Interim Decision #2790 

MATTER OF CFIEUNG 

In Visa Petition Proceedings 

A-20024560 

Decided by Board April 28, 1980 

(1) In visa petition proceedings, the burden is on the petitioner to provide proof of the 

claimed relationship. Matter of Brantigan, 11 UN Dec. 493 (BIA 1966). 

(2) In a visa petition proceeding where previous evidence of the claimed relationship 

was rejected, and the only new evidence presented with the visa petition was an 

"Official Certification of Family Relationship" issued by a court in the Peoples Republic of China which contains the same information as the petitioner's letter to the court 

requesting the certification, where the certification is silent as to the source of the 

information, where the certificate was recently issued, and the petitioner failed to 

establish that the certificate was issued after reference to any official records or 

reliable independent source, the appeal from the District Director's denial of the visa 

petition will be dismissed. 

ON BEHALF OF PrantosEn: Stephen L. Yun, Esquire 

2100 21st Street 

Sacramento, California 95818 

By: Milhollati, Chairman; Maniatis, Appleman, Maguire, and Farb, Board Members 

In a decision dated October 31, 1979, the District Director denied the 

visa petition filed on behalf of the beneficiary as the father of the 

United States citizen petitioner. The petitioner has appealed from this 

decision. The appeal will be dismissed_ 

The beneficiary is a native of the Peoples Republic of China and a 

resident of Hong 'Kong_ The petitioner is a native of the Peoples 

Republic and a naturalized citizen of the United States. An immediate 

relative visa petition was approved on behalf of the beneficiary of July 

7, 1971, under section 201(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 

U.S.C. 1151(b). Approval of this visa petition was revoked on October 

24, 1972. This Board dismissed the appeal from the revocation on 

February 15, 1973. On July 2, 1979, the petitioner filed a new visa 

petition, which was denied on October 31, 1979. In his denial, the 

District Director incorporated the grounds previously discussed by the 

Board in its decision of February 1973, and those in the notice of intent 

365 
Interim Decision #2790 

to revoke issued in September 1972. The District Director also found 

that the "Official Certification of Family Relationship" issued by the 

Peoples Court of the District of Toishan did not constitute persuasive 

proof of the father-daughter relationship claimed by the petitioner. He 

noted that the certificate does not state any source for the information 

contained in the certificate, but that the information in the certificate 

appeared to be based on information contained in the letter sent by the 

petitioner to the Liaison Office of the Peoples Republic in which a 

statement of the relationship was requested. 

On appeal, the petitioner contends that the Service has denied the 

visa petition because the previous visa petition was revoked. She also 

claims that the Service has denied the petition solely on the basis of 

discrepancies in the statements of the petitioner and the beneficiary, 

not on the ground that they are not father and daughter as claimed. 

She also asks for time to submit fingerprint information from the 

police in Hong Kong. 

Although in her appeal the petitioner does not address the major 

ground for the denial of the visa petition, we will treat the brief 

provided with the visa petition as if it were incorporated in the appeal. 

We will do this only because the brief deals with the certificate issued 

by the Peoples Court, which is the only new evidence provided by the 

petitioner to date which is material to the claimed father -daughter 

relationship. 

After reviewing the record, we have concluded that the petitioner 

has not met her burden of proof in conferring benefits under the 

immigration laws. Matter of Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966). 

We see the same defect in the 1979 Certificate presented as did the 

District Director. The 1978 letter to the Liaison Office of the Peoples 

Republic contains the same information provided in the Certificate 

that the Peoples Court issued. Nowhere in the Certificate is there a 

recitation as to the source of the information contained in the Certificate. Given this fact, we are not persuaded that the Peoples Court did 

not simply issue the Certificate to the petitioner as a courtesy. In any 

case, given the recent date of issue, and the failure to establish that the 

Certificate was issued after reference to any official records or reliable 

independent source, its probative value is extremely limited. When 

this fact is considered in conjunction with the discrepancies noted in 

previous decisions, and the real possibility raised by the American 

Consulate in Hong Kong that the beneficiary is an impostor, it is clear 

that the petitioner has still not established the claimed relationship 

between her and the beneficiary. The appeal will accordingly be 

dismissed. 

ORDERS The appeal is dismissed. 

366