Interim Decision #174& 

MATors MoarmA 

In Visa Petition Proceedings 

A-17096264 

Deoidedby Board June 20,1987 

The mere recording of the name of a child born out of wedlock in the same 

family register as that of the putative father does not constitute legitimation 

in Japan since under Japanese law a child born out of wedlock can only be 

legitimated by the subsequent marriage of the parents and the acknowledgment of parentage, with the entry of both the marriage and the acknowledgment into the official family register. 

On BEE= or PLVITIONINI: Robert D. Beall, Esquire 

622 Delaware Street 

Leavenworth, Kansas 66048 

The case comes forward on appeal from the order of the Officer in 

Charge, Tokyo, Japan, dated March 15, 1967 denying the visa petition 

for the reason that the beneficiary, the putative father of the petitioner, 

and Tomoe Kato, the mother of the beneficiary, were never married, 

the petitioner cannot qualify as a child under section 101(b) (1) (C) 

and the petition must therefore be revoked. 

The petitioner, a native of Japan, a naturalized citizen of the United 

States, 87 years old, female, seeks immediate relative status on behalf 

of the beneficiary as her parent. The beneficiary is a native and citizen 

of Japan, 82 years old, male. The visa petition was originally approved. 

for immediate relative status on July 12, 1986. 

The file contains an adjudicated basis for decision dated March 15, 

1967. An investigation was conducted in connection with the beneficiary's application for a waiver of the grounds of excludability for 

convictions of abducting a minor for profit (prostitution) in 1987, 

three convictions in 1952 and 1953 for introducing girls into prostitution as well as several other arrests. The application for the waiver of 

the grounds of excludability was based upon the relationship of father and daughter between the beneficiary and the petitioner. Action 

on the waiver was held in abeyance pending determination of the 

true nature of the alleged relationship. 

265 
Interim Decision 4* 1 7 4 3 

The beneficiary appeared for questioning at the Tokyo Immigration Office on March 2, 1967. He presented a corrected official Japanese 

family register which shows him as the father of Kimilto the petitioner, born out of wedlock to an unwed mother, Tomoe kato. The 

beneficiary admitted there was no marriage or official register of marriage to his daughter's mother, Toinoe Kato. He stated that he was 

aware that common law relationships are not recognized as valid marriages under Japanese law and no marriage ceremony or common law 

relationship is of any validity in Japan unless the marriage is formally 

recorded in the official Japanese family register. Under both the old 

and new Civil Code of Japan, a father's acknowledgment of a child 

on the family register does not constitute legitimation. The Japanese 

Ministry of Justice was consnited and advised that under Japanese 

Civil Code (Law #222, amended 1917), a child born out of wedlock 

can only be legitimated by the marriage of the parents with this marriage and the acknowledgment of parentage of the child being entered 

in the Official family register. 

This interrogation of the beneficiary was initiated by an interview 

of the petitioner, at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas on February 7, 1967 

during the course of which she stated that her parents were not married; that she started living with her paternal grandparents at the 

time of her birth and that she actually never did live with her father 

and mother. She believes the mother left her when she was about two 

years old. 

The record establishes that the petitioner was born out of wedlock 

and is not the legitimate child of the beneficiary, her putative father. 

The beneficiary has admitted that he was never married to the mother 

of the petitioner. The fact that the petitioner's name is recorded in 

the same family register as that of the beneficiary does not constitute legitimation. Under Japanese law there must be the subsequent 

marriage of the parents, acknowledgment of parentage, and entry 

into the official family register. The family register which was submitted by the beneficiary does not indicate that the petitioner's parents were ever married. Inasmuch as the beneficiary does not qualify 

as a "parent" as defined in section 101(b) (2), since none of the cireumstances described in section 101(b) (1) of the Immigration and 

Nationality Aot apply, he is not eligible for immediate relative status 

as the parent of a United States citizen. 

ORDER: It is ordered that the appeal be and the same is hereby 

dismissed. 

266