Interim Decision 4E1303 

MATTER OF NAPELLO 

In VISA PETITION Proceedings 

A-12363457 

Decided by Board September 7, 1963 

A. marriage by proxy In Mexico, following a divorce obtained in absentia in 

Mexico to terminate a prior marriage, is not valid under the immigration laws 

and will not sustain a visa petition to accord nonquota status on behalf of 

the second spouse. 

The petitioner filed a visa petition to obtain nonquota status for the 

beneficiary as his spouse, and on May 11, 1962 the petition was approved by the District Director of the Service in New York City. 

On November 23, 1962 the petitioner was informed of the intention 

of the Service to revoke approval of the petition, and on February 1, 

1963 an order of revocation was entered. The case is before us on the 

petitioner's appeal from that decision. 

The petitioner has established that he is a native-born citizen of the 

United Statm He was first married to Amelia Casalone on September 24, 1960 at New York City, New York. On April 30, 1900 he 

obtained a divorce from her in a Mexican court. The petitioner and 

his first wife were not in Mexico at that time. On April 19, 1962 the 

petitioner married the beneficiary at Washington, D.C. After the 

Service informed the petitioner concerning the intention to revoke the 

approval of the visa petition, the petitioner and the beneficiary were 

married by proxy in Mexico on January 16, 1963. The sole issue to be 

determined is whether the beneficiary is the spouse of the petitioner 

as required by section 101(a) (27) (A) of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a) (27) (A) ). 

We have carefully reviewed the entire record. On January 31, 

1963 the petitioner wrote to the District Director of the Service enclosing a certificate concerning the Mexican marriage on January 16, 

1969. This evidence was not before the District Director at the time 

his decision of February 1, 1963 was rendered. However, we have 

given consideration to that marriage and to the petitioner's letter 

addressed to this Board on June 15, 1963 enclosing a photostatic 

copy of the original Mexican marriage certificate of January 16, 1963. 

370 
Interim Decision #1303 

The petitioner no longer relies on his marriage to the beneficiary 

at Washington, D.C. on April 19, 1962 but instead on the proxy 

marriage in Mexico on January 16, 1963. He has stated that the 

marriage has been consummated. He contends that the validity of 

his marriage is to be determined by the law of the place where it was 

contracted; that his proxy marriage in Mexico is valid in. that country; 

and that a marriage that is valid where contracted is valid everywhere 

unless contrary to public policy. 

The controlling decision concerning Mexican divorces is Matter 

of P—, 4 I. 80 N. Dec. 610, decided by the Acting Attorney General 

on March 18, 1952. In that case, the Acting Attorney General had 

stated that the rule to be applied was: "that the validity of a marriage 

is governed by the law of the place of celebration." There, the parties 

to a marriage mutually agreed that it should be terminated; and the 

wife went to Mexico for the purpose of instituting divorce proceedings after which she returned to the United States. The Mexican 

divorce was granted in 1947 and a few days thereafter the woman 

remarried. In 1951, the man was married in Germany and subsequently filed a visa petition for his wife. He was in the armed 

forces of the United States and his superior officers had advised him 

that the Mexican divorce was legal. We ascertained that Mexican 

divorce decrees had apparently been accepted as valid by German 

authorities. Under the circumstances, we held that the validity of 

that petitioner's marriage in Germany should be recognized. 

The case of this petitioner presents an entirely different factual 

situation. In Matter of P—, supra, the parties had mutually agreed 

that the marriage should bo terminated, and we stated that we were 

impressed with the evident good faith of the parties. In the case 

before us, it is not clear that the first wife had any actual knowledge 

concerning the institution of the Mexican divorce proceeding. As indicated in the District Director's order of February 1, 1963, it appears 

that, by reason of the Mexican divorce, the petitioner's subsequent 

marriage to the beneficiary at Washington, D.C., is not recognized as 

valid in the District of Columbia. We believe it is obvious that Matter of does not sanction such a, procedure as was resorted to in this 

case, that is, the expedient of a proxy marriage in Mexico for the purpose of curing a marriage which was invalid under the laws of the 

District of Columbia. Accordingly, we hold that the petitioner has 

not established that the beneficiary is his lawful spouse within the 

meaning of 8 U.S.C. 1101 (a) (27) (A). It follows that the action of 

the District Director in revoking . approval of the visa petition was 

correct, and the appeal will be dismissed. 

ORDER: It is ordered that the appeal be and the same is hereby 

dismissed. 

371