interim 'Amon #1667 

MA.c.u.kt OF YUE 

In Visa Petition Proceedings 

A-17295317 

Decided by Board May 28,1968 

Since the evidence establishes a valid informal infancy adoption under Chinese 

law and custom of benenclary by petitioner and his wife in Hong Kong in 

1960, that date is recognized as the date of adoption for Immigration purposes, 

notwithstanding a later formal adoption in Hong Kong in 1966. 

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

Director, San Francisco District, dated January 19, 1968 denying the 

visa petition for the reason that the beneficiary is not a child as 

defined in section 101(b) (1) (E) of the Act, as amended, in that she 

has not been in the legal custody of the adopting parent or parents 

for a period of two years subsequent to the date of the adoption on 

September 17, 1966. 

The petitioner, a native of China a lawful permanent resident of 

the United States, 51 years old, male, was admitted on November 16, 

1966 for permanent residence. He seeks preference quota status on 

behalf of the beneficiary as his adopted daughter. The beneficiary is 

a native and citizen of Hong Kong, B.C.C., born July 16, 1960. The 

petition was filed on. February 8, 1967. There is evidence in the form 

of a decree of the Supreme Court of Hong Kong showing that the 

petitioner and his wife, Leung, Mee-Ying adopted the beneficiary on 

September 7, 1966. If this were all there were to the case, the denial 

would be proper inasmuch as section 101(b) (1) (E) defines that the 

term "child" to include a child adopted under the age of 14 years if 

the child has thereafter been in the legal custody of, and has resided 

with, the adopting parent or parents for at least two years. 

However the file contains an undated memorandum regarding the 

same petitioner, his wife, Yue Mee Ying nee Leong (file A17295319) 

and their daughter, the instant beneficiary, Yne Hang Yee. The 

memorandum is somewhat confusing because it also involves the 

petitioner's wife. However it states that the petitioner was interviewed on May 31, 1967, verified the statements in the Chinese char321-054,-69-49 747 
Interim Decision #1867 

actors writen on the visa petition, and the petitioner submitted individual photographs of himself and the beneficiaries, also several other 

photographs, which tended to show the relationship between the petitioner and the beneficiaries. The petition on behalf of the wife, Yue 

Mee Ying was approved on December 15, 1967 and we shall not 

concern ourselves further with that visa petition. 

The pertinent part of the memorandum regarding the beneficiary is 

that the petitioner stated that she was adopted when she was approximately two months of age in 1960 and had lived with him and his wife 

prior to his coining to the United States; that beneficiary still lives 

with his wife. The memorandum notes that the petitioner's attention 

was called to the fact that the Hong Kong adoption certificate shows 

her adoption on September 17, 1966 and that two years legal custody 

had not yet elapsed; the petitioner was advieed that the would have 

to submit some evidence of prior adoption in order to overcome the 

documentary evidence presented, and that action in the case would 

be deferred pending submission of such evidence. 

Statutory Declarations were executed by Chan Chung and his wife, 

Liang Ngan-Loi at Hong Kong on June 5, 1967, which state that the 

wants' daughter, Chan Wai Chun, was born July 16, 1960 in Hong 

Kong; that owing to pecuniary embarrassment the said daughter 

was adopted by Yue Kang Nam on September 8, 1960 and ever since 

her given name has been known as Yue Hang yea. 

The petitioner has consistently claimed that the beneficiary was 

adopted by him when she was approximately two months. old in 1960. 

We recognize that there has prevailed a practice among some persons 

who do not have evidence of adoption or of marriage, that an adoption or marriage have been undergone once more in Hong Kong in 

order to have the matter of record. In unreported Matter of Lung 

Chao, VP 3-1-123920 (April 30, 1962), expert legal opinion was submitted that the law applicable to adoption of Chinese domiciled in 

Hong Kong is the Chinese law and custom, which has been reaffirmed 

by section 23 of Adoption Ordinance of Hong Kong No. 22 of 1956 

which provides that nothing therein should affect any adoption undertaken or to be undertaken under Chinese law and custom. The expert 

opinion sets forth that the law of adoption applicable to Chinese 

domiciled in Hong Kong is Tsing law. There are two kinds of adoption: (1) a formal adoption to continue the male succession; (2) an 

informal adoption based upon natural affection which includes the 

adoption of a. daughter. The opinion refers to Appeal Case No. 195 of 

the 7th year of the Chinese Republic in which the Supreme Court of 

China ruled that it was wrong to say that to adopt a daughter was not 

permitted by law. 

748 
interim tiectston. 4,F low 

In. connection with the appeal, the petitioner reiterates that the 

adoption occurred two months after the birth of the beneficiary, that 

she has been in their family ever since, that they have raised her as their 

very own, and his wife cannot leave her alone in Hong Kong to join 

him in the United States. In view of the long interval of time which 

has elapsed since the petition was filed on February 8, 1967, and in 

view of the evidence presented by the petitioner, it is concluded that 

he has borne the burden of establishing an infancy Chinese adoption in 

1960. The visa petition will be approved. 

ORDER: It is ordered that the visa petition be and the same is 

hereby approved. 

749