Interim Decision #2320 

MATTER OF CHIN 

In Visa Petition Proceedings 

A-14891224 

Decided by Board September 25, 1974 

Petitioner sought preference immigrant status under the Immigration and Nationality 

Act for the beneficiary as his adopted son pursuant to sec. 12 of the Hong Kong Births 

and Deaths Registration Act which considers every child of every Chinese male to be a 

legitimate child, and deems the Chinese male to be the father of the child. Beneficiary's 

birth was duly registered, listing petitioner as beneficiary's father. The petition is 

denied because petitioner who was a native and citizen of the United States, and who 

was not in China when the beneficiary was born, cannot be considered as a "Chinese 

male" as co atemplated by the above registration act, nor can the relationship required 

by section r.01(b)(1)(C) of the Act be said to exist. The petition was properly denied. 

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: 

Edward Hcng, Esquire Charles Gordon 

36 Division Street General Counsel 

New York, New York 10002 

This case is before us upon the motion of the Service to reconsider our 

decision of June 18, 1969 in which we approved the instant visa petition. 

The motion.. will be granted, the order granting approval of the petition 

will be withdrawn, and the petitioner's appeal will be dismissed. 

The United States citizen petitioner is seeking preference status for 

the beneficiary as his adopted son under the Immigration and Nationality Act. He asserts that the beneficiary was born in Hong Kong 

on February 10, 1960 as the result of his relationship with a servant 

living in his household in Hong Kong. He claims that he took the servant 

as his concubine according to Chinese law and custom, and that the 

beneficiary is therefore his legitimate son. A birth certificate issued by 

the Registrar of Births in Hong Kong has been presented. That certificate indieaces that the beneficiary's birth was registered on March 20, 

1960, and it names the petitioner as the father. 

In our prior opinion we agreed with the district director's finding that 

the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary's mother was his 

concubine. See Matter of Kwan, 13 I. & N. Dec. 302 (BIA 1969). 

Nevertheless, we determined that, by virtue of Section 12 of the Hong 

Kong Births and Deaths Registration Ordinance, the beneficiary was 

the petitioner's legitimate child. That latter conclusion was in error. 

100 
Interim Decision #2320 

Section 12 of the Hong Kong Births and Deaths Registration Act 

provides: 

In the ease of an illegitimate child, no person shall, as father of such child, be required 

to give information concerning the birth of such child, and there shall not be entered in 

the register the name of any person as father of such child, except at the joint request of 

the mother and of the person acknowledging himself to be the father, and such person 

shall in such ease sign the register together with the mother. For the purposes of this 

Ordinance every child of every Chinese male shall be deemed to be a legitimate child, 

and such Chinese male shall be deemed to be the father of such child. (Emphasis 

supplied.) 

The petitioner is a native-born United States citizen who was 

domiciled in the United States at the time of the beneficiary's birth and 

thereafter. Consequently, we hold that the petitioner is not a "Chinese 

male" for the purposes of Section 12 of the Hong Kong Births and 

Deaths Registration Ordinance. We therefore retract the language in 

our prior decision holding that the beneficiary was the petitioner's 

legitimate child by virtue of Section 12. Additionally, we note that the 

petitioner has submitted no evidence to show that the beneficiary qualifies as his legitimated child under section 101(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

The Service's motion to reconsider will be granted, our prior order 

approving the visa petition will be withdrawn, and the petitioner's 

appeal will be dismissed. 

ORDER: The motion is granted, our decision of June 18, 1969 is 

withdrawn, and the appeal is dismissed. 

101