Matter of Hirabayashi

Interim Decision #1395

临时决定第1395号

The case was originally before us on February 27, 1964 on appeal from the order of the District Director, Chicago District, dated Octo- ber 15, 1963, denying the visa petition for the reasons that the peti- tioner's marriage to the beneficiary is void under the Illinois Revised Statues; Chapter 89, section 1 prohibits marriage between cousins of the first degree and prohibited marriages are void if contracted in another state under Chapter 89, section 19. The petitioner, a native-born citizen of the United States, seeks non- quota status on behalf of the beneficiary, a native and citizen of Japan. The prior marriage of the petitioner was terminated by a decree of divorce on August 6, 1952. The beneficiary was not previously mar- ried. The parties were married on July 12, 1963 at Denver, Colorado. The visa petition indicated that the parties are residents of the State of Illinois and continue to reside in that state. The marriage cer- tificate, showing the marriage of the parties at Denver, Colorado, gives their address as Chicago, Illinois. The parties are cousins of the first degree. Marriage of cousins of the first degree, if contracted in Illinois by residents of that state, is prohibited and such marriages are declared to be incestuous and void under Illinois Revised Statutes, Chapter 89, section.1. Marriage between first cousins is not prohibited under Ar- ticle 9, section 40-9-4 of the Colorado Revised Statutes Annotated, 1953. Chapter 89, section 19 of the Illinois Revised Statutes sets forth

本案最初于1964年2月27日提交本院，系对芝加哥地区主任于1963年10月15日作出的命令提起上诉，该命令驳回签证申请，理由是申请人与受益人之间的婚姻根据《伊利诺伊州修订法规》无效；第89章第1条禁止第一代堂/表兄弟姐妹之间的婚姻，且根据第89章第19条，在其他州缔结的被禁止婚姻无效。 申请人系美国本土出生的公民，为受益人寻求非配额身份，受益人系日本本土出生公民。申请人此前的婚姻已于1952年8月6日经离婚判决终止。受益人此前未曾结婚。当事人于1963年7月12日在科罗拉多州丹佛市结婚。签证申请表明当事人系伊利诺伊州居民并继续居住在该州。显示当事人在科罗拉多州丹佛市结婚的结婚证书载明其地址为伊利诺伊州芝加哥。当事人系第一代堂/表兄弟姐妹。 第一代堂/表兄弟姐妹之间的婚姻，若由该州居民在伊利诺伊州缔结，则被禁止，且根据《伊利诺伊州修订法规》第89章第1条，此类婚姻被宣布为乱伦且无效。根据1953年《科罗拉多州修订法规注释》第9条第40-9-4款，第一代堂/表兄弟姐妹之间的婚姻不被禁止。《伊利诺伊州修订法规》第89章第19条规定了

the Uniform Marriage Evasion Act which states that if any resident of Illinois who continues to reside in Illinois and is prohibited from contracting marriage in Illinois, goes into another state or country and there contracts a marriage prohibited and declared void by the laws of Illinois, such marriage shall be null and void for all purposes in Illi- nois with the same effect as though such prohibited marriage had been entered into in Illinois. In our prior order dated February 27, 1964 in. which we reviewed the general question of validity of marriages incestuous under the law of the place of domicile but not under the law of the place of celebration, in view of 37 Opinions Attorney General 102 (1933), where the At- torney General found that the citizen petitioner did not go to Poland with the intention of marrying his niece and therefore was not subject to the prohibition of Virginia law; and in the light of the new criminal code of Illinois of 1961, effective January 1, 1962, which in Chapter 38, Illinois Revised Statutes, section 11-11 (supplanting previous section 375, Criminal Code 1874) no longer made cohabitation between first cousins the crime of incest, the case was remanded for the purpose of having sworn statements taken from the parties regarding their inten- tion in going to Colorado to contract this marriage and to consider the effect of section 11-11 of the Illinois Criminal Code of 1961. Sworn statements were taken from the petitioner and the beneficiary on April 9, 1964, before an immigration officer. The petitioner testi- fied that he went to Colorado for his present employer to explore the idea of possibly opening an office in Denver, Colorado ; that he knew of the restriction against marriage of first cousins in the State of Illinois; that he took the beneficiary with him on this trip to Denver, Colorado; that they were married there; but that they did not go to the State of Colorado necessarily to avoid the Illinois law but in connec- tion with the business for his employer and that because it was an op- portune time, they decided to get married. The wife likewise testified that her husband had told her that his company's office' branch was going to open in Denver, Colorado and that they might live there and that they went to Colorado to live there and to get married; and al- though she had knowledge from her husband of the Illinois law pro- hibiting first cousin marriages, they did not go there specifically to evade the law but inasmuch as they were there on business and for pos- sible residence they decided to get married. The petitioner testified that at the time he was staying with his father and that he had no lease and if the arrangements about setting up the business in Denver, Colorado had materialized, he could have arranged to have his father send his things out to Colorado, where he had previously resided from 1943 to 1947. The petitioner testified that his work at the Illinois office piled up to such an extent that his employer told him to come

《统一婚姻规避法》，该法规定，若任何伊利诺伊州居民继续居住在伊利诺伊州且被禁止在伊利诺伊州缔结婚姻，前往另一州或国家并在该处缔结伊利诺伊州法律所禁止并宣布无效的婚姻，则该婚姻在伊利诺伊州为一切目的均属无效，其效力与如同该被禁止的婚姻系在伊利诺伊州缔结相同。 在本院1964年2月27日的先前命令中，本院审查了在住所地法律下构成乱伦但在婚礼举行地法律下不构成乱伦的婚姻效力的一般问题，参照37 Opinions Attorney General 102（1933），在该案中司法部长认定公民申请人前往波兰并非意图与其侄女结婚，因此不受弗吉尼亚州法律禁令的约束；并鉴于1961年伊利诺伊州新刑法典（1962年1月1日生效）在《伊利诺伊州修订法规》第38章第11-11条（取代原1874年《刑法典》第375条）中不再将第一代堂/表兄弟姐妹之间的同居定为乱伦罪，本案被发回重审，以取得当事人关于其前往科罗拉多州缔结此婚姻的意图的宣誓陈述，并考虑1961年《伊利诺伊州刑法典》第11-11条的效力。 宣誓陈述于1964年4月9日在一名移民官员面前取自申请人和受益人。申请人作证称，他前往科罗拉多州是为其现任雇主考察在科罗拉多州丹佛市开设办事处的可能性；他知道伊利诺伊州禁止第一代堂/表兄弟姐妹结婚的限制；他带受益人一同前往科罗拉多州丹佛市；他们在该处结婚；但他们前往科罗拉多州并非必然为了规避伊利诺伊州法律，而是与其雇主的业务有关，且因为时机合适，他们决定结婚。妻子同样作证称，其丈夫告诉她，其公司办事处分支机构将在科罗拉多州丹佛市开设，他们可能会居住在那里，他们前往科罗拉多州是为了在那里居住并结婚；尽管她从丈夫处得知伊利诺伊州禁止第一代堂/表兄弟姐妹结婚的法律，但他们并非专门前往该处以规避法律，而是因为他们在该处处理业务并可能居住，他们决定结婚。申请人作证称，当时他与其父亲同住，他没有租约，如果关于在科罗拉多州丹佛市设立业务的安排得以实现，他可以安排其父亲将他的物品寄往科罗拉多州，他此前曾于1943年至1947年居住在该处。申请人作证称，他在伊利诺伊州办事处的工作堆积到如此程度，以致其雇主叫他回

Interim Decision #1395

临时决定第1395号

back and take care of his business and to postpone going back to Den- ver, and that the proposition of opening a new office in Colorado .was still an open one. The petitioner's employer was interviewed on August 7, 1964, and stated that he sent the petitioner to Denver, Colo- rado during the month of July 1963 on business to make a survey to expand the agency but he failed to follow through because he lost two of his technical employees and it was more economical to bring the petitioner back to fill the gap. The evidence establishes that the petitioner and the beneficiary did not go to. Colorado with the primary intention of evading the Illinois statutes prohibiting marriage of cousins of the first degree, thus falling with the purview of 37 Opinions Attorney General 102. Inasmuch as the provisions of section 11-11 of Chapter 58, Illinois Revised Statutes no longer make cohabitation between first cousins a crime, there is no evidence of a strong public policy in the State of Illinois against such marriages which are valid in the place where contracted. The order of the District Director dated August 19, 1961, granting the petition will be approved. ORDER: It is ordered that the order of the District Director dated August 19, 1961, approving the visa petition for nonquota status on behalf of the beneficiary be and the same is hereby approved.

来处理他的业务，并推迟返回丹佛，而在科罗拉多州开设新办事处的提议仍是一个未决事项。申请人的雇主于1964年8月7日接受了面谈，称他于1963年7月派申请人前往科罗拉多州丹佛市出差，进行扩展代理机构的调查，但他未能继续推进，因为他失去了两名技术雇员，而将申请人调回填补空缺更为经济。 证据表明，申请人和受益人前往科罗拉多州并非以规避伊利诺伊州禁止第一代堂/表兄弟姐妹结婚的法规为主要意图，因此属于37 Opinions Attorney General 102的范围。鉴于《伊利诺伊州修订法规》第58章第11-11条的规定不再将第一代堂/表兄弟姐妹之间的同居定为犯罪，没有证据表明伊利诺伊州存在反对此类婚姻的强烈公共政策——此类婚姻在缔结地有效。地区主任1961年8月19日批准该申请的命令将予核准。 命令：兹命令，地区主任1961年8月19日批准为受益人寻求非配额身份的签证申请的命令，予以核准。