Interim Decision #2749 

MATTER OF FONG 

In Visa Petition Proceedings 

A-21324649 

Decided by Board January 7, 1980 

(1) A visa petition by the natural child of his father and his father's "second" Chinese 

wife, for his father's "first" wife as his stepmother, is not based on a polygamous 

"marriage," and the beneficiary is eligible to derive an immigration benefit through 

the petitioner. Matter of Stultz,15 I&N Dec. 362 (BIA 1974,1975; A.G. 1975) followed. 

Matter of Man, 16 I&N Dec. 543 (BIA 1978) distinguished. 

(2) The fact that a petitioner has already successfully petitioned for his natural mother 

does not preclude approval of a visa petition filed on behalf of a stepmother in the 

absence of a statutory bar such as that existing in section 101(b)(1)(E) of the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to the natural parents of an adopted child. 

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: Pro se 

BY: Milhollan, Chairman; Maniatis, Appleman, Maguire, and Farb, Board Members 

On December 5, 1978, the District Director entered a decision denying the visa petition filed on behalf of the beneficiary as the petitioner's 

stepmother. He has certified his decision to the Board for review. The 

decision will be reversed, and the record will be remanded. 

The petitioner is a 41-year-old native of China and citizen of the 

United States. The beneficiary is a 72-year-old native and citizen of 

China. The petitioner claims that the beneficiary is his stepmother and 

that he lived in the same household with her from the date of his birth 

until 1969. It appears from the record that the beneficiary married 

Fong Tack-Wah, the petitioner's father, on April 1, 1924. Fong TackWah "married" a second woman, the petitioner's mother (Tsang BikLin) on June 10, 1933. The record contains the sworn statement of 

Tsang Bik-Lin, dated October 14, 1976, in which she states that she is 

Fong Tack-Wah's "second" wife, that she bore him three children, one 

of whom is the petitioner herein, and that she, her husband, his "first" 

wife (the beneficiary herein) and their children all lived in the same 

household. 

212 
Interim Decision #2749 

In his decision denying the visa petition, the District Director determined that the only relationship between the petitioner and the beneficiary was as a result of a "quasi-polygamous" marriage, and accordingly, the visa petition could not be approved. We disagree. 

In Matter of Man, 16 I&N Dec. 543 (BIA 1978), we were presented 

with a visa petition filed on behalf of a "second" wife (or concubine) by 

the child of her "husband" and his "first" wife. The petitioner in that 

case claimed that the beneficiary was his stepmother within the meaning of the immigration laws. We reviewed our previous cases dealing 

with concubinage' and found that we had never held that the secondary wife could derive or bestow immigration benefits through children 

born to her "husband" and his principal wife. We denied the visa 

petition, therefore, because the sole relationship between the beneficiary and the petitioner in Matter of Man, supra, was the polygamous 

"marriage," finding that "Congress did not intend to accord preference 

status on the basis of such relationships in view of the clear disfavor it 

expressed towards polygamy by excluding polygamists from entry into 

the United States under section 212(a)(11) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 

1182(a)(11)." Id. at 3. 

The instant case presents a situation quite different from Matter of 

Man, supra. Here, the petitioner is claiming a relationship to his 

father's "first" wife. In Matter of Stultz, 15 I&N Dec. 362 (BIA 1974, 

1975; A.G. 1975), we were presented with a visa petition filed by a child 

born of an illicit relationship between the married natural father and a 

woman to whom he has never married. Finding the existence of a bona 

fide family unit (see generally Matter of Moreira, Interim Decision 

2720 (BIA 1979)), we granted the petition. The Attorney General 

affirmed our decision, recognizing that, regardless of whether the 

illegitimate child was born before or after the marriage, the natural 

father's wife could be considered the child's stepmother within the 

meaning of section 101(b)(1)(B) of the Act. 

We find no crucial distinction between the facts in the present case 

and those in Matter of Stoltz, supra. The petitioner herein was born 

subsequent to his father's marriage to the beneficiary, as was true in 

Stoltz. That marriage was not polygamous, thereby distinguishing this 

case from Matter of Man, supra. Accordingly, we find no bar in the 

statute to approval of the instant petition, nor do we find the presence 

of the policy considerations that led us to deny the petition in Matter of 

Man, supra. 

The decision of the District Director indicates that the petitioner 

' See, e.g., Matter of Kw ortg,15 I&N Dec. 312 (BIA 1975) (child of a concubine with the 

status of flip can be considered a legitimate child under Hong Kong law) modifying 

Matter of Kwan, 13 1&N Dec. 302 (BIA 1969). 

213 
Interim Decision #2749 

also filed visa petitions on behalf of his father and his natural mother 

which have been approved. The approval of these petitions, unlike the 

situation in Matter of Man, supra, is not based solely on the relationship created by the polygamous "marriage": the petitioner qualifies as 

his father's and mother's legitimate child under section 101(b)(1)(A) of 

the Act. See Matter of Kummg, 15 I&N Dec. 312 (BIA 1975). The fact 

that the petitioner has already successfully petitioned for his mother 

does not preclude approval of a visa petition filed on behalf of his 

stepmother. Existing legislation regarding familial relationships constrains us to find that a petitioner can successfully petition both fora 

stepmother and a mother. Compare section 101(b)(1)(E), which specifically cuts off any immigration rights of the natural parents of an 

adopted child. No similar provision exists with respect to steprelationships. 

Although we have determined that there is no statutory bar to 

approval of the present visa petition, the inquiry into the relationship 

between the petitioner and the beneficiary has not ended. In addition 

to meeting the requirement of section 101(b)(1)(B) of the Act that the 

marriage creating the stepchild relationship occur before the 

stepchild's eighteenth birthday, the petitioner must also establish that 

the stepparent had an active parental interest in the stepchild's support, instruction, and general welfare prior to the child's eighteenth 

birthday. See generally Matter of Moreira, supra. The record in the 

present case states only that the petitioner, the beneficiary, her husband, and his concubine lived together in one household. There is no 

indication whether the beneficiary merely tolerated the petitioner's 

presence in the family home, or if she took an active part in his 

upbringing. Accordingly, we will remand the record to enable the 

petitioner to introduce additional evidence in support of the petition. 

The District Director should then enter a new decision in accordance 

with Matter of To, 14 I&N Dec. 679 (BIA 1974). 

ORDER* The record is remanded to the District Director for 

further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

214