..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 1950 

and 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 and 

that 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 of Nation 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