Interim Decision #1682 

MATTER OF LASRXnVTCH 

In Visa Petition Proceedings 

A-14708690 

Decided by Board December 20, 1966 

Where beneficiary's status is evidenced as "ainglo" by an Marini document 

(Rectification of Civil Record) issued by the Government of Chile, the 

country of her residence and nationality; the Chilean Consul has stated that 

such document is legal proof of the civil status of beneficiary in Chile; and 

this finding by the Chilean authorities has not been controverted. such document constitutes proof of the "unmarried" status of beneficiary for the purpose of according her preference classification under section 203(a) (2) of 

the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended by P.L. 89-236. 

ON BEHALF Or Pannonian: Ralph L, Baker, Esquire 

1217 Central Building 

Oakland, California 94612 

(Brief filed) 

The case comes forward on appeal from the order of the District 

Director, San Francisco District, dated September 19, 1966 denying 

the visa petition for the reason that the divorce obtained by the beneficiary is invalid and consequently the approval of the visa petition 

cm liar behalf as the unmarried child of an alien lawfully admitted to 

the United States for permanent residence was erroneous, and such 

approval is therefore revoked. 

The petitioner, a native of Russia, a lawful permanent resident of 

the United States, 70 years old, male, seeks preference status under 

section 203(a) (2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act on behalf 

of the beneficiary as his unmarried daughter. The visa petition, filed 

June 28, 1965, states that the beneficiary was divorced. 

The visa petition was supported by a certificate of identification 

from the Chilean Central Office of Identification indicating that the 

beneficiary was single. There was also submitted a certificate issued 

by the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of 

Russia at New York, New York certifying that by decision of the 

Synod of Bishops of that organization dated March 25, 1965 and 

becoming valid since May 15, 1905, the first religious marriage of 

22 
Interim Decision #1682 

Michael A. Lashkevich with Valentina N. Lashkevich is dissolved on 

the request of the wife, the defendant, Michael A. Lashkevich being 

found, guilty of maliciously abandoning his wife. This certificate 

further states that the plaintiff, Mrs. Valentina N. Lashkevich nee 

Zdanoff, according to that decision has the right to contract a new 

marriage. This certificate is signed by the President of the Synod of 

Bishops and the Chancellor to the Synod of Bishops and notarized. 

A memorandum dated November 9, 1965 by an immigrant inspector is contained in the file and indicates that the petitioner appeared 

at the office and submitted the certificate of dissolution of marriage 

issued by the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and a certificate issued by the Secretary of the Central 

Office of Identification authenticated by the Ministry of Justice of 

Chile wherein it states that the civil status of the beneficiary, Valentina Idanova Schegaleva, is single. The immigrant inspector phoned 

the Consulate General of Chile at San Francisco and discussed the 

certificate. He was told there was no divorce in the laws of Chile but 

there were laws in which annulment of marriage was permitted. He 

was further informed that the certificate issued by the Central Office 

of Identification was a legal document and the statement of single 

civil status was legal and binding, and according to the laws of Chile, 

the beneficiary is a single person. 

The file reflects that a copy of the certificate of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia was submitted 

to the Library of Congress, File and Law Section, for an opinion as 

to its validity as a legal termination of the beneficiary's prior marriage but due to a lack of specific provisions on religious divorce in 

the Chilean code or statutes, and despite a thorough search through 

legislation, cases and other types of legal literature, no statement or 

opinion was discovered which might evidence Chile's attitude toward the securing of religious divorce, whether at home or abroad. 

The visa petition was approved on iuly 22, 1965 with the notation 

that the validity of the beneficiary's divorce was not known. On January 17, 1966 the petitioner was informed that the American Consulate in Santiago, Chile had returned the visa petition requesting 

clarification as to the validity of the divorce obtained by the beneficiary through the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church 

Outside of Russia. The District Director stated that it had now been 

determined that in accordance with the Civil Code of Chile, the divorce obtained by the beneficiary was invalid and consequently the 

approval of the visa petition as the unmarried daughter of the petitioner was erroneous. The determination of the invalidity of the divorce was apparently based upon the memorandum of the Library of 

23 
Interim Decision #1682 

Congress which, as we have previously noted, expressed no firm resolution of the problem. However, on February 9, 1966 the petitioner 

was given notice of the revocation of the visa petition on the ground 

that the divorce obtained by the beneficiary was invalid and the prior 

approval of the visa petition as the unmarried child of the petitioner 

was erroneous. 

On appeal to this Board there was submitted a document in the 

Spanish language together with translation entitled "Rectification of 

Civil Record" dated November 2, 1965 referring to Valentina. Idanova 

Schegaleva and signed by the Substituting Director General of the 

Civil Registry and Identification, Santiago, Chile. This document 

requested a rectification of the beneficiary's civil record to establish 

that her civil status was single and not married to Miguel Lashkevich 

Kalenena as is indicated in that record; that she enclosed an authorized copy of the inquiry for perpetual memory rendered at the Second 

Court of Justice in Civil Matters of High Degree of Santiago approved by that tribunal and dated June 11, 1964 which verifies that 

-witnesses of the inquiry affirmed that the petitioner was never married 

to Miguel Lashkevich Kalenena; that in the affiliation extract it is expressed that the bearer's civil status is that of married to Miguel Lashkevich, a civil status which is not enforced by any document, and 

neither is there tiny record of the supposed marriage of the said persons; that in the affiliation extract of Miguel Lashkevich Kalenena the 

latter's civil status is that of married to Valentina Idanova Schegaleva, 

a civil status which is not enforced by any document and neither is there 

any record of the supposed marriage of said persons; that Valentina 

Idanova Schegaleva expressly recorded that she ignores the present 

whereabouts of Miguel Laskevich Kelenena since he was only an immigration companion and has lost sight of him; that the married status 

was not verified with the legal means of proving established by articles 

305, 209 and following of the Civil Code and neither was the supposed 

marriage of the said persons proven which is a previous condition to 

establish the civil status of married; and that for these various reasons 

the rectification according to law has been petitioned. The Chief of 

the Central Bureau of Identification was ordered to proceed to rectify 

the civil record corresponding to the beneficiary in the sense of establishing that the civil status of the latter is that of single and not married to Miguel Lashkevich Kalenena as it is erroneously expressed 

there. The aforementioned Chief likewise ordered that an identity 

document be issued to the beneficiary in accordance with the civil 

status previously mentioned. This document is signed by the Substituting Director General of the Civil Registry and Identification. 

In considering the appeal, this Board on March 11, 1966 took notice 

24 
Interim Decision #1682 

of the rectification of civil record and remanded the ease for the purpose of introducing the evidence submitted on appeal in the record for 

consideration of the District Director. The document was referred 

to the Library of Congress for an opinion. By letter dated May 25, 

1966 the Library of Congress stated that up until 1942 the Identifies; 

tion Service was a dependency of the Department of Justice, maintaining records on aliens and other investigations, from which information and identity cards were issued as required. The Civil Registry 

operating as a vital statistics office, maintained records on Chilean 

nationals and in 1942 the similar services were fused for administrative 

purposes in a single department known as the General Bureau of Civil 

Registry and Identification. The record which was ordered to be rectified in this ems WAS apparently one of information on identification 

of aliens, and not one of civil status. However, the procedure for such 

corrections in the absence of documentation or "best evidence," is 

apparently the same in either case, through a self-serving court action 

known as Information pars Perpetua illemoria or depositions a 

perpetual, rei malaria. This procedure is detailed in article 909-914 

of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this case the decree ordered a correction only in the petitioner's record but did not affect the same information contained in that of her presumed husband. In this case the 

court found the statements in the petitioner's and her presumed husband's identification records or cards which bear consecutive numbers 

not to be true insofar as concerned their status as being married to each 

other. The court found that no legal evidence, as required by the Civil 

Code in the form of a certificate of marriage or other documentation, 

was either noted or attached to support the statements made in these 

records. The witnesses offered corroborating evidence to the effect that 

the man was only a "travelling or immigration companion" entering 

Chile with the petitioner, but not married to her. 

The District Director ordered revocation for the reason that the 

divorce obtained by the beneficiary was invalid and consequently the 

approval of the visa petition as the unmarried child of an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence was 

erroneous. It is noted that the notice of revocation makes no reference 

to the Rectification of a Civil Record which was submitted on appeal 

and was remanded for consideration by the District Director. 

While we have accorded recognition to divorces which involved 

persons who were neither residents nor domiciliaries of the United 

States at the thus of such divorce,' we find it unnecessary to rest 

our decision upon the religious divorce obtained by the beneficiary 

1Matter of B—. 1 I. & N. Dee. 677; Matter of A—, 6 I. & N. Dec. 272; Matter 

of .Paruque, 10 I. & N. Dee. 561. 

25 
Interim. Decision #1682 

which involves a native of Manchuria, China, a naturalized citizen 

of Chile, and which presents problems of conflicts of law so involved 

as to defy resolution by the Library of Congress. We think, however, 

the case may be decided upon the basis of the rectification of the 

civil record showing the beneficiary's civil status to be that of single 

and not married. The memorandum from the Library of Congress 

dated May 15, 1966 sets forth that the court named in the rectification of civil record found no legal evidence of marriage, as required 

by the Civil Code, in the form of an attached or noted certificate 

of marriage or other documentation. In addition, the witnesses offered 

corroborating evidence to the effect that the man was only a travelling 

or immigration companion entering Chile with the petitioner but not 

married to her. The memorandum by the immigrant inspector dated 

November 9, 1965, contained in the file, contains information from 

the Consulate General of Chile at San Francisco that the certificate 

issued by the Central Office of Identification was a legal document 

and that the statement of single status was legal and binding and 

according to the laws of Chile the beneficiary was a single person.' 

The petitioner, a permanent lawful resident, seeks preference quota 

status on behalf of the beneficiary as his unmarried daughter. The 

plain congressional purpose in providing preferential status for entry 

of immigrants closely related to American citizens was to facilitate 

and foster the maintenance of families, such as here involved. Consistent with that purpose it has been held reasonable to believe that 

the Congress intended that the marriage of a citizen, valid where 

contracted, be accorded validity for immigration purposes. 3As a necessary corollary to that same purpose, the civil status of a person, 

determined in accordance with the laws of the country of which she 

is a. national and in which she resided, and who has no United States 

residence or domicile, should, on the basis of comity, be accorded 

recognition of the civil status accorded to her by the laws of such 

country. 

In the instant case the beneficiary has produced evidence that 

Chile, the country of her nationality and residence, regards her civil 

status as that of a single person. This finding by the Chilean authorities has not been controverted. Accordingly, the beneficiary is to 

be regarded as an unmarried child. The appeal will be sustained. 

ORDER: It is ordered that the appeal from the revocation of the 

visa petition granting preference status under section 203(a) (2) of 

the Immigration and Nationality Act be and the same is hereby 

sustained. 

'This information has been informally corroborated by the legal advisor of 

the Embassy of Chile at Washington, D.O. 

Matter of P—, 4 1. & N. Dec. 610, 614 (Actg. A.G. 1952). 

26