Matter of Arenas

MATTER OF ARENAS '

ARENAS案

The United States citizen petitioner applied to have his wife classified as an immeiiate relative under section 201(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act Ilia decision dated August 19, 1974, the district direc- tor denied the petition on the ground that the beneficiary had a prior undissolved marriage at the time she married the petitioner and there- fore her marriage to the petitioner was not valid. The petitioner has appealed. The appeal will be sustained and the record remanded. The beneficiary is a 47-year-old female, who is a native and citizen of Mexico. She married the petitioner in a ceremonial marriage in Texas on March 10, 1972. At that time the beneficiary's first marriage had not been dissolved or otherwise terminated. The petitioner alleges that on May 29, 1974, the beneficiary obtained a divorce, in Mexico, from her first husbani. In determining the validity of a marriage for immigration purposes, the law of the place of celebration of the marriage will generally govern. See e.g., Matter of Moncayo, 14 I. & N. Dec. 472 (BIA 1973); Matter of Lome, 13 1. & N. Dec. 244 (BIA 1969); Matter, of Dagamae, 11 I. & N.

美国公民申请人依据《移民与国籍法》第201(b)条申请将其妻子归类为直系亲属。在1974年8月19日的决定中，地区主任以受益人与其结婚时存在先前未解除的婚姻、因此其与申请人的婚姻无效为由拒绝了该申请。申请人已提出上诉。上诉将获支持，案卷发回。受益人为47岁女性，是墨西哥国民和公民。她于1972年3月10日在德克萨斯州与申请人举行了仪式婚姻。当时受益人的第一次婚姻尚未解除或以其他方式终止。申请人称，1974年5月29日，受益人在墨西哥与其第一任丈夫取得了离婚。在确定婚姻为移民目的的有效性时，一般适用婚姻举行地的法律。参见例如，Matter of Moncayo，14 I. & N. Dec. 472（BIA 1973）；Matter of Lome，13 1. & N. Dec. 244（BIA 1969）；Matter, of Dagamae，11 I. & N.

A marriage is void if either party was married and the prior marriage is not dissolved_ However, the marriage becomes valid when the prior marriage is dissolved if since that time the parties have lived together as husband and wife and represented themselves to others as being married. . -

如果任何一方已婚且先前婚姻未解除，则婚姻无效。但是，当先前婚姻解除后，如果自那时起双方当事人作为夫妻共同居住并向他人表明其为已婚，则该婚姻变为有效。

Our research shows that only one Texas appellate court has interpreted this section. In Caddel v. Caddel, 486 S.W. 2d 141 (Tex. Civ. .App. 1972), the court held that although a marriage would be 'void if either party had a prior undissolved marriage, the secondmarria.ge would be recognized as valid as of the date of the dissolution of the first marriage, provided that the conditions described in the second sentence of section 2.22 are met. With his appeal, the petitioner has submitted an affidavit stating that on May 29, 1974, the beneficiary divorced her former husband, and that sinee the date of the dissolution of the beneficiary's former marriage, he and the beneficiary have lived together as husband and wife. The decree of divorce does not appear in the record, although there is a notation on the Form 1-130 that the decree was seen and returned to the petitioner. An untranslated petition for divorce is included in the record. We conclude that the petitioner's contention is correct that under Texas law, his marriage to the beneficiary would be recognized as valid if, as alleged, the beneficiary has obtained a valid divorce and if she and the petitioner have resided together as husband and wife. Accordingly, we shall sustain the appeal as to the petitioner's contention and remand the record for further proceedings and the entry of a new decision. ORDER: The appeal is sustained and the record remanded for futher proceedings.

我们的研究表明，只有一家德克萨斯州上诉法院解释了该条。在Caddel v. Caddel, 486 S.W. 2d 141 (Tex. Civ. App. 1972)中，法院认为，尽管如果任何一方存在先前未解除的婚姻则婚姻将无效，但第二次婚姻将被认定为自第一次婚姻解除之日起有效，前提是满足第2.22条第二句所述的条件。 随上诉，申请人提交了一份宣誓书，声明1974年5月29日受益人与其前夫离婚，并且自受益人先前婚姻解除之日起，他与受益人作为夫妻共同居住。离婚判决书未出现在记录中，尽管在Form 1-130上有一项注明，表明该判决书已被查看并退还申请人。记录中包含一份未翻译的离婚申请书。 我们得出结论，申请人的主张是正确的，即根据德克萨斯州法律，如其所述，受益人已获得有效离婚且她与申请人作为夫妻共同居住，则其与受益人的婚姻将被认定为有效。因此，我们将就申请人的主张支持上诉，并将记录发回重审以进行进一步程序并作出新决定。 命令：上诉获支持，记录发回重审以进行进一步程序。