Interim Decision #2402 

MATTER OF SINGH 

In Visa Petition Proceedings 

A-20312960 

Decided by Board November 11, 1974 

(1) The United States citizen petitioner applied for immediate relative status for the 

beneficiary as his.parent, wider section 201(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

The petitioner was born out of wedlock in 1944. The beneficiary did not marry petitioner's mother until 1971. Petition was denied because beneficiary was not a parent 

under section :.01(b)(2) of the Act since the petitioner had not been legitimated, prior to 

his eighteenth birthday, in accordance with section 101(b)(1)(C). , 

(2) Petitioner was not legitimated under section 230 of the California Civil Code since the 

record chows that neither petitioner nor beneficiary was a domiciliary or resident of 

California befcre petitioner's eighteenth birthday Matter of Fabled, 12 I. & N. Dec. 503 

(D.D. 196'7) distinguishable because in Pableo the father had established residence in 

California prior to his son's eighteenth birthday. 

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: John M. Bernier, Esquire 

820 Forum Building 

Sacramento, California 95814 

The United States citizen petitioner applied for immediate relative 

status for the beneficiary as his parent under section 201(b) of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act. In a decision dated March 28, 1974, 

the district director denied the petition. The petitioner has appealed 

from that denial. The appeal will be dismissed. 

The beneficiary is a male who is a native of India and a citizen of the 

Fiji Islands. The petitioner was born out of wedlock in the Fiji Islands in 

1944. The beneficiary did not marry the petitioner's mother until 1971. 

Section 101(b)(2) of the Act defines the term "parent" as meaning a 

parent only where the relationship exists by reason of any of the circumstances set forth in section 101(b)(1) of the Ad. The term "child" is 

defined in section 101(b)(1)(C) as including: 

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 custody of the legititimating parent or parents at the time of such legitimation. 

Since the petitioner was 27 years old at the time his father married his 

370 
Interim Decision #2402 

mother, that marriage could not have resulted in legitimation within the 

scope of section 101(b)(1)(0). 

Counsel argues that the petitioner was legitimated under the provisions of section 230 of the California Civil Code. However, since the 

record shows that neither the petitioner nor the beneficiary was a 

domiciliary or a resident of California before the petitioner's eighteenth 

birthday, legitimation under section 230 of the California Code could not 

possibly bring the petitioner within the scope of section 101(b)(1)(C) of 

the Act. 

Counsel has relied on Matter of Pableo, 12 I. & N. Dec. 503 (D.D. 

1967). However, that case is distinguishable from the present situation 

because in Pableo the father established residence in California prior to 

his son's eighteenth birthday. 

The district director's decision was correct. The appeal will be dismissed. 

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 

371