BRANTIGAN
11 I. & N. Dec. 493 (1966)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In visa petition proceedings, a petitioner bears the burden of proving eligibility and cannot satisfy this burden by merely relying on a state law's presumption of validity for a subsequent marriage; the petitioner must provide affirmative proof of the legal termination of all prior marriages.
Facts:
- The petitioner is a naturalized United States citizen, originally from the Philippines.
- The petitioner had a prior marriage before marrying the beneficiary.
- The beneficiary is a native and citizen of the Philippines.
- On February 28, 1965, the petitioner and beneficiary were married in San Francisco, California.
- The petitioner did not provide affirmative proof, such as a divorce decree or death certificate, showing that his prior marriage had been legally terminated.
- The petitioner's daughter from his first marriage is in the United States and has information regarding the whereabouts of her mother.
Procedural Posture:
- A naturalized U.S. citizen filed a visa petition with the Immigration and Naturalization Service seeking nonquota status for his spouse.
- The petition was denied at the initial level of adjudication.
- The petitioner appealed the denial to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
- On October 28, 1965, the BIA issued a decision, presumably denying the petition.
- Counsel for the petitioner filed a motion requesting the BIA to reopen the proceedings and reconsider its prior decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a visa petition proceeding, does a petitioner satisfy their burden of proving a valid marriage by relying solely on a state law presumption of validity for a subsequent ceremonial marriage, without providing direct proof that a prior marriage was legally terminated?
Opinions:
Majority - Board of Immigration Appeals
No. A petitioner does not satisfy their burden of proof by relying on a state law presumption of marital validity without providing direct evidence that a prior marriage was terminated. The burden of proof to establish eligibility for an immigration benefit rests squarely with the petitioner. While California law may presume the validity of a subsequent ceremonial marriage for state-law purposes such as inheritance, this presumption must yield to the stricter evidentiary requirements of federal immigration law. Citing 'Petition of Sam Hoo', the Board reasoned that allowing a petitioner to rest on such a presumption would open the door to fraud. Federal regulations explicitly require petitioners to submit proof of the legal termination of all previous marriages of both spouses, and a state law presumption is not a substitute for this required evidence.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the evidentiary standard in immigration proceedings involving marriage, establishing a clear hierarchy where federal immigration regulations supersede state law presumptions. It reinforces the principle that the burden of proof is high and non-delegable for petitioners seeking immigration benefits. The ruling ensures a uniform, stringent standard for proving marital status nationwide, preventing petitioners from using variations in state family law to circumvent federal requirements. Consequently, it solidifies the need for petitioners to produce concrete evidence, like divorce decrees or death certificates, to prove the termination of all prior marriages.
