Interim Decision #1741 

MATTER or ZAPLETALOvA 

In Visa Petition Proceedings 

A-14847794 

Deoided by Board fume 13, 1967 

Sines ceder the law of Czechoslovakia in 1920 adoption was effected by a court 

decree, the mere bringing into the household in 1920 of a eldid and we rearing 

of him does not constitute an adoption for immigration purposes. 

On Brisenr OF SNRVICE : B. A. Vielhaber 

Appellate Trial Attorney 

(Oral argument) 

' - 

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

Director, New York District, dated February 14, 1967 denying the 

visa petition because the petitioner is not considered to be a brother 

of the beneficiary within the meaning of section 203(a) (5) and section 101(b) (1) (E) for the reason that no evidence has been submitted 

to establish that the petitioner was legally adopted by the parents of 

the beneficiary. 

The petitioner, a native and citizen of Czechoslovakia, born Janvary 28, 1920, became a naturalized citizen of the United States on 

March 2, 1958. He seeks preference quota status on behalf of the beneficiary as his sister by virtue of the fact that he was the adopted son 

of the parents of the beneficiary. The beneficiary is a native and citizen of Czechoslovakia, born December 14, 1916. 

At oral argument the petitioner indicated that he was not aware 

that his adoptive mother was not his true mother or that the beneficiary was not his true sister until he was seven years old. He does 

not know whether there were any court adoption proceedings. 

The petitioner has submitted a document from the Local National 

Committee, Department for Internal Affairs, at Nitre, Czechoslovakia 

which confirms at the request of the beneficiary that Desider (David) 

Weisz, the petitioner, was adopted in 1920 shortly after the death of 

his mother, Hermine, who died May 19, 1920, by his aunt, Fany 

Weisz, and uncle, Ignac Weisz, the parents of the beneficiary. They 

brought him up during his childhood with their own five children, 

258 
Interim Decision #1741 

of whom only the beneficiary is living. The document further sets 

forth that the mother of the petitioner and the mother of the beneficiary were really sisters and the father of the petitioner and the 

father of the beneficiary were really brothers. This document is confirmed by the local Jewish community and confirmed by the chief 

of the Jewish community at Nitra. This document was executed under 

oath on February 20, 1967. 

A second document is an attestation under the seal of the Jewish 

religious community at Nitre, that the .petitioner was adopted in. the 

year of 1920 by his aunt and uncle, Fany and Unto Weisz, raised 

them together with their five children of which only the beneficiary 

is living. As a result of the wartime circumstances and deportation of 

the whole Weisz family to concentration camps, the confirmation of 

adoption was lost. The document also recites that the mother of the 

petitioner and of the beneficiary were sisters and their fathers were 

brothers. The attestation is given at the request of the beneficiary. 

There is also a third document entitled Declaration of Honour 

executed by the beneficiary and her husband before the National Committee at Nitra, Department for Internal Affairs dated August 12, 

1966 declaring that the petitioner was adopted and brought up by 

the beneficiary's parents, that the fathers and mothers of the petitioner and the beneficiary were brothers and sisters, respectively. 

The burden of proving the relationship upon which benefits are 

sought under the immigration laws rests upon the petitioner. The 

petitioner has submitted his own Czechoslovakian birth certificate 

which contains no notation of adoption, the beneficiary's birth certificate as well as the beneficiary's marriage certificate. Apparently, these 

documents relating to vital statistics are available. 

Under the law of Czechoslovakia, which was in force prior to May 

16, 1928 anyone who was capable of legal adoption, could adopt any 

person, provided the person adopted was 16 years his junior. The consent of the guardian of the child, the consent of the natural parents, 

and the consent of the minor, provided he Was older than 14 years, was 

required. Decrees of the Htragarion. Minister of Justice, 16, 889 of 

1890. The consent of the Guardian Office was regulated by Articles 20 

and 113 of Law No. 20 of 1877, Guardianship Laws. Adoption was a 

local court proceeding: 

The only eVidene,e submitted by the petitioner to establish an adoption discloses that the petitioner was raised by his aunt and uncle, the 

beneficiary's parents, after the death of his mother. It is also alleged 

that he was adopted but there has been no legal evidence presented of 

'This information was supplied by the Library of Congress, European Law 

Division, Dr. Ruhmtnn. 

259 
Interim Decision *1741 

the adoption. It has not been shown that official records relating to 

the alleged adoption are unavailable inasmuch as other documents relating to vital statistics were readily obtainable. Insofar as official 

records show, there does not appear to have been any legal adoption 

under the laws of Czechoslovakia. The visa petition will be denied 

without prejudice to reopening .in the event that official evidence establishes that adoption records were destroyed or unobtainable. If such 

evidence is produced, a motion to reopen together with additional evidence of adoption will be entertained. 

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

dismissed. 

260