Interim Decision #1688 

IVIATITS OF OARAMANZANA 

In Visa. Petition Proceedings 

A-14214539 

Decided by Board February 0, 1967 

Visa petition by a United States citizen to accord beneficiary, his adopted 

daughter, preference status as an "unmarried daughter" under the provisions 

of section 203(a) (1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended by 

P.L. 89-238, is denied since the adoption, which occurred when beneficial' ,was 

over 21 years ve age, was not in compliance with the provisions Or section 

101(b) (1) (E) of the Act, as amended, as required for immigration purposes. 

ON BEHALF or PETIMSEIti Charles hi. Gianola, Esquire 

1520 Tennessee Street 

Vallejo, California 9359O 

(Brief filed) 

The case comes -forward on appeal from the order of the District 

Director, San Francisco, dated December 19, 1966, denying the visa 

petition for the reason that since the beneficiary was 21 years old when 

the adopted daughter-adoptive parent relationship was established, 

the beneficiary is ineligible for immigrant status as the daughter of a 

United States citizen under section 203 (a) (1) of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act, as amended. 

The petitioner, a native of the Philippine Islands, a naturalized 

citizen of the United States, 40 years old, male, seeks preference quota 

status on behalf of the beneficiary as his unmarried daughter. The 

beneficiary is a nittive and citizen of the Philippine Islands, 23 years 

old. The beneficiary was adopted by the petitioner in the Superior 

Court of the State of California in and for the County of Solano on 

March 8, 1965 when she was 21 years old. However, the petitioner is 

not seeking preference on behalf of the beneficiary as his adopted 

daughter because manifestly she does not qualify as an adopted daughter for immigration purpOses within section 101(b) (1) (E) of the Act 

since she was adopted when over 14 years of age. 

However, counsel for the petitioner has filed a brief in which he 

argues that the beneficiary qualifies as an unmarried daughter under 

47 
Interim Decision #1688 

the provisions of section 203(a) (1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act as amended by the Act of October 3, 1965. He contends because 

of the elimination of section 205 (b) of the Immigration and Nationality the Act of October 3, 1965, which prior to its amendment provides 

that no petition for quota immigrant status or preference status on 

behalf of a son or daughter under then existing paragraphs (2), (3), 

or (4) of section 203 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 

should be approved unless the petitioner establishes that he is a parent 

as defined in section 101(b) (2) of the Immigration and Nationality 

Act of the alien with respect to whom the petition is made, Congress 

evidenced its intent that pre-1959 law govern. 

Counsel's argument, while ingenious, is not well taken. When Congress amended section 205 (b) of the Act of September 22, 1959, it 

was pointed out in the accompanying report, H.R. 0890, that the 

principal purpose of this second sentence of section 205 (b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act was to make certain that aliens adopted 

by United States citizens or lawfully resident aliens (other than children as defined in section 101(b) (1) (E) of the Immigration and Nationality Act) should not be eligible for nonquota or preference status 

under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The parenthetical reference to section 101(b) (1) (B) of the Immigration and Nationality 

Act made it clear that for immigration purposes that restrictions contained in that definition should be continued, i.e., that for immigration purposes the adoption must take place while the aimwas under 

the age of 14 years and must have resided with and have been in the 

custody of the adopting parent or parents for at least two years thereafter. The amendatory act, Public Law 89-236, simply embodied in 

sections 201 and 205 of the Immigration and Nationality Act revisions 

to establish a single procedure for the filing of petitions to accord immediate relative status or preference status as the case might be, continued. the limitation of the number of lawful petitions which might 

be approved for one petitioner, as well as the prohibition against the 

approval of a petition for an alien whose prior marriage was determined by the Attorney General to have been entered into for the 

purpose of evading the immigration law. 1There is no indication that 

any change was intended by failure to specifically reenact the prior 

law. 

The visa petition is predicated upon the theory that by virtue of 

her adoption the beneficiary qualifies as a daughter. However, the 

crux of the case is not whether the beneficiary is a child or a daughter 

but whether she is adopted for purposes of the immigration law. 

In order to be considered adopted for immigration purposes, there 

must be compliance with the requirements contained in section 101 

1House Report No. 745 (89th Cong.4st sees.) 20-21. 

48 
Interim Decision *1688 

(b) (1) (E) of the Immigration and Nationality Act as amended. That 

section requires that the adoption shall have taken place while the 

adoptee was under the age of 14 years and, in addition, satisfy the 

residence and custody provisions. The beneficiary does not qualify 

as an adopted child inasmuch as the adoption took place when she was 

over 21 years of age. The appeal will be dismissed. 

In connection with counsel's alternative request for sixth preference 

status as a telephone operator, a petition should be filed with the 

Service in accordance with 8 CFR 204.2(g). 

ORDER: It is ordered that the appeal be and the same is hereby 

dismissed. 

4 ►