Interim Decision #2294 

MATTER OF CHANG 

In Visa Petition Proceedings 

A-20306974 

Decided by Board June 12, 1974 

Since beneficiary's alleged adoption in Burma by natives of China occurred 

subsequent to 1939, it was governed, not by Chinese customary law, but by 

Burmese Buddhist law, under which there are two forms of adoption: Kittima 

and Appatittha. Beneficiary's adoption, allegedly effected in 1950 without 

writing and without notifying the Burmese authorities, could not have been a 

Kittima adoption, which is similar to the concept of adoption in the United 

States. Assuming the adoption was an Appatittha adoption, the beneficiary is 

nevertheless ineligible for preference classification under section 203(a)(2) of 

the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, as an adopted son, since 

such adoption is insufficient to confer benefits for immigration purposes 

(11fattor of Kong, Interim Decision No. 2275). 

ON BEHALF OF PF.7111.10N.ER: Allen Jackson, Esquire 

580 Washington Street 

San Francisco, California 94111 

The lawful permanent resident petitioner applied for preference 

status for the beneficiary as his adopted son under section 

203(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. In a decision 

dated August 1, 1973, the District Director approved the visa 

petition, after concluding that an adoption had taken place under 

the law of Burma and that such adoption was sufficient for the 

purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The District 

Director has certified his decision to us pursuant to 8 CFR 3.1(c). 

We will reverse the decision of the District Director and deny the 

visa petition. 

The petitioning father claims that he and his wife, both natives 

of Chin; adopted the beneficiary in Burma in 1950 according to 

Chinese customary law. The petitioner and his wife apparently 

exchanged one of their own daughters for the beneficiary in order 

that they might have a son to carry on the family line. After the 

exchange, the beneficiary was raised as a son of the petitioner and 

his wife. No adoption papers were exchanged, nor were the 

authorities in Burma notified of the adoption. 

720 
Interim Decision #2294 

The District Director obtained a memorandum of foreign law, 

dated June 1, 1973, from the Far Eastern Law Division of the 

Library of Congress. That memorandum sets forth section 13(1) of 

the Burma Laws Act, Act XIII of 1898, which states: 

(1) Where in any suit or other proceeding in Burma it is necessary for the 

Court to decide any question regarding succession, inheritance, marriage or 

caste, or any religious usage or institution, 

(a) the Buddhist law in cases where the parties are Buddhists, 

(b) the Mohammedan law in cases where the parties are Mohammedans, 

and 

(c) the Hindu law in cases where the parties are Hindus 

shall form the rule of decision, except in so far as such law has by enactment 

been altered or abolished, or is opposed to any custom having the force of law.' 

Accordingly, the governing law in all cases where the parties 

concerned are Burmese Buddhists is Burmese Buddhist law. Prior 

to 1939, it was held that Chinese Buddhists in Burma were not 

governed by the Burmese Buddhist law, but rather by the personal law of the Chinese, that is, Chinese customary law? However, in 1939 it was held that Burmese Buddhist law could not be 

varied or overridden by exotic customs or usages. 3Thereafter, 

Burmese Buddhist law, not Chinese customary law, has governed 

the rights of Chinese Buddhists domiciled in Burma. 

On the basis of the memorandum of Burmese law, the District 

Director correctly concluded that the present case was not governed by Chinese customary law. He went on, however, to conclude that an Appatittha adoption had occurred under Burmese 

Buddhist law and that this adoption was sufficient for the purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act. We disagree with 

this conclusion. 

We considered adoption under the Burmese Buddhist law in 

Matter of Kong, Interim Decision 2275 (BIA 1974). We noted that 

there are two forms of adoption under Burmese Buddhist law: 

Kittima adoption, which is similar to the concept of adoption in the 

United States, and Appatittha adoption, a casual relationship, 

which does not create substantial rights and obligations between 

parent and child. 

An instrument of adoption registered in accordance with Section 

5 of the Registration of Kittima Adoptions Act is a prerequisite for 

the legal validity of a Kittima adoption effected after April 1, 1941. 

The present adoption was allegedly effected without writing and 

without notifying the Burmese authorities. We agree with the 

1The Burma Code, Rangoon, Ministry of Justice, 1955, v. 1, p 9 

2 Tan Ma Since Zin v. Tan Ma Ngwe Zin, 10 Indian L.R. Rangoon Ser. 97 (1932). 

Tan Ma Shwe Zin v. Khoo Soo Choung, Rangoon L.R. 548 (1939). 

721 
Interim Decision #2294 

District Director's conclusion that there could be no Kittima 

adoption in the present case. 

We held in Matter of Kong, supra, that an Appatittha adoption is 

not an adoption for the purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Therefore, even if we assume that the information submitted by the petitioner is sufficient to establish an Appatittha 

adoption, the beneficiary is not entitled to preference status under 

section 203(aX2) of the Act on the basis of such an adoption. 

The District Director cited Matter of Poon, Interim Decision No. 

2153 (BIA 1972), and Matter of Rodriguez, Interim Decision No. 

2195 (BIA 1973), as authority for his conclusion that an Appatittha 

adoption is sufficient for immigration purposes. Those cases dealt 

with adoption under Chinese law and custom in Hong Kong and 

are inapplicable to the present situation. The District Director's 

conclusion is inconsistent with our holding in Matter of Kong, 

supra, and therefore it must be reversed. 

In visa petition proceedings, the petitioner has the burden of 

establishing eligibility for the benefit conferred by the immigration laws. Matter of Brantigan, 11 L & N. Dec. 493 (BIA 1966). The 

petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is his adopted 

son for immigration purposes. Consequently, the visa petition 

must be denied. 

ORDER: The decision of the District Director is reversed. 

Further order: The visa petition is denied. 

722