..Interim Decision *1571

MATZ= or MILLER In Vies. Petition Proceedings •
A-14356955

Decided by Board 4pra 4, 1966 .
Beneficiary, who was born out of wedlock daring the existence of her Putative fathers marriage to U S. stenos petitioner, and who has not been legitimated, in not a child within the contemplation of section 101(b) (1), .1mmigation and Nationality Act, as amended, since there was no close family relationship between the parties until beneficiary's arrival in the 'Milted States in.jnly lOSS when 15 years of age, theretofore having always lived with her mother. ,

The District Director at

-New York City in a decision dated February 18, 1966, denied the

.application .of the petitioner on the ground that the facts disclosed that the petitioner's husband, the putative father of beneficiary, was never married to beneficiary's mother and that the beneficiary has not otherwise been legitimated. It is concluded by the District Director that the beneficiary is not, therefore, a child as defined under section 101(b) (1) of the Act. From that decision the petitioner through counsel has appealed to this Board. The appeal will be dismissed. A reading of this re,cord4ndicates that the beneficiary of the petition is adniittedly the daughter of the petitioner's spouse. Tile petitioner is a naturalized citizen of the United States and she married the putative father of the beneficiary in January 1945 at 'Kingston, Jamaica. ' The petitioner stated that "in 1950 .her husband told her that he. was going to be the father of a child born to Millicent Morgan. The child (beneficiary) was born in 'July of 1950and she resided with her natural mother, although allegedly receiving suppoft from the petitioner and her spouse. The petitioner also stated that the beneficiary had on :Accession visited with the petitioner and her putative. father for extended lengths of time andthat a close personal relationship had been maintained. The 'petitioner stated futther that she came to the United States in 1958 and that she had not seen the beneficiary until 1965 when she, the

• 54%

### Interim Decision #1571 beneficiary, arrived in the United States. Counsel for 

### petitioner seeks to compare the petition in the instant case with that in the case ofNation v. &wordy, 

### 239 F. Supp. 531. Counsel contends that the Service has disregarded this decision in its denial of the present 

### petition. This Board has given careful consideration to the facts contained in this case. We note that the beneficiary has stated under oath that she has always lived with her mother and has stayed with her father only on vacations and on visits. It is noted that the beneficiary made her home with her natural mother until 1965, when she was 15 

### years of age and when she came to the United State as a visitor. 

### The Supervisory Immigrant Inspector for the Immigration and Naturalization Service has subfrtitted a memorandum for the file in which he urges that the fact that the spouse of the petitioner and the petitioner have supported the child should not be considered 

### any more than a legal 

### obligation to support the beneficiary born out of wedlock. Our conclusion after a review of the entire file is that this case 

### cannot be 

### considered analogous to the Nation 

### decision, supra. 

### We do not find herein the close family relationship contemplated and present in the Nation 

### decision. It is obvious that there was indeed no close family relationship until 

### the beneficiary arrived in the United States in July 1965.* Vor these reasons we do not consider the beneficiary to be S. child within the contemplation of the Nation

### opinion or within the provisions of section 101(b) (1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Accordingly, the following order 

### will be entered. ORDER: It is ordered that the appeal be dismissed.

550