Interim Decision #2553 

MATTER OF WONG 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A-31222150 

Decided by Board January 31, 1977 

(1) Respondent born October 14, 1944, was admitted to the United States for permanent 

residence on April 1, 1973, as the unmarried minor child of a lawful permanent resident 

on the basis of an Appatittha (ceremonial) adoption whida took place in Burma. The 

Service seeks respondent's deportation under section 241(a)(1) of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act as an alien excludable at entry under section 212(a)(14) of the Act for 

lack of a valid labor certification based on the fact that the adoption was not registered 

so as to be classified as a Kittima adoption (the only adoption now considered valid for 

immigration purposes) until Apri122, 1969, after beneficiary- passed the age of 14 years. 

(2) Notwithstanding that an Appatittha adoption was declared to be invalid for immigration purposes in Matter of Kong, 14 1. & N. Dec. 649 (BIA 1974), the Board will not 

apply that holding retroactively to aliens who were admitted for lawful permanent 

residence prior to the date of that decision (March 26, 1974). and the instant deportation 

proceedings brought against respondent must be terminated. 

CHARGE: 

Orden Act of 1952—Section 241(a)(1) (8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(1)1--Excludable at entry under 

section 212(a)(14); no labor certification 

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Thomas N. Saldin, Esquire 

4676 Admiralty Way 

Marina Del Hey, California 50291 

BY: Wilson, Acting Chairman; Torrington, Maniatis, and Appleman, Board Members 

In a decision dated May 23, 1975, the immigration judge found the 

respondent deportable as charged and granted him the privilege of 

voluntary departure from the United States in lieu of deportation. The 

respondent has appealed. The appeal will be sustained, and the proceedings will be terminated. 

The respondent was born in Burma on October 16, 1944. He was 

admitted to the United States for permanent residence on April 1, 1973, 

as the unmarried minor child of a lawful permanent resident on the basis 

of his adoption in Burma. He was the beneficiary of a visa petition 

approiied by the District Director, and a visa was issued by an American 

Consular official pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 204.1(a). 

99 
Interim Decision #2553 

On March 25, 1974, almost twelve months after the respondent had 

been admitted for permanent residence, we rendered our decision in 

Matter of Kong, 14 I. & N. Dec. 649 (BIA 1974), holding that an 

Appatittha adoption, which is a ceremonial adoption, cannot be considered a valid adoption for immigration purposes. That holding was 

reaffirmed in Matter of Chang, 14 I. & N. Dec. 720 (BIA 1974). 

The Service seeks the respondent's deportation under section 

241(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act by reason of his 

excludability at entry under section 212(a)(14) of the Act for lack of a 

labor certification. The sole basis .for this charge is that there was no 

registration of the adoption sufficient to classify it as a Kittima adoption 

(the only adoption under Burmese law recognized for immigration purposes) until April 22, 1969, well after the respondent turned 14 years of 

age. There has been no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation on the 

part of the respondent in obtaining his visas or in entering the United 

States. 

As we noted earlier, the respondent was admitted to the United 

States for permanent residence almost twelve months prior to our 

decision in Molter of Kong, supra We have held that the only adoption 

in Burma under the Burmese Buddhist Law that will be recognized for 

immigration purposes is the Kittima adoption. However, the respondent was adopted within Burmese law under an Appatittha adoption. 

See Matter of Kong, supra. The respondent was publicly taken into the 

home of his adoptive parents in 1947, shortly before his natural mother's 

death and with her consent. The record indicates that he lived from that 

time on with his adoptive parents and has been treated and recognized 

as one of the family. The record also contains a copy of a notarized 

"Declaration of Adoption" executed on April 22, 1969, by the respondent's adoptive parents. This declaration recites that on August 2, 1947, 

the respondent's adoptive parents openly declared the adoption of the 

respondent in the presence of invited guests with the consent of the 

respondent's natural mother. 

At the time the respondent was admitted for permanent residence we 

had not yet had occasion to set forth our view on adoption in Burma. 

There was, at that time, the plausible legal argument, based on certain 

oi our decisions involving Chinese adoptions, that informal adoptions in 

Burma were sufficient for immigration purposes. See e.g., Matter of Ng, 

14 I. & N. Dec. 135 (BIA 1972); Matter of Kwok, 14 I. & N. Dec. 127 

(BIA 1972); Matter of Yue, 12 I. & N. Dec. 747 (BIA 1968). We have 

since repudiated that view. Matter of Kong, supra. Nevertheless, we 

are not willing to apply Matter of Kong, supra, retroactively to aliens 

who were admitted for lawful permanent residence prior to the date of 

that decision. 

Under the peculiar circumstances of the present case, the Service has 

100 
Interim Decision #2553 

not established that the respondent was excludable at the time of his 

entry. Consequently, the proceedings must be terminated. 

The appeal will be sustained, and the proceedings will be terminated. 

ORDER: The appeal is sustained, and the deportation proceedings 

are terminated. 

101