Interim Decision 112792 

MATTER OF MOREIRA 

In Visa Petition Proceedings 

A-22211458 

Decided by Board Nay 6, 1980 

(1) In order to establish a steprelationship under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 

there must be a showing that the stepparent has, prior to the stepchild's eighteenth 

birthday, evinced an active parental concern for the stepchild's support, instruction, 

and general welfare. Matter of Mareira, Interim Decision 2720 (BIA 1979). 

(2) Where the marriage creating a technical steprelationship takes place shortly before 

a stepchild's eighteenth birthday, inquiry may properly be made into what occurred 

between the stepparent and stepchild before the marriage, or after the child reached 

the age of 18, in order to determine if the standards set forth in Matter of Moreira, id., 

have been met. 

(8) Although a simple wan-lame ceremony will not be itself create genuine familial 

bonds between ateprelatives, where such bonds can be shown, Matter of Moreira, id., 

should be broadly construed in order to give effect to the goal of encouraging and 

preserving bonafide family relationships. 

(4) Where petitioner, wife of the beneficiary's natural father, knew of the beneficiary's 

existence from the time she first met her husband, a year before they were married, 

where she and her husband have sent money to the beneficiary from their shared 

income, and where the petitioner has always been willing to accept the beneficiary, 

take responsibility for him, and consider him as her own child, the petitioner's 

parental interest in the beneficiary was sufficiently active and timely to warrant 

granting the visa petition, despite the fact that the marriage creating the steprelationship occurred only 4 months before the beneficiary's eighteenth birthday. 

(5) It is not a denial of equal protection to have different rules of law in different judicial 

districts. Castillo-Felix v. INS, 601 F.2d 459 (9 Cir. 1979). 

(6) In the Board of Immigration Appeals' prior decision in Matter of Moreira, supra, the 

decision in Andrade v. Esperdp, 270 F.Sunp. 5146 (S.D1sT.Y.1967), was not rejected, but 

rather was interpreted to mean that some evidence of genuine familial bonds was 

required in order to establish a steprelationship for immigration purposes, even 

though a "close family unit" need not be shown. 

(7) The standards in Matter of Moreira, supra, apply nationwide, including in the 

Southern District in New York. 

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:, ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: 

James J. Orlow, Esquire Jim Torn Haynes 

Public Ledger Building, Suite 936 Appellate Trial 

Sixth & Chestnut Streets Attorney 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106 

370 
Interim Decision #2792 

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

This is the second time this case has been before us. In a prior 

decision, dated July 16, 1979, we remanded the record to the District 

Director to give the petitioner an opportunity to show that the beneficiary qualified as her "stepchild" under the Immigration and Nationality A et, as that term was defined in our prior decision, which was 

designated as a precedent. Matter of Moreira, Interim Decision 2720 

(BIA 1979). The District Director, in a decision dated October 30, 1979, 

determined that the beneficiary did not qualify as the petitioner's 

stepchild as we had interpreted that term. In accordance with our 

previous order, the District Director then certified his decision back to 

this Board for review. Oral argument was heard before this Board on 

February 21, 1980. The decision of the District Director is reversed. 

The petitioner in this case is a 52-year-old native of Argentina and 

citizen of the United States. The beneficiary is a 25-year-old native and 

citizen of Argentina who was born out of wedlock to the petitioner's 

husband and a woman he never married. The petitioner married the 

beneficiary's father in 1972, when the beneficiary was 17 years old. 

Thus, a purely technical steprelationship came into existence prior to 

the beneficiary's eighteenth birthday. However, in our prior precedent 

decision in this case, we held that more than a merely technical 

relationship was required in order to establish a steprelationship 

under the Act. After a careful review of the legislative history of the 

stepchild provision, as well as of the case law, both from this Board and 

from the courts, we held that a steprelationship exists for immigration 

purposes where the stepparent has, prior to the child's eighteenth 

birthday, evinced an active concern for the stepchild's support, instruction, and general welfare. While such an interest can be demonstrated by taking the child into the home and caring for him as a 

parent, it can also be shown, we held, by a stepparent's continuing and 

genuine interest in the well-being of a stepchild who may, due to 

distance, immigration restrictions, or national boundaries, be unable 

to actually live with the stepparent. Matter of Moreira, id. 

The petitioner in the present case has submitted an affidavit which 

indicates that she knew of and accepted the existence of the beneficiary 

from the time she first met her husband, approximately one year 

before they were married. She states that because the beneficiary had 

always been a great concern of her husband's, he became a concern of 

her's also, and that she and her husband sent money to the beneficiary 

from their shared income. The petitioner states that she knew that 

when she married her husband, the beneficiary and the beneficiary's 

sister would become her children "as fully and completely as if they 

371 
Interim Decision #2792 

were mine by blood...." She acknowledges twice in the affidavit that 

she has am "obligation" to the beneficiary. 

The special problem presented by this case lies in the fact that the 

petitioner's marriage to the beneficiary's father occurred only 4 

months before the beneficiary reached his eighteenth birthday. The 

Immigration and Naturalization Service argues, and counsel for the 

petitioner has all but conceded, that the requirements of our precedent 

decision could not have been, and were not, met in those 4 months. We 

believe that the interpretation given to our decision by both counsel 

and by the Service is too narrow. What we sought in our prior decision 

was to encourage and preserve relationships where genuine familial 

bonds existed, but also to recognize the fact that a simple marriage 

ceremony not in every case serve to create such genuine bonds 

between persons who have come steprelatives. Our decision in 

Moreira, id., should be broadly construed where, as here, a bona fide 

family relationship has been shown. 

The fact that the marriag6 creating a relationship occurs shortly 

before a stepchild's eighteenth birthday should not be fatal to a finding 

that the Moreira standards have been satisfied. Each case must be 

decided on its own facts. If, as in the present case, there is very little 

time between the marriage and the birthday, it is not improper to 

inquire into what occurred between the stepchild and stepparent 

before the marriage, or to inquire into what occurred after the child 

reached th.e age of 18. In both Nation v. Esperdy, 239 F.Supp. 531 

(S.D.N.Y. 1965) and Andrade v. Esperdy, 270 F.Supp 516 (S.D.N.Y. 

1967), for example, the Court emphasized that the stepmothers evinced 

an active parental interest in their future stepchildren even before 

they married the children's fathers. In the present ease, the record 

indicates that the petitioner showed concern for the beneficiary prior 

to her marriage to the beneficiary's father, and it is quite clear that 

this interest continued, even grew, up until the beneficiary reached his 

eighteenth birthday, and beyond. As we do not consider our inquiry 

into the relationship to be strictly limited to the time between the 

marriage a.nd the time of the child's eighteenth birthday, we are able 

to find that the requirements set forth for a steprelationship have been 

satisfied in this case. We are convinced that the timely parental 

interest the petitioner showed in the beneficiary was "active" in the 

particular circumstances of this case. 

We do not by our decision today write out Moreira's requirement 

that the bona fide steprelationship be established prior to the 

stepchild's eighteenth birthday. It would not be sufficient, for example, 

if the marriage creating the relationship occurred prior to the child's 

eighteenth birthday, but the stepparent either did not know of, or 

accept a genuine and continuing parental interest in, the child in any 

372 
Interim Decision #2792 

way before the child turned 18, even if afterwards great concern for the 

child was shown. We emphasize that each case must be decided on its 

own facts, and the key question must always be whether a bona fide 

parent-child relationship exists. 

In his brief on appeal, and at oral argument, counsel strongly 

objected to the criteria set forth in Matter of Moreira, supra, and 

argued that the proper standard should be that set forth in Andrade, 

supra. He argues that to apply Andrade only in the Southern District 

of New York is a denial of equal protection to persons who live outside 

that judicial district. In the first place, it is not a denial of equal 

protection to have differing rules in different judicial districts. See 

Castillo-Felix v. INS, 601 F.2d 459 (9 Cir. 1979). More important, in our 

decision in Moreira, supra., we did not reject Andrade, supra, but 

rather we interpreted that decision to mean that while a "close family 

unit" need not be shown in order to establish a steprelationship for 

immigration purposes, some evidence of genuine family bonds did need 

to be shown. We expect our decision in Moreira to be applied 

nation-wide, including in the Southern District of New York. 

As we find that the petitioner in this case has sufficiently exhibited 

the requisite parental concern for the support, instruction and welfare 

of the beneficiary, we will reverse the District Director's decision, and 

grant the visa petition. 

ORDER The decision of the District Director is reversed, and the 

visa petition is approved. 

373