Matter of Da Silva

The lawful permanent resident petitioner applied for preference status for the beneficiary as his spouse under section 203(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. In a decision dated May 27, 1976, the district director denied the petition on the ground that the petitioner and the beneficiary were not lawfully married under the laws of the State of tiler residence, New York. The petitioner's appeal will be sustained and the record remanded to the district director. Both the petitioner and the beneficiary are natives and citizens of Portugal with their home address in Rocky Point, New York. The petitioner was admitted as a lawful permanent resident on January 12, 1964. On August 13, 1975, the parties were married at Augusta, Geor- gia . .1 In an interview conducted by the Service on May 13, 1976, the parties

合法永久居民申请人根据《移民与国籍法》第203(a)(2)条为其配偶受益人申请优先身份。在1976年5月27日的一项决定中，地区主任以申请人与受益人未按其居住州纽约州的法律合法结婚为由拒绝了该申请。申请人的上诉将获支持，案卷将发回地区主任。申请人和受益人均为葡萄牙国民和公民，住址位于纽约州洛基波因特。申请人于1964年1月12日获准作为合法永久居民入境。1975年8月13日，双方在佐治亚州奥古斯塔结婚。.1 在移民局于1976年5月13日进行的一次面谈中，双方

stated that they were related as uncle and niece and that because of their relationship they could not marry in the State of New York. They consulted a lawyer to ascertain whether they could legally marry elsewhere in the United States and were :directed to the State of Georgia. 2 The petitioner stated that he and his wife departed New York for Georgia solely to marry because Georgia would recognize a marriage between an uncle and a niece, and that they had always intended to return to New York to live. The legal validity of a marriage is generally determined by the law of the place of the celebration. Loughran v. Loughran, 292 U.S. 216 (1934); Matter of Levine, 13 L & N. Dec. 244 (BIA 1969); Matter of 4 L & N. Dec. 610 (A.G. 1952). There are, however, exceptions to this general rule. Thus, a marriage complying with all the requirements of the State of celebration might nevertheless be deemed invalid if it is invalid under the laws of a State where one of the parties is domiciled at the time of the marriage and where both intend to make their home afterward, or if it violates a strong public policy of the State of domicile. See Matter of Zappia, 12 I. & N. Dec. 439 (BIA 1967). Citing Matter of Zappia, supra, the district director found that the marriage was contracted in Georgia solely to evade statutory prohi- bitions in New York and that, therefore, the marriage was not valid for the purpose of conferring immediate relative status on the beneficiary. The applicable New York statute, Domestic Relations Law, §5, subd. 3 (Mcrinney's 1964), provides, in part:

表示他们是叔侄关系，并且由于他们的关系，他们无法在纽约州结婚。他们咨询了一位律师，以确定他们是否可以在美国其他地方合法结婚，并被指引到佐治亚州。2 申请人表示，他和妻子离开纽约前往佐治亚州仅仅是为了结婚，因为佐治亚州承认叔侄之间的婚姻，并且他们一直打算返回纽约居住。 婚姻的法律效力通常由婚礼举行地的法律决定。Loughran v. Loughran, 292 U.S. 216 (1934); Matter of Levine, 13 I. & N. Dec. 244 (BIA 1969); Matter of 4 I. & N. Dec. 610 (A.G. 1952)。然而，这一一般规则存在例外。因此，符合婚礼举行州所有要求的婚姻，如果根据婚姻时一方当事人住所地且双方此后打算定居的州的法律无效，或者如果违反住所地的强烈公共政策，仍可能被视为无效。见 Matter of Zappia, 12 I. & N. Dec. 439 (BIA 1967)。 地区主任引用Matter of Zappia, supra，认定该婚姻在佐治亚州缔结仅仅是为了规避纽约的法定禁令，因此，该婚姻无效，不能为受益人赋予直系亲属身份。 适用的纽约法规《家庭关系法》第5条第3款（McKinney's 1964）部分规定：

In interpreting subdivision 3 of section 5, the court noted that, although the statute declares a marriage between' an uncle and niece to be incestuous and void, the statute by its express terms did not regulate a marriage solemnized in another State where it was legal. 305 N.Y. at 491. While it is true that the marriage in May involved an uncle and niece of the Jewish faith, the New York courts have not so limited the decision, and we are of the opinion that its reasoning applies equally well to the present case. See Inc re Estate of Suffer, 39 A.D.2d 691, 241 N.Y.S.2d 681 •(1963); Campion v. Campione, 201 Misc.' 590, 107 N.Y. S.2d 170 (1951); 1933 Op. N.Y. A.G. 83. Matter of Zappia, supra, relied upon IT the district director, may be distinguished on the ground that -there the statute in question expressly declared incestuous a mar- riage between residents of Wisconsin contracted in another State for the purpose of evading statutory prohibitions. ',It appears that an out-of-state marriage entered into by an uncle and niece who are residents of the State of New York does not violate the public policy of that State, and will be recognized as valid in New York. We therefore disagree with the district director's interpretation of the applicable New York law. The appeal will be sustained and the record will be remanded in order that the district director may determine if the marriage between the petitioner and the beneficiary is bona Me. See Matter of Phillis, 15 I. & N. Dee. 385 1976). ORDER: The appeal is sustained and the record is remanded to the district clirec;or for further proceedings consistent with the above opin- ion.

在解释第5条第3款时，法院指出，尽管该法规宣布叔侄之间的婚姻为乱伦且无效，但该法规的明确条款并未规范在另一州合法举行的婚姻。305 N.Y. at 491。虽然May案中的婚姻涉及犹太信仰的叔侄，但纽约法院并未如此限制该判决，我们认为其推理同样适用于本案。见In re Estate of Suffer, 39 A.D.2d 691, 241 N.Y.S.2d 681 (1963); Campion v. Campione, 201 Misc. 590, 107 N.Y.S.2d 170 (1951); 1933 Op. N.Y. A.G. 83。地区主任所依赖的Matter of Zappia, supra，可以区分，因为在该案中，相关法规明确宣布威斯康星州居民为逃避法定禁令而在另一州缔结的婚姻为乱伦。 看来，纽约州居民的叔侄在州外缔结的婚姻不违反该州的公共政策，并将在纽约被认定为有效。因此，我们不同意地区主任对适用纽约法律的解释。 上诉将获支持，案件记录将发回，以便地区主任确定申请人和受益人之间的婚姻是否真实。见Matter of Phillis, 15 I. & N. Dec. 385 (1976)。 命令：上诉获支持，案件记录发回地区主任，按照上述意见进行进一步程序。