Interim Decision #2246 

MATTER OF ALZONA 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A-31419749 

Decided by Board December 7, 1973 

Where respondent's United States citizen child was illegitimate under the law of 

the District of Columbia, the place of birth, the fact that the child was 

subsequently taken to the State of California to live does not render him 

legitimate under section 4453 of the Civil Code of California, since the 

provisions of that section are inapplicable to a child born outside that State 

Wafter of Sandin—Nava, Interim Decision No. 2134, distinguished). Since 

respondent's child does not come within the contemplation of section 

101(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, respondent fails to 

qualify no a "parent" under section 101(b)(2.) of the Act and. therefore, is 

ineligible for the benefits under section 241(f) of the Act, as amended. 

CHARGES: 

Order; At of 1952—Ceetion 241(a)(1) [8 U.S.C. 1261(a)(1))—Excludable et time 

of entry—procured immigrant visa by fraud or misrepresentation. 

Act of 1952—Section 241(a)(1) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(1)]—No valid immigrant 

visa. 

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: 

Gladys Towles Root, Esquire William E. Weinert 

212 South Hill Street Acting Appellate Trial AttorLos Angles, California 90012 ney 

Of counsel: Bernard J. Hornbach 

Helen M. Bunt, Esquire Trial Attorney 

The immigration judge, in an order dated October 12, 1973, 

found the respondent deportable as charged, ordered him deported, and denied his application for termination of deportation 

under section 241(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

Because of the novelty of the issues presented, the immigration 

judge certified his decision to this Board. His order will be 

affirmed. 

The respondent is an alien who is a native and citizen of the 

Republic of the Philippines. He entered the United States on or 

about October 9, 1971, upon presentation of an immigrant visa 

496 
Interim Decision #2246 

issued to him as the husband of the United States citizen, whom he 

had married in the Philippines on July 30, 1971. The immigration 

judge found the respondent's visa had been obtained by fraud 

inasmuch as he was already married to another woman when he 

secured his visa. Our review of the record and briefs satisfies us 

that the hearing was fair and that deportability has been established by clear, convincing and unequivocal evidence. 

The immigration judge found that the respondent, as the father 

of a United States citizen child, possessed the necessary qualifying 

relative to bring him within the purview of section 241(f). That 

section limits its benefits to aliens who are the parents, spouses or 

children of United States citizens or permanent resident aliens. 

The immigration judge, however, denied the respondent's application for termination under section 241(f) on the ground that there 

was no viable relationship extant between the respondent and the 

United States citizen child. We need not consider that issue 

because we do not agree with the immigration judge that the 

respondent qualified as a "parent" for immigration purposes. 

The child referred to was born in Washington, D.C. on June 12, 

1972, to the respondent and the female United States citizen who 

is his purported spouse. Prior to the institution of these proceedings all three moved to California. A domestic dispute ensued, and 

the respondent separated from his "spouse" and child. The immigration judge found that the child was a legitimate child of the 

respondent, relying upon our decision in Matter of Sandin-Nava, 

Interim Decision No. 2134 (BIA 1972). In that case we held that a 

child born in California of a bigamous marriage was legitimate at 

birth by operation of section 4453 of the California Civil Code. In 

the present case, we find the child was illegitimate in the District 

of Columbia, the place of birth. Section 4453 is not a legitimation 

statute. It renders a child, the issue of a void or bigamous 

marriage, legitimate at birth. The mere fact that the child of the 

respondent was subsequently brought into the State of California 

does not make him legitimate by virtue of section 4453. The 

respondent's child, therefore, does not qualify as a child for 

immigration purposes. Consequently, the respondent does not 

qualify as a "parent" under the immigration laws. Hence, he is not 

saved from deportation under section 241(f). 

ORDER: The decision of the immigration judge is affirmed. 

Warren R. Torrington, Board Member Concurring: 

I concur in the affirmance of the immigration judge's decision. 

The majority opinion has correctly distinguished this case from 

Matter of Sandin-Nava, Interim Decision No. 2134 (BIA 1972), in 

which I filed a dissent, and pointed out the purpose of statutory 

497 
Interim Decision #2246 

provisions of the kind found in section 4453 of the California Civil 

Code. Statutes which provide that Children of void marriages are 

legitimate have been enacted solely in the interest of those 

children who, absent such statutes, would be illegitimate. They 

have not been enacted for the behefit of bigamists. It appears to 

me that, even if the California statute governed the determination 

of the beneficiary's status, it could not confer any benefits under 

sections 101(b)(1) and 241(0 of the Immigration and Nationality 

Act upon the petitioner. 

As I stated in my dissenting opinion in Matter of Sandin-Nava, 

supra, I consider it unreasonable to impute to Congress an 

intention to award permanent residence to an otherwise deportable alien as a premium for immoral and cirminal conduct. 

498