Interim Decision #1345 

MATTER of SONAAD 

In VISA PETITION Proceedings 

A-12780495 

Decidedby Board May 25,1964 

Since there is no common-law marriage under the law of Hungary, no relationship was created between petitioner and beneficiary by reason of the latter's 

extramarital cohabitation with petitioner's mother from 1944 until their 

marriage in 1960. A valid stepparent-stepchild relationship was not created 

until the formal marriage in 1960 at which time petitioner was 28 years old. 

Consequently, petitioner is not a stepchild within section 101(b) (1) (B), Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, and is ineligible to petition for 

second preference quota status on behalf of beneficiary as her stepfather. 

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

Director, New York District, dated November 22, 1963 affirming the 

original order of denial dated March 20, 1963 and certifying the case 

to this Board 

The petitioner, a native of Hungary and a naturalized citizen of the 

United States, 32 years old, female, seeks preference quota status under 

section 203(a) (2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act on behalf 

of her stepfather, a native and citizen of Hungary, 70 years old, male. 

In support of the visa petition there was submitted a marriage certificate showing that the petitioner's mother and her stepfather were 

married at Budapest, Hungary on June 9, 1960. According to our 

prior order of May 24, 1963, the District Director, New York District, 

denied the visa petition on the ground that the beneficiary cannot be 

considered the petitioner's father or parent as defined in section 101 

(b) (2) of the Act because the petitioner was 28 years of age when 

her mother and the beneficiary were married in 1960, thereby creating 

the status of stepparent and stepchild; as a consequence thereof, she 

is not a child as defined in section 101(b) (1) (B) of the Act' 

At oral argument on May 9, 1963 the petitioner's representative, her 

husband, asserted that the beneficiary and the mother of the petitioner 

ISection 101(b) (1) (B) defines the term "child" to include a stepchild provided the child had not reached the age of 18 years at the time the marriage 

creating the status of stepchild occurred. 

555 
Interim Decision #1345 

lived together as husband and wife from 1944 until their marriage at 

Budapest, Hungary on June 9, 1960. He alleged that under Hungarian 

law the relationship of the petitioner's mother and the beneficiary 

ripened into the status of a common-law marriage after they had lived 

together continuously for a period of one to five years. The case was 

remanded in order to afford the petitioner an opportunity to establish 

that her mother and her stepfather acquired the status of common -law 

husband and wife under the law of Hungary in 1944 when the petitioner would have been 13 years of age and that a valid relationship of 

stepparent and stepchild under the immigration laws was created. 

The memorandum of the District Director supporting the decision 

of denial of November 22, 1963 indicates that petitioner was advised to 

submit any evidence possible that would be pertinent to the issue of 

when she acquired the status of stepchild. She submitted a letter from 

a lawyer in Budapest, Hungary stating in effect that if two persons 

had been living together in a common-law relationship and subsequently entered into a valid marriage, their commonly owned property 

is disposed of as if they had been married from the beginning of their 

common-law relationship. This letter cited a ruling of the Supreme 

Court of the Hungarian People's Republic published in August 1962. 

In his letter the Hungarian lawyer states that the court decision sets 

forth that where parties have lived together and have acquired commonly owned property during the period of living together, and only 

in cases where the parties have ultimately married and their commonlaw relationship has grown into marriage, will the unity and continuity 

of their entire economic situation warrant the application of the rules 

relating to married couples. The District Director concluded that 

nowhere was it set forth that the Hungarian court sought to apply this 

legal fiction generally to all common-law relationships which ultimately ripened into a legal marriage nor had the court ruled that the 

subsequent marriage of the parties could operate retroactively to create 

a legal relationship nuns pro tune from the date of its very inception; 

to the contrary; if a true common-law marriage had been entered into, 

there would be no necessity for a subsequent legal marriage. The 

District Director concluded that the evidence submitted pertinent to 

the issue of when the petitioner acquired the status of stepchild is not 

sufficient to warrant a change in the original order of denial and 

affirmed the original order of denial dated March 20, 1963. 

At oral argument on February 5, 1964 the petitioner's husband submitted two translated documents. The first document dated December 

'6,1963 at Budapest, Hungary from Dr. Laszlogree to the effect that 

the petitioner's mother, a widow, and her daughter, the petitioner, up 

to the date of the marriage of the latter, lived in joint housekeeping 

with the second husband of the widow, Lajos &head, in an apartment 

556 
Interim. Decision #1345 

at a certain address in Budapest starting from the year 1944 and that 

they are continuing to live together. The second document submitted 

is a certificate to substantiate the report of change of permanent residence by Hungarian male citizens issued by the Hungarian police on 

August 1, 1945 and shows that the beneficiary and his landlord, Mrs. 

Kalman Jades (the petitioner's mother) reside at the same address 

in Baapest, Hungary. The Board explained to the petitioner's husband that he should have submitted the documents to the field office. 

In view of the disposition which we made of this case, it is believed that 

a remand to consider the newly offered evidence is unnecessary. 

Under date of May 8, 1964 a report entitled "Legal Aspects of ExtraMarital Cohabitation in the Hungarian People's Republic," prepared 

by Dr. William Solyom-Fekete, European Law Division, Library of 

Congress, was received. The report indicates that the Hungarian 

Marriage Law was adopted in 1894 2and remained in force with 

amendments until 1952. This law does not mention common-law 

marriage and no other statute enacted prior to World War II contained any provision on this subject. Therefore, the decisions of the 

Royal Curia (Supreme Court of Hungary) in which the customary 

law of the country was expressed, are the only source from which 

pertinent information may be gathered. On May 7, 1906 the Royal 

Curia held that according to the continuous judicial practice in 

Hungary, extra-marital cohabitation of a man and woman, as a sexual 

relation contrary to the moral opinion of the community, cannot give 

rise to a civil law claim enforceable before the courts. 

The Marriage Law of 1894 was repealed in 1952 when the legislature 

enacted the Law on Domestic Relations . 2This law is still in force 

today and although this Law on Domestic Relations includes no reference to common-law marriage, its commentators usually do discuss 

its aspects, especially from the viewpoint of property relations. 

In 1959 the Civil Code of the Hungarian People's Republic was 

enacted which entered into force on May 1,1960.* This statute has 

completely changed the legal system of Hungary which until then 

was unique in continental Europe. The edict implementing the Civil 

Code 5 not only repealed all statutes pertaining to civil law, but also 

such court decisions. Section 5 of this edict even prohibited the 

"interpretation of the provisions of the Civil Code according to the 

legal principles formulated in the practice of the judiciary previous 

to the entering into force of the Code." 

'Law No. XXXI of 1694. 

' Law No. IV of 1952 on Marriage, Family, and Guardianship. 

' Law No. IV of 1959. 

o Edict No. 11 of 1960. 

557 
Interim Decision #1345 

Although the Law on Domestic Relations is not a part of the Civil 

Code, the courts apply the same rule in other fields of the law, and 

regard all earlier court decisionsas superseded or repealed, and the 

Supreme Court revised even its own opinions on the subject of domestic relations, repealing or amending some of them in 1961. Consequently, the decision of the Royal Curia handed down on April 7, 

1906'inay not-be regarded as a valid ruling. To facilitate the understanding of the distinction between a valid marriage and extra-marital 

cohabitation, the parties thereto will be called "spouses" (Altaastcirs) 

and "cohabitants" (e/ettars, literally translated: life-partners), respectively. 

The report then sets forth several cases where the cohabitant is 

recognized in regulations dealing with tenancies, widow's pensions, 

the inclusion in criminal law of the cohabitant under the concept of 

relatives although distinguishing it where the statute simply mentions 

the term "spouse," court suits in forma pauperis, and in matters of 

inheritance. 

The Supreme Court reversed the trend in lower court decisions 

which were inclined to equate the property relationship of cohabitants 

with those of spouses by using the analogy of conjugal community 

property, holding that although the relation of persons living in 

extra-marital cohabitation cannot be regarded as immoral, or as one 

negating rights, and the socialist law protects the cohabitant, and 

Assures certain rights, usually ftnaucial benefits, nevertheless, the legal 

and other distinctions between persons living in a marriage and in 

extra-marital cohabitation must be stressed. In a similar question 

the -Supreme Court held that according to Section' 27 of the Gait 

(Law on Domestic Relations) conjugal community of property may 

only occur between spouses; between parties to an extra-marital cohabitation, only a comminity of acquisition may occur. Other cases 

were cited which dealt with joint acquisitions by cohabitants living 

together in an extra-marital cohabitation. 

After the enactment of the Civil Code the principles of judicial 

practice as expressed in earlier court decisions were no longer applicable and the Supreme Court rendered a series of decisions and opinions in which the Court rephrased or rewrote some of the more 

important problems of the court in order to bring the solution of 

these problems in line with the Civil Code and the principles laid 

down therein. Iii the 'course of this work the Supreme Court restated its position on the general attitude and on the property relations 

arising from extra-marital cohabitation by stating that section 51 of 

the Hungarian Constitution provides that the Hungarian People's 

Republic protects the institution of marriage and family. It recognized cohabitation or extra-marital relationships which continued for 

558 
Interim Decision *1345 

long periods as obtaining certain rights arising from such extramarital cohabitation. These decrees recognized the similar ancillary 

rights mentioned previously of the right of the cohabitant of a deceased tenant to continue with the tenancy of a dwelling and regarding 

the cohabitant as a relative in regard to the application of the Ptk. 

(Civil Code). It stated however that the protection of interests in 

certain relations identical to that of spouses however does not mean 

completeness and identity. It was pointed out in this respect that 

the Hungarian legal system does not guarantee the right of the cohabitant to alimony, to bear the name of her cohabitant, and to intestate 

inheritance, and it does not regard the relation of cohabitants as having identical merit as marriage. 

The Supreme Court expressed its opinion several times to the effect 

that the legal and other distinctions existing in principle between 

spouses and parties to an extra-marital cohabitation must be stressed, 

therefore, the relation of cohabitants may not be regarded as legally 

identical with the relation arising from a marriage. It was further 

stated that the application of the rules of Chapter 4 of the Law on 

Domestic Relations to the settlement of property relations between 

cohabitants which arose during their cohabitation may only take place 

if the parties subsequently contracted a marriage and, thus, their 

relation as cohabitants grew into a marriage, when the unity and continuity of their joint husbandry justifies the application of the rules 

pertinent to spouses to the liquidation of their entire legal relationship. If this is not the case, cohabitants may not invoke the application of the measures of family law applicable to spouses to the 

settlement of their property relations, but the rules of civil law shall 

apply to the adjudication of mutual claims arising from their 

cohabitation. 

. In summary, the report from the Library of Congress indicates that 

while the parties to an extra-marital relationship or cohabitation do 

have some recognition for various collateral purposes incidental to 

the relationship, the distinction between a spouse and a cohabitant is 

firmly drawn in the Hungarian Law between persons living in a 

marital status and those in extra-marital cohabitation. The protection 

of interests in certain extra-marital relations, or cohabitants, as opposed to that of spouses, does not mean completeness of identity. The 

Hungarian legal system does not guarantee the right of the cohabitant to alimony, to bear the name of her cohabitant, and to intestate 

inheritance. It is concluded that although the extra-marital relationship of cohabitants is recognized for some purposes under Hungarian 

laws, it is not equivalent to the relationsIlip existing between legally 

married spouses. 

559 
Interim Decision #1345 

In the instant case, it is claimed that an extra-marital relationship 

arose in 1944 but that the parties actually did not become legally 

married until 1960. We think it proper to conclude that until there 

was a ceremonial marriage in 1960 between the beneficiary and the 

petitioner's mother, there was no valid relationship of stepparent 

and stepchild between the two. During the period the extra-marital 

relationship existed, no relationship of stepparent and stepchild was 

created between the beneficiary and the petitioner. It is concluded 

that the petitioner did not become a stepchild until 1960 when she was 

28 yens of age and that under the immigration ration laws, the relationship 

of stepchild and stepparent was not created within the limitation of 

18 years of age. The petitioner is not eligible to file a petition for her 

stepparent. 

ORDER: It is ordered that the order of the District Director, 

New York District, dated November 22, 1963, affirming the order of 

denial dated March 20, 1963, be and the same is hereby approved. 

560