Interim Decision #2281 

MATTER OF GAMERO 

In Visa Petition Proceedings 

A-19106174 

Decided by Board April 30, 1974 

Since under Article 121, Section IV, of the Constitution of Mexico, acts of a civil 

nature done in accordance with the laws of one state shall be valid in the 

other states, a final decree of divorce granted by a court in the State of 

Chihuahua, Mexico, dissolving the beneficiary's prior marriage in Mexico, 

would be recongized as valid in the State of Baja California, Mexico. Accordingly, beneficiary's subsequent marriage to the United States citizen petitioner in the State of Baja California, Mexico, is a valid marriage. 

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: Duncan Footman, Esquire 

1'795 Third Street 

Napa, California 94558 

The United States citizen petitioner applied for immediate 

relative status for the beneficiary as her spouse under section 

201(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. In a decision dated 

November 7, 1972, the District Director denied the petition on the 

ground that a prior marriage of the beneficiary had never been 

legally terminated. The petitioner has appealed from that decision. 

The record will be remanded to the District Director. 

The beneficiary is a native and citizen of Mexico. He married his 

first wife, also a native and citizen of Mexico, in the State of 

Jalisco, Mexico, in 1958. The beneficiary's first wife obtained a 

divorce from him in the State of Chihuahua, Mexico, in January 

19'72. It appears from the decree that both parties submitted 

themselves to the jurisdiction of the court. However, it does not 

appear that either the beneficiary or his first wife was present 

before the divorcing court or domiciled in the State of Chihuahua 

at the time of the divorce. The beneficiary married the petitioner 

in the State of Baja California, Mexico, in September 1972. 

Generally, the validity of a marriage is determined according to 

the law of the pldce of celebration. Matter of P—, 4 I. & N. Dec. 610 

(BIA 1952; A.G. 1952); Matter of Levine, 13 L & N. Dec. 244 (BIA 

1969). Thus the beneficiary's marriage to the petitioner is legally 

674 
Interim Decision #2281 

valid in the State of Baja California if that state recognizes the 

divorce obtained by the beneficiary's first wife in the sister state of 

Chihuahua. 

We have received a memorandum of Mexican law prepared by 

the Hispanic Law Division of the Library of Congress. That 

memorandum sets forth Article 121, section IV, of the Constitution 

of Mexico of January 31, 1917, which states: 

Complete faith and credence shall be given in each State of the Federation to 

the public acts, registries, and judicial proceedings of all the others. The 

Congress of the Union, through general laws, shall prescribe the manner of 

proving such act; registries, and proceedings and their effect, by subjecting 

them to the following principles: 

(IV) Acts of a civil nature done in accordance with the laws of one state shall 

be valid in the others. 

A leading commentator on Mexican constitutional law has 

written that: 

Article 121 (of the Constitution] provides that each state of the Federation is 

under the obligation to give complete faith and credence to the public acts, 

registries, and judicial proceedings of the other states. While among sovereign nations this obligation does not exist unless they voluntarily accept it by 

virtue of international conventions or by voluntary provisions of their own 

laws, the states of the [Mexican] Federation have this obligation imposed on 

them by virtue of the provisions of the Mexican Constitution. Every act 

executed before the authority of one state is valid for the other states; their 

obligation, therefore, confirms that under our Federal regime what the 

constitution improperly calls sovereignty of the states does not exist.' 

According to the memorandum, a final judgment of divorce 

rendered by a court in Chihuahua would be accorded full recognition by the State of Baja California pursuant to Article 121 of the 

Mexican Constitution. Under the laws of the State of Chihuahua, a 

court decision becomes final by virtue of judicial declaration (1) 

when the parties to the case or their respective proxies expressly 

consent to it, or (2) when the parties to the case are notified of the 

decision and they fail to appeal it within the legal term. COdigo de 

Procedimientos Civiles para el E.L. y S. de Chihuahua, Article 395, 

sections I and II [Ed. Mica, Puebla, Mexico, 1963]. 

The Chihuahua divorce decree involved in the present case 

appears to be final and entitled to recognition in Baja California. 

Therefore, the beneficiary was free to enter into a marriage with 

the petitioner under the law of Baja California. We note that the 

beneficiary is a native and citizen of Mexico, his first wife was also 

a native and citizen of Mexico, his first marriage took place in 

Mexico, his first wife obtained a divorce from him in Mexico, and his 

remarriage to the petitioner took place in Mexico. Since the benF. Tens Ramirez, 162 Dorsch° Constitucional Mexico= (9.ed., Porrda, 1968]. 

675 
Interim Decision #2281 

eficiary has had many significant contacts with Mexico, we see no 

policy against recognizing his present marriage to the petitioner 

which was validly contracted under Mexican law. Cf Matter of 

Levine, 13 I. & N. Dec. 244 (BIA 1969); Matter of Kurtin, 12 I. & N. 

Dee. 284 (BIA 1967); Matter of Freeman, 11 I. & N. Dec. 482 (BIA 

1966); Matter of Kochne, 10 I. & N. Dee. 264 (BIA. 1963); Matter of 

B—, 5 I. & N. Dee. 659 (BIA 1954). 

However, a marriage valid under the domestic law of the 

jurisdiction where contracted is not invariably recognized as 

sufficient to confer immigration benefits. Immigration benefits will 

not be granted in cases where the couple has not established a 

bona fide subsisting marital relationship. Matter of Kitsalis, 11 I. & 

N. Dec. 613 (BIA 1966); Matter ofM--, 8 I. & N. Dec. 217 (BIA 1958). 

The parties were married on September 26, 1972. However, 

according to the visa petition the last date on which the parties 

resided together was March 1971, more than a year before their 

marriage took place. There is no indication in the petition that the 

parties have resided with one another since their marriage; the 

beneficiary is presently residing in Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico, and the petitioner is presently residing in Angwin, California. 

On its face, the visa petiton raises a question as to the bona fides 

of the marital relationship. 

In visa petition proceedings, the burden is on the petitioner to 

establish eligibility for the benefit sought under the immigration 

laws. Matter of Brantigan, 11 I. & N. Dec. 493 (BIA 1966). In light 

of the curious information given in the visa petition, we do not 

believe that the petitioner has sustained her burden. Therefore, 

we will remand the record to the District Director for further 

investigation into the nature of the marital relationship. 

ORDER: The record is remanded to the District Director for 

further proceedings consistent with the above opinion. 

676