Matter of Ma, Interim Decision Number 3160
| Decision Date | 23 September 1991 |
| Docket Number | A-26750556,Interim Decision Number 3160 |
| Parties | MATTER OF MA In Visa Petition Proceedings |
| Court | U.S. DOJ Board of Immigration Appeals |
The United States citizen petitioner applied for preference status for the beneficiary as her married son under section 203(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(a)(4) (1982). In a decision dated June 27, 1986, the Immigration and Naturalization Service Regional Adjudications Center ("RAC") director denied the petition on the ground that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary is her son. The petitioner has appealed from that decision. The appeal will be dismissed.
The petitioner is a 66-year-old native of China who became a citizen of the United States by naturalization on March 20, 1956. On April 11, 1986, she filed a visa petition on behalf of the beneficiary to accord him preference status as a married son of a United States citizen under section 203(a)(4) of the Act. The beneficiary is a 46-year-old native and citizen of China.
In an affidavit dated February 26, 1986, the petitioner explains why she did not reveal the fact that the beneficiary is her son until she filed a visa petition on his behalf. According to the petitioner, she married her first husband in January of 1944, in China. The beneficiary was born on February 2, 1945. The petitioner's husband died on February 20, 1946, leaving her in dire straits as a widow with a child. In August of 1947, her friends introduced her to a native of China who had become a citizen of the United States. He had returned to China to look for a wife. She knew that Chinese men were old fashioned and would not want to marry a widow with a child, so she did not tell this man that she had been married and had a child. She married the United States citizen in Hong Kong on October 22, 1947. She left her son, the beneficiary, with her former spouse's mother and moved to the United States with her new husband. She entered the United States as the spouse of a United States citizen on November 19, 1947. She did not reveal her former marriage when she applied for a marriage certificate in Hong Kong or later when she applied for naturalization in the United States. She did, however, assist in supporting the beneficiary by sending money to him through her brother.
The petitioner supported her statements with an affidavit from her United States citizen brother dated March 20, 1986. He confirms the petitioner's claim that she was married previously and that her previous husband died in February of 1946. He states that he saw the beneficiary right after the child's birth. In addition, he confirms the petitioner's claim that she passed money through him to the beneficiary to avoid compromising her second marriage.
The petitioner also submitted an affidavit from a friend which is dated March 20, 1986. This affiant is a citizen of the United States who states that she lived in a nearby village when the petitioner was living in China. She declares that she has personal knowledge that the petitioner was married previously and that the beneficiary is her child.
As additional support, the petitioner submitted a money order dated April 24, 1974, and a number of documents which were apparently used to transfer funds to the Bank of China. The bank documents are not properly translated. See generally 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1) (1991) for the requirements in this regard.
The only other document that we will mention is a Chinese notarial certificate which was executed in China on November 18, 1985. It certifies that the beneficiary is the petitioner's son. It was issued on the basis of an application from the beneficiary.
In his decision, the RAC director notes that the petitioner did not previously declare that the beneficiary is her son. He expresses suspicion over the fact that now, many years after her naturalization, she is trying to convince the Service that the beneficiary is her son. He states further that he has reviewed the documents the petitioner submitted in support of her petition, and he is not convinced that the beneficiary actually is her son. Accordingly, he denies the petition on the ground that the petitioner has failed to meet her burden of establishing the claimed relationship with the beneficiary.
In an appeal brief, the petitioner contends that she has adequately explained why she did not claim the beneficiary as her son previously and that she has established by incontrovertible evidence that the beneficiary is her son. For instance, she submitted a Chinese notarial certificate which declares that the beneficiary is her son. She points out that the Board held in Matter of May, 18 I&N Dec. 381, 383 (BIA 1983), that Chinese notarial certificates are "generally reliable" because they are issued on the basis of primary documentation or on the basis of an investigation by the notarial office staff. Moreover, the Board went even further in Matter of Chu, 19 I&N Dec. 81 (BIA 1984), by holding that a notarial certificate is an essential element of proof for establishing the existence of a post-1950 adoption in the People's Republic of China.
In addition to claiming that the RAC director failed to give adequate weight to the evidence she submitted, the petitioner contends that he failed to articulate in any comprehensible manner his reasoning or the basis for the denial of the visa petition. According to the petitioner, the RAC director seems to have based his decision solely on...
To continue reading
Request your trial