MATTER or W---- 

In VISA PETITION Proceedings 

A-12094371 

Decided by Board February 4, 1961 

Illegitimate child—Legitimation in Surinam—Requires marriage of natural 

parents. 

Petition by natural father to confer third preference status on child born out 

of wedlock in Surinam is denied in the absence of evidence showing that 

the child has been legitimated or adopted within section 101(b) (1) of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act. Under the civil law of Surinam, formal 

acknowledgment or recognition is not equivalent to legitimation which requires the marriage of the natural parents. 

BEFORE THE BOARD 

DISCUSSION: The case comes forward on appeal from the order 

of the District Director, New York District, dated November 1, 

1960, denying the visa petition for the reason that the beneficiary 

is not a "child" as defined in section 101(b) (1) of the Immigration 

and Nationality Act in that she is not a legitimate child since the 

petitioner was never married to her mother, nor was the beneficiary 

otherwise legitimated in accordance with the terms of section 101 

(b) (1) (C) of said Act. 

The petitioner, a native and citizen of Surinam, 41 years old, 

male, a permanent resident alien, seeks preference status under section 203(a) (3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act on behalf of 

the beneficiary, who was born in Paramaribo, Surinam, on February 21, 1947. 

The documents submitted disclose that the beneficiary was born 

out of wedlock; that she was recognized on October 20, 1947, first 

by her mother and then by her father, the petitioner; and that in 

accordance with the Surinam Civil Law the beneficiary was recognized as a legally recognized child of whom the guardianship remained with the mother in accordance with Article 405, paragraph 2, 

of the aforementioned law. Another document shows that in the 

Civil Register of Births for Paramaribo, both the father and the 

mother acknowledged the beneficiary as their natural child on October 20, 1947. The natural parents of the beneficiary never married 

223 
each other but the natural father married another woman in Paramaribo, Surinam, on February 2, 1959. 

The petitioner submitted a statement dated July 19, 1960, from 

a member of the bar of the Surinam Court of Justice who, after 

reciting the facts of the birth and acknowledgment, states that 

according to Article 405 of the Surinam Civil Code a minor not 

born out of marriage or not legitimated by subsequent marriage of 

his parents stands under guardianship of the parent that acknowledges the child first; that in the present case the mother, therefore, 

has the guardianship of the minor beneficiary; that the father does 

not have the guardianship of the child; that according to Article 

325 of the Surinam Civil Code, a child not born out of marriage 

can be legitimated by the subsequent marriage of its parents when 

the parents before their marriage acknowledged the child as their 

child but that this Article is not applicable in the present case 

(presumably, because the natural parents were never subqpqrarmtly 

intermarried). 

It appears, therefore, that the beneficiary is the illegitimate child 

of her father, the petitioner, and has never been legitimated. The 

petitioner, in connection with the appeal, states that the acknowledgment under the laws of Surinam is equivalent to her being his child 

ever more than would be the case of a legal adoption in the United 

States. However, while this may be true for the purpose of giving 

the child the right to the petitioner's surname and for inheritance 

purposes, it is apparent that under the opinion of law submitted 

by the petitioner the child was and remains illegitimate. There 

has been no -evidence submitted that the child was ever adopted by 

the petitioner so that she might be considered under section 101 

(b) (1) (E) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The appeal 

from the denial of the visa petition mubt be dismissed on the ground 

that the beneficiary fails to qualify as a child as defined in section 

101(b) (1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act as a legitimate, 

legitimated, or an adopted child. 

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

dismissed 

224