Interim Decision #1395 

MATTER os MRAPATASHI 

In VISA PETITION Proceedings 

A-12508937 

Decided by B oard September 14,1964 

A marriage entered into in Colorado between first cousins, residents of Illinois, 

is a valid marriage in Illinois since the evidence establishes the parties did 

not go to Colorado with the primary intention of evading the Illinois statutes 

prohibiting the marriage of first cousins and there is no evidence of a strong 

public policy in the State of Illinois against such marriages which are valid 

in the place where contracted, inasmuch as cohabitation between first cousins 

is no longer a crime under Illinois statutes. 

The case was originally before us on February 27, 1964 on appeal 

from the order of the District Director, Chicago District, dated October 15, 1963, denying the visa petition for the reasons that the petitioner's marriage to the beneficiary is void under the Illinois Revised 

Statues; Chapter 89, section 1 prohibits marriage between cousins of 

the first degree and prohibited marriages are void if contracted in 

another state under Chapter 89, section 19. 

The petitioner, a native-born citizen of the United States, seeks nonquota status on behalf of the beneficiary, a native and citizen of Japan. 

The prior marriage of the petitioner was terminated by a decree of 

divorce on August 6, 1952. The beneficiary was not previously married. The parties were married on July 12, 1963 at Denver, Colorado. 

The visa petition indicated that the parties are residents of the State 

of Illinois and continue to reside in that state. The marriage certificate, showing the marriage of the parties at Denver, Colorado, 

gives their address as Chicago, Illinois. The parties are cousins of 

the first degree. 

Marriage of cousins of the first degree, if contracted in Illinois by 

residents of that state, is prohibited and such marriages are declared 

to be incestuous and void under Illinois Revised Statutes, Chapter 89, 

section.1. Marriage between first cousins is not prohibited under Article 9, section 40-9-4 of the Colorado Revised Statutes Annotated, 

1953. Chapter 89, section 19 of the Illinois Revised Statutes sets forth 

722 
Interim Decision *1395 

the Uniform Marriage Evasion Act which states that if any resident 

of Illinois who continues to reside in Illinois and is prohibited from 

contracting marriage in Illinois, goes into another state or country and 

there contracts a marriage prohibited and declared void by the laws of 

Illinois, such marriage shall be null and void for all purposes in Illinois with the same effect as though such prohibited marriage had been 

entered into in Illinois. 

In our prior order dated February 27, 1964 in. which we reviewed the 

general question of validity of marriages incestuous under the law of 

the place of domicile but not under the law of the place of celebration, 

in view of 37 Opinions Attorney General 102 (1933), where the Attorney General found that the citizen petitioner did not go to Poland 

with the intention of marrying his niece and therefore was not subject 

to the prohibition of Virginia law; and in the light of the new criminal 

code of Illinois of 1961, effective January 1, 1962, which in Chapter 38, 

Illinois Revised Statutes, section 11-11 (supplanting previous section 

375, Criminal Code 1874) no longer made cohabitation between first 

cousins the crime of incest, the case was remanded for the purpose of 

having sworn statements taken from the parties regarding their intention in going to Colorado to contract this marriage and to consider the 

effect of section 11-11 of the Illinois Criminal Code of 1961. 

Sworn statements were taken from the petitioner and the beneficiary 

on April 9, 1964, before an immigration officer. The petitioner testified that he went to Colorado for his present employer to explore the 

idea of possibly opening an office in Denver, Colorado ; that he knew 

of the restriction against marriage of first cousins in the State of 

Illinois; that he took the beneficiary with him on this trip to Denver, 

Colorado; that they were married there; but that they did not go to the 

State of Colorado necessarily to avoid the Illinois law but in connection with the business for his employer and that because it was an opportune time, they decided to get married. The wife likewise testified 

that her husband had told her that his company's office' branch was 

going to open in Denver, Colorado and that they might live there and 

that they went to Colorado to live there and to get married; and although she had knowledge from her husband of the Illinois law prohibiting first cousin marriages, they did not go there specifically to 

evade the law but inasmuch as they were there on business and for possible residence they decided to get married. The petitioner testified 

that at the time he was staying with his father and that he had no 

lease and if the arrangements about setting up the business in Denver, 

Colorado had materialized, he could have arranged to have his father 

send his things out to Colorado, where he had previously resided from 

1943 to 1947. The petitioner testified that his work at the Illinois 

office piled up to such an extent that his employer told him to come 

723 
Interim Decision #1395 

back and take care of his business and to postpone going back to Denver, and that the proposition of opening a new office in Colorado .was 

still an open one. The petitioner's employer was interviewed on 

August 7, 1964, and stated that he sent the petitioner to Denver, Colorado during the month of July 1963 on business to make a survey to 

expand the agency but he failed to follow through because he lost two 

of his technical employees and it was more economical to bring the 

petitioner back to fill the gap. 

The evidence establishes that the petitioner and the beneficiary did 

not go to. Colorado with the primary intention of evading the Illinois 

statutes prohibiting marriage of cousins of the first degree, thus falling 

with the purview of 37 Opinions Attorney General 102. Inasmuch as 

the provisions of section 11-11 of Chapter 58, Illinois Revised Statutes 

no longer make cohabitation between first cousins a crime, there is no 

evidence of a strong public policy in the State of Illinois against such 

marriages which are valid in the place where contracted. The order of 

the District Director dated August 19, 1961, granting the petition will 

be approved. 

ORDER: It is ordered that the order of the District Director 

dated August 19, 1961, approving the visa petition for nonquota status 

on behalf of the beneficiary be and the same is hereby approved. 

724