Interim Decision *1550 

MATTER OF FREEMAN 

In Visa, Petition Proceedings • 

A-13498524 

Docraod by Bpard .7carmary 24, 1966 

Notwithstanding petitioner's first marriage was terminated in 1954 by an in 

absentia Mexican divorce secured by his II S. citizen wife, his second marriage in 1965 in Korea to beneficiary is valid for immigration ruirpoeeR fiance 

it is valid under the law of the place where contracted. 

This case is before us. pursuant to the motion of the Service for 

reconsideration of our order of November 4, 1965 in which we 

directed approval of the visa petition. 

The petitioner

' 

 a native born United-States citizen, married the 

beneficiary, Sue am Sang, on March 17, 1965 in Korea. He had 

been previously married to Imogene Belmming in 1946 and one 

child was 'born of this marriage. They separated in 1949 and his 

first wife obtained a divorce at Juarez, Chiltuahua, Mexico on 

December 11, 1954. The petitioner has been employed by the Bank 

of America overseas since May 31, 1952. Apparently he has been 

in Korea since that date but regards the State of California as his 

legal resirla-npsk' The sole issue in this ease is whether there is a 

valid marriage betWeen the petitioner and the beneficiary, and the 

question further resolves itself into whether the petitioner's first 

marriage has been terminated. 

Subsequent to our consideration of the case, the petitioner submitted to the Service a letter of June 11, 1965 by his first wife. 

This letter is to the effect that the Mexican divorce was "arranged" 

by a member of the California bar; that this petitioner "signed the 

papers" and apparently paid part of the fee involved; that she 

thereafter remarried; that the validity of the Mexican divorce was 

recognized at that time; and that she has two children by her 

second marriage. She resents the fact that a question has been 

raised concerning the validity of the Mexican divorce and it appears 

unlikely that she would be willing to furnish any additional information concerning the matter. 
intexim Decision *1550 

In our order' of November 4, 1965, we •refeired to the•Acting 

'Attorney General's decision in 'Matter of 4 I. Se N. -Dec. 610 

(1952) and his statement • therein (p. 614) that a plain Congressional 

purpose 'was to facilitate and faster the maintenance of families. 

'He aLgOratidthat,it "ieemee"reasonable .tb believe that the Conorecs 

intended that i marriage of a citizen, valid where contracted the ', be 

accorded' validitY• for immigration purposes"-, and that was the 

basiwof the decision. There, the first wife was in Tijitana, Mexico, 

for days to consult a lawyer about filing the proceeding but 

neither party was in Mexico 'between the actual filing of the divorce 

proceeding and the decree of divorce and neither pally wits ever in 

the State of Tlaxcala, the divorce having been granted by a ediurt of 

that state. It is clear that the' fact that the first wife had been in 

Mexico for two days had no bearing on' the 'Acting .Attorney Gen-

•era's decision. There, the petitioner's second marriage occurred 'in 

-Germany whereas here the second marriage took place in Korea. 

With that exception and the fact that we do not know whether this 

petitioner's first wife- consulted. a lawyer in Mexico, the facts in 

this petitioner's ease and in Matter of are entirely analogous. 

The Service seeks to distinguish Matter of P— by stating that 

there 'was no impediment under German law to the recognition of 

the Mexican divorce and that there is such an impediment under 

Korean law. In this•connectian, there was attached to the motion 

a memorandum prepared by .Dr. Sung Yoon Cho of the Far .Eastern 

'Law Division, Law Library, Library of Congress,'and the Service 

stated that this memorandum sets forth in greater detail the statutory 

provision quoted by its officer at Tokyo in his decision. Hence, it 

appears that the Service relies on 'Article-i.8 of Law No. 966 of 

Jain:sly 15, 1962 whiCh is as follows: 

Art. 18. Divorce than be governed by the law of the bonze country or the 

husband at the time of the occurrence of the fact forming its cause. However, the court may 'make -no adjudication of divtirCe imless the fact forming 

its cause also consiltdtes a cause of -divorcelaccording t'o Korean law. 

The first sentence of Article 18 is identical with the Korean 

Statutory provision: quotedby the officer-in-:charge. Actually, there 

is no statement in Article 18 as to the requirements for a -valid 

marriage under the laWs of Korea, and the only citation donceinini, 

a law governing marriage is the American Consular Offt feer'i xeferencC to Article 812 of the Korean Codi of Februify . 22; 1951 

However, that statutory provision is not part of the record before 

us. We believe that Article 18 simply means that, where a suit 

for divorce is filed in a Korean court and at least one of the parties 

-is not a national of Korea, then the divorce proceeding shall be 

483 
Interim Decision #1550 

governed by the law of the home country of the husband at the 

time the ground for divorce arose but that the court will not grant 

a divorce unless the ground of divorce is also a ground under Korean 

law. This is .clear from the statement on page 2 of Dr. Cho's 

memorandum concerning "the absence of specific provisions under the 

above Statute covering the question of the recognition of divorce 

effected between non-Korean nationals abroad". Dr Cho then 

stated that Professor Kim was of the opinion that divorce effected 

between aliens abroad should be recognized in Korea so far as it 

was effected according to the law of the home country" of a party, 

citing Professor Kim's book "New Private International Law". 

In view of the foregoing, there is nothing to indicate that there 

is any specific statutory provision of Korean law which would 

preclude recognition of the Mexican divorce. The most that can 

be said is that a Professor Kim, who has written a 'book entitled 

"New Private International Law", was of the opinion.that a divorce 

outside Korea by non-Korean nationals should be recognized in 

Korea if it was secured according to the law of the home country 

of a party. The home country of this petitioner and his first wife 

is the United States and there may he some question as to whether 

the State' of California can be equated to "home country". As 

against the nebulous theory of the Service, we have the fact that 

the petitioner's first wife secured the Mexican 'divorce after consult-

- ing a member of the California bar; that she has remarried and has 

children by her second marriage; that over 11 years have elapsed 

since she obtained the Mexican divorce during which period its 

validity has not been questioned heretofore; that both parties have 

considered their marriage terminated by reason of the divorce; that 

a copy of the Mexican divorce decree was exhibited at the time of 

the petitioner's marriage to the beneficiary; and that the American 

Vice Consul was apparently satisfied as ,.to the validity of the 

marriage between the petitioner and the beneficiary. We conclude 

that the -Acting Attorney General's decision in Matter of P—, 

supra,, is controlling and.thiit our previous action directing approval 

of the visa. petition was correct. Hence, the motion of the Sprvice 

will be denied and , we. shall not accede to its, request that the case 

he ,remanded to the„ Field Office for the receipt of additional 

evidence. 

(AMER: It is ordered that. the motion of .the Service for reconsideration, except as reconsidered herein, be and the same is hereby 

'denied. 

484