Interim Decision #3216
MATTER OF GOORAHOO
In Visa Petition Proceedings
A 29879909
-
Decided by Board February 9, 1994
(1) In order to obtain preference status for the beneficiary as his son pursuant to section
203(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(a)(2) (1988), a
petitioner must establish that the beneficiary qualifies or once qualified as his "child"
within the meaning of section 101(b)(I) of the Act,
8 U.S.C. § 1101(b)(I) (1988).
(2) When the country where a child is born eliminates all legal distinctions between
illegitimate and legitimate children, all natural children are deemed to be the
legitimate offspring of their natural parents from the time that country's laws are
changed.
(3) By virtue of the Children Born Out of Wedlock (Removal of Discrimination) Act,
effective May 18, 1983, Guyana has eliminated all legal distinctions between
legitimate and illegitimate children.
(4) Children born out of wedlock in Guyana after May 18, 1983, and children who are
under the age of 18 prior to that date are deemed legitimate and legitimated children,
respectively, pursuant to sections 10I(b)(1)(A) and (C) of the Act. Matter of Gouveia,
13 I&N Dec. 604 (31A 1970), modified.
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: ON BEHALF OF SERVICE:
Pro se David M. Dixon
Appellate Counsel
BY: Dunne, Acting Chairman; Vacca and Heilman, Board Members
In a decision dated July 29, 1991, the Regional Service Center
("RSC") director approved the visa petition filed by the petitioner to
accord the beneficiary preference status as his son pursuant to section
203(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1153(a)(2) (1988). The RSC director subsequently certified his
decision to the Board for review, seeking clarification of our decision
in Matter of Gouveia,
13 I&N Dec. 604 (BIA 1970), in light of the
Children Born Out of Wedlock (Removal of Discrimination) Act, No.
12 (1983) (Guy.) ("Removal of Discrimination Act") enacted in
Guyana in 1983. The approval of the visa petition will be affirmed.
The petitioner is a 31-year-old native and citizen of Guyana and
lawful permanent resident of the United States. The beneficiary is a 6 -
782
Interim Decision #3216
year-old native and citizen of Guyana, born on November 27, 1987. In
support of the visa petition, the record contains the beneficiary's birth
certificate, reflecting the petitioner as father, and an affidavit executed
on January 26, 1990, by the beneficiary's mother, attesting that she
never married the petitioner, that the petitioner acknowledged paternity of the beneficiary, and that the petitioner regularly contributed
towards the beneficiary's maintenance and continues to show interest
in his welfare and upbringing to date.
The record also contains a memorandum opinion from a senior
legal specialist at the Library of Congress dated January 16, 1986,
which was furnished to the RSC director upon his request for
information on the status of children born to unmarried parents in
Guyana. Attached to the memorandum is a copy of the Removal of
Discrimination Act. The Library of Congress memorandum explains
that in sum, the Removal of Discrimination Act amends five
preexisting Guyanese laws in the following ways: it replaces the terms
"bastard" in the Evidence Act, Guy. Rev. Laws, ch. 5:03 (1978), and
"illegitimate person" in the Legitimacy Act, Guy. Rev. Laws, ch. 46:02
(1978), with "child born out of wedlock"; it broadens the Maintenance
Act, Guy. Rev. Laws, ch. 45:03 (1978), to benefit a child born to
unmarried parents; it amends the Civil Law Act, Guy. Rev. Laws, oh.
6:01 (1978), to allow children born out of wedlock to inherit property
without restriction from their deceased fathers in case of intestate
succession; and it amends the Infants Act, Guy. Rev. Laws, ch. 46:01
(1978), so that courts may award custody of a child born out of
wedlock to his or her putative father.
According to the Library of Congress memorandum, the intention
of the Parliament of Guyana in enacting the Removal of Discrimination Act was to conform the existing laws of the country with the
nonbinding guiding principles set forth in Section 30 of a new
constitution adopted in 1980 which stated: "Children born out of
wedlock are entitled to the same Legal tights and legal status as are
enjoyed by children born in wedlock. All forms of discrimination
against children on the basis of their being born out of wedlock are
illegal." Guy. , Coast. ch. 2., § 30. However, unlike some of its
counterparts in other jurisdictions, the Removal of Discrimination Act
itself does not have a broad provision that purports to eliminate the
legal distinctions between children born in and out of wedlock by
declaring all to be of equal status regardless of the marital status of
their parents. Rather, the Act amended preexisting Guyanese laws on
an individual basis. Thus, in contrast to laws which expressly override
?RI
Interim Decision #3216
any overlooked or nonexempted rules of law,' the Removal of
Discrimination Act does not override any legal distinctions not
specifically amended. Nevertheless, pursuant to the Library of
Congress' review of the available laws of Guyana;--itsloes not appear
that any, distinctions have been overlooked or intentionally excluded
frooVerage. Thus, despite the different approach taken by the
Guyanese Act, the Library of Congress memorandum concludes that
children born out of wedlock in Guyana have rights equal to those- of
children born in wedlock.
In his decision of July 29, 1991, the RSC director noted our
decision in Matter of Gouveia, supra, rendered in 1970, in which we
concluded that under the laws of Guyana, thlegitimation of a child
born out of wedlock required the marriage of the natural parents.
However, based upon the 1983 Removal of Discrimination Act and
the above-described opinion from the Library of Congress, the RSC
director concluded that Guyanese children born out of wedlock have
rights equal to those of children born in wedlock. The RSC director
consequently found that the beneficiary would be considered the
legitimate or legitimated son of the petitioner, and the visa petition
was therefore approved.
In order to qualify as a "son" for preference purposes, the
beneficiary must once have qualified as a "child" of the petitioner as
that term is defined by section 101(b)(1) of the Act, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(b)(1) (1988). Matter of Coker,
14 I&N Dec. 521 (BIA 1974).
Section 101(b)(1) of the Act includes the following within the
definition of the term "child":
(A) a legitimate child;
(C) a child legitimated under the law of the child's residence or domicile, or under
the law of the father's residence or domicile, whether in or outside the United States,
if such legitimation takes place before the child reaches the age of eighteen years and
the child is in the legal custody of the legitimating parent or parents at the time of
such legitimation.
The term "legitimate" generally applies to children born in wedlock.
See Matter of Pavlovic,
17 I&N Dec. 407 (BIA 1980); Matter of
Kubicka,
14 I&N Dec. 303 (BIA 1972). The term "legitimated" has
been interpreted to include those children who were illegitimate at
birth, but who thereafter through legally recognized means attained the
' See, e.g., matter of Hernandez,
19 I&N Dec. 14 (BM 1983) (Colombian law on civil
status of children); Matter of Cardoso,
19 I&N Dec. 5 (BIA 1983) (Cape Verde Laws on
Marriage, Divorce and Filiation); Matter of Clahar,
18 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1981)
(Jamaican Status of Children Act).
75"
Interim Decision #3216
full legal status of legitimate children. Matter of Reyes, 17 I&N Dec.
512 (BIA 1980).
We have held that when the country where a child was born
eliminates all legal distinctions between legitimate and illegitimate
children, all children are deemed to be the legitimate offspring of their
natural parents from the time that country's laws are changed. Matter
of Patrick, 19 1&N Dec. 726 (BIA 1988); Matter of Hernandez,
19 I&N
Dec. 14 (BIA 1983); Matter of Pavlovic, supra; see also Lau v. Kiley,
563 F.2d 543 (2d Cir. 1977). That is, children born after a country's
laws are changed in the above manner are deemed to be legitimate,
and children born prior to such a change in the law are deemed to be
legitimated as of the date of the change, provided, of course, that a
child so legitimated was under the age of 18 years at the time the law
changed, as zequired by section 101(b)(1)(C). See Matter of Oduro,
18
I&N Dec. 421, 423 n.2 (BIA 1983). We consider all legal distinctions
abolished only where there is complete equality of filial rights between
legitimate children and those born out of wedlock. See Matter of
Oduro, supra; Matter of Clahar,
18 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 19111); Matter of
Reyes, supra.
On our review of the record, including the opinion of the Library of
Congress, and that of the RSC director, we are satisfied that pursuant
to the Removal of Discrimination Act, Guyana has eliminated all legal
distinctions between legitimate and illegitimate children. Thus, children born out of wedlock in Guyana after May 18, 1983, which is the
effective date of the Removal of Discrimination Act, and children who
are under the age of 18 prior to that date are deemed legitimate and
legitimated children, respectively. Our decision in Matter of Gouveia,
supra, is in.odified accordingly.
The beneficiary was born in 1987. The petitioner's paternity is not
contested. Consequently, the beneficiary qualifies as the legitimate
child of petitioner pursuant to section 101(b)(1)(A) of the Act, and
the vise-petition was properly approved.
For the foregoing reasons, we shall affirm the RSC director's
approval of the visa petition.
ORDER: The decision of the RSC director is affirmed.
7RS
