MATTER or B— 

In VISA PETITION Proceedings 

A-8115379 

Decided by Board August 02, 1960 

Adoption—Benefits under immigration laws based on natural relationship between parent and child not lost when child is adopted after age 14. 

Adult naturalized United States citizen who was legally adopted in this country at are 15 held entitled to confer second preference quota status upon 

natural parents. Unless an adopted child acquires immigration rights and 

privileges as between himself and his adoptive parents pursuant to an adoption which has conformed to the standards contained in section 101(b) 

(1) (E) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, his relationship with his 

natural parents remains unchanged for immigration purposes. 

BEFORE THE BOARD 

DISCUSSION: The case comes forward pursuant to certification 

by the District Director, Phoenix District, of his order dated April 

14, 1960, approving the visa petitions on behalf of the beneficiaries 

for preference status under section 203(a) (2) of the Immigration 

and Nationality Act. 

The facts concerning the visa application are set forth fully in 

the decision of the district director. The petitioner is a native of 

Greece, born January 23, 1939, female, single, who was admitted to 

the United States for permanent residence on September 19, 1951, 

under the provisions of section 3 (b) (4) of the Displaced Persons 

Act of June 25, 1948. She became a naturalized citizen of the United 

States under the general provisions of the naturalization law on 

February 17, 1958, and thereafter filed the instant petitions to accord 

manna preference quota status for her natural parents. The father 

and mother are natives of Turkey, citizens and residents of Greece, 

56 and 45 years old, respectively. 

The district director's order reflects that the petitioner (and her 

brother) were admitted to the United States as displaced persons 

under section 3 (b) (4) of the Displaced Persons Act of 1948 and 

were destined to their aunt and uncle, F— and F—B—, residing in 

Phoenix, Arizona. Apparently the petitioner's natural parents were 

not eligible as displaced persons. The petitioner and her brother 

46 
were adopted by their aunt and uncle on October 25, 1954, pursuant 

to a decree of adoption made on that date by the Superior Court of 

Arizona in Maricopa County. It is to be noted that the petitioner 

was over 15 years of age when the adoption occurred. In connection 

with the appeal, the petitioner advises that the primary purpose of 

the adoption was to assure her and her brother a legal guardianship 

until such time as the natural parents could be admitted to the 

United States and there was no thought of using the adoption as a 

means of securing entry permits for the parents; that it was unfortunate that they were not made temporary wards instead of being 

adopted; and that the uncle -is now almost completely incapacitated 

as a result of multiple sclerosis. 

Title 8, section 108, Arizona Revised Statutes, provides that, effective as of the date of entry of the final order of adoption, the 

child shall no longer be the child or heir of the natural parents, or 

entitled to any of the rights and privileges, or subject to any of the 

obligations of a child of its natural parents. Informal advice from 

the Chief Deputy County Attorney, Maricopa County, where the 

adoption took place, is to the effect that the express purpose of this 

section was to wipe out any connection between the child and the 

natural parents. 

Section 203(a) (2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act as 

amended by the Act of September 22, 1959 grants preference quota 

status to parents of adult citizens of the United States. Under section 101(b) (2) the term "parent" means a parent only where the 

relationship exists by reason of the circumstances set forth in section 101(b) (1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended. 

This section sets forth five categories, including section 101(b) (1) (E), 

which was added by the Act of September 11, 1957 and makes 

eligible for immigration benefits an adopted child who is defined as: 

(E) a child adopted while under the age of fourteen yours 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 : Provided, That no natural parent 

of any such adopted child shall thereafter, by virtue of such parentage, be 

accorded any right, privilege, or status under this Act. (Emphasis supplied.) 

Reference to the definition of adopted child discloses that for 

immigration purposes an ordinary adoption is not sufficient. It is 

necessary, in order to qualify for immigration status or benefit:), that 

the child be adopted while under the age of 14 years, thereafter 

be in the legal custody of, and reside with, the adopting parent 

or parents for at least two years; and the law ctont.siits a proviso 

that no natural parent of any "such" adopted child shall thereafter 

be accorded any right, privilege or status under the Immigration 

and Nationality Act. It may be noted at the outset that the adopted 

child in this case cbuld not qualify as "such" adopted child as 

47 
defined for immigration purposes, since the child was adopted when 

over the age of 14 years. The fact that the child was regarded as 

legally adopted under the laws of the State of Arizona does not have 

any significance under federal immigration laws other than that 

the adoption must accord with the procedural adoptive requirements 

of the state. 

Subparagraph (E) of section 101(b) (1) was added to the Immigration and Nationality Act by the Act of September 11, 1957 

(71 Stat. 639) which, for the first time, gave formal recognition to 

adopted children for the purpose of nonquota or preference status. 

The legislative history of this amendatory act first makes reference 

to certain administrative decisions of the Attorney General as to the 

terms "child" and "stepchild" 1which the Congress regarded as not 

in conformity with the congressional intent and which the new legislation was designed to clarify. The definition of "child" was extended to include adopted children under limited circumstances: 

i.e., in those cases where the child was adopted while under the age 

of 14 years and had thereafter been in the legal custody of, and had 

resided with, the adopting parent or parents for at least two years. 2 

It was observed that the term "child" under existing law did not 

include adopted children, and the belief was expressed that the 

proposed amendment was desirable to prevent hardship in cases 

where the child was chargeable to a heavily oversubscribed quota 

and would not otherwise be able to accompany his adoptive parents. 

It was stated that adequate safeguards were included in the new 

legislation to prevent abuses in adoption cases, such as ad hoc and 

fraudulent adoptions made for the purpose of circumventing the 

immigration laws.' The only reference to the proviso contained in 

section 101 (h) (1) (l1) rutting nff any right., privilege nr Oaths 

under the Act to a natural parent by virtue of such parentage subsequent to the adoption, is a comment in the Congressional Record 

to the effect that a technical amendment to the bill was proposed 

to bring this section into accord with section 4 of the bill which 

relates to eligible orphans' 

The legislative history, therefore, evinces a clear congressional 

intent to prevent hardship in the case of a family with adopted 

children by according such children recognition for immigration 

UntloubLedly MmIter of A—, 1-272, and Hurler of DI—, 3-120. 

'The limitation that the child be under 14 years of age overruled Matter 

of R—, 5-438, which recognized an adoption for purposes of section 203 (a ) (4) in 

a case in which,the beneficiary was adopted when 24 years of age. 

a Senate Report No. 1057 to accompany S. 2792 (85th Cong., 1st Secs.) pp. 3, 

4; 2 U.S. Code congressional and Administrative News, p. 2020. 

' Volume 103, Part 12, Congressional Record, p. 16301 (August 28, 1957). 

48 
purposes. However, the new legislation prescribed a federal standard for adoption in order to prevent certain abuses by restricting 

eligibility of such adopted children for immigration purposes to 

those adopted under the age of 14 years and requiring two years' 

custody and residence of the adopted child with the adoptive parents 

after tI s adoption. These federal standards laid down by the law 

supersede the requirements of the state law which are effective only 

insofar as the procedural requirements for adoption are concerned. 

In the instant case, the adoption occurred when the petitioner 

herein was over 14 years of age. It, therefore, failed to meet the 

federal standard for an adoption to be recognized for immigration 

purposes. Therefore, for immigration purposes the adoption has 

no effect, and may be considered as neither conferring any immigration right, privilege or status as between the parties to the adoption 

nor as affecting the natural relationship existing between the parent 

and child. Since this relationship bete: _,en parent and child has not 

been changed for immigration purposes, the visa petitions may be 

approved for second preference status on behalf of the natural 

parents. 

ORDER: It is ordered that the visa petitions be approved for 

preference status under section 203(a) (2) of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act on behalf of the beneficiaries. 

49 

654 317-63