Interim Decision #zzoo 

MATTER OF To 

In Visa Petition Proceedings 

A-16028004 

Decided by Board May 2, 1974 

Where the Board of Immigration Appeals remanded the record for petitioner to 

be confronted with the material used by the district director in denying the 

visa petition and to be afforded an opportunity to rebut that evidence and to 

submit any additional evidence in support of the petition, the proper procedure for the district director thereafter was to enter a new order and make 

appropriate service on the interested parties so that they could be made 

aware of the new decision and have an opportunity to challenge it on appeal if 

desired. 

ON DEHALr or PETITIONER' ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: 

Jules E. Coven, Esquire Irving A. Appleman 

One East 42nd Street Appellate Trial Attorney 

New York, New York 10017 

The petitioner, a permanent resident alien, filed a visa petition 

under section 203(aX2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act in 

behalf of the beneficiary as her adopted son. The petition was 

supported by the affidavits of two witnesses, now residents of New 

York, New York, as to their knowledge of the facts. The District 

Director denied the petition for failure to submit satisfactory 

evidence that the petitioner had adopted the beneficiary. The 

District Director noted that in her 1963 application for an immigrant visa and in her 1969 application to file a petition for 

naturalization, the petitioner had not listed the beneficiary as her 

son and had made no mention of an adopted son. Also, the 

beneficary's Seaman's Discharge Book listed his next of kin as his 

aunt, the petitioner. 

On appeal, we entered an order on September 4, 1973 remanding 

the record to the District Director to afford the petitioner an 

opportunity (1) to be confronted with the materials used by the 

District Director in denying the petition; (2) to rebut that evidence; 

and (3) to submit any additional evidence which she deemed 

appropriate in support of the visa petition. On remand, sworn 

statements were taken by a Service officer from the petitioner and 

679 
Interim Decision #2283 

the beneficiary on March 11, 1974 in the presence of their attorney. In an undated memorandum, the District Director has returned the record to the Board, including the two sworn statements of March 11, 1974. The memorandum asserts that the 

petitioner and her attorney were given an opportunity to present 

additional evidence and failed to do so; that they did not submit 

additional documentation; and that the sworn statement failed to 

clarify the situation. It does not appear that a copy of the District 

Director's memorandum has been served on petitioner or her 

attorney. 

When we remanded for further proceedings on September 4, 

1973, we did not indicate what action the District Director should 

take after those further proceedings: Presumably, if he had been 

satisfied by the additional evidence, he would have granted the 

visa petition. Where, as here, the District Director concludes on 

remand that the evidence is still insufficient, he should enter a 

new order, stating his reasons, and make appropriate service on 

the interested parties. This procedure will enable the parties to 

know of his decision and the basis therefor, and to make timely 

appeal to this Board if aggrieved by it. As an alternative,inl 

certify the serving notice of his decision, the District Director may 

record to us pursuant to 8 CFR 3.1(c). In any event, the petitioner 

and counsel should be made aware of the new decision and have 

an opportunity to challenge it on appeal. 

We shall therefore remand the record to the District Director so 

that appropriate steps may be taken to see that proper notice of 

the decision is given. 

ORDER: The record is remanded to the District Director for the 

further action indicated in the foregoing opinion. 

680