1111ML.•111. JaPkilaW11 

MATTER OF PAJARILLO 

In Visa Petition Proceedings 

A-18419619 

Decided by Board May 31, 1988 

Since the first marriage of petitioner, a native and citizen of the Philippines, to a 

Filipino, contracted in the Philippine Islands, was terminated by a valid and 

absolute divorce obtained by the first wife in Hawaii in 1963 at which time both 

petitioner and the first wife were and had been long prior to the divorce permanent residents of the United States, his subsequent marriage in the Philippines 

in 1964 to beneficiary, a native and citizen of the Philippines, is valid to accord 

her preference status under section 203 (a) (2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, notwithstanding petitioner's failure to disclose hie prior 

marriage. 

ON BEHIlLF or PErmorms : Arthur S. Komori, Esquire 

P.O. Box 402 

Lihne, Kauai 98766 

The case comes forward pursuant to certification by the District 

Director, Honolulu District, dited March 27, 1968 ordering that the 

revocation proceedings instituted on December 21, 1967 be terminated 

and further ordering that the visa petition be approved. 

The petitioner, a native and citizen of the Philippines, 47 years old, 

male, a lawfully admitted permanent resident of the 'United States 

since March 15, 1946, seeks preference status under section 203(a) (2) 

of the Immigration and Nationality Act on behalf of the beneficiary 

as his wife. The beneficiary is a native and citizen of the Republic of the 

Philippines, 44 years of age. The parties were married in a Catholic 

church ceremony on September 2, 1964 at Santisimo Rosario, Manila, 

Republic of the Philippines. The petitioner was married once previously. The file does not disclose the date or place of his prior marriage. The prior marriage of the petitioner was terminated by an absolute decree of divorce glinted by the Fifth Circuit Court in Lihue, 

Hawaii on April 5, 1963. (The wife in the divorce proceedings was 

granted custody of two daughters, born October 13, 1951 and June 8, 

743 
Interim Decision .#1866 

1953 while the husband was granted custody of a son born February VP,, 

1945.) The visa petition was approved by the District Director on 

November 28, 1966. 

In a letter dated November 2, 1967 (Ex. 1) a Vice Consul at the 

American Embassy in Manila requested further consideration of the 

approval of the visa petition. It was pointed out that the marriage 

contract between the petitioner and beneficiary indicated that the petitioner was single as contrasted from divorced or widowed; that the 

beneficiary stated that her husband had originally been married in the 

Philippines, was divorced in Hawaii on April 5, 1963 and returned to 

the Philippines where he married the beneficiary on September 2, 1964. 

The visa petition indicates that the beneficiary will reside in Eleele, 

Kauai, Hawaii. The Vice Consul concluded that a material fact was 

misrepresented by the petitioner in order to contraa the present marriage; that the marriage is not recognized by Philippine law inasmuch 

as divorce is not recognized by Philippine law ; that, as a consequence, 

the beneficiary is nol entitled to second preference status as the wife of 

an alien permanent resident of the United States. On December 21, 

1967 the petitioner was given notice that the Service intended to revoke 

the previously approved petition. The petitioner, through counsel, submitted another copy of the divorce decree terminating his first marriage and asserted only that the petitioner was free to marry for a second time. The sole issue to be decided is the validity for immigration 

purposes of the petitioner's second marriage. 

The District Director pointed out that the leading cases on this point 

are Matter of Whitehurst, Lit. Dec. No. 1751 (July 11, 1967), and 

Matter of AS— and and P—, 8 I. 82 N. Doc. 177. The former ease 

involved a divorce secured by a prior husband, a United States citizen, 

in the United States thereby terminating his marriage to the Filipino 

beneficiary, and the snlwequent marriage of the petitioner, a United 

States citizen, to the same beneficiary, a native and citizen of the 

Philippines. This marriage was recognized for immigration purposes. 

The other case stood for the proposition that Philippine law does not 

bar recognition of an American divorce obtained by a naturalized 

United States citizen husband, formerly a Philippine national, thus 

dissolving marriage contracted in the Philippine Islands with the 

Philippine spouse; that the husband's subsequent marriage in the 

Philippine Islands was held valid, permitting acquisition of nonquota 

status by the second wife. 

We are in agreement with the well -reasoned decision of the District 

Director that the present marriage is valid for immigration purposes; 

and that the difference between the instant case and the cited case, that 

one of the parties was a citizen of the United States at the time his sec744 
and marriage was contracted, while in this case both parties are still 

citizens of the Republic of the Philippines, does not warrant a different conclusion. 

The petitioner's prior marriage was terminated by divorce obtained 

by the first wife in Hawaii. The petitioner at that time was a permanent legal resident of the United States and had been in that 

status since 1946. The court which granted the divorce had jurisdiction over the parties and there is no question that the petitioner's first 

marriage was validly and absolutely terminated by the divorce decree 

in Hawaii. 

Both the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution and familiar 

principles of international law based upon comity require the acceptance at face value of a. judgment regularly granted by a competent 

court unless a fatal defect is evident upon the judgment's face. A 

divorce decree regularly granted by a court in the United States should 

be accepted at face value and should be deemed to have terminated 

the prior marriage for immigration purposes. For the purpose of the 

immigration laws, a divorce regularly granted by a state court should 

be regarded as valid. A subsequent remarriage in conformity with 

the laws of that state or of any other state should be regarded as 

equally valid. In adopting this policy, the requirements of the law 

would be adhered to, proper effect would be given to judgments and 

proceedings of a sovereign state, and reasonable safeguards would 

thereby be erected to protect a properly solemnised marital relationship. The adoption of such a policy would unquestiohably facilitate the administration of the immigration laws. Matter of F—, 

I. & N. Dec. 251,254. 

The record establishes that the marriage ceremony was performed 

in accordance with the laws of the Philippines. There is nothing to 

show that this marriage has ever been questioned by a court of competent jurisdiction in the Philippines. A letter from the Philippine 

Undersecretary of Justice dated March 15, 1966, quoted in Matter of 

Whitehurat, Int. Dec. No. 1751, expressed the view that it is deemed 

sufficient pursuant to established procedures for executive officials to 

rely upon the legal presumption that a marriage duly contracted by 

the parties is valid, especially so where the question arises only in 

the issuance of a visa to a married woman desiring to enter her 

husband's country which recognizes absolute divorce. 

The final issue relates to the failure of the petitioner to disclose his 

prior marriage to the priest who performed his present marriage. The 

Supreme Court of the Philippines has held that concealment of a 

prior marriage from the priest who solemnizes the second marriage 

cannot be considered sufficient proof of bad faith. United States v. 

Eltrigues, 32 Phil. 202. 

745 
Interim Decision #18titi 

The only difference between the two cited cases and the instant 

case is that the former involved divorces obtained by United States 

citizens terminating a prior Philippine marriage whereas the present 

case involves Filipinos and a Philippine marriage which was terminated by a divorce in the United States by persons over whom the 

divorce court had jurisdiction, and who were permanent lawful residents of the United States long prior to the divorce. It is concluded 

that the difference in the cases does not warrant any change in the 

finding that the petitioner has met the burden of establishing, for 

immigration and visa issuances purposes, a valid marriage to the 

beneficiary. The order of the District Director will be affirmed. 

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

dated March 27, 1968, terminating the revocation proceedings and 

approving the visa petition be and the same is hereby affirmed. 

746