Matter of Soo Hoo

• Decision Date: 22 April 1965
• Docket Number: Interim Decision Number 1461,A-13881251
• Parties: MATTER OF SOO HOO In Visa Petition Proceedings
• Court: U.S. DOJ Board of Immigration Appeals

11 I&N Dec. 151

MATTER OF SOO HOO

In Visa Petition Proceedings

Interim Decision Number 1461

A-13881251

Board of Immigration Appeals

Decided by Board April 22, 1965

Beneficiary's adoption in China by petitioner in 1938 when the former was 12 years old and the latter was 27 years old does not constitute a valid adoption in accordance with Article 1073 of the Chinese Civil Code which provides that the adopter must be at least 20 years older than the person to be adopted.

The case comes forward on appeal from the order of the District Director, New York District, dated January 22, 1965 denying the visa petition for the reason that it has not been established that the adoption of the benficiary was effected in writing in accordance with Article 1079 of the Chinese Civil Code; the mere statement by the petitioner that an adoption certificate has been obtained and lost is merely self-serving and does not overcome the burden of proof resting upon the petitioner.

The petitioner, a native of China, a citizen of the United States by naturalization on June 17, 1963, 53 years old, female, seeks quota preference status under section 203(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act on behalf of her married adopted son, a native and citizen of China, 27 years old.

In a sworn statement before a Service officer on December 9, 1964 the petitioner testified that she adopted the beneficiary in 1938; that her husband was not present at the time of the adoption, having already returned to the United States, but that she obtained his permission before she went through with the adoption. She stated that just prior to the death of the beneficiary's natural mother she asked her to bring up her son, and signed a document giving the son to her. The son was about 12 years old at the time. However, she has stated that the adoption document was lost and that she has no documentary evidence of the adoption. The petitioner arrived in the United States in 1948 but has never previously mentioned the existence of this adopted child who was 22 years old when she left for the United States in 1948. She stated that she and her husband had been contributing to the support of the beneficiary but did not have any check receipts and actually the money was sent to her sister in Hong Kong who changed the money and sent it to her son in the village on the mainland of China. She stated that she introduced the beneficiary as her adopted son to an affiant, Li Jin Chin Yee. In response to a number of leading questions by her attorney in which the answers were suggested and only an affirmative reply was needed, the petitioner indicated that she did not mention the existance of her adopted son in 1948 when she came to the United States because she feared complications, she was afraid she would be asked a lot of detailed questions regarding her adopted son, and was fearful that perhaps some misstatement as to some minor details concerning her son, such as when he was born and his physical description or anything of that nature might jeopardize her...