MOWRER

Interim Decision #2846

MATTER OF MOWRER

In Visa Petition Proceedings

A-19189896

A-34056013

Decided by Board January 9, 1981

(1) The viability of an existing marriage which is the basis for a stepparent/stepchild

relationship is not relevant to a determination whether the status sought by the visa

petition should be accorded, unless the parties to the marriage have legally separated.

(2) Where the parties to a marriage creating a stepparent/stopehild relationship have

legally separated or where the marriage has been terminated by divorce or death, the

appropriate inquiry is whether a family relationship has continued to exist as a

matter of fact between the stepparent and stepchild. Matter of Simicevic,10 I&N Dec.

303 (DIA 1963), modified.

(3) Since the beneficiaries' status as the petitioner's stepchildren was established by

their prior admission to the United States on the basis of that status, and their

relationship to the petitioner has not been terminated as a result of the petitioner's

divorce or legal separation from the beneficiaries' mother, the visa petition was

approved, despite the separation of the petitioner from the beneficiaries' mother since

1974, with no plans for reconciliation, and the beneficiaries' residence abroad with

their mother during that time.

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: ON BEHALF OF SERVICE

Joseph A. Gatto, Esquire Gerald S. Hurwitz

2021 City National Bank Bldg. Appellate Trial Attorney

Detroit, Michigan 48226

Br Milhollan, Chairman; Maniatis, Appleman, and Maguire, Board Members

The United States citizen petitioner applied for immediate relative

status for the beneficiaries as his stepchildren under section 201(b) of

the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1151(b). The visa peti-

tions were approved by the District. Director on June 11, 1379, and July

22, 1979, but were subsequently returned to him by the American

Embassy. Revocation proceedings were instituted, and, in a decision

dated April 22, 1080, the District Director revoked the visa petitions.

The petitioner has appealed from that decision. At oral argument, the

Appellate Trial Attorney stated that the Service would not object to

approval of the visa petitions. The appeal will be sustained, and the

Interim Decision #2846

visa petitions will be approved.

The petitioner is a 37-year-old native and citizen of the United

States. The beneficiaries are natives and citizens of the Philippines.

Maria was born on July 4, 1965, and Freddy on February 27, 1967. The

record reflects that the petitioner married the beneficiaries' mother on

January 10, 1969. Maria was admitted to the United States for

permanent residence with her mother on July 16, 1969, and Freddy

entered as a permanent resident on October 21, 1972. In his decision,

the District Director noted that the petitioner has been separated

from the beneficiaries' mother since 1974 with no plans for reconcilia-

tion, and that the beneficiaries have lived in the Philippines with their

mother since she left this country.' On that basis, the District Director

concluded that the petitioner no longer has a stepparent relationship

to the beneficiaries.

On appeal, the petitioner contends that his separation from his wife

should not preclude him as a matter of law from establishing that his

relationship as stepparent to the beneficiaries is an existing one. He

further argues that the evidence supports his claim that he has, in fact,

continued his relationship as a stepparent to them.

Section 101(b)(1)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1)(B), includes

within the meaning of the term "child",

a stepchild, whether or not born out of wedlock, provided the child has not reached the

age of eighteen years at the time the marriage creating the status of stepchild

occurred.

It is clear from the facts of this case that the beneficiaries once

qualified as the petitioner's stepchildren inasmuch as they were previ-

ously granted admission to this country on the basis of their mother's

marriage to the petitioner. However, the District Director determined

that their relationship as stepchildren to the petitioner no longer

exists due to their physical separation from him and the fact that his

marriage to their mother is no longer viable.

In denying the visa petition, the District Director cited as authority

our decision in Matter of Simicevie, 10 I&N Dec. 363 (BIA 1963), where

the Board examined the effect of dissolution of the marriage creating

the stepparent/stepchild relationship on the subsequent existence of

that relationship. It was determined in that case that the affinity

created by the marriage had terminated upon divorce of the parents

because the marriage had been childless, the beneficiary remained in

the custody of her natural father, and both parents had since remar-

ried twice. However, in a factually different context, the Board found

that the death of the natural parent did not result in termination of

' The decision states that Freddy returned to the Philippines in July 1974, and Maria

left in July 1975.

614

Interim Decision #2846

the stepparent/stepchild relationship where the evidence indicated

that a family relationship had continued between the petitioner and

beneficiary as a matter of fact. See Matter of Pagnerre,13 I&N Dec. 688

(BIA 1971).

The instant case is distinguishable from both of those situations in

that the petitioner's marriage to the beneficiaries' mother has not been

terminated by law, but merely appears to be nonviable. In recent

decisions, this Board has ruled that the viability of an alien's marriage

can no longer be determinative of his entitlement to immigration

benefits. See Matter of Pierce, Interim Decision 2812 (BIA 1980); Mat-

ter of Boromand, Interim. Decision 2811 (BIA 1980); Matter of McKee,

Interim Decision 2782 (BIA 1980); but see Matter of Lenning, Interim

Decision 2817 (BIA 1980). Accordingly, we now conclude that the

viability of an existing marriage which is the basis for a step-

parent/stepchild relationship is not relevant to a determination

whether the status sought by the visa petition should be accorded,

unless the parties, to the marriage have legally separated. See Matter of

Lenning, id. We believe that the appropriate inquiry in cases where

there has been a legal separation or where the marriage has been

terminated by divorce or death is whether a family relationship has

continued to exist as a matter of fact between the stepparent and

stepchild. It is our opinion that such a test is consistent with both our

decisions in Matter of Simicevic, supra, and Matter of Pagnerre, supra,

since the emphasis in each, case was on the factual situation of the

stepparent and stepchild subsequent to the termination by law of the

affinity created between them, by the marriage. However, to the extent

that Matter of Sirnicevic may be construed to preclude the continued

existence of the relationship as a matter of law, it is hereby modified.

Inasmuch as the beneficiaries were once admitted to this country as

the petitioner's stepchildren, it has clearly been established that the

requisite relationship between them does exist. Since that relationship

hasr not been terminated as a result of the petitioner's divorce or legal

separation from the beneficiaries' mother, we conclude that the appeal

should be sustained, and the visa petitions should be approved.

ORDER: The appeal is sustained, and the visa petitions are

approved.