有官方政府代表和沒有外交關係，美國人民將與台灣人民保持商業，文化和其他關係”。44 Fed. Reg. 1075。行政命令進一步詳述了美國與台灣人民保持非官方關係的方式。參閱行政命令No. 12143(1979年6月22日)。

In 1979, the two countries issued a second joint communique regarding the establishment of diplomaticrelations between the PRC and the United States. See JA362; United States of America-People’s Republic of China Joint Communique of January 1, 1979 on Establishment of Diplomatic Relations, U.S. Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 79 (1979), No. 2022, at 2. In that Communique, the United States again acknowledged the "Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China." Id. The communique stated that the "people of the United States" would "maintain cultural, commercial, and other unofficial relations with the people of Taiwan" Id. President Carter made clear in a speech accompanying this communique that any relations with the current governing regime in Taiwan would be "nongovernmental." JA362.

在1979年，兩國就中美建立外交關係發表了第二份聯合公報。參閱JA362; 美利堅合眾國 - 中華人民共和國1979年1月1日關於建立外交關係的聯合公報，美國國務院公報，79冊(1979年)，No. 2022,在2。在該公報中，美國再次承認”中國的立場，只有一個中國，台灣是中國的一部分”。附件索引。公報表示，”美國人民”將”與台灣人民保持文化，商業和其他非官方關係” 附件索引。卡特總統在本公報中發表的講話中明確表示，與台灣現任執政體制的任何關係都將是”非政府的”。JA362。

Congress passed, and the president signed, the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, 22 U.S.C. § 3301, later that year. Congress found that the enactment of this statue was "necessary (1) to help maintain peace, security, and stability in the Western Pacific; and (2) to promote the foreign policy of the United States by authorizing the continuation of commercial, cultural, and other relations between the people of the United States and the people on Taiwan." 22 U.S.C. § 3301(a).

後來的一年，國會通過了，總統簽署了1979年的”台灣關係法” 22 U.S.C. § 3301。國會發現，這尊雕像的制定是“有必要(1) 幫助維持西太平洋的和平，安全與穩定;和(2) 通過授權美國人民與台灣人民之間繼續保持商業，文化和其他關係來促進美國的外交政策。” 22 U.S.C. § 3301(a)。

Congress further declared that the policy of the United States is, inter alia, "to make clear that the United States decision to establish diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China rests upon the expectation that the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means." 22 U.S.C. § 3301(b) (3). Congress stated that it approved "the continuation in force of all treaties and other international agreements, including multilateral conventions, entered into by the United States and the governing, authorities on Taiwan recognized by the United States as the Republic of China prior to January 1, 1979, and in force between them on December 31, 1978, unless and until terminated in accordance with law." See 22 U.S.C. § 3303(c).

大會進一步宣布，美國的政策是，除其他外，”明確表示美國決定與中華人民共和國建立外交關係的前提是預期台灣的未來將以和平方式決定。” 22 U.S.C. § 3301(b) (3)。大會表示，它批准”美國和台灣當局在1979年1月1日之前美國承認為中華民國的主管當局簽署的所有條約和其他國際協定，包括多邊公約，繼續生效。1978年12月31日生效，除非依法終止。”參閱22 U.S.C. § 3303(c)。

Under the Taiwan Relations Act, the United States exercises nonofficial relations with Taiwan through the American Institute in Taiwan, a “nonprofit corporation incorporated under the laws of the District of Columbia." See 22 U.S.C. §§ 3305, 3310a (stating that “[t]he American Institute of Taiwan shall employ personnel to perform duties similar to those performed by personnel of the United States and Foreign Commercial Service."). The Act provides that references in the laws of the United States to "foreign countries, nations, states, governments, or similar entities" should be considered also to cover Taiwan. See 22 U.S.C. § 3303(b) (1) The Act also specifically provides that for the purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., Taiwan may be treated as a "separate foreign state." See 22 U.S.C. § 3303(b) (6) ; 8 U.S.C. § 1152(b).

根據”台灣關係法”，美國行使通過美國在台協會與台灣的非官方關係，一個”非營利性公司根據哥倫比亞特區法律註冊成立的。”參閱22 U.S.C. §§ 3305, 3310a(指出”美國在台協會應僱用人員履行與美國和外國商務人員相似的職責”)。該法規定，在美國的法律對“外國國家，民族，國家，政府或類似實體”也應考慮到包括台灣。參閱22 U.S.C. § 3303(b) (1) 該法還特別規定，為了”移民和國籍法”的目的，8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., 台灣可以被視為一個”獨立的外國。”參閱22 U.S.C. § 3303(b) (6) ; 8 U.S.C. § 1152(b)。

C. In 1982, the United States and the PRC issued a third joint communique, in which the United States agreed that "[r]espect for each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and non-interference in each other’s internal affairs constitute the fundamental principles guiding United States-China relations." See JA364; United States of America-People’s Republic of China Joint Communique of Aug. 17, 1982-Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (August 23, 1982), at 1039. The United States and the PRC also "agreed thatthe people of the United States would continue to maintain cultural, commercial, and other unofficial relations with the people of Taiwan." Id.

C. 在1982年，美國和中國發表了第三個聯合公報，美國同意”尊重彼此的主權和領土完整，互不干涉內政是構成美中關係的基本原則”。參閱JA364;美利堅合眾國-中華人民共和國1982年8月17日聯合公報-每週總統文件彙編(1982年8月23日)，在1039。美國和中國也”同意，美國人民將繼續與台灣人民保持文化，商業和其他非官方關係。” 附件索引。

D. In 1996, President Clinton issued an executive order, which superseded Executive Order 12143 but specified that the "[a]greements and arrangements referred to in paragraph (B) of President Carter’s memorandum of December 30,1978, entitled ’Relations With the People on Taiwan’ (44 FR 1075) shall, unless otherwise terminated or modified in accordance with law, continue in force." Exec. Order No. 13014 (August 15, 1996), 61 Fed. Reg. 42963.

D. 在1996年，克林頓總統發佈了一項行政命令，其取代行政命令12143，但規定”卡特總統在1978年12月30日備忘錄(B)中提及的題為'與台灣人民的關係'的協議和合約'(44 FR 1075)除非依法終止或修改，否則應繼續有效。行政命令No. 13014(1996年8月15日)，61 Fed. Reg. 42963。

II. Procedural History

II. 案件歷史

Plaintiffs are ten individuals and the Taiwan Nation Party, acting on behalf of approximately 1,000 of its members. JA5-6. They filed this action in October 2006, seeking a declaration that Taiwan was subject to United States jurisdiction and that the plaintiffs, as residents of Taiwan, were entitled to a range of constitutional protections. In an amended complaint, plaintiffs alleged that they had submitted passport applications to the American Institute in Taiwan and that the Institute refused to accept and process the applications. JA18.

原告是十個人和台灣民族黨，本人代表約其成員1000人。JA5-6。他們於2006年10月提出這一訴訟，要求聲明台灣受美國管轄，而原告，作為台灣居民，有權享受一系列憲法保護。在修改後的投訴中，原告聲稱他們已經向臺灣的美國研究所遞交了護照申請，該研究所拒絕接受和處理申請。JA18。

Plaintiffs alleged that this action had deprived them of their rights as "United States nationals," and requested a declaration that as Taiwanese residents, they are entitled to the protections of the First, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. JAI9-20.

原告指控這一行為剝奪了他們作為“美國國民”的權利，並要求宣布，作為台灣居民，他們有權獲得第1，第5，第8和第14修正案的保護。JAI9-20。

The district court granted the government’s motion to dismiss, concluding that plaintiffs’ challenge involved "a quintessential political question" that required "trespass into the extremely delicate relationship between and among the United States, Taiwan and China." JA29. The court noted that plaintiffs’ claims to be "nationals of the United States" rested on their claim that the "United States is allegedly exercising sovereignty over Taiwan." JA29. As the court explained, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that "determination of who is sovereign over specific territory is non justiciable," JA29, and as the court further held, plaintiffs’ suit implicates several of the factors identified by the Supreme Court in Baker v. Cart, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), as relevant to justiciability under the political question doctrine.

地方法院批准政府的動議駁回，得出結論說原告的挑戰涉及”一個典型的政治問題”所需”侵入和美國，台灣和中國之間的極其微妙的關係。” JA29。法院指出原告聲稱他們是”美國國民”的主張在於”美國據稱對臺灣行使主權”。JA29。法院解釋說，最高法院一再認定”確定誰是主權的特定領土是不可裁決的”，JA29，而且法院進一步指出，原告的訴訟暗示了最高法院在Baker訴Cart中確定的幾個因素，369 U.S. 186 (1962年)，與政治問題原則下的可訴性相關。

The court noted that plaintiffs were asking it to "catapult over" a decision by the political branches to "obviously and intentionally not recognize[] any power as sovereign over Taiwan." JA32 (emphasis in original). The court explained that any uncertainty regarding Taiwan’s status was the result of "longstanding tension between mainland China and the United States," rather than neglect by the United States or the rest of the world. JA33. "In the face of ... years and years of diplomatic negotiations and delicate agreements" between the United States and China, it "would be foolhardy for a judge to believe that she had the jurisdiction to make a policy choice on the sovereignty of Taiwan." JA34.

法院指出，原告要求它”跳過”政治部門的決定，”顯然並故意不承認任何權力對台灣具有主權。” JA32(原文強調)。法院解釋說，對台灣地位的不確定性是”中美兩國長期緊張局勢”的結果，而不是被美國或世界其他地方忽視。JA33。”面對美國和中國之間...多年和多年的外交談判和微妙的協議，”法官指出自己有權對台灣主權作出政策選擇是蠻荒的。”JA34。

The court likewise found no “judicially discoverable and manageable standards" available to resolve plaintiffs’ claim. The court explained that plaintiffs’ case rested on their view that the United States had de jure authority over Taiwan by virtue of General Order No. 1, issued by General MacArthur in 1945. JA32. The court observed that “the judiciary is not equipped to interpret and apply, 50 years later, a wartime military order entered at a time of great confusion and undoubted chaos." JA33.

法院同樣沒有發現解決原告主張的”司法可發現和可管理的標準”。法院解釋說，原告的案件基於他們認為美國在1945年由麥克阿瑟將軍發佈一般命令第1號的總令而擁有法律上的權力。JA32。法院指出，”司法機關沒有配備解釋和運用，50年後，一個戰爭時期的軍事秩序進入了一個非常混亂和毋庸置疑混亂的時代。”

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

總結的論點

Plaintiffs seek a judicial declaration of United States’ sovereignty over Taiwan and a declaration that Taiwanese residents are nationals of the United States. The district court correctly concluded that plaintiffs’ claims present a nonjusticiable political question. As the court explained, resolution of plaintiffs’ suit would require the court to disregard the judgments of the political branches over five decades and to interject itself into sensitive matters of foreign policy. As the court further noted, General Order No. 1, issued by General MacArthur in 1945, would provide no judicially discoverable standards for addressing plaintiffs’ contentions.

原告要求美國對台灣主權的司法聲明，以及關於台灣居民是美國國民的聲明。地方法院正確地認定，原告的訴求提出了一個不可調整的政治問題。正如法院解釋的那樣，原告訴訟的解决將要求法院忽視五年來政治部門的判决，並將其插入到外交政策的敏感問題中。法院進一步指出，在1945年由麥克阿瑟將軍，發佈一般命令第1號，將不會為解決原告的爭議提供司法上可發現的標準。

Assuming that this Court were to conclude that jurisdiction is not barred by the political question doctrine, dismissal would be required because plaintiffs have failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs claim to be non-citizen nationals by virtue of their birth in Taiwan. United States law, however, specifically provides that only persons born in American Samoa or Swains Island are deemed non-citizen nationals based on the location of their birth. See 8 U.S.C. ~ 1408; 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a) (29) .

假設本法院認為管轄權不受政治問題原則的限制，因為原告未能陳述可以給予主張的要求，因此將被駁回。由於在台灣出生，原告聲稱是非公民的國民。然而，美國法律明確規定，只有出生在美屬薩摩亞或斯溫斯島的人根據出生地點才被視為非公民的國民。參閱8 U.S.C. ~ 1408; 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a) (29).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

審查標準

A district court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is reviewed de novo. See Shekoyan v. Sibley Intern., 409 F.3d.414, 420 (D.C. Cir. 2005).

重新審查地方法院因缺乏管轄權而被解僱的情況。參閱Shekoyan訴Sibley Intern。409 F.3d.414,420(2005年D.C.巡迴法案)。

ARGUMENT

論據

I. Plaintiffs’ Challenge Is Nonjusticiable Under The Political Question Doctrine

I. 原告面臨的挑戰是不可行的政治問題學說

A. "The political question doctrine is one aspect of ’the concept of justiciability, which expresses the jurisdictional limitations imposed on the federal courts by the ’case or controversy’ requirement’ of the Article III of the Constitution." Bancoult v. McNamara, 445 F.3d 427, 432 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (quotinq Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 215 (1974)). The doctrine is "primarily a function of the separation of powers," id. (quoting Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 210 (1962)) (quotation marks omitted). and "excludes from judicial review those controversies which revolve around policy choices and value determinations constitutionally committed for resolution" to the legislative and executive branches. Wilson v. Libbz, 535 F.3d 697, 704 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).

A. “政治問題政策是可訴性概念的一個方面，根據”憲法”第3條的”案件或爭議”的要求，表達了對聯邦法院施加的管轄權限制。”Bancoult訴McNamara, 445 F.3d 427, 432 (2006年D.C.巡迴法案)(引用Schlesinger訴後備役軍人委員會停止戰爭，418 U.S. 208, 215 (1974年))。該政策”主要是分權的功能” 附件索引。(引用Baker訴Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 210 (1962年)) (引號省略)。和”從司法審查不包括那些圍繞政策選擇和價值的判定，憲法致力於為解決圍繞爭議”到立法和行政部門。Wilson訴Libby, 535 F.3d 697, 704 (2008年D.C.巡迴法案)(省略內部引號)。

While the parameters of the political question doctrine have not been susceptible to a precise formula, the Supreme Court has identified several considerations that may render a case nonjusticiable under the political question doctrine. In Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962) the Court noted six "formulations," that might render a case nonjusticiable : (1) "a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department"; (2) "a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it"; (3) "the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion"; (4) "the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government"; (5) "an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made"; or (6) "the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question." Id. at 217.

儘管政治問題政策的參數不受精確公式的影響，最高法院已經確定了若干考慮因素，可能會導致根據政治問題政策造成不可裁量的情況。在Baker訴Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962年)法院指出了六個可能導致案件不可審判的”簡潔陳述”：(1)”這個問題對協調政治部門的文本上可證明的憲政承諾”; (2)”缺乏司法上可以發現和管理的解決標準”; (3)”沒有明確的非司法裁量權的初始政策決定是不可能做出決定的”; (4)”法院不可能做出獨立決議而不表示缺乏對政府適當協調分支的尊重”; (5) "需要毫不猶豫地堅持已經作出的政治決定”; (6) "各個部門在一個問題上發表多種聲明的尷尬可能性。"附件索引at 217.

While any one of these formulations would be sufficient for dismissal, see Bancoult, 445 F.3d at 432 (citing Schneider v. Kissinger,’412 F.3d 190, 194 (D.C. Cir. 2005)), all factors demonstrate that plaintiffs’ claims are nonjusticiable. Indeed, as the district court explained, plaintiffs’ challenge implicates the political question doctrine in the clearest way, inviting the court to disregard the conduct of foreign policy over five decades on the basis of a military order that provides no discoverable standards for resolving plaintiffs’ claim.

儘管這些簡潔陳述中的任何一個都足以駁回訴訟，參閱Bancoult, 445 F.3d at 432(引用Schneider訴Kissinger，(2005年D.C.巡迴法案))，所有條件都表明原告的主張不可裁判的。事實上，正如地區法院解釋的那樣，原告的挑戰以最明確的方式暗示了政治問題的政策，請求法院根據軍事命令無視五十年來對外政策的行為，該軍令為解決原告的主張提供了不可發現的標準。

B. As this Court has observed, “Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution ... is richly laden with delegation of foreign policy and national security powers to the legislature," Schneider, 412 F.3d at 194, and “Article II likewise provides allocation of foreign relations and national security powers to the President, the unitary chief executive," id. at 195.

"Indeed, the Supreme Court has described the President as possessing plenary and exclusive power in the internationa! arena and as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Gonzalez-Vera v. Kissinger, 449 F.3d 1260, 1263-64 (D.C. Cir. 2006); Bancoult, 445 Fo3d at 433.

B. 正如本法院所觀察到的，”憲法第1條第8款......賦予立法機構外交政策和國家安全權力，” Schneider, 412 F.3d at 194, 和”第2條同樣規定了對總統，統一的首席執行官的外交關係和國家安全權力的分配，”附件索引at 195. “事實上，最高法院認為總統在國際舞台上擁有全權和獨家權力，並且是聯邦政府在國際關係領域的唯一機構。” 附件索引(內部引號省略) );參閱also Gonzalez-Vera訴Kissinger, 449 F.3d 1260, 1263-64 (2006年D.C. 巡迴法案); Bancoult, 445 Fo3d at 433。

These principles bar adjudication of suits that ask a court to determine issues of national sovereignty over a particular territory. Such a determination, as the Court explained in Jones v. United States, 137 U.S. 202 (1890), "is not a judicial, but a political, question, the determination of which by the legislative and executive departments of any government conclusively binds the judges, as well as all other officers, citizens, and subjects of that government." Id. at 212 (collecting cases); see also Vermilya-Brown Co. v. Connell, 335 U.S. 377, 380 (1948) ("the determination of sovereignty over an area is for the legislative and executive departments"); Baker, 369 U.S. at 212 ("recognition of foreign governments ... strongly defies judicial treatment" and the "judiciary ordinarily follows the executive as to which nation has sovereignty over disputed territory").Plaintiffs do not merely ask the Court to intrude into the realm of foreign policy. They also ask that it disregard the foreign policy decisions of the political branches over a period of decades. Over fifty years ago, the United States recognized the Republic of China as the government of China, and further recognized Taiwan to be among China’s territories. See Mutual Defense Treaty Between the United States and the Republic of China, Dec. 2, 1954, 6 U.S.T. 433, Article VI. President Nixon’s 1972 visit to mainland China reopened communications with the People’s Republic of China "after ... many years without contact," JA358, paving the way for a series of joint communiques between the United States and the PRC. JA357-364. These communiques highlighted the crucial nature of the “Taiwan question" in the “normalization of relations between China and the United States," JA359, and helped establish diplomatic relations between, the PRC and the United States. JA362; 44 Fed. Reg. 1075 (announcing that the United States recognized the PRC as "sole legal government of China" and “terminating diplomatic relations with the Republic of China")Although President Carter decided that the “people of the United States" would “maintain cultural, commercial, and other unofficial relations with the people of Taiwan,” JA362, he also made it clear that any relations with the current governing regime in Taiwan would be "nongovernmental." JA362.

這些是要求法院確定對某一特定領土的國家主權問題的訴訟裁定。這樣的決心，正如法院在Jones訴美國所解釋的那樣，137 U.S. 202 (1890年)"不是司法的，而是政治的，問題，任何政府的立法和行政部門決定對法官具有決定性的約束力，以及所有其他官員，公民，和該政府的議題。"附件索引 at 212(收集案件)，參閱also Vermilya-Brown Co.訴Connell, 335 U.S. 377, 380 (1948年)("對一個地區的主權決定權是立法和行政部門的決定權"); Baker, 369 U.S. at 212 ("對外國政府的承認......強烈反對司法對待“，而且”司法部門通常關注行政部門對哪個國家對爭議領土擁有主權")。原告不僅要求法院闖入外交政策領域。五十多年前，美國承認中國華民國是中國政府，並進一步承認台灣是中國的領土之一。參閱美國和中華民國的共同防禦條約，1954年12月2日，6 U.S.T. 433,第六條。尼克森總統1972年訪問中國大陸，重新與中華人民共和國進行溝通"之後......多年一直沒有接觸，" JA358，鋪平了一系列美國和中華人民共和國之間的聯合公報的方式。JA357-364。這些公報中強調，”台灣問題”的關鍵性質的”中國和美國之間的關係正常化，”JA359，並協助建立中華人民共和國與美國的外交關係。JA362; 44 Fed. Reg. 1075(宣布美國承認中華人民共和國為”中國的唯一合法政府”，”終止與中華民國的外交關係”) 儘管卡特總統認為”美國人民”將”維持與台灣人民的文化，商業和其他非官方關係”，JA362，他還明確表示，與台灣現行執政體制的任何關係都將是”非政府的”。JA362。

The political branches have further explicated the nature of the United States’ relationship with Taiwan in several executive orders and the Taiwan Relations Act. See Exec. Order No. 12143 (June 22, 1979) (regarding unofficial relations with Taiwan); Exec. Order No. 13014 (August 15, 1996), 61 Fed. Reg. 42963; 22 U.S.C. § 3301 (declaring that the policy of the United States is inter alia, "to make clear that the United States decision to establish diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China rests upon the expectation that the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means").

政治分支機構通過幾項行政命令和與台灣關係法進一步闡明了美國與台灣關係的性質。參閱行政。命令No. 12143(1979年6月22日)(關於與台灣的非官方關係) ; 行政命令No. 13014(1996年8月15日)，61 Fed. Reg. 42963; 22 U.S.C. § 3301 (宣布美國的政策除其他外，"明確表示美國決定與中華人民共和國建立外交關係的期望是，台灣的前途將通過和平方式來決”)。

Taiwan has been the subject of the most sensitive diplomatic concerns. Plaintiffs’ suit asks the Court to set aside the policy determinations to maintain only unofficial relations with Taiwan and to establish diplomatic relationships with the People’s Republic of China, see Exec. Order No. 13014, so as to "maintain peace, security, and stability in the Western Pacific." 22 U.S.C. §.3301. Plaintiffs thus ask the Court to interject itself into a matter that presents an "unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made" and any court pronouncement would create “the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question." Baker, 369 U.S. at 217.

台灣一直是最敏感的外交問題的議題。原告的訴訟要求法院拋開政策決定，以保持與台灣只有非官方的關係，並與中國建立人民共和國的外交關係，參閱行政。命令No. 13014，以”維護西太平洋的和平，安全與穩定”。 22 U.S.C. §.3301。因此，原告要求法院自己介入一個問題，該問題表現出”不加懷疑地堅持已經作出的政治決定”的不尋常需求，任何法庭宣判都會在”各個部門就一個問題發表多種聲明時會有造成尷尬的可能性。”貝克，369 U.S. at 217

Plaintiffs’ attempt to litigate foreign policy determinations is particularly anomalous because they offer no "judicially discoverable and manageable standards," Baker, 369 U.S. at 217, that would permit resolution of their suit. Plaintiffs urge that General Order No. 1 gave the United States the right to “an exclusive, supreme, unsupervised and unlimited role as the ’principal occupying Power’ of Taiwan." PI. Br. 35; JA8 (Plaintiffs’ Am. Complaint) (stating that General Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, issued General Order No. 1" instructing Japanese officials within Taiwan to surrender to a representative of the Republic of China as a "representative of the Allied Powers"). They contend that this order established the de jure sovereignty of the United States over Taiwan. See JA32 ( "General Order No. 1 made [the ROC representative] an agent for the principal occupying Power, I.e., the United States, and...nothing since has withdrawn that agency or substituted any other Power over Taiwan"); JAI4 ( "General Douglas MacArthur’s General Order No. 1 ... is still valid" and [n]either the [San Francisco Peace Treaty] nor the Treaty of Taipei nor any other subsequent legal instruments changed the status of Taiwan").

原告提起外交政策裁決的企圖是特別不正常的，因為他們沒有提供”司法上可發現和可管理的標準”貝克，369 U.S. at 217，這將允許解決他們的訴訟。原告呼籲一般命令第一號給了美國的權利”作為台灣”主要佔領國”優勢，至高無上，不受監督和無限的角色。”PI. Br. 35; JA8(原告是抱怨)(指出，道格拉斯·麥克阿瑟將軍，盟軍最高司令，發佈一般命令第一號”指示台灣境內的日本官員向中華民國代表投降，作為”盟國代表”)。他們認為這個命令確立了美國在台灣的法理上的主權。參閱JA32("一般命令第一號(中華民國代表)擔任主要佔領國的代理人，也就是說，美國並...沒有，因為已經撤回該機構或在台灣取代任何其他權力"); JAI4(“道格拉斯麥克阿瑟將軍的一般命令第一號......仍然有效”，[舊金山和約]，“台北條約”以及任何其他法律文書都改變了台灣的地位“)

As the district court recognized, it "is clear ... that the judiciary is not equipped to interpret and apply, 50 years later, a wartime military order entered at a time ofgreat confusion and undoubted chaos." JA33.

正如地區法院所承認的，它"很明確...表明司法部門沒有配備解釋和運用，50年後，戰時軍令在很大的困惑和混亂勿庸置疑的時候進入。"JA33。

C. Plaintiffs’ insistence that their claim is justiciable under the Immigration and Nationality Act ignores the antecedent question of whether that Act applies to persons residing in Taiwan. See PI. Br, 24-26; 8 U.S.C. § 1503 (limiting declarations of nationality to "any person who is within the United States") (emphasis added). Plaintiffs’ assertion that their challenge is justiciable because they seek "not to influence United States foreign policy," but rather to "vindicate their personal rights" conflates the question of standing with the political question doctrine. PI. Br. 21-22. It is not their personal stake in the determination of which power has a iegitimate claim to Taiwan sovereignty that is at issue, but rather the justiciability of that determination.

C. 原告堅持認為他們的主張根據“移民與國籍法”是可以通過的，這忽略了該法案是否適用於居住在台灣的人的先前問題。參閱PI. Br, 24-26; 8 U.S.C. § 1503(限制國籍的聲明，以"誰是在美國境內的所有人")(附加重點)。原告聲稱他們的挑戰是可以接受的，因為他們尋求"不影響美國的外交政策"而是"維護自己的個人權利"將問題的地位與政治問題原則混為一談。PI. Br. 21-22. 在確定哪一權力是對台灣主權的合法要求是有爭議的問題上，而是確定的可訴性。

Plaintiffs’ citations to other cases "touching on highly sensitive foreign relations" are inapposite. PI. Br. 22-23. None of these cases required courts to either interpret wartime military orders or assert the United States’ de jure sovereignty - notwithstanding the executive and legislative branches’ many indications to the contrary - over a territory that is the subject of decades of carefully crafted diplomacy. Rather, all these cases involved judicial interpretation of statutes or treaties. .See, e.g., Japan Whaling Ass'n v. American Cetacean Society, 478 U.S. 221 (1986) (declining to apply the political question doctrine after concluding that the issue in that case “presents a purely legal question of statutory interpretation"); Cheng Fu Sheng v. Rogers; 177 F. Supp. 281, 284 (D.D.C. 1959) (interpreting the term “country" in the Immigration and Nationality Act, and deferring to the views of the State Department regarding status of Taiwan), rev’d on other grounds by Rogers v. Cheng Fu Sheng, 280 F.2d 663 (D.C. Cir. 1960); United States v. Ushi Shiroma, 123 F. Supp. 145, 149 (D. Haw. 1954) (interpreting a ratified treaty and deferring to the Secretary of State’s "reasonable construction of treaty terms"); Dupont Circle Citizens Ass’n v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning, 530 A.2d 1163 (D.C. App. 1987) (interpreting the language of the Taiwan Relations Act).

原告對其他案件的引用“涉及高度敏感的外交關係”是不合適的。PI. Br. 22-23。這些案件都不需要法院來解釋戰時的軍事命令或者美國主張’法律上的主權，儘管行政和立法部門’ 許多跡象相反，在領土上已經有幾十年精心打造外交的領域。相反的，所有這些案件都涉及對法規或條約的司法解釋。參閱例如日本捕鯨協會訴美國鯨類協會478 U.S. 221 (1986年) (在結束了那個問題之後，拒絕應用政治問題學說”提出了一個純粹法定解釋的法律問題”) Cheng Fu Sheng訴Rogers; 177 F. Supp. 281, 284 (D.D.C. 1959年) (解讀"國家”一詞在移民和國籍法，並根據國務院對台灣地位的看法)，Rogers訴Cheng Fu Sheng對其他理由提出異議，280 F.2d 663 (1960年D.C.巡迴法案)美國訴Ushi Shiroma, 123 F. Supp. 145, 149 (D. Haw. 1954年)(解釋一個批准的條約並推遲到國務卿的"合理的條約條款的建立");杜邦圈公民協會訴哥倫比亞特區。的分區，530 A.2d 1163 (D.C. App. 1987年)( 解釋與”台灣關係法”的語言)

Plaintiffs likewise err in suggesting that the portions of Boumediene v. Bush, 476 F.3d 981 (D.C. Cir. 2007), cited in the district court’s decision are at odds with the Supreme Court’s subsequent ruling in that case, Boumediene v. Bush, 128 S. Cto 2229 (2008). PI. Br. 27-28. The district court cited this Court’s decision in Boumediene for the well-established proposition that’” [t]he determination of sovereignty over an area, the Supreme Court has held, is for the legislative and executive departments.’" JA29 (quoting Boumediene, 476 F.3d at 992 (quoting Vermilya-Brown, 335 U.S. at 380)). Citing the same language of Vermilya-Brown, the Supreme Court in Boumediene affirmed the same principle and declined question the government’s position that Cuba, not the United States, "maintains sovereignty, in the legal and technical sense of the term, over Guantanamo Bay." Id. at 2252. In determining constitutional principles relevant in assessing the government’s conduct, the Court looked not to issues of de jure sovereignty but to "the objective degree of control the Nation asserts over foreign territory." Id. at 2252-53. That ruling provides no support for plaintiffs’ request that the Court declare their entitlement to be treated as United States nationals.

原告同樣錯誤地暗示Boumediene訴Bush的部分(2007年D.C.巡迴法案.)部分，在地方法院的判決中的引用與最高法院隨後對此案的判決不一致，Boumediene訴Bush，128 S. Cto 2229 (2008年). PI. Br. 27-28. 地方法院援引本法院在Boumediene的判決，認為這是一個完善的主張"確定一個地區的主權，最高法院已經舉行對於立法和行政部門’" JA29 (引用Boumediene, 476 F.3d at 992 (引用Vermilya-Brown, 335 U.S. at 380))。引用Vermilya-Brown的同一種語言，最高法院在Boumediene肯定了同樣的原則，並拒絕質疑政府對古巴的立場，不是美國，"在關鍵詞的法律和技術意義上維護關於關塔那摩灣的主權。" 附件索引. at 2252. 在確定評估政府的行為相關的憲法原則，法院認為不是在法律上的主權問題，而是為了” 國家對外國領土的控制的客觀程度。” 附件索引at 2252-53。這一裁決為原告請求法院宣告其權利為美國公民被視為不支持。

II. Plaintiffs Fail To State A Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted.

II. 原告未能提出可以獲得權利的要求。

Assuming that the Court were to reach the merits of the case, it should affirm the district court’s decision because plaintiffs have failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See Haddon v. Walters, 43 F.3d 1488, 1491 (D.C. Cir. 1995) ("[W]e may affirm on different grounds the judgment of a lower court if it is correct as a matter of law[.]") (internal quotation marks omitted).

假設法院要達到案件的優點，應該肯定地方法院的判決，因為原告未能闡明其減免可給予要求。參閱Haddon 訴Walters，43 F.3d 1488, 1491(1995年D.C.巡迴法案.)(“[我們]可能以不同的理由肯定下級法院的判決是否屬於法律問題[。]”) (內部引號省略)。

Plaintiffs invoke the Immigration Nationality Act ("INA"), which allows an individual to bring a declaratory judgment action if a person claims to be United States national and is denied "such right or privilege...upon the ground that he is not a national of the United States." 8 U.S.C. § 1503; P1. Br. 1, 6, 20. Plaintiffs urge that they are nationals of the United States under 8 U.S C. § 1101(a) (22) (B) which defines "national of the United States" to include "a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States." Contrary to plaintiffs’ understanding, this section cannot be made applicable by asserting that the "Taiwanese people owe permanent allegiance to the United States," JAI7. As the Second Circuit noted in Marquez-Almanzar v. INS, 4.18 F.3d 210, 218-219 (2nd Cir. 2005), none cannot qualify as a U.S. national under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a) (22) (B) by a manifestation of ’permanent allegiance’ to the United States," a holding reached by every circuit to address the issue.①

原告援引移民國籍法案(“INA”)，如果一個人聲稱自己是美國國民並被拒絕，這就允許個人提出宣告性判決， “這種權利或特權......基於他不是美國國民的理由。” 8 U.S.C. § 1503; P1. Br. 1, 6, 20。原告敦促他們為美國國民根據8 U.S C. § 1101(a) (22) (B) 其中定義”美國國民”，包括”一個人，儘管不是美國公民，永久欠效忠美國。”與原告的理解相反，本部分不能通過聲稱”台灣人欠缺永久效忠美國”JAI7來適用。正如第二巡迴法庭在Marquez-Almanzar訴INS中指出的4.18 F.3d 210, 218-219 (2005年第2次巡迴法案)中，根本沒有人不符合美國國籍這是根據8 U.S.C. § 1101(a) (22) (B)通過對美國的”永久效忠”表現出來”由每個巡迴達到處理解決問題。①

Section 1101(a) (22) (B) must be read in conjunction with 8 U.S.C. § 1408, which defines a non-citizen national as a “person born in an outlying possession of the United States on or after the date of the formal acquisition of such possession." See 8 U.S.C. § 1408(1). See Marquez-Almanzar, 418 F.3d at 217, 219②

第1101(a) (22) (B)部分必須結合8 U.S.C. § 1408閱讀。其中將非公民國家定義為”在正式納入其領地之日或之後在美國境外出生的人。”參閱8 U.S.C. § 1408(1)。參閱Marquez-Almanzar, 418 F.3d at 217, 219②

The statute defines "outlying possessions of the United States" as "American Samoa and Swains Island." 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a) (29); see also Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420, 467 n.2 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) ("The distinction [between nationality and citizenship] has little practical impact today, however, for the only remaining noncitizen nationals are residents of American Samoa and Swains Island.") (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a) (22)).

該法令規定，”美國的偏遠領地”如同”美屬薩摩亞和斯溫島。”8 U.S.C. § 1101(a) (29); 參閱Miller訴Albright523 U.S. 420, 467 n.2 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting)，(“[國籍與公民權]之間的區別現在幾乎沒有什麼實際影響，但僅剩的非公民國民是美屬薩摩亞和斯溫斯島的居民。”)

Plaintiffs likewise err in asserting that "the Taiwanese people owe permanent allegiance to the United States and have the status of United States nationals," because "the United States is holding de jure sovereignty over Taiwan." JAI7. The United States has repeatedly made clear that Taiwan is not within its legal control. See Mutual Defense Treaty Between the United States and the Republic of China, Dec. 2, 1954, 6 U.S.T. 433, Article VI ("the terms ’territorial’ and ’territories’ shall mean in respect of the Republic of China, Taiwan and the Pescadores"); 22 U.S.C. § 3303(b) (1) (stating that references in the laws of the United States to "foreign countries, nations, states, governments, or similar entities" should be considered also to cover Taiwan). The current relationship between the United States and Taiwan derives solely and exclusively from Executive Order No. 13014 of August 15, 1996, 61 Fed. Reg. 42963, and the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, 22 U.S.C. 3301, et seq., both of which make clear that whichever entity does possess sovereignty over Taiwan, the United States does not.

原告同樣犯錯的聲稱“台灣人欠永久效忠美國，並有美國國民地位，”因為”美國對台灣擁有法理上的主權。”JAI7。美國已多次明確表示，台灣不是其法律控制範圍內。參見1954年12月2日美國與中華民國之間的共同防禦條約，6 U.S.T. 433, 第六條(”領土”和”領地”是指中華民國，台灣和澎湖”); 22 U.S.C. § 3303(b) (1)(指出，在美國的法律對“外國國家，民族，國家，政府或類似實體”也應考慮到包括台灣) 目前美國和台灣之間的關係完全來自行政命令1996年8月15日第13014號，61 Fed. Reg. 42963，和1979年的“與台灣關係法”，22 U.S.C. 3301，等等，這兩個明確指出，無論實體中擁有對台灣的主權，美國都沒有。

①See Hashmi v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 700, 704 (8th Cir. 2008); Abou Haidar v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 206, 207 (1st Cir. 2006); Omolo v. Gonzales, 452 F.3d 404, 408-09 (5th Cir. 2006); Sebastian Soler v. U.S. Attorney General, 409 F.3d 1280, 1285-87 (11th Cir. 2005) ;Perdomo-Padilla v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 964, 967-68, 972 (9th Cir. 2003); Salim v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 307, 310 (3d Cir. 2003); United States v. Jimenez Alcala, 353 F.3d 858, 861-62 (10th Cir. 2003). While the Fourth Circuit held differently in United States v. Morin, 80 F.3d 124 (4th Cir. 1996), it recently reversed itself and adopted the prevailing view that non-citizens are nationals by birth only when born in the outlying U.S. possessions defined by statute. See Fernandez v. Keisler, 502 F.3d 337, 349-51 & n.8 (4th Cir. 2007).

①參閱Hashmi訴Mukasey，533 F.3d 700，704(2008年第8次巡迴法案); Abou Haidar訴Gonzales，437 F.3d 206,207（2006年第1次巡迴法案）; Omolo訴Gonzales，452 F.3d 404,408-09（2006年第5次巡迴法案）; Sebastian Soler訴美國總檢察長，409 F.3d 1280,1285-87（2005年第11次巡迴法案）; Perdomo-Padilla訴Ashcroft，333 F.3d 964,967-68,972（2003年第9次巡迴法案）; Salim訴Ashcroft，350 F.3d 307,310（2003年第3次巡迴法案）; 美國訴Jimenez Alcala，353 F.3d 858,861-62（2003年第10次巡迴法案）。雖然第四巡迴法庭在美國訴莫林，80 F.3d 124(1996年第4次巡迴法案）中持不同意見，它最近扭轉了局面，並採納了普遍的觀點，即非公民只有在法規規定的美國的偏遠領地中出生才是出生國民。參閱Fernandez訴Keisler，502 F.3d 337,349-51＆n.8（2007年第4次巡迴法案）。

②Section 1408 defines three other situations for a person to be considered a non-citizen national, but plaintiffs are not making any allegations related to those situations. Plaintiffs have not alleged that their parents are nationals with residences in the United States, see 8 U.S.C. § 1408(2), that they are of an unknown parentage, found in an outlying possession of the United States while under the age of five, 8 U.S.C. § 1408(3), or that one of each of their parents are nationals of the United States and who were present in the United States for at least seven years during a continuous period of ten years," 8 U.S.C. § 1408(4). Rather, they have alleged that they are entitled to nationality status because of their claim that the "United States is holding de jure sovereignty over Taiwan" JAI7

②第1408定義了其他三種情況的人被視為非公民的國家，，但原告沒有提出任何有關這些情況的指控。原告人並沒有指稱他們的父母是在美國有住所的國民，參閱8 U.S.C. § 1408(2)，他們的父母身份不明，在五歲以下的時候被發現在美國的偏遠地區，8 U.S.C. § 1408(3)，或者他們每個人的父母都是美國國民，並且在連續十年的時間裡在美國至少工作了七年，” 8 U.S.C. § 1408(4)。相反，他們指稱他們有權享有國籍，因為他們聲稱”美國對台灣擁有法律上的主權”JAI7

CONCLUSION

結論

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court should be affirmed.

基於上述原因，地方法院的判決應予以肯定。

Respectfully submitted,

恭敬地提交，

GREGORY G. KATSAS

Assistant Attorney General

助理總檢察長

JEFFREY A. TAYLOR

United States Attorney

美國檢察官

MARK B. STERN

202-514-5089

MELISSA N. PATTERSON

202-514-1201

Attorneys, Appellate Staff

Civi! Division, Room 7230

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washington, DC 20530-0001

律師，上訴職員

民事！部門，7230室

美國司法部

賓州大道950號，N.W.

華盛頓特區20530-0001

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE.

合規證明

Pursuant to Rule 32(a) (7) (C) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, I hereby certify that this brief complies with the type volume limitation in Rule 32(a) (7) (B). The foregoing brief is presented in monospaced Courier New font of no more than 10.5 characters per inch. The brief contains 4,651 words, according to the count of this office’s word processing system

根據聯邦上訴程序規則第32條(a) (7) (C)的規定，本人證明本案符合細則第32條(a) (7) (B)中的類型限制。上述簡介以不超過每英寸10.5個字符的等寬Courier New字體呈現。根據該辦公室文字處理系統的統計，該報告共4,651字。

Melissa Patterson

梅麗莎帕特森

Attorney for Defendant-appellee

被告 - 被上訴人的律師

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

服務證書

I certify that on December 3, 2008, I filed and served the foregoing Brief for Defendant-appellee by delivering an original and fourteen copies to the Clerk of the Court by hand delivery, and by further causing two copies to be delivered by overnight delivery service to:

我證明，2008年12月3日，我通過手工交付方式向法院書記交付了原件和14份複印件，並通過隔夜送達服務進一步提交了兩份複印件，提交並送達了被告 - 被上訴人的上述簡介至：

Charles H. Camp

查爾斯·H·坎普

Law Offices of Charles H. Camp

查爾斯·H·坎普律師事務所

Firm: 202-457-7786

公司：202-457-7786

1319 Eighteenth Street, NW

西北第十八街1319號

Washington, DC 20036-0000

華盛頓特區20036-0000

Melissa Patterson

梅麗莎帕特森

Attorney for Defendant-Appellee

被告 - 被上訴人的律師

Addendum

附錄

8 U.S.C.A. § 1101

Effective: July 27, 2006

生效日期：2006年7月27日

United States Code Annotated Currentness

Title 8. Aliens and Nationality ( Refs & Annos )

Chapter 12, Immigration and Nationality (Refs & Annos)

Subchapter I. General Provisions (Refs & Annos)

美國法典註釋當前性

標題8.外國人和國籍（參考文獻和附件）

第12章，移民和國籍（參考文獻和附件）

第一章總則（參考文件和附件）

§ 1101 Definitions

§ 1101定義

(a) As used in this chapter

(a) 正如本章所用

(1) The term "administrator" means the official designated by the Secretary of State pursuant to section 1104(b) of this title.

(1) 術語“行政官員”一詞是指國務大臣根據本標題1104(b)所指定的官員。

(2) The term "advocates" includes, but is not limited to, advises, recommends, furthers by overt act, and admits belief in.

(2) 術語“主張”包括，但不限於，勸告，建議，通過公開行為進一步加強，並承認相信。

(3) The term "alien" means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.

(3) 術語“外國人”是指任何人沒有美國公民或國民。

(4) The term "application for admission" has reference to the application for demission into the United States and not to the application for the issuance of an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa.

(4) 術語“入學申請”具有參考入學申請進入美國，而不是用於發放移民或者非移民簽證的申請

(5) The term "Attorney General" means the Attorney General of the United States.

(5) 術語“檢察總長”是指美國總檢察長。

(6) The term "border crossing identification card" means a document of identity bearing that designation issued to an alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent, residence, or to an alien who is a resident in foreign contiguous territory, by a consular officer or an immigration officer for the purpose of crossing over the borders between the United States and foreign contiguous territory in accordance with such conditions for its issuance and use as may be prescribed by regulations. Such regulations shall provide that (A) each such document include a biometric identifier (such as the fingerprint or handprint of the alien) that is machine readable and (B) an alien presenting a border crossing identification card is not permitted to cross over the border into the United States unless the biometric identifier contained on the card matches the appropriate biometric characteristic of the alien.

(6)“邊境通行證”一詞是指具有該名稱的身份證件，該身份證明文件是頒發給由外國人連續居住在外國連續領土內的外國人，由領事官員或根據條例規定的發行和使用條件，為了越過美國與外國毗連領土之間的邊界而移民官員。這些規定應當規定：(A)每個這樣的文件包括機器可讀的生物識別標識符（例如外國人的指紋或手印），並且(B)提交過境證件的外國人不允許越過邊境進入美國，除非該證件上的生物識別符與外國人的適當生物識別特徵相符。

(7) The term "clerk of court" means a clerk of a naturalization court

(7) “法院書記”一詞是指入籍法院的書記員

(8) The terms "Commissioner" and "Deputy Commissioner" mean the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization and a Deputy Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, respectively.

(8) ”專員”和”副專員”分別是指移民歸化局局長和移民歸化局副局長。

(9) The term "consular officer" means any consular, diplomatic, or other officer or employee of the United States designated under regulations prescribed under alathority contained in this chapter, for the purpose of issuing immigrant or nonimmigrant visas or, when used in subchapter III of this chapter, for the purpose of adjudicating nationality.

(9) ”領事官員”一詞是指根據本章規定的條例規定指定的美國的任何領事，外交或其他官員或僱員，用於簽發移民或非移民簽證，或者當用於分章為了判定國籍，本章第3節。

(10) The term "crewman" means a person serving in any capacity on board a vessel or aircraft.

(10) “船員”一語是指在船上或飛機上以任何身份任職的人。

(11) The term "diplomatic visa" means a nonimmigrant visa bearing that title and issued to a nonimmigrant in accordance with such regulations as the Secretary of State may prescribe.

(11)“外交簽證”一詞是指根據國務大臣規定的規定發給非移民的所有權的非移民簽證。

(12) The term "doctrine" includes, but is not limited to, policies, practices, purposes, aims, or procedures.

(12)“學說”一詞包括但不限於政策，實踐，目的，目的或程序。

(13) (A) The terms "admission" and "admitted" mean, with respect to an alien, the lawful entry of the alien into the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer

(13) (A) 入境”和“入境”這兩個詞對於外國人來說，是指經過移民官員的檢查和授權後外國人進入美國的合法入境

(B) An alien who is paroled under section 1182 (d) (5) of this title or permitted to land temporarily as an alien crewman shall not be considered to have been admitted.

(B) 根據本標題第1182 (d) (5) 條被假釋的外國人或被允許臨時登記為外籍船員的外國人不應被視為已被接納。

(C) An alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States shall not be regarded as seeking an admission into the United States for purposes of the immigration laws unless the alien--

(C)根據移民法的規定，除非外國人合法承認在美國永久居留，外國人不應被視為尋求進入美國-

(i) has abandoned or relinquished that status,

(i) 已經拋棄或放棄了這一身份，

(ii) has been absent from the United States for a continuous period in excess of 180 days,

(ii) 已連續超過180天都沒有來到美國

(iii) has engaged in illegal activity after having departed the United State,

(iii) 在離開美國之後從事非法活動，

(iv) has departed from the United States while under legal process seeking removal of the alien from the United States, including removal proceedings under this chapter and extradition proceedings,

(iv) 從美國，而來自美國的法律程序，要求刪除外國人，包括本章和引渡程序下遣返程序下離去，

(v) has committed an offense identified in section 1182 (a) (2) of this title, unless since such offense the alien has been granted relief under section 1182(h) or 1229 b(a) of this title, or

(v) 已犯下本書第1182 (a) (2)節所述的罪行，除非由於此類犯罪，外國人已根據本章節第1182 (h)或1229 b (a) 或

(vi) is attempting to enter at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers or has not been admitted to the United Stares after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer

(vi) 在入境事務主任指定的時間或地點試圖進入，或者在移民官員檢查和授權後未被允許進入美國國家統計局

(14) The term “foreign state” includes outlying possessions of. a foreign state, but self-governing dominions or territories under mandate or trusteeship shall be regarded as separate foreign states.

(14)“術語“外國”包括外國的財產。外國狀態，但自治下的授權或託管領土或地區應被視為獨立的外國政府。

(15) The term “immigrant” means every alien except an alien who is within one of the following classes of nonimmigrant aliens --

(15)“移民”一詞是指除外國人外的所有外國人，他們屬於以下非移民外國人類別之一 –

(A) (i) an ambassador, public minister or career diplomatic or consular officer who has been accredited by a foreign government, recognized de fine by the United States and who is accepted by the President or by the Secretary of State, and the members of the alien's immediate family;

(A) (i) 大使，公職部長或職業外交官或領事官員已經獲得外國政府認可，由美國承認的罰款，誰是由總統或國務卿接受，和外國人的直系親屬成員

(ii) upon a basis of reciprocity, other officials and employees who have been accredited by a foreign government recognized de jure by the United States, who are accepted by the Secretary of State, and the members of their immediate families; and

(ii) 在對等的基礎上，經國務卿接受的美國法律承認的外國政府認可的其他官員和僱員及其直系親屬; 和

(iii) upon a basis of reciprocity, attendants, servants, personal employees, and members of their immediate families, of the officials and employees who have a nonimmigrant status under (i) and (ii) above

(iii) 在互惠的基礎上，服務員，僕人，個人僱員及其直系親屬，(i)和(ii)項下的非移民身份的官員和僱員

(B) an alien (other than one coming for the purpose of study or of performing skilled or unskilled labor or as a represintative of foreign press, radio film, or other foreign information media cbming to engagn in such vocation) hdving a residence in a foriga country which he has no intention of abandoning and who is visiting the United States temporarily for business or temporarily for pleasure;

(B) 外國人（除了為研究目的或進行熟練或非技術勞工或作為外國媒體，廣播電影，或其他外國信息可能會參與這種職業），在他不打算放棄外國國家居住，暫時商務或暫時休閒而訪問美國;

(C) an alien in immediate and continuous transit through the United States, or an alien who qualifies as a person entitled to pass in transit to and from the United Nations Headquarters District and foreign countries, urider the provisions of paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) of section 11 of the Headquarters Agreement with the United Nations (61 Stat. 758);

(D) (i) an alien crewman serving in good faith as such in a capacity required for normal operation and service on board a vessel, as defined in section 1288(a) of this title (other than a fishing vessel having its home port or an operating base in the United States), or aircraft, who intends to land temporarily and solely in pursuit of his calling as a crewman and to depart from the United States with the vessel or aircraft on which he arrived or some other vessel or aircraft;

(D) (i) 如本標題1288(a)部分所定義的那樣，以船上正常操作和服務所需的真實身份服務的外籍船員(除在美國有本國港口或作業基地的漁船外)或飛機，他打算暫時和單獨著陸，作為一名船員，並從他到達的船隻或飛機或其他船隻或飛機離開美國；

(ii) an alien crewman serving in good faith as such in any capacity required for normal operations and service aboard a fishing vessel having its home port or an operating base in the United States who intends to land temporarily in Guam and solely in pursuit of his calling as a crewman and to depart from Guam with the vessel on which he arrived;

(ii) 一名外國船員本著真誠服務的任何正常作業和服務所需的任何能力，該船舶在美國境內擁有其本國港口或作業基地的漁船，該漁船打算臨時在關島降落，並且只是為了追捕他作為並使用他到達的船隻離開關島;

(E) an alien, entitled to enter the United States under and in pursuance of the provisions of a treaty of commerce and navigation between the United States and the foreign state of which he is a national, and the spouse and children of any such alien if accompanying or following to join him; (i) solely to carry on substantial trade, including trade in services or trade in technology, principally between the United States and the foreign state of which he is a national; (ii) solely to develop and direct the operations of an enterprise in which he has invested, or of an enterprise in which he is actively in the process of investing, a substantial amount of capital; or (iii) solely to perform services in a specialty occupation in the United States if the alien is a national of the Commonwealth of Australia and with respect to whom the secretary of Labor determines and certifies to the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State that the intending employer has filed with the Secretary of Labor an attestation under section 1182(t)(1) of this title;

(E)有權根據並依照美國與其所屬外國之間的商業和航行條約的條款進入美國的外國人，以及任何此類國家的配偶和子女外國人如果陪伴或跟隨他加入; (i)純粹是為了進行大量的貿易，包括服務貿易或技術貿易，主要是在美國和他所屬的外國之間; (ii)僅僅是為了發展和指導他投資的企業或者他積極投資的企業的經營活動，投入大量的資金; 或 (iii)只有在外國人是澳大利亞聯邦國民並且由勞工部長向國土安全部長和國務卿確定並證明願意接受雇主已根據本標題第1182(t)(1)條向勞工部長提交了證明文件;

27194

焦點專欄

2014-02-06 第一次 控美案 2006年

2014-02-06 第一次控美案 2006年