Interim Decision #2343 

MATTER OF ARENAS ' 

In Visa Petition Proceedings 

A-20723462 

Decided by Board February 25, 1975 

In determining the validity of a marriage for immigration purposes, the law of the place of 

celebration of the marriage will generally govern. Under section 2.22 of the Texas 

Family Code a marriage is void if either party was married and the prior marriage is not 

dissolved. However, the marriage becomes valid when the prior marriage is dissolved • 

and the parties continue to reside together as husband and wife and represent themselves to ot} ers as being married. As the parties were domiciled and married in Texas, 

and the previously married spouse alleged her prior marriage was dissolved by divorce 

after the .present marriage, the record was remanded to give the petitioner the opportunity to ectablish the divorce, and that they had resided together thereafter as 

husband and wife and had represented themselves to others as being married. Upon the 

presentation of such evidence the beneficiary would be eligible for an immigrant visa as 

an immediate relative under section 201(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: James A. Douglas, Esquire 

688 W. Robertson 

San Benito, Texas 78586 

The United States citizen petitioner applied to have his wife classified 

as an immeiiate relative under section 201(b) of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act Ilia decision dated August 19, 1974, the district director denied the petition on the ground that the beneficiary had a prior 

undissolved marriage at the time she married the petitioner and therefore her marriage to the petitioner was not valid. The petitioner has 

appealed. The appeal will be sustained and the record remanded. 

The beneficiary is a 47-year-old female, who is a native and citizen of 

Mexico. She married the petitioner in a ceremonial marriage in Texas on 

March 10, 1972. At that time the beneficiary's first marriage had not 

been dissolved or otherwise terminated. The petitioner alleges that on 

May 29, 1974, the beneficiary obtained a divorce, in Mexico, from her 

first husbani. 

In determining the validity of a marriage for immigration purposes, 

the law of the place of celebration of the marriage will generally govern. 

See e.g., Matter of Moncayo, 14 I. & N. Dec. 472 (BIA 1973); Matter of 

Lome, 13 1. & N. Dec. 244 (BIA 1969); Matter, of Dagamae, 11 I. & N. 

174 
Interim Decision #2343 

Dec. 109 (BIA 1965); Matter of P— 4 I. & N. Dec. 610 (1952) (A.G. 

1952). 

The beneficiary's marriage to the petitioner occurred in Texas. 

Moreover, the petitioner appears to be a domiciliary of Texas. We 

therefore conclude that the laws of Texas will determine the validity of 

this marriage. 

On appeal, the petitioner contends that his marriage to the beneficiary would be valid under Texas, law. Section 2.22 of the Texas 

Family Code provides: 

A marriage is void if either party was married and the prior marriage is not dissolved_ 

However, the marriage becomes valid when the prior marriage is dissolved if since that 

time the parties have lived together as husband and wife and represented themselves to 

others as being married. . - 

Our research shows that only one Texas appellate court has interpreted 

this section. In Caddel v. Caddel, 486 S.W. 2d 141 (Tex. Civ. .App. 

1972), the court held that although a marriage would be 'void if either 

party had a prior undissolved marriage, the secondmarria.ge would be 

recognized as valid as of the date of the dissolution of the first marriage, 

provided that the conditions described in the second sentence of section 

2.22 are met. 

With his appeal, the petitioner has submitted an affidavit stating that 

on May 29, 1974, the beneficiary divorced her former husband, and that 

sinee the date of the dissolution of the beneficiary's former marriage, he 

and the beneficiary have lived together as husband and wife. The decree 

of divorce does not appear in the record, although there is a notation on 

the Form 1-130 that the decree was seen and returned to the petitioner. 

An untranslated petition for divorce is included in the record. 

We conclude that the petitioner's contention is correct that under 

Texas law, his marriage to the beneficiary would be recognized as valid 

if, as alleged, the beneficiary has obtained a valid divorce and if she and 

the petitioner have resided together as husband and wife. Accordingly, 

we shall sustain the appeal as to the petitioner's contention and remand 

the record for further proceedings and the entry of a new decision. 

ORDER: The appeal is sustained and the record remanded for futher 

proceedings. 

175