Interim Decision #3216 

MATTER OF GOORAHOO 

In Visa Petition Proceedings 

A-29879909 

Decided by Board February 9, 1994 

(1) In order to obtain preference status for the beneficiary as his son pursuant to section 

203(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(a)(2) (1988), a 

petitioner must establish that the beneficiary qualifies or once qualified as his "child" 

within the meaning of section 101(b)(I) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(b)(I) (1988). 

(2) When the country where a child is born eliminates all legal distinctions between 

illegitimate and legitimate children, all natural children are deemed to be the 

legitimate offspring of their natural parents from the time that country's laws are 

changed. 

(3) By virtue of the Children Born Out of Wedlock (Removal of Discrimination) Act, 

effective May 18, 1983, Guyana has eliminated all legal distinctions between 

legitimate and illegitimate children. 

(4) Children born out of wedlock in Guyana after May 18, 1983, and children who are 

under the age of 18 prior to that date are deemed legitimate and legitimated children, 

respectively, pursuant to sections 10I(b)(1)(A) and (C) of the Act. Matter of Gouveia, 

13 I&N Dec. 604 (31A 1970), modified. 

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: 

Pro se David M. Dixon 

Appellate Counsel 

BY: Dunne, Acting Chairman; Vacca and Heilman, Board Members 

In a decision dated July 29, 1991, the Regional Service Center 

("RSC") director approved the visa petition filed by the petitioner to 

accord the beneficiary preference status as his son pursuant to section 

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

§ 1153(a)(2) (1988). The RSC director subsequently certified his 

decision to the Board for review, seeking clarification of our decision 

in Matter of Gouveia, 13 I&N Dec. 604 (BIA 1970), in light of the 

Children Born Out of Wedlock (Removal of Discrimination) Act, No. 

12 (1983) (Guy.) ("Removal of Discrimination Act") enacted in 

Guyana in 1983. The approval of the visa petition will be affirmed. 

The petitioner is a 31-year-old native and citizen of Guyana and 

lawful permanent resident of the United States. The beneficiary is a 6- 

782 
Interim Decision #3216 

year-old native and citizen of Guyana, born on November 27, 1987. In 

support of the visa petition, the record contains the beneficiary's birth 

certificate, reflecting the petitioner as father, and an affidavit executed 

on January 26, 1990, by the beneficiary's mother, attesting that she 

never married the petitioner, that the petitioner acknowledged paternity of the beneficiary, and that the petitioner regularly contributed 

towards the beneficiary's maintenance and continues to show interest 

in his welfare and upbringing to date. 

The record also contains a memorandum opinion from a senior 

legal specialist at the Library of Congress dated January 16, 1986, 

which was furnished to the RSC director upon his request for 

information on the status of children born to unmarried parents in 

Guyana. Attached to the memorandum is a copy of the Removal of 

Discrimination Act. The Library of Congress memorandum explains 

that in sum, the Removal of Discrimination Act amends five 

preexisting Guyanese laws in the following ways: it replaces the terms 

"bastard" in the Evidence Act, Guy. Rev. Laws, ch. 5:03 (1978), and 

"illegitimate person" in the Legitimacy Act, Guy. Rev. Laws, ch. 46:02 

(1978), with "child born out of wedlock"; it broadens the Maintenance 

Act, Guy. Rev. Laws, ch. 45:03 (1978), to benefit a child born to 

unmarried parents; it amends the Civil Law Act, Guy. Rev. Laws, oh. 

6:01 (1978), to allow children born out of wedlock to inherit property 

without restriction from their deceased fathers in case of intestate 

succession; and it amends the Infants Act, Guy. Rev. Laws, ch. 46:01 

(1978), so that courts may award custody of a child born out of 

wedlock to his or her putative father. 

According to the Library of Congress memorandum, the intention 

of the Parliament of Guyana in enacting the Removal of Discrimination Act was to conform the existing laws of the country with the 

nonbinding guiding principles set forth in Section 30 of a new 

constitution adopted in 1980 which stated: "Children born out of 

wedlock are entitled to the same Legal tights and legal status as are 

enjoyed by children born in wedlock. All forms of discrimination 

against children on the basis of their being born out of wedlock are 

illegal." Guy. , Coast. ch. 2., § 30. However, unlike some of its 

counterparts in other jurisdictions, the Removal of Discrimination Act 

itself does not have a broad provision that purports to eliminate the 

legal distinctions between children born in and out of wedlock by 

declaring all to be of equal status regardless of the marital status of 

their parents. Rather, the Act amended preexisting Guyanese laws on 

an individual basis. Thus, in contrast to laws which expressly override 

?RI 
Interim Decision #3216 

any overlooked or nonexempted rules of law,' the Removal of 

Discrimination Act does not override any legal distinctions not 

specifically amended. Nevertheless, pursuant to the Library of 

Congress' review of the available laws of Guyana;--itsloes not appear 

that any, distinctions have been overlooked or intentionally excluded 

frooVerage. Thus, despite the different approach taken by the 

Guyanese Act, the Library of Congress memorandum concludes that 

children born out of wedlock in Guyana have rights equal to those- of 

children born in wedlock. 

In his decision of July 29, 1991, the RSC director noted our 

decision in Matter of Gouveia, supra, rendered in 1970, in which we 

concluded that under the laws of Guyana, thlegitimation of a child 

born out of wedlock required the marriage of the natural parents. 

However, based upon the 1983 Removal of Discrimination Act and 

the above-described opinion from the Library of Congress, the RSC 

director concluded that Guyanese children born out of wedlock have 

rights equal to those of children born in wedlock. The RSC director 

consequently found that the beneficiary would be considered the 

legitimate or legitimated son of the petitioner, and the visa petition 

was therefore approved. 

In order to qualify as a "son" for preference purposes, the 

beneficiary must once have qualified as a "child" of the petitioner as 

that term is defined by section 101(b)(1) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1101(b)(1) (1988). Matter of Coker, 14 I&N Dec. 521 (BIA 1974). 

Section 101(b)(1) of the Act includes the following within the 

definition of the term "child": 

(A) a legitimate child; 

(C) a child legitimated under the law of the child's residence or domicile, or under 

the law of the father's residence or domicile, whether in or outside the United States, 

if such legitimation takes place before the child reaches the age of eighteen years and 

the child is in the legal custody of the legitimating parent or parents at the time of 

such legitimation. 

The term "legitimate" generally applies to children born in wedlock. 

See Matter of Pavlovic, 17 I&N Dec. 407 (BIA 1980); Matter of 

Kubicka, 14 I&N Dec. 303 (BIA 1972). The term "legitimated" has 

been interpreted to include those children who were illegitimate at 

birth, but who thereafter through legally recognized means attained the 

' See, e.g., matter of Hernandez, 19 I&N Dec. 14 (BM 1983) (Colombian law on civil 

status of children); Matter of Cardoso, 19 I&N Dec. 5 (BIA 1983) (Cape Verde Laws on 

Marriage, Divorce and Filiation); Matter of Clahar, 18 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1981) 

(Jamaican Status of Children Act). 

75" 
Interim Decision #3216 

full legal status of legitimate children. Matter of Reyes, 17 I&N Dec. 

512 (BIA 1980). 

We have held that when the country where a child was born 

eliminates all legal distinctions between legitimate and illegitimate 

children, all children are deemed to be the legitimate offspring of their 

natural parents from the time that country's laws are changed. Matter 

of Patrick, 19 1&N Dec. 726 (BIA 1988); Matter of Hernandez, 19 I&N 

Dec. 14 (BIA 1983); Matter of Pavlovic, supra; see also Lau v. Kiley, 

563 F.2d 543 (2d Cir. 1977). That is, children born after a country's 

laws are changed in the above manner are deemed to be legitimate, 

and children born prior to such a change in the law are deemed to be 

legitimated as of the date of the change, provided, of course, that a 

child so legitimated was under the age of 18 years at the time the law 

changed, as zequired by section 101(b)(1)(C). See Matter of Oduro, 18 

I&N Dec. 421, 423 n.2 (BIA 1983). We consider all legal distinctions 

abolished only where there is complete equality of filial rights between 

legitimate children and those born out of wedlock. See Matter of 

Oduro, supra; Matter of Clahar, 18 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 19111); Matter of 

Reyes, supra. 

On our review of the record, including the opinion of the Library of 

Congress, and that of the RSC director, we are satisfied that pursuant 

to the Removal of Discrimination Act, Guyana has eliminated all legal 

distinctions between legitimate and illegitimate children. Thus, children born out of wedlock in Guyana after May 18, 1983, which is the 

effective date of the Removal of Discrimination Act, and children who 

are under the age of 18 prior to that date are deemed legitimate and 

legitimated children, respectively. Our decision in Matter of Gouveia, 

supra, is in.odified accordingly. 

The beneficiary was born in 1987. The petitioner's paternity is not 

contested. Consequently, the beneficiary qualifies as the legitimate 

child of petitioner pursuant to section 101(b)(1)(A) of the Act, and 

the vise-petition was properly approved. 

For the foregoing reasons, we shall affirm the RSC director's 

approval of the visa petition. 

ORDER: The decision of the RSC director is affirmed. 

7RS