Matter of Chang

Interim Decision #2294

临时决定第2294号

The lawful permanent resident petitioner applied for preference status for the beneficiary as his adopted son under section 203(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. In a decision dated August 1, 1973, the District Director approved the visa petition, after concluding that an adoption had taken place under the law of Burma and that such adoption was sufficient for the purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The District Director has certified his decision to us pursuant to 8 CFR 3.1(c). We will reverse the decision of the District Director and deny the visa petition. The petitioning father claims that he and his wife, both natives of Chin; adopted the beneficiary in Burma in 1950 according to Chinese customary law. The petitioner and his wife apparently exchanged one of their own daughters for the beneficiary in order that they might have a son to carry on the family line. After the exchange, the beneficiary was raised as a son of the petitioner and his wife. No adoption papers were exchanged, nor were the authorities in Burma notified of the adoption.

合法永久居民申请人根据《移民与国籍法》第203(a)(2)条为受益人申请作为其养子的优先地位。在1973年8月1日的决定中，地区主任在认定根据缅甸法律已发生收养且该收养对于《移民与国籍法》的目的而言足够后，批准了签证申请。地区主任根据8 CFR 3.1(c)将其决定提交给我们认证。我们将撤销地区主任的决定并拒绝签证申请。 申请父亲声称，他和他的妻子（均为中国本土出生）于1950年根据中国习惯法在缅甸收养了受益人。申请人和他的妻子显然用他们自己的一个女儿交换了受益人，以便他们可以有一个儿子延续家族血脉。交换后，受益人作为申请人和其妻子的儿子被抚养。没有交换收养文件，也没有通知缅甸当局该收养。

Interim Decision #2294

临时决定第2294号

The District Director obtained a memorandum of foreign law, dated June 1, 1973, from the Far Eastern Law Division of the Library of Congress. That memorandum sets forth section 13(1) of the Burma Laws Act, Act XIII of 1898, which states:

地区主任从国会图书馆远东法律部获得了日期为1973年6月1日的外国法备忘录。该备忘录载明了1898年第十三号法案《缅甸法律法》第13(1)条，其规定：

Accordingly, the governing law in all cases where the parties concerned are Burmese Buddhists is Burmese Buddhist law. Prior to 1939, it was held that Chinese Buddhists in Burma were not governed by the Burmese Buddhist law, but rather by the per- sonal law of the Chinese, that is, Chinese customary law? How- ever, in 1939 it was held that Burmese Buddhist law could not be varied or overridden by exotic customs or usages. 3 Thereafter, Burmese Buddhist law, not Chinese customary law, has governed the rights of Chinese Buddhists domiciled in Burma. On the basis of the memorandum of Burmese law, the District Director correctly concluded that the present case was not gov- erned by Chinese customary law. He went on, however, to con- clude that an Appatittha adoption had occurred under Burmese Buddhist law and that this adoption was sufficient for the pur- poses of the Immigration and Nationality Act. We disagree with this conclusion. We considered adoption under the Burmese Buddhist law in Matter of Kong, Interim Decision 2275 (BIA 1974). We noted that there are two forms of adoption under Burmese Buddhist law: Kittima adoption, which is similar to the concept of adoption in the United States, and Appatittha adoption, a casual relationship, which does not create substantial rights and obligations between parent and child. An instrument of adoption registered in accordance with Section 5 of the Registration of Kittima Adoptions Act is a prerequisite for the legal validity of a Kittima adoption effected after April 1, 1941. The present adoption was allegedly effected without writing and without notifying the Burmese authorities. We agree with the

因此，在有关当事人为缅甸佛教徒的所有案件中，管辖法律为缅甸佛教法。1939年之前，判例认为缅甸的中国佛教徒不受缅甸佛教法管辖，而受中国人的属人法即中国习惯法管辖？然而，1939年判例认为缅甸佛教法不能由外来习惯或惯例变更或推翻。3 此后，缅甸佛教法而非中国习惯法管辖居住于缅甸的中国佛教徒的权利。 根据缅甸法备忘录，地区主任正确地认定本案不受中国习惯法管辖。然而，他接着认定根据缅甸佛教法发生了Appatittha收养，且该收养对于《移民与国籍法》的目的而言足够。我们不同意这一结论。 我们在Kong案（临时决定第2275号，BIA 1974）中审议了缅甸佛教法下的收养。我们指出，缅甸佛教法下有两种收养形式：Kittima收养，类似于美国的收养概念；以及Appatittha收养，一种随意关系，不在父母与子女之间创设实质性权利和义务。 根据《Kittima收养登记法》第5条登记的收养文书是1941年4月1日之后实施的Kittima收养具有法律效力的先决条件。本案收养据称未采用书面形式且未通知缅甸当局。我们同意

Interim Decision #2294

临时决定第2294号

District Director's conclusion that there could be no Kittima adoption in the present case. We held in Matter of Kong, supra, that an Appatittha adoption is not an adoption for the purposes of the Immigration and National- ity Act. Therefore, even if we assume that the information submit- ted by the petitioner is sufficient to establish an Appatittha adoption, the beneficiary is not entitled to preference status under section 203(aX2) of the Act on the basis of such an adoption. The District Director cited Matter of Poon, Interim Decision No. 2153 (BIA 1972), and Matter of Rodriguez, Interim Decision No. 2195 (BIA 1973), as authority for his conclusion that an Appatittha adoption is sufficient for immigration purposes. Those cases dealt with adoption under Chinese law and custom in Hong Kong and are inapplicable to the present situation. The District Director's conclusion is inconsistent with our holding in Matter of Kong, supra, and therefore it must be reversed. In visa petition proceedings, the petitioner has the burden of establishing eligibility for the benefit conferred by the immigra- tion laws. Matter of Brantigan, 11 L & N. Dec. 493 (BIA 1966). The petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is his adopted son for immigration purposes. Consequently, the visa petition must be denied. ORDER: The decision of the District Director is reversed. Further order: The visa petition is denied.

地区主任关于本案不可能存在Kittima收养的结论。 我们在上述Kong案中认定，Appatittha收养并非《移民与国籍法》目的下的收养。因此，即使我们假定申请人提交的信息足以证明Appatittha收养，受益人亦无权基于此种收养根据该法第203(a)(2)条获得优先地位。 地区主任援引Poon案（临时决定第2153号，BIA 1972）和Rodriguez案（临时决定第2195号，BIA 1973）作为其结论即Appatittha收养对于移民目的而言足够的依据。那些案件涉及香港中国法律和习惯下的收养，不适用于本案情况。地区主任的结论与我们在上述Kong案中的认定不一致，因此必须予以撤销。 在签证申请程序中，申请人负有证明其有资格获得移民法所赋予利益的举证责任。Brantigan案，11 L & N. Dec. 493 (BIA 1966)。申请人未能证明受益人为移民目的下的其养子。因此，签证申请必须被拒绝。 命令：撤销地区主任的决定。 进一步命令：拒绝签证申请。