Interim Decision #1301 

MATTER OF SIBUCEVIO 

In VISA PETITION Proceedings 

A-11904545 

Deekied by Board September 3, 1963 

Since the stepparent-stepchild relationship created by virtue of the petitioner's 

marriage in 1952 to the father of the beneficiary (latter then 13 years of age) 

was discontinued and brought to an end when said marriage was legally terminated by divorce in 1057 with custody of the beneficiary awarded the father, 

and both petitioner and father have subsequently remarried other persons, 

the petitioner is not now the "parent" of the beneficiary within the meaning 

of section 101(b) (2), Immigration and Nationality Act, and, therefore, ineligible to petition for third preference quota status on his behalf as her stepson. 

[Matter of 0—, 8 I. & N. Dec. 592, distinguished.] 

The District Director of Immigration and Naturalization at Los 

Angeles, California on June 17, 1963 entered an order denying the 

visa petition filed by the petitioner on January 7, 1963 to accord the 

beneficiary third preference status as provided in section 203(a) (3) 

of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The case has been certified 

to this Board for final decision in accordance with the applicable 

regulations. The petitioner in. her petition to classify status of an 

alien for the issuance of an immigrant visa, which was subscribed 

and sworn to at San Pedro, California on. January 4, 1963, deposed 

that she is a native and citizen of Yugoslavia, lawfully admitted to 

the United States for permanent residence at Chicago, Illinois on 

April 6, 1960. 

The beneficiary was born in Yugoslavia on. February 15, 1939. He 

has been living in Canada since October 1962. On examination of the 

record we find that the beneficiary was 13 years of age when the petitioner married the beneficiary's father on July 31, 1952. The petitioner separated from the beneficiary's father on October 27, 1956 and 

their marriage was terminated by divorce on December 3, 1957, at 

which time custody of the beneficiary was awarded to his father with 

whom he has since resided. The petitioner testified that no issue was 

born from her marriage to the beneficiary's father. The petitioner 

363 
Interim Decision 4t1301 

testified that both she and the beneficiary's father had each remarried 

on two occasions since being divorced on December 3, 1957. 

Under section 101(b) (1) (B) of the Immigration and Nationality 

Act the term "child" means an unmarried person under 21 years of age 

who is a stepchild, whether or not born out of wedlock, provided the 

child has not reached the age of 18 years at the time the marriage 

creating the status of stepchild. occurred. Section 101(b) (2) of the 

Act defines the term "parent," "father," or "mother" as meaning a 

parent, father, or mother only where the relationship exists by reason 

of any of the circumstances set forth in section 101(b) (1) of the Act. 

Hence, under the pertinent statutes the petitioner and the beneficiary 

acquired the status of "mother" and "child," respectively, when the 

petitioner married the beneficiary's father on July 31, 1959.. 

The District Director's conclusion that the petitioner was not the 

beneficiary's parent or mother at the time she executed and filed on his 

behalf the petition to accord him preference quota status under section 

203 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and his reasons therefor 

are concurred in by this Board. In Matter of C—, 8 I. & N. Dee. 592, 

this Board held that a married stepdaughter, 45 years of age, was eligible on petition for fourth preference - quota status as a "daughter" 

within the meaning of section 203(a) (4) of the Act, as amended, provided there existed an original relationship of "stepparent" and "stepchild" validly created in accordance with the provisions of section 

101(b) (1) (B) of the Act, as amended. In Matter of C—, supra, the 

marriage between the beneficiary's mother and the petitioning stepfather was in existence when the petition was filed on behalf of the 

beneficiary and at the time of the Board's decision on March 4, 1900. 

In other words, the relationship established by reason of section 

101(b) (1) (B) of the Act does not cease to exist when the stepchild 

marries or reaches 21 years of age provided the marriage that created 

the status of stepchild is in existence. In Matter of C—, supra, there 

was a reuniting of a family unit that had been in existence since the 

beneficiary was seven years old. 

The facts in the instant case are readily distinguishable from those 

present in Matter of C—, supra. In the instant case the evidence 

establishes that the relationship between the petitioner and the beneficiary lapsed on October 27, 1956 when the petitioner separated from 

the beneficiary's father. In this connection, it is noted that the petitioner in her application for an immigrant visa, subscribed and sworn 

to before a United States Consular officer at Oslo, Norway on March 31, 

1960, deposed she had been living and employed in Oslo, Norway since 

1956. The relationship ceased to exist in fact on December 3, 1957 

when the petitioner's marriage to the beneficiary's father was dissolved 

pursuant to a decree of divorce. The relationship between the peti364 
Interim Decision 4t1301 

tioner and •eneficiary that came into being by reason of the petitioner's 

marriage to the beneficiary's father in 1952 was one of "aff inity," as 

distinguished from consanguinity. 

Consanguinity or blood relationship is incapable of dissolution. 

"Affinity" is generally defined to be the relationship by marriage between a husband and his wife's blood relatives, or 'between a wife and 

her husband's blood relatives. Hence, it has been held that upon dissolution of a childless marriage by divorce and remarriage of wife or 

husband, "affinity" between divorced husband and wife's children of 

a former marriage is extinguished. When the marriage is dissolved, 

and there are no children of the marriage, society is not served or 

benefited by the continuance of the fiction when the cause has ceased 

(cf. Brotherhood o/ Locomotive Firemen. and Enginemen. v. Hogan, 

et al. and authorities cited, 5 F. Stipp. 598). 

The petitioner herein has testified that no issue resulted from her 

marriage to the beneficiary's father and that she and the beneficiary's 

father have each remarried twice since their divorce in December 1057. 

The evidence of record shows the beneficiary's father was awarded 

custody of him at the time of the aforementioned divorce and that the 

beneficiary thereafter resided with his father until at least October 

1962. The relationship which came into being between the petitioner 

and the beneficiary by virtue of the petitioner's marriage to the beneficiary's father in 1952 was discontinued and brought to an end. when 

the aforementioned marriage was legally terminated by divorce in 

December 1957. Moreover, the beneficiary's father's two remarriages 

created additional stepmothers of the beneficiary. The statute requires that the petitioner be the "parent" at the time of the filing of 

the petition. In this case the petitioner cannot meet this statutory 

requirement and on the basis of all the evidence present in this record 

together with the authorities cited, it is our considered opinion that the 

petitioner is not the "parent" of the beneficiary and as a consequence 

thereof may not petition for issuance of an immigrant visa, on his 

behalf. Clearly, it cannot be held that a, family unit is being reunited 

in this case. Upon full consideration. of all the evidence of record, 

the findings of fact, conclusion of law and the order entered by the 

District Director of Immigration and Naturalization on June 17, 1963 

are hereby approved. Hence, the following order will be entered. 

ORDER: It is ordered that the order entered by the District Director of Immigration and Naturalization at Los Angeles, California on 

June 17, 1963, denying the petitioner's petition to accord the beneficiary third preference status as provided in section 203 (a) (3) of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act be and the same is hereby approved. 

365 

•