Interim Decision #2975 

MATTER OF KHATOON 

In Visa Petition Proceedings 

A-22676233 

Decided by Board July 81, 1984 

(1) In order for an adoption to be valid for immigration purposes, it Srst must be 

shown that the adoption conformed with and is recognized by the applicable law 

of the jurisdiction where it. occurred. 

(2) Under the Indian Muslim Personal Law Application Act, which applies to Moslems in India, adoption among Moslems is not legally recognized or valid; therefore, Moslem adoptions in India are irivelid for purposes of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act Matter of Irani, 15 I&N Dec. 569 (BIA 1976), distinguished. 

ON BEHALF OF PETITiONER: ON BEFIALF OF SERVICE: 

Pro so Ferenc P. Vendor 

General Attorney 

BY: Mi/hollan, Chairman; Maniatis, Dunne, Morris, and Vacca, Board Members 

On March 13, 1984, the district director denied the petition seeking to classify the beneficiary as the adoptive mother of a United 

States citizen under section 201(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1151(b) (1982), and certified his decision to the 

Board for review. The decision of the district director will be affirmed. 

The petitioner is a 46-year-old native of India and citizen of the 

United States. The beneficiary is a 60-year-old native and citizen of 

India. The petitioner claims that the beneficiary legally adopted. 

him in India in 1942 pursuant to the Hindu Code as provided in 

Matter of Irani, 15 I&N Dec. 569 (BIA 1976). He submitted no official documentation but only various affidavits in support of this 

claim. 

Because the record reflects and the petitioner acknowledges that 

both he and the beneficiary are Moslems, the district director requested advice from the Law Library of the Library of Congress regarding the validity of Moslem adoption under the Hindu Code in 

India. The reply from the Law Library stated that the Hindu Code 

153 
Interim Decision #2975 

in India applies only to Hindus, not Moslems, and that the applicable Muslim Personal. Law Application Act—consistent with general 

Moslem law and practice—makes no provision for legal adoption 

among Moslems. Accordingly, the district director concluded that 

the alleged adoptive relationship is not valid under Indian law and 

he denied the petition. We agree. 

In order for an adoption to be valid for immigration purposes, it 

first must be shown that the adoption conformed with and is recognized by the applicable law of the jurisdiction where it occurred. 

Matter of Mendoza, 18 I&N Dec. 66 (BIA 1981); Matter of Lee, 16 

I&N Dec. 511 (BIA 1978); see also Mila v. INS, 678 F.2d 123 (10th 

Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1104 (1983); Matter of Fakalata, 18 

I&N Dec. 213 (BIA 1982) (customary adoption). Based upon the 

expert memorandum of foreign law dated September 26, 1983, from 

the Library of Congress, and in the absence of any contrary proof 

from the petitioner, 1the district director's reading and application 

of Indian law to this alleged Moslem adoption was correct. 

The substance of the Library of Congress foreign law memorandum can be summarized more fully as follows. Whereas "Ea]cloption 

among the Hindus in India is an ancient tradition, . . . after the 

arrival of Islam and the entry of Muslims in[to] India, this Hindu 

tradition was not accepted as a part of the Muslim law." 

Instead, "[a]s a community in India, in most matters of family 

relations, Muslims are governed by the Muslim personal law. 2" 

The memorandum continues: 

[T]he Hindu law applies only to the Hindus. Therefore, a Muslim cannot claim 

the benefit of those provisions without belonging to that religion just as a Hindu 

cannot take advantage of the Muslim personal law. The personal law of each religion applies only to its respeotive followers. 3 

It is well established that neither the provisions of the Muslim personal law nor 

any customary law of the Muslims allows an adoption. 4Among the Muslims, 

unlike the Hiindus, adoption is not considered a mode of filiation. 5Consequently, 

an adoption, if made as a fact, does not carry any right of inheritance nor dues 

the child lose any such right in his natural family. 

(All footnotes—as consecutively renumbered herein—appear in the 

original memorandum.) 

Based upon the foregoing, we hold that under the Indian Muslim 

Personal Law Application Act, which applies to Moslems in India, 

The petitioner bears the burden to prove any foreign law upon which he may 

rely. Matter of Annang, 14 I&N Dec. 502 (BIA 1973). 

2The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, No. XXVI, § 2. 

3IV H. Gour. The Hindu Code 765 (1978). 

Muhammad Muir Khan v. Muhammad Niaz-ud-din Khan, 13 Indian Cas. 344 

(P.C. 1911); Mir Zaman v. Nur Alan; 162 Indian Cas. 314 (1936). 

5M. Hidayattallah, Mulla Principles of Mahomedan Law 320 (16th ed. 1968). 

154 
Interim Decision #2975 

adoption among Moslems is not legally recognized or valid; therefore, Moslem adoptions in India are invalid for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

The petitioner has argued both below and on certification that 

his adoption is valid under the standards of Matter of Irani, supra. 

However, Irani is clearly distinguishable from this case because it 

explicitly applied only to adoptions among Hindus under the 

Hindu Code is india. 6 See also Matter of Patel, 17 I&N Dec. 414, 

417 (BIA 1980). The foreign law evidence of record specifically recites that the Hindu Code does not apply to Moslems. 

Applying the above holding to this case, the petitioner's alleged 

Moslem adoption by the beneficiary in India is not recognized 

under Indian law and so is not valid for immigration purposes. 

Therefore, the petitioner has failed to establish the beneficiary's 

eligibility for classification as his adoptive mother under section 

201(b) of the Act. The district director's decision was proper. 

ORDER: The decision of the district director is affirmed. 

6We note that the memoranda of foreign law both in Irani and herein were prepared by the same Senior Legal Specialist of the Library of Congress. 

155