Interim Decision #2079 

MATTER OF PAGNERRE 

In Visa Petition Proceedings 

A-18436068 

Decided by Board March 25, 1971 

since the stepparent-stepchild relationship created by petitioner's marriage 

in 1932 to the father of the beneficiary (beneficiary then 8 years of age) 

did not cease to exist when the marriage creating such relationship was 

terminated by death of beneficiary's father in 1954 but there was a continuing relationship thereafter between petitioner and beneficiary, petitioner is regarded as the stepmother of beneficiary for immigration purpose and her petition to accord beneficiary preference classification under 

section 203(a) (1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, as 

a stepdaughter, is approved. [Matter of Simicevic, 10 I. & N. Dec. 363, 

and Matter of Varela, Int. Dec. No. 2020, distinguished.] 

The visa petition for preference classification under section 

203 (a) (1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act was approved 

the District Director on November 23, 1970. However, he ceried the case to this Board because of its possible effect on Matr of Simicevic, 10 I. & N. Dec. 363 (BIA, 1963) . 

The petitioner, a native of Yugoslavia, naturalized citizen of 

United States, asserts that the 47-year-old female beneficiary, 

Lative of Algeria, is entitled to first preference classification as 

• stepdaughter. The record contains the following facts conning the claimed relationship: The beneficiary's natural 

ther died in 1931 and her father married the petitioner in Al-

.ia in 1932. At that time the beneficiary, then eight years old, 

ng with the beneficiary's two brothers and one sister, children 

her father and natural mother, began to live in the home of 

it father and newly acquired stepmother, except for time 

nt away at school some one hundred miles away. This family 

Ltionship continued until the death of the beneficiary's father 

954. Following the father's death, only the younger brother of 

beneficiary continued to reside with petitioner, remaining 

1 1956, when he married. Petitioner came to the United States 

959 and married her present husband the same year. Peti688 
Interim Decision #2079 

tioner visited the beneficiary abroad in 1958, 1963 and 1967, 

while beneficiary visited the petitioner and her new husband in 

the United States in 1963 and 1966, having been admitted as a 

temporary visitor. 

Section 101 (b) (1) (B) states that the term "child" means an 

unmarried person under 21 years of age who is a stepchild, 

whether or not born out of wedlock, provided the child has not 

reached the age of 18 years at the time the marriage creating the 

status of stepchild occurred. In Matter of C—, 8 I. & N. Dec. 592 

(BIA, 1960), this Board found that a married stepdaughter, age 

45, was eligible for fourth preference status as a "daughter" 

within the meaning of section 203(a) (4) of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act, provided the relationship of stepparent and stepchild had originally been created according to the definition set 

forth in the Act. 

This Board limited the scope of Matter of supra, in Matter of Simicevic, supra, when we affirmed a decision by the District Director, who had found that the stepparent-stepchild relationship, even though originally properly created under the 

statutory definition, was brought to an end when the childless 

marriage creating the relationship was judicially terminated, 

with the natural father obtaining custody of the beneficiary. The 

natural father had remarried twice, creating two more stepmothers. We concluded, accordingly, that the petitioner was not a 

"parent" of the beneficiary within the meaning of section 

101 (b) (2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, since the 

marriage creating the stepparent-stepchild affinity had been dissolved by divorce and since there was no continuing relationship 

existing in fact thereafter between the petitioner and the beneficiary. 

In the present case the marriage creating the stepparent-stepchild relationship was terminated by reason of the death of the 

beneficiary's natural father. Even though the beneficiary did not 

continue to reside with her stepmother after her father's death, 

we are not prepared to draw from that the conclusion that the relationship had ended. Even a natural daughter cannot be expected 

to continue to reside with her parent or parents indefinitely. We 

find that there is sufficient evidence in the record to show that 

there was a continuing relationship between the petitioner and 

the beneficiary long after the death of the beneficiary's father. 

In Matter of Ricci, A-14753185 (BIA, May 1, 1970, unreported), we held in a similar situation that there still existed a 

stepmother-stepdaughter relationship even though the benefici689 
Interim Decision #2079 

ary's father had died. We found that the relationship had not 

been altered by the fact of the petitioner's husband's death, since 

the family ties had been maintained. 

Our holding in Matter of Simicevic, supra. was based on the 

facts in that case. It should not govern in a case such as the present one, where the marriage creating the relationship was terminated by death during the existence of the relationship and the 

stepparent-stepchild relationship continued in fact thereafter. 

Since we have found that there was a continuing relationship 

between petitioner and beneficiary after the death of beneficiary's 

father, we now hold that the petitioner in this case may be regarded as the stepmother of the beneficiary under section 

101 (b) (1) (B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the 

petition for preference classification under section 203 (a) (1) of 

the Immigration and Nationality Act may be approved. 

The conclusion we reach here is not inconsistent with our holding in Matter of Varela,, Interim Decision No. 2020 (BIA, 1970). 

We there held that the death of the United States citizen petitioner precluded granting immediate relative status to the alien 

beneficiary under section 201 (b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Here, the petitioner lives and the relationship between 

her and the beneficiary continues in fact notwithstanding the 

death of the latter's father. Both Varela and our present decision 

accord with the Congressional purpose underlying the provisions 

of sections 201 and 203 of the Act conferring visa priorities 

based on family relationships. These priorities were designed for 

the benefit of the petitioning United States citizen or resident 

alien, to enable him to be reunited with aliens closely related by 

blood or marriage. In this case, death did not terminate the relationship. In Varela, it did. 

ORDER: It is ordered that the order entered by the District 

Director on November 23, 1970 approving the petitioner's petition to accord the beneficiary preference status as provided in 

section 203(a) (1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act be and 

the same is hereby approved. 

690