Cite as 27 I&N Dec. 124 (BIA 2017) Interim Decision #3903

124

Matter of Saif Ur REHMAN, Beneficiary of a visa petition filed 

by Younas Mohammad Chaudry, Petitioner 

Decided September 20, 2017

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board of Immigration Appeals

Where a petitioner seeking to prove a familial relationship submits a birth certificate that 

was not registered contemporaneously with the birth, an adjudicator must consider the birth 

certificate, as well as all the other evidence of record and the circumstances of the case, to 

determine whether the petitioner has submitted sufficient reliable evidence to demonstrate 

the claimed relationship by a preponderance of the evidence. 

FOR PETITIONER: Eric H. Singer, Esquire, Bethesda, Maryland

FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Michael Ammerman, Associate Counsel 

BEFORE: Board Panel: ADKINS-BLANCH, Vice Chairman; MANN and KELLY,

Board Members.

MANN, Board Member:

In a decision dated March 24, 2015, the Service Center Director 

(“Director”) denied the Petition for Alien Relative (Form I-130) that the 

United States petitioner filed on behalf of the beneficiary to accord him status

as his brother under section 203(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality 

Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(a)(4) (2012). The petitioner has appealed from that

decision. The record will be remanded.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In support of his visa petition, the petitioner submitted a birth certificate

that was registered in 1958, indicating that the beneficiary was born in 

Pakistan in 1956. The Director denied the visa petition, concluding that 

the petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to meet his burden of 

establishing that the beneficiary qualifies as his brother for immigration 

purposes. Specifically, the Director found that the beneficiary’s Pakistani 

birth certificate did not prove his parentage because it was registered 2 years 

after his birth, and the petitioner did not submit sufficient secondary evidence 

to support the delayed registered birth certificate. 
Cite as 27 I&N Dec. 124 (BIA 2017) Interim Decision #3903

125

II. ANALYSIS

In this case, we will address the factors to be considered when assessing 

whether a petitioner has established a familial relationship by a 

preponderance of the evidence where a birth certificate submitted to prove

the relationship reflects that it was not registered contemporaneously with 

the birth. We review all questions arising in visa petition proceedings de 

novo. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iii) (2017).

A. Preponderance of the Evidence

In visa petition proceedings, the petitioner bears the burden of 

establishing the claimed relationship by a preponderance of the evidence. 

See, e.g., Matter of Ruzku, 26 I&N Dec. 731, 731 (BIA 2016). We have 

defined a “preponderance of the evidence” as “evidence which as a whole 

shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.” Matter 

of Lemhammad, 20 I&N Dec. 316, 320 n.5 (BIA 1991) (quoting Black’s Law 

Dictionary 1064 (5th ed. 1979)). Whether evidence is sufficient to meet the 

preponderance of the evidence standard

will often turn upon the factual circumstances of each case. There are no magic 

words or mathematical formulas that can describe a preponderance of the evidence 

so it can be applied mechanically in every case. Nonetheless, when we consider that 

the purpose of evidence is to ascertain the truth, then we can make certain 

generalizations. For example, when something has to be proved beyond a reasonable 

doubt, the proof must demonstrate that something must be almost certainly true. And 

when something has to be proved by clear and convincing evidence, the proof must 

demonstrate that it is highly probably true. But, when something is to be established

by a preponderance of the evidence it is sufficient that the proof only establish that 

it is probably true.

. . . [T]he application of the “preponderance of the evidence” standard may require 

the examination of each piece of relevant evidence and a determination as to whether 

such evidence, either by itself or when viewed within the totality of the evidence, 

establishes that something to be proved is probably true.

Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79–80 (Comm. 1989) (citation omitted).

B. Primary Evidence

To establish a claimed family relationship in visa petition proceedings by 

a preponderance of the evidence, a petitioner should submit primary 

evidence, if it is available. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b), 204.1(f)(1) (2017). For 

siblings, that primary evidence includes birth certificates showing a common 

parent. 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(g)(2)(i) (2017). To determine whether primary 
Cite as 27 I&N Dec. 124 (BIA 2017) Interim Decision #3903

126

evidence is unavailable, adjudicators may refer to the Department of State 

Foreign Affairs Manual (“FAM”) Reciprocity Schedule and may consider 

any other evidence in the record regarding the availability of such evidence. 

In assessing whether a petitioner has met his or her burden of proof in 

cases where a birth certificate is submitted to establish a family relationship, 

“we have been reluctant to accord delayed birth certificates the same weight 

we would give birth certificates issued at the time of birth.” Matter of Bueno, 

21 I&N Dec. 1029, 1032 (BIA 1997) (citing Matter of Ma, 20 I&N Dec. 394 

(BIA 1991)). We reasoned that birth certificates with delayed registration 

dates are less reliable because “the opportunity for fraud is much greater with 

a delayed birth certificate.” Matter of Serna, 16 I&N Dec. 643, 645 (BIA 

1978). However, we have noted the difficulty in balancing situations in 

which a delayed birth certificate may be the only type of birth certificate 

available. Id. at 644–45 (“To penalize these persons because they were not 

born in hospitals or other facilities where births are registered would be 

unjust.”). To balance the competing concerns of fraud and fairness, we have 

held that a delayed birth certificate is not generally conclusive evidence and 

must instead “be evaluated in light of the other evidence of record and the 

circumstances of the case.” Matter of Bueno, 21 I&N Dec. at 1033.

Although we have never specified that a birth certificate must reflect 

registration within a specific period of time after the birth in order to be valid 

evidence of parentage, we have seen a pattern in decisions where the Director 

has determined that birth certificates registered 1 year or more after the birth 

are considered delayed. Such a bright-line standard has no basis in the 

regulations or our precedent.

Instead, we have consistently considered the record as a whole to 

determine whether there is sufficient evidence of the relationship. In Matter 

of Bueno, the beneficiary’s birth was registered in the Dominican Republic

7 years after he was born and only 9 months prior to the filing of the visa 

petition. We concluded that these circumstances raised questions regarding 

the beneficiary’s paternity, particularly given that the FAM did not reflect 

whether independent verification of paternity was necessary in the 

Dominican Republic to obtain a birth certificate after the birth date. Id. 

(citing Vol. 9, Foreign Affairs Manual, Part IV, Appendix C, “Dominican 

Republic”). We held that additional proof was needed to establish paternity 

in that case and that the sole additional relevant document—an affidavit—

was insufficient to establish the relationship by a preponderance of the 

evidence. 

Similarly, in Matter of Ma, 20 I&N Dec. at 397, we evaluated the 

reliability of a Chinese notarial certificate that was issued 40 years after the 

beneficiary’s birth. We determined that although such certificates were 

generally reliable, the delay in the registration of the birth raised a concern 
Cite as 27 I&N Dec. 124 (BIA 2017) Interim Decision #3903

127

about fraud, so the case should be considered in light of “any and all 

supporting evidence that the petitioner may be able to produce.” Id.

Having reviewed the regulations, our precedent decisions, and the 

arguments of the parties, we conclude that in evaluating whether a birth 

certificate is “delayed” and therefore raises concerns about fraud, an 

adjudicator must consider all the other evidence of record and the 

circumstances of the case to determine whether a petitioner has submitted 

sufficient reliable evidence to demonstrate the claimed familial relationship 

by a preponderance of the evidence. See Matter of Bueno, 21 I&N Dec. 

at 1033. The adjudicator should always examine the evidence for its 

reliability and persuasiveness, given the circumstances presented. 

Even if a birth certificate does not reflect that its registration was 

contemporaneous with the birth, an adjudicator may conclude that it is 

sufficiently reliable to establish parentage, depending on the circumstances. 

In making this determination, the adjudicator should consider all relevant 

factors, including, but not limited to, (1) information in the FAM regarding 

the availability and reliability of birth registrations in the country of birth 

during the time period at issue; (2) the length of time between the birth and 

the registration; (3) any credible explanation proffered by the petitioner as to 

the personal, societal, or historical circumstances that prevented a particular 

birth certificate from being registered contemporaneously, and any evidence 

in support of that explanation; (4) any credible explanation for why a 

particular birth certificate was lost or destroyed; (5) any evidence that the 

parental relationship was independently corroborated prior to the registration 

of the birth; (6) the length of time between the birth registration and the filing 

of the visa petition; and (7) information regarding whether the document was

based on facts that were contemporaneous with the birth or on facts that were 

more recently established.

C. Secondary Evidence

If the adjudicator determines that a birth certificate is not sufficiently 

reliable to meet the preponderance of the evidence standard in light of all of 

the circumstances, he or she should require and consider secondary evidence 

to determine whether the petitioner has established parentage. See 8 C.F.R. 

§ 103.2(b)(2); see also Matter of Pagan, 22 I&N Dec. 547, 550 (BIA 1999).

The regulations do not specify the secondary evidence to be considered 

in sibling petition cases like the one before us. However, we find instructive

the regulation that lists the types of secondary evidence petitioners may 

submit to establish their United States citizenship or lawful permanent 

resident status. 8 C.F.R. § 204.1(g)(2) (providing that secondary evidence

may include, but is not limited to, baptismal certificates, affidavits sworn by 
Cite as 27 I&N Dec. 124 (BIA 2017) Interim Decision #3903

128

persons with personal knowledge of the event to which they attest, early 

school records, and census records). Similarly, we consider relevant the 

secondary evidence listed in the regulations pertaining to petitions filed on 

behalf of sons and daughters, because in sibling petition cases, it is the

siblings’ relationship through the parent that must be established. See, e.g., 

8 C.F.R. § 204.2(d)(2)(v), (vi) (providing that secondary evidence may 

include historical evidence issued contemporaneously with the birth or other 

event that it documents, such as medical records, school records, religious 

documents, affidavits by those with personal knowledge of the event, and

DNA evidence). All secondary evidence should be evaluated for its 

authenticity and credibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.1(g)(2).

Thus, the types of secondary evidence that a petitioner may submit to 

establish his or her relationship with a sibling beneficiary include, but are not 

limited to, (1) governmental, medical, religious, school, financial, 

employment, insurance, or residential records that reflect the names of 

the parent(s) and child; (2) family photographs with notations indicating

the persons photographed, as well as the date and place they were taken; 

(3) correspondence, preferably with the original envelope, showing the date 

written and referring to the parent(s) and child; (4) affidavits by persons who 

have personal knowledge of the birth; and (5) the results of DNA testing 

conducted in a prescribed manner, as explained to the petitioner by the

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). Given the 

advances in DNA testing in recent years, the USCIS should encourage 

petitioners to pursue this option, particularly if little other secondary 

evidence is available. A Request for Evidence should provide detailed 

guidance with regard to secondary forms of evidence.

Although we agree with the petitioner that all secondary evidence 

should be considered, we also agree with counsel for the USCIS that 

secondary evidence that was created contemporaneous with the birth will be 

the most persuasive. As with all visa petitions, an adjudicator’s decision 

should explain his or her reasoning in evaluating the reliability and 

persuasiveness of all the evidence in the record and state whether it is 

sufficient to meet the preponderance of the evidence standard.

D. Application to the Beneficiary

In this case, the beneficiary’s birth was registered in 1958, when he was 

2 years old. Unlike in Matter of Bueno, where the birth was registered just 

months before the visa petition was filed, the petitioner filed the visa 

petition 52 years after the beneficiary’s birth was registered. Under these

circumstances, the risk of fraud is greatly reduced. 
Cite as 27 I&N Dec. 124 (BIA 2017) Interim Decision #3903

129

In addition, the Director did not indicate that she considered the FAM, 

which states the following in regard to birth records in Pakistan:

Birth certificates for older Pakistanis, particularly those born before partition in 

1947, are often unavailable. These Pakistanis may present a “No Entry Certificate”

issued by the Municipal Corporation or a late-registered birth certificate. . . . 

Even today, birth records are not uniformly kept, particularly in rural areas. . . . 

. . . . 

In lieu of a birth certificate, Pakistanis often use school records attested by the 

headmaster or principal of the school or matriculation certificates, both of which 

identify the father and the date of birth. “B” Forms, which are family registration 

forms listing all family members, are also available [to show’ family relationships. 

These documents are issued by [the National Database and Registration Authority 

(“NADRA”)], though pre-NADRA versions are sometimes available as well.

U.S. Dep’t of State, Pakistan Country Reciprocity Schedule, https://travel.

state.gov/content/visas/en/fees/reciprocity-by-country/PK.html (follow the

hyperlink to “Birth, Death, Burial Certificates”). The FAM indicates that

birth certificates for those Pakistanis of the beneficiary’s generation—

namely, those born shortly after the 1947 partition of India—may often be 

unavailable. The Director should weigh this fact when considering the 

persuasiveness of the beneficiary’s birth certificate, which was registered in 

1958.

III. CONCLUSION

We will remand this case for the Director to apply the framework set forth 

above and determine whether the beneficiary’s birth certificate is sufficient 

to establish his parentage by a preponderance of the evidence. If the Director 

determines that the birth certificate alone is not sufficiently reliable, the 

Director should consider whether the birth certificate, in combination with 

the secondary evidence submitted by the petitioner, is sufficient to meet his 

burden of proof. As with all decisions, the Director must discuss the facts 

and weigh the evidence in light of the applicable legal standards and 

determine whether the burden of proof has been met. Accordingly, the record 

will be remanded for further proceedings. 

ORDER: The record is remanded for further proceedings consistent 

with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision.