MOURILLON
18 I. & N. Dec. 122 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A stepsibling relationship continues to exist for immigration purposes after the legal termination of the marriage that created it, provided a family relationship continues to exist as a matter of fact between the stepsiblings.
Facts:
- The petitioner was born out of wedlock in the British West Indies in 1928, and his natural parents never married.
- The petitioner and his father subsequently immigrated to Curacao, Netherlands Antilles.
- On July 22, 1942, when the petitioner was 13 years old, his father married a woman who was not the petitioner's biological mother, creating a stepmother-stepchild relationship.
- In September 1953, the beneficiary was born in Curacao to the petitioner's father and stepmother.
- The petitioner, his father, and his stepmother lived together as a family unit until the petitioner moved to the United States in 1954.
- The petitioner and beneficiary have continued to maintain their family ties, and the beneficiary was residing with the petitioner when the visa petition was filed.
Procedural Posture:
- The petitioner, a United States citizen, filed a visa petition on October 30, 1974, seeking to classify the beneficiary as his sister.
- The District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service denied the petition on April 9, 1980.
- The petitioner appealed the District Director's decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a stepsibling relationship qualify for a sibling visa preference under the Immigration and Nationality Act when the marriage that created the relationship may have ended, but the stepsiblings have maintained a family relationship?
Opinions:
Majority - Milhollan, Chairman
Yes, a stepsibling relationship can qualify for a sibling visa preference even if the underlying marriage has terminated, so long as a factual family relationship between the stepsiblings persists. The Board first determined that the petitioner and beneficiary do not qualify as siblings through their common father. Under the law of Curacao, legitimation requires both acknowledgment and the subsequent marriage of the natural parents. Because the petitioner's parents never married, he was never legitimated and cannot be considered the father's 'child' for this purpose under the Act. However, the Board found a valid sibling relationship through the petitioner's stepmother (the beneficiary's mother). The petitioner became a 'stepchild' under the Act because he was under 18 when his father married his stepmother. The beneficiary is the natural 'child' of this same woman. Therefore, they both once qualified as 'children' of a common parent. The Board then established that the termination of the marriage that created the step-relationship does not automatically terminate the stepsibling relationship. The key inquiry is whether a family relationship has continued to exist as a matter of fact between the stepsiblings. Because the record shows the petitioner and beneficiary have maintained a close family bond, including living together, the stepsibling relationship remains valid for immigration purposes.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant precedent by defining the durability of affinity-based relationships for U.S. immigration law. It moves beyond a rigid, formalistic reliance on the status of the marriage that created a step-relationship. Instead, it introduces a flexible, fact-based test focusing on the continued existence of a genuine family bond between the stepsiblings. This approach allows immigration authorities to recognize the reality of modern family structures and ensures that legitimate, subsisting familial ties are not severed simply because the legal link (the parents' marriage) has been dissolved by death or divorce.
