Matter of Soo Hoo

The case comes forward on appeal from the order of the District Director, New York District, dated January 22, 1965 denying the visa petition for the reason that it has not been established that the adoption of the benficiary was effected in writing in accordance with Article 1079 of the Chinese Civil Code; the mere statement by the petitioner that an adoption certificate has been obtained and lost is merely self-serving and does not overcome the burden of proof resting upon the petitioner. The petitioner, a native of China, a citizen of the-United States by naturalization on June 17, 1963, 53 years old, female, seeks quota preference status under section 203(a) (4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act on behalf of her married adopted son, a native and citizen of China, 27 years old. In a sworn statement before a Service officer on December 9, 1964 the petitioner testified that she adopted the beneficiary in 1938; that her husband was not present at the time of the adoption, having already returned to the United States, but that she obtained his permission before she went through with the adoption. She stated that just prior to the death of the beneficiary's natural mother she asked her to bring up her son, and signed a document giving the son to her. The son was about 12 years old at the time. However, she has stated that the adoption document was lost and that she. has no documentary evidence of the adoption. The petitioner arrived in the United States in 1948 but has never previously mentioned the

本案因纽约地区主任1965年1月22日的命令而上诉，该命令拒绝签证申请，理由是未能证明受益人的收养是依照《中国民法典》第1079条以书面形式完成的；申请人仅声称已获得收养证书并遗失，这仅是利己陈述，不能推翻申请人所承担的举证责任。 申请人，中国本土出生，1963年6月17日归化为美国公民，53岁，女性，为其已婚的养子，中国本土出生和公民，27岁，寻求《移民和国籍法》第203(a)(4)条下的配额优先身份。 在1964年12月9日向移民局官员所作的宣誓陈述中，申请人作证称她于1938年收养了受益人；她的丈夫在收养时不在场，已先返回美国，但她在完成收养前获得了他的许可。她陈述说，就在受益人的生母去世前，她请求她抚养她的儿子，并签署了一份文件将儿子交给她。当时儿子大约12岁。然而，她陈述说收养文件已遗失，她没有收养的文件证据。申请人于1948年抵达美国，但此前从未提及

Interim Decision #1461

临时决定 #1461

existence of this adopted child who was 22 years,old when she left for the United States in 1948. She stated that she and her husband had been contributing to the support of the beneficiary but did not have any check receipts and actually the money was sent to her sister in Hong Kong who changed the money and sent it to her son in the village on the mainland of China. She stated that she introduced the beneficiary as her adopted son to an affiant, Li Jin Chin Yee. In response to a number of leading questions by her attorney in which the answers were suggested and only an affirmative reply was needed, the petitioner indicated that she did not, ention the existence of her adopted son in 1948 when she came to the United. States because she feared complications, she was afraid she would be asked lot of detailed questions regarding her adopted son, and was fear- ful that perhaps some misstatement as to some minor details concern- ing her son, such as when he was born and his physical description br anything of that nature might jeopardize her admission to the United Stales; that no purpose would be served by mentioning the adopted son in 1948 because there was no provision of law under which an adopted son could be brought to the United States; and that in 1963 when she was naturalized she first mentioned her adopted son. The husband of the petitioner was questioned and disclosed that he first entered the United States in 1923 as the son of a citizen of the United States; that he was married September 15, 1987 to the petitioner; that he made a trip to China in 1937 and returned. in 1938; that in 1938, after he returned to the United. States, he con- sented. by return mail to the request by his wife for permission to adopt the beneficiary; that she wrote that she had a document con- cerning the adoption signed by the beneficiary's blood mother. In a subsequent affidavit the-petitioner submitted a picture al- legedly taken in 1948 showing's family group including the benefi- ciary, a letter written in 1961 addressed to "Pa and Ma" thanking them for remittance of $60 and $50, the second letter inclosing a - photograph of the beneficiary and his family, giving the dates of the marriage, and the names and,birth' dates of his wife and their children. It is noted that the addressees in the letter are not identi- fied by name. visa petition proceedings, the petitioner has the burden of estab- lishing eligibility far the benefit sought under the immigration laws. This burden is the ordinary one applicable in civil matters, i.e., a preponderance of the evidence. Section 1079 of the Civil Code of the Republic of China provides that an adoption must be effected in writing, -unless the person to be adopted has been brought up as a

该养子的存在，她1948年前往美国时他22岁。她陈述说她和丈夫一直在资助受益人的生活，但没有支票收据，实际上钱是寄给她在香港的妹妹，妹妹兑换后寄给在中国大陆村庄的儿子。她陈述说她向宣誓证人Li Jin Chin Yee介绍受益人是她的养子。 在回应其律师提出的一系列引导性问题时，答案已被暗示且只需肯定答复，申请人表示她1948年来美国时没有提及养子的存在是因为她担心复杂化，她害怕会被问及关于养子的大量详细问题，并担心也许对关于她儿子的某些次要细节，例如他何时出生及其体貌描述或任何此类性质的错误陈述可能危及她进入美国；1948年提及养子不会有任何目的，因为当时没有法律规定可以将养子带到美国；而在1963年她归化时她首次提及她的养子。 申请人的丈夫被询问并披露他于1923年作为美国公民的儿子首次进入美国；他于1987年9月15日与申请人结婚；他于1937年赴中国旅行并于1938年返回；1938年，在他返回美国后，他通过回信同意妻子请求允许收养受益人；她写信说她有一份由受益人生母签署的关于收养的文件。 在随后的宣誓书中，申请人提交了一张据称1948年拍摄的照片，显示家庭合影包括受益人，一封1961年写给“爸妈”的信感谢他们汇款60美元和50美元，第二封信附有受益人和其家人的照片，给出了结婚日期以及他妻子和孩子的姓名和出生日期。注意到信中收件人未以姓名标识。 在签证申请程序中，申请人有责任根据移民法确立所寻求福利的资格。这一责任是民事事项中适用的普通责任，即证据优势。《中华民国民法典》第1079条规定收养必须以书面形式完成，除非被收养人自婴儿期起即作为收养人的