Interim Decision #2691 

MATTER OF REVELO 

In Visa Petition Proceedings 

A-19518541 

Decided by Board March 7, 1979 

(1) Under Connecticut law, a bona fide domicile by at least one of the parties to a foreig-n 

divorce in the country where the divorce took place is required for recognition, whether 

the divorce is ex parte or by mutual consent. Matter of Biebl, Interim Decision 2672 

(BIA 1978); Litvaitis v. Litvaitis, 162 Conn. 540, 295 A.2d 519 (1972); Gildersleeve v. 

Gildersleeve, 88 Conn. 689, 92 A. 684 (1914). 

(2) A party must have a legally protected interest in order to participate in a judicial 

proceeding so that the legal questions are framed with the necessary specificity and the 

issues contested with the necessary adverseness and vigor. Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 

(1968). 

(3) In a visa petition proceeding the District Director is an adjudicator, nut an adversary 

wire needs standing to participate, therefore, the term "standing" has no relevance to 

his role. 

(4) The Immigration and Naturalization Service has the power to contest the validity of a. 

foreign divorce in visa petition proceedings. 

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER.: ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: 

Joseph N. Tauber, Esquire George Indelicate 

29 Hoyt Street Appellate Trial Attorney 

Stamford, Connecticut 069115 

BY: Milhollan, Chairman; Marrieds, Appleman, Maguire, and Farb, Board Members 

This case presents an appeal from the decision of the Acting District 

Director dated June 12, 1978, denying a visa petition filed on behalf of the 

beneficiary as the spouse of the petitioner pursuant to section 203(a)(2) 

of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1153(a)(2). The appeal 

will be dismissed. 

The petitioner is a native and citizen of Ecuador who was admitted as 

a lawful permanent resident of the United States at New York on April 

9, 1974. The beneficiary is a native and citizen of Colombia. On December 18, 1976, the parties married in Stamford, Connecticut, after 

each had obtained Dominican divorces from their previous spouses in 

19'75. 

The Acting District nirerter denied the visa petition concluding that 

the parties' marriage subsequent to the Dominican divorces was invalid 

under Connecticut law, and, thus, the beneficiary was not entitled to 

685 
Interim Decision #2691 

preference immigration status through the petitioner. His conclusion 

was based on the Connecticut Supreme Court's decision in Litvaitis v. 

Litvaitis, 162 Conn. 540, 295 A.2d 519 (1972), where the court ruled that 

in order for a foreign divorce to be recognized in Connecticut, at least 

one of the parties must be a good faith domiciliary of the foreign country 

where the divorce was obtained. Since the petitioner was a lawful 

permanent resident of the United States when the divorce took place 

and there was no record of the beneficiary having been in the Dominican 

Republic, the Acting District Director concluded that neither party was 

a Dominican domiciliary and the divorce would not be recognized under 

Connecticut law. 

The legal validity of a marriage is generally determined by the place 

of celebration. Matter of Levine, 13 I. & N. Dec. 244 (BIA 1969); Matter 

of Freeman, 11 I. & N. Dec. 482 (BIA. 1966). In the present case, 

Connecticut is the place of the marriage celebration, thus, we must 

evaluate the marriage's validity under Connecticut law. 

In Matter of Biebl, Interim Decision 2672 (BIA 1978), we examined 

the law of Connecticut and concluded that a bona fide domicile by at 

least one of the parties to the divorce in the country where the divorce 

took place was required in order to recognize it. 8 C.F.R. 204.2(c)(2) 

specifically requires a petitioner to establish the validity of a claimed 

divorce_ Since the petitioner has not submitted any evidence to prove 

that any of the parties to the two divorces was a Dominican domiciliary, 

the petitioner has not met his burden of proving that he is entitled to the 

immigration benefits sought. Matter of Brantigan, 11 I. & N. Dec. 493 

(BIA 1966). 

However, the petitioner at oral argument has attempted to distinguish the facts in the present case from those considered by the Connecticut court in Litvaitis v. Litvaitis, supra. He points out that Litvaitis 

dealt with an ex parte divorce unlike the mutual consent divorce which 

the petitioner and beneficiary in the present case obtained. 

Although we agree with the petitioner's contention that Litvaitis wsis 

not a mutual consent divorce, that difference does not require a different result from the Acting District Director's conclusion. In Litvaitis 

the Connecticut Supreme Court was not stating a rule limited to ex 

parte divorces. Bather, the court in Litvaitis was restating its previous 

holdings in other cases involving bilateral divorces, that a bona fide 

domicile by at least one of the parties was a requirement for recognition under Connecticut law. See Gildersleeve v. Gildersleeve, 88 Conu. 

689, 92 A. 684 (1914); Rice v. Rice, 134 Conn. 440, 58 A.2d 523 (1948); 

State v. Cooke, 110 Conn. 348, 148 A. 385 (1930). The rationale for the 

Connecticut rule is that the divorcing court mist have personal jurisdiction and also res jurisdiction over the marriage which is the res in a 

divorce proceeding: See Gildersleeve v. Gildersleeve, 92 A. at 685. 

686 
Interim Decision #2691 

We also reject the petitioner's contention that the Acting District 

Director lacks standing under Connecticut law to challenge the validity 

of the Dominican divorces. The word "standing" is a legal term intimately related to a court's jurisdiction. The courts must ascertain that a 

party has a legally protected interest in order to allow him to participate 

in a judicial proceeding so that the legal questions will be framed with 

the necessary specificity and the issues contested with the necessary 

adverseness and vigor. See Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 106 (1968). 

In a visa petition proceeding the Acting District Director is not an 

adversary who needs standing to participate. 8 C.F. R. 103.1(n) grants 

the District Director the power to adjudicate the visa petition. Thus, the 

District Director's role is that of an adjudicator and not an adversary in 

visa petition proceedings. The term "standing" has therefore no relevance with regards to the Acting District Director's role in adjudicating 

a visa petition. We impliedly held that the Service has the power to 

contest the validity of a foreign divorce in visa petition proceedings. 

See, e.g., Matter of Guzman, Interim Decision 2484 (BIA 1976); Matter 

of Darwish, 14 I. & N. Dec. 307 (BIA 1973); Matter of Atwater, 14 I. & 

N. Dec. 410 (BIA 1973). Thus, the petitioner's contention Is without 

merit and the appeal will be dismissed. 

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 

687