Administrative precedent · Family immigration
Matter of W–
8 I&N Dec. 16 (BIA 1958)
The applicant and her two minor children, natives of the Philippines, sought adjustment of status under section 245 and nonquota status based on the applicant's California marriage to a U.S. citizen after a Mexican 'mail order' divorce. The decision held that California courts ordinarily do not recognize in absentia Mexican divorces, so the applicant was not legally free to marry; the marriage was invalid for immigration purposes, the children could not qualify as stepchildren, and the appeal was dismissed.
Rule cited
An applicant for adjustment under section 245 bears the burden of establishing eligibility; where the prior marriage was terminated only by a Mexican in absentia divorce not ordinarily recognized by California courts, the applicant was not legally free to marry and cannot establish nonquota status as the spouse of a U.S. citizen, nor can the children qualify as stepchildren.
Scope of application
Applies to immigration cases involving a subsequent California marriage after a Mexican in absentia ('mail order') divorce; the rule depends on recognition by the courts of the jurisdiction where the subsequent marriage was performed and is not a nationwide rule.
Official citation and verification records
Checked：2026-11-04 · Official decision source
- 第6章 - 配偶
[^ 51] See Matter of P- , 4 I&N Dec. 610 (A.G. 1952). See Matter of W– (PDF) , 8 I&N Dec. 16 (BIA 1958) (California courts did not ordinarily recognize Mexican mail order divorces, and so divorce was not valid for immigration purposes as the applicant was not legally free to marry.). See Matter of Hosseinian (PDF) , 19 I&N Dec. 453 (BIA 1987).
- https://www.justice.gov/eoir/dhs-aao-ins-decisions
W- , 8 I&N Dec. 16 (A.C. 1958) DD & R.C. affirmed (PDF)
The records identify official use of the cited rule. A partial reversal, statutory amendment or controlling court ruling may affect its scope.
Complete reference translation, organized by original page and paragraph. Headings, citations and footnotes are retained. The English document is the official text.
Original page 1
MATTER OE W
事项 OE W
In SECTION 245 Proceedings
在 SECTION 245 程序中
A-10465765 A-10469442 A-10465763
A-10465765 A-10469442 A-10465763
Decided by Regional Commissioner February 18, 1958 Approved by Assistant Commissioner November 8, 1958
由区域专员于1958年2月18日裁定 由助理专员于1958年11月8日批准
Nonquota status—Eligibility as spouse of United States citizen—Mexican "mail order" divorce not recognized in California.
非配额身份——作为美国公民配偶的资格——墨西哥“邮购”离婚在加利福尼亚州不被承认。
Applicant for adjustment of status under section 245 of the 1952 act has not established claim to nommota status through California marriage to United States citizen spouse where applicant's prior marriage was terminated by Mexican "mail order" divorce not ordinarily recognized as valid by California courts. (Matter of B—, 5 I. & N. Dec. 659, and Matter of P—, 4 I. & N. Dec. 610. distinguished.)
根据1952年法案第245条申请调整身份的申请人，未能通过与美国公民配偶在加利福尼亚州的婚姻确立非配额身份的主张，因为申请人的先前婚姻系由墨西哥“邮购”离婚终止，而该离婚通常不被加利福尼亚州法院认定为有效。 （Matter of B—, 5 I. & N. Dec. 659, 与 Matter of P—, 4 I. & N. Dec. 610. 相区别。）
BEFORE THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER
在区域专员面前
Discussion: This matter comes forward on appeal from an order of the District Director, San Francisco, dated November 1, 1957, denying subjects' applications for adjustment of status from non- immigrants to that of persons lawfully admitted for permanent resi- dence, as provided for under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The denial was predicated on a finding that the appellants were not entitled to classification as nonquota immi- grants and that quota immigrant visas were not immediately avail- able to the appellants at the time the applications were filed, as the quota of the Philippines to which they were chargeable was then oversubscribed. The facts are not in dispute. The appellants are a 35-year-old female, hereinafter called "the applicant," and her 2 minor sons, 12 and 16 years of age. All are natives and citizens of the Philippines. They last entered the United States at Honolulu, T.H., on June 10, 1955, at which time they were admitted as nonimmigrant visitors un- der section 101(a)(15) (B) for a period expiring on September 30, 1955. On September 15, 1955, they applied under section 248 for changes in their nonimmigrant classification, and on October 6, 1955, they were reclassified as nonimmigrant students under section 101(a) (15) (F). Until the filing of the current applications they
讨论：本事项因旧金山地区主任1957年11月1日的命令而上诉至此，该命令拒绝了当事人根据《移民与国籍法》第245条规定提出的从非移民身份调整为合法获准永久居民身份的申请。拒绝的依据是认定上诉人无权被归类为非配额移民，并且在申请提交时，配额移民签证不能立即提供给上诉人，因为他们应归属的菲律宾配额当时已超额认购。 事实并无争议。上诉人为一名35岁女性，以下称为“申请人”，及其2名未成年儿子，分别为12岁和16岁。所有人均为菲律宾本地人和公民。他们最后一次进入美国是在1955年6月10日于檀香山，T.H.，当时他们根据第101(a)(15)(B)条被接纳为非移民访问者，期限至1955年9月30日届满。1955年9月15日，他们根据第248条申请变更其非移民分类，并于1955年10月6日根据第101(a)(15)(F)条被重新分类为非移民学生。在提交当前申请之前，他们
16
16
Original page 2
have maintained their nonimmigrant status, having been granted several extensions, the last expiring on September 30, 1957. On October 5, 1941, the applicant married S—D--- in Manila. Her 2 minor sons are the issue of this marriage. While residing in California the applicant filed an action for divorce in the First Civil Court of the Bravos District, State of Chihuahua, Mexico, on the grounds of separation and incompatibility. The decree, dated September 6, 1956, purports to grant an absolute divorce, but neither the petitioner nor her husband had ever been in Mexico. She thus obtained a "mail order" divorce. On December 19, 1956, the ap- plicant purported to marry I) L—W—, a. ritiren of the United States, in a marriage ceremony performed in San Francisco, California. In the instant proceeding the applicant claims eligibility for nonquota status under section 101(a ) (27) (A) as the spouse of a United States citizen and her sons claim eligibility under the same section as stepchildren. If it is determined that the marriage on which these applications are predicated is valid, the subjects would appear to qualify for nonquota status as they had all been in the United States for a year prior to acquiring that alleged status. A finding that the quota of the Philippines u-a.s ovea,ubacribed at the time the current applications were filed is not contested. If it is determined that the "mail order" divorce obtained in Mexico was void in law, such impediment of this prior existing marital status would invalidate the principal applicant's subsequent marriage to D—W---. Such is the issue to be resolved in con- nection with this appeal. In these proceedings the burden is upon the applicants to establish the eligibility for the benefits sought or the status claimed. The record establishes that neither the parties to the first mar- riage nor the marital res of that marriage were ever in Mexico. Whether such in absentia divorce precludes, for immigration pur- poses at least, the validity of a subsequent marriage, depends on the recognition accorded it by the jurisdiction wherein the subse- quent marriage was performed (Matter of P—, 56324/762, 4 I & N. Dec. 610, which modified a prior holding in Matter of 0—, A-6345409, VP-374571, 3 I. & N. Dec. 33, that no divorce decree obtained in absentia would be valid for immigration purposes). The Courts of California, the State in which the subsequent mar- riage woe performed, have generally refused to recognize in absentia Mexican divorces where the facts were as in the instant case (Ryder v. Ryder, 37 P.2d 1069; Muir v. United States, 93 F. Supp. 939 (1950)). Matter of B—, VP 13-3521, 5 I. & N. Dec. 659, and Matter of P , 56324/762, 4 I. & N. Dec. 610, cited by counsel in support of
一直维持其非移民身份，并已获得数次延期，最后一次于1957年9月30日届满。 1941年10月5日，申请人在马尼拉与S—D---结婚。她的2名未成年儿子系该婚姻所生。在居住在加利福尼亚州期间，申请人以分居和不和为由，向墨西哥奇瓦瓦州布拉沃斯区第一民事法院提起离婚诉讼。该判决日期为1956年9月6日，声称准予绝对离婚，但请愿人及其丈夫均从未到过墨西哥。她因此获得了一项“邮购”离婚。1956年12月19日，申请人声称在加利福尼亚州旧金山举行的结婚仪式上与I) L—W—，一名美国公民结婚。 在本程序中，申请人主张根据第101(a)(27)(A)条作为美国公民配偶享有非配额身份的资格，其儿子们主张根据同一条款作为继子女享有资格。如果确定这些申请所依据的婚姻有效，当事人似乎有资格获得非配额身份，因为他们在获得该所称身份之前均已在美居住一年。关于当前申请提交时菲律宾配额已超额认购的认定未被争辩。 如果确定在墨西哥获得的“邮购”离婚在法律上无效，则此种先前现存婚姻状况的障碍将使主要申请人随后与D—W---的婚姻无效。此即本上诉中需解决的问题。在这些程序中，申请人负有证明其有资格获得所寻求利益或所主张身份的举证责任。 记录证明，第一次婚姻的双方当事人及该婚姻的婚姻住所均从未在墨西哥。此种缺席离婚是否至少在移民目的上排除后续婚姻的有效性，取决于后续婚姻举行地司法管辖区对其给予的承认（Matter of P—, 56324/762, 4 I & N. Dec. 610，该案修改了Matter of 0—, A-6345409, VP-374571, 3 I. & N. Dec. 33中先前的裁定，即任何缺席获得的离婚判决在移民目的上均无效）。 后续婚姻举行地加利福尼亚州的法院，在事实如本案的情况下，一般拒绝承认墨西哥的缺席离婚（Ryder v. Ryder, 37 P.2d 1069; Muir v. United States, 93 F. Supp. 939 (1950)）。 Matter of B—, VP 13-3521, 5 I. & N. Dec. 659, 和 Matter of P , 56324/762, 4 I. & N. Dec. 610, 由律师援引以支持
17
17
Original page 3
his position, are readily distinguishable. In the former, the plaintiff- wife was physically in Mexico, the defendant-husband consented to the divorce proceedings and was represented by counsel. In the latter, the parties mutually agreed to the institution of the divorce proceedings, the defendant-husband signed a nolo contendere, and the plaintiff-wife was physically in Mexico and there signed the necessary judicial papers for the institution of the divorce pro- ceedings. The applicant for adjustment under section 215 has the burden of establishing he eligibility. Since the California courts deny recognition to Mexican in absentia divorces such as that present here, it follows that the applicant has failed and is unable to sustain her burden of proving the validity of her marriage. to a United States citizen husband. Similarly, applicant's sons cannot establish that they are the stepsons of a United States citizen. Order: It is ordered that the appeal from the district director's decision denying adjustment under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act be and the same is hereby dismissed.
其立场，但易于区分。在前者中，原告妻子实际在墨西哥，被告丈夫同意离婚程序并由律师代理。在后者中，双方当事人相互同意提起离婚程序，被告丈夫签署了不抗辩书，原告妻子实际在墨西哥并在那里签署了提起离婚程序所需的司法文件。 根据第215条申请调整身份的申请人负有证明其资格的举证责任。由于加利福尼亚州法院拒绝承认诸如本案所存在的墨西哥缺席离婚，因此申请人未能且无法履行其证明其与美国公民丈夫婚姻有效的举证责任。同样，申请人的儿子们无法证明他们是美国公民的继子女。 命令：兹命令，对地区主任根据《移民与国籍法》第245条拒绝调整身份的决定提出的上诉，予以驳回。
18
18
