Interim Decision #2191 

MATTER OF DARWISH 

In Visa Petition Proceedings • 

A-19245744 

Decided by Board April 4, 1973 

Under the law of the Dominican Republic, a divorce decree issued by a court of 

law does not suffice per se to dissolve the marriage bonds; this is accomplished 

by a "declaration" or pronouncement by the Official of the Civil Registry. 

Hence, in the absence of a showing by petitioner that his decree of divorce 

issued by a court in the Dominican Republic in 1971 was pronounced by the 

Office of Civil Registry, he has failed to establish that his prior marriage was 

legally terminated. Notwithstanding the subsequent marriage in Jerusalem in 

1972 of petitioner and beneficiary (Muslim citizens of Jordan) may be valid 

under applicable Jordanian-Muslim law as a plural marriage, irrespective of 

whether his prior marriage was legally terminated, plural marriages offend 

the public policy of the United States and such subsequent marriage cannot 

be accorded recognition for immigration purposes in the absence of a showing 

that it is a monogamous marriage. 

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: Abraham Kaufman, Esquire 

521 Fifth Avenue 

New York, New York 1001? 

This case comes forward on appeal from an order of the Acting 

Officer in Charge, Athens, Greece, dated May 31, 1972, denying the 

visa petition for the reason that the petitioner's previous marriage 

was not shown to have been terminated. We shall dismiss the 

appeal. 

The petitioner, a male lawful permanent resident alien, has 

applied for visa preference classification of the beneficiary as his 

spouse. Both are natives and citizens of Jordan. The petitioner 

himself obtained permanent resident status in the United States 

on June 30, 1971, by virtue of marriage to a permanent resident of 

the United States. He claims that this earlier marriage, which was 

to a Dominican woman, was terminated, by divorce. 

The regulations reqUire that a visa petition on behalf of a spouse 

be accompanied by proof of marriage to the beneficiary and proof 

of legal termination of prior marriages, 8 CFR 204.2(c)(2). A 

marriage certificate was submitted showing that the petitioner 

and the beneficiary contracted marriage in the Sheriya (Muslim 

307 
Interim Decision #2191 

Religious) Court of Jerusalem on April 23,1972. A decree of divorce 

issued by a court in the Dominican Republic on November 23, 

1971, was submitted as evidence of the termination of the prior 

marriage; no evidence has been submitted that the decree was 

pronounced by an official of the Civil Registry. 

A report prepared for us by the Library of Congress, dated 

January 1972, concerning this case informs us that: 

A divorce decree issued by a court of law of the Dominican Republic does not 

suffice per se to dissolve the marriage bonds. This is accomplished by a 

"declaration" or pronouncement by the Official of the Civil Registry that must 

be made together with the registration in that office of the divorce decree issued 

by the court. To this effect, in cases of mutual consent divorce petitions, Article 

31 of the divorce law provides that: 

The spouses . . . are responsible for registering the divorce decree in 

the Office of the Civil Registry. The decree shall be pronounced . . . no 

less than eight days after the decree was issued. 

Furthermore, Article 19 of the divorce law states that: 

The plaintiff who fails to act within the term of [eight days] shall lose 

the benefits granted to him by the decree thus obtained, .. . 

Because no evidence has been presented by the petitioner that 

his divorce was pronounced (by the Office of the. Civil Registry) as 

required by Dominican law, he has not established that the divorce action was completed and that the divorce took effect. Con 

sequently, he has not established that his prior marriage was 

legally terminated. 

Notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner's first marriage 

may not have been legally terminated, his marriage to the beneficiary would nevertheless be a valid marriage in Jerusalem 

because the law there permits plural marriages. According to the 

report prepared for us by the Library of Congress, Israeli law 

controls in Jerusalem. Pursuant to Israeli law, Muslim religious 

courts have jurisdiction over matters of personal status of 

Muslims.' For citizens of Jordan, Israeli law 2requires that the 

Muslim religious courts apply the law of Jordan. The petitioner 

and the beneficiary are Muslim citizens of Jordan. Thus, Jordanian law governs their marriage in Jerusalem. Article 10 of the 

Family Rights Law of Jordan, Law No. 92 of 1951, permits a man 

to have four wives. 

Plural marriages, however, offend the public policy of the United States, Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879); Cleveland 

v. United States, 329 U.S. 14 (1946); Matter of G—, 6 I. & N. Dec. 9 

(BIA, 1953). Thus, even though the petitioner's second marriage 

1Articles 51 and 52 of the Palestine (Amendment) Order-in-Council, 1922-1947, 

still in force per Article 11 of the Law and Administration Ordinance No. 1, 5708-

1948. 

& Article 52. 

308 
Interim Decision #2191 

may be valid according to Jordanian law as a plural marriage, 

irrespective of whether his prior marriage was legally terminated, 

this Board cannot accord recognition to it, unless he can show that 

it is a monogamous marriage. 

In visa petition proceedings, the petitioner has the burden of 

establishing eligibility for the benefit sought,Matter of Brantigan, 

11 I. & N. Dec. 493, 495 (BIA, 1966); Matter of Soo Hoo, 11 I. & N. 

Dec. 151, 152 (BIA, 1965); Matter of Yee, 11 I. & N. Dec. 27, 30 BIA, 

1964); and Matter of B —, 9 I. & N. Dec. 521, 523 (BIA, 1961). The 

petitioner has not met this burden. 

Our decision is, of course, without prejudice to submission by the 

petitioner of a new visa petition accompanied by the requisite 

proof. 

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 

309