MATTER OF B— 

In VISA PETITION Proceedings 

A-12068067 

Decided by Board December 11, 1961 

Adopted child—Adoption not legally recognized in Netherlands Antilles. 

As there are no adoption laws or other known means of creating the legal . 

 status of "adoption" in the Netherlands Antilles, beneficiary who was given 

to petitioner shortly after birth in the Netherlands Antilles under an agreement with the child's unmarried mother and who was raised as a member of 

petitioner's family and regarded in the community as his own child is unable to qualify for preference quota status as petitioner's "adopted child". 

BEFORE THE BOARD 

DISCUSSION: The case comes forward on appeal from the order 

of the Acting District Director, New York District, dated September 7, 1961, adhering to its order of denial of the visa petition filed 

by the petitioner on behalf of the beneficiary. 

The petitioner, a native of Netherlands Antilles, became a naturalized citizen of the United States on November 9, 1931. The beneficiary is a native and citizen of Netherlands Antilles, born October 

29, 1939. The petition seeks to classify the status of the beneficiary 

for preference quota status pursuant to section 203(a) (4) as the 

married daughter of the petitioner. The visa petition filed on 

August 5, 1960, indicated that the beneficiary was married, was residing in St. Albans, New York, with the petitioner and had given 

birth to a child on February 29, 1960, in New York. The status of 

the beneficiary's husband is not indicated. 

The visa petition was denied by the District Director, New York 

District, by order dated September 15, 1960, on the ground that the 

beneficiary was uut the legally adopted daughter of the petitioner. 

We considered the appeal from the order of denial of the District 

Director on January 13, 1961, and we reviewed the evidence then 

submitted. We concluded that in the absence of a statutory procedure of adoption, the petitioner must establish that a custom existed 

in Netherlands Antilles which was recognized officially as resulting 

in a legal adoption, legally binding upon the parties concerned, and 

that it was necessary to establish that the adoption of the bene521 
ficiary by the petitioner conformed with these customs and resulted 

in a legal adoption. We concluded that the petitioner had failed 

to show what custom was recognized by the Government of the 

Netherlands Antilles as resulting in a legal adoption and conferring 

the legal responsibilities and duties of parent and child, and remanded the case to amplify the record and fur such further action as 

might be appropriate. 

The affidavit of the beneficiary's natural mother dated November 

28, 1959, to the effect that the natural parents of the beneficiary 

were never married and that she entered into an agreement with her 

brother, the petitioner, and his wife that they should adopt her child 

when it was born, merely recites that since the birth of the beneficiary the petitioner and his wife have raised the beneficiary and 

treated her as their own child and that in the community in which 

they live the beneficiary has always been regarded as the daughter 

of the petitioner's wife. However, thorn was no written deed or 

agreement of adoption submitted. The only other documents 

submitted to show the status of the beneficiary are school records 

from the time beneficiary was six years of age and a certification 

that during the 13 years she attended the school her bills were sent 

to, and paid by, the adoptive parents. 

The Attorney General of the Netherlands Antilles under date of 

May '27, 1960, certified that there are no adoption laws in the Netherlands Antilles (Exhibit J). Counsel has furnished certifications 

from the Recorder of the Court of First Instance of Aruba and the 

Head of the Department of Civil Registry & Population Census to 

the effect that there is no formalized court or legislative proceeding 

which is prerequisite to a legal adoption and that adoptions are 

recognized and legally binding upon the parties when they comply 

with the local customs. However, neither of these officials expresses 

any opinion as to whether or not the circumstances of the case herein 

constituted a valid adoption. 

Under date of June 6, 1961, the New York District Office of the 

Immigration and Naturalization Service made inquiry of the Foreign Law Section of the Library of Congress for information bearing 

upon the question herein. On the date of June 14, 1961, the Law 

Librarian replied that there, was no source material available there 

to provide an answer to the inquiries; that while the institution of 

adoption had not been legally recognized in the metropolitan Netherlands until 1956 (Law of January 26, 1956), it was not possible to 

establish to what extent adoption may have been permissible in 

Aruba through custom or other official sanction. The communication 

further indicated that the contact with the Netherlands Embassy was 

fruitless but personnel there indicated that writing to the Department of Justice, Curacao, Netherlands Antilles, might be the only 

522 
means of obtaining the desired information. In response to a Serv 

ice letter of June 12, 1961, the Secretary of the Department of Justice 

at Willemstad, Curacao, Netherlands Antilles, replied that the 

beneficiary, V—D—A—, was born on October 29, 1939, at Aruba, 

Netherlands Antilles; her mother, D—A—, never legitimated the 

daughter and a short time after her birth she was given to, and was 

raised by, the family of J—J—A—, a brother of the mother; and 

that the mother and the brother agreed that the latter only should 

take care of her upbringing, but the adoption of the daughter was 

never arranged. The communication concluded that in the Netherlands Antilles there are no adoption laws; that it occurs, however, 

that children consider themselves to be adopted, but this so-called 

"adoption" does not have any legal grounds in that country. 

The petitioner, who is seeking the benefit of the immigration laws 

on behalf of the beneficiary, has the burden of establishing eligibility 

for such benefit or status. The latest communication from the Department of Justice of the Netherlands Antilles is to the effect that 

the so-called "adoption" in the instant case has no legal grounds in 

the Netherlands Antilles, which has no adoption laws. The evidence 

presented does not establish a valid adoption under the law of the 

Netherlands Antilles. No evidence has been submitted of an agreement or contract of adoption which would give rise to a legal status 

under the law of the Netherlands Antilles. At most, what appears 

to have been established is an agreement relating to the care and 

education of the beneficiary by the petitioner herein. 1In the absence of any statutory declaration by a court of the Netherlands 

Antilles determining the legal status of the parties herein, and upon 

the basis of the evidence available, it is concluded that the petitioner 

has not borne the burden of establishing that the beneficiary is a 

legally adopted child so as to qualify for benefits and status under 

the immigration laws. The appeal will be dismissed 

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

dismissed. 

1Cf. Matter of R—, 6-700, where an agreement of adoption was held to 

create no legal status under the law of the Bahamas; to the same effect, 

unreported Matter of VP 3-1-72872 (June 17, 11)55), relating to an "adoption" in Jamaica (which had no adoption law), the agreement between the 

parties being characterized as the usual type of docliment in the transfer of 

custody of children between private parties and having no more force in law 

than a contract between private parties. 

523