Administrative precedent · Family immigration
Matter of Brantigan
11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966)
A U.S. citizen petitioner sought nonquota status for his Philippine spouse but failed to prove legal termination of his prior marriage, relying only on a California presumption of validity for his subsequent ceremonial marriage. The Board of Immigration Appeals held that the burden of proof rests with the petitioner and that the presumption was insufficient to establish a valid marriage, but reopened proceedings to allow sworn inquiry into the first wife's absence and the petitioner's efforts to contact her.
Rule cited
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proof to establish eligibility for the benefit sought rests with the petitioner; reliance on a state-law presumption of validity for a ceremonial marriage is insufficient to prove legal termination of a prior marriage and thus cannot satisfy the burden of proving a valid marriage.
Scope of application
Applies to visa petition proceedings where the petitioner bears the burden of proving spousal eligibility and marriage validity; this is a BIA administrative precedent, not a court decision, and does not constitute nationwide judicial precedent.
Official citation and verification records
Checked：2026-11-04 · Official decision source
- 第8章 - 裁定
[^ 2] See Matter of Brantigan (PDF) , 11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966).
- 第2章 - 资格要求与证据
[^ 11] This means that if an alien seeking a benefit has not shown eligibility, the officer should deny the application. The government is not called upon to make any showing of ineligibility until the alien has first shown that he or she is eligible. See Matter of Brantigan (PDF) , 11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966). In Matter of Cheung (PDF) , 12 I&N Dec. 715 (BIA 1968), the Board specified that the burden remains with the petitioner in revocation proceedings to establish that the beneficiary qualifies for the benefit sought under the immigration laws, a principle which was reaffirmed in Matter of Estime (PDF) , 19 I&N Dec. 450 (BIA 1987) and Matter of Ho (PDF) , 19 I&N Dec. 582 (BIA 1988).
- 第4章 - 提交申请的要求
[^ 14] See Matter of Brantigan (PDF) , 11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966).
- 第5章 - 裁定
[^ 12] See INA 291 . See Matter of Brantigan (PDF) , 11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966).
- 第8章 - 裁定
[^ 6] See INA 291 . See Matter of Brantigan (PDF) , 11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966). See Volume 1, General Policies and Procedures, Part E, Adjudications, Chapter 4, Burden and Standards of Proof [ 1 USCIS-PM E.4 ].
- 第9章 - 裁定
[^ 15] See INA 291 . See Matter of Brantigan (PDF) , 11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966). See Volume 1, General Policies and Procedures, Part E, Adjudications, Chapter 4, Burden and Standards of Proof [ 1 USCIS-PM E.4 ].
- 第5章 - 裁定
[^ 1] See INA 291 . See Matter of Brantigan (PDF) , 11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966). See Volume 1, General Policies and Procedures, Part E, Adjudications, Chapter 4, Burden and Standards of Proof, Section A, Burden of Proof [ 1 USCIS-PM E.4(A) ].
- 第6章 - 配偶
[^ 95] See Matter of Brantigan (PDF) , 11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966). See 8 CFR 245.1(c)(8)(iii) and 8 CFR 204.2(a)(1)(iii) .
- 第9章 - 裁定
[^ 2] See Matter of Brantigan (PDF) , 11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966).
- 第5章 - 裁定
[^ 2] See Matter of Brantigan (PDF) , 11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966).
- 第4章 - 文件与证据
[^ 1] See INA 291 . See Matter of Brantigan (PDF) , 11 I&N Dec. 453 (BIA 1966). See Matter of Phillis (PDF) , 15 I&N Dec. 385 (BIA 1975) (burden of proof to establish eligibility for the benefit sought lies with the petitioner). See Matter of Chawathe (PDF) , 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010). The preponderance of the evidence standard of proof, however, does not apply where a higher standard is specified by law (such as, the “clear and convincing evidence” standard). For more information on the burden or standard of proof, see Volume 1, General Policies and Procedures, Part E, Adjudications, Chapter 4, Burden and Standards of Proof [ 1 USCIS-PM E.4 ].
- https://www.justice.gov/eoir/dhs-aao-ins-decisions
Brantigan , 11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1965) (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
Interim Decision #1553
临时决定第1553号
Warta OF BRANTIGAN
Warta OF BRANTIGAN
In Visa Petition Proceedings
在签证申请程序中
A-14680158
A-14680158
Decided by Board February 8, 1966
1966年2月8日由委员会决定
ru vigil petition Proceedings the burden of proof to establish eligibility for the benefit sought rests with the petitioner, and in the absence of proof of the legal termination of a U.S. citizen petitioner's prior marriage, reliance on the presumption of validity accorded by California law to his subsequent ceremonial marriage in that State to beneficiary is not satisfactory evidence of the termination of his prior marriage and is insufficient by itself to sus- tain petitioner's burden of proof of a valid marriage on which to accord beneficiary nonquota status.
在签证申请程序中，证明符合所寻求福利资格的举证责任由申请人承担，并且在缺乏美国公民申请人的先前婚姻已合法终止的证明的情况下，依赖加利福尼亚州法律赋予其在该州随后与受益人举行的仪式婚姻的有效性推定，并非其先前婚姻已终止的令人满意的证据，且其本身不足以维持申请人对有效婚姻的举证责任，而该有效婚姻是给予受益人非配额身份的依据。
The case comes forward on motion of counsel that the Board re- open the proceedings and reconsider its decision rendered on October 28, 1965. The record relates to a native of the Philippines, a naturalized citizen of the United States, who seeks nonquota status on behalf of the beneficiary, a native and citizen of the Philippines. The parties were married on February 28, 1065 at San Francisco,
本案因律师动议而提呈，请求委员会重新开启程序并重新考虑其于1965年10月28日作出的决定。 记录涉及一名菲律宾本地人，一名美国归化公民，其代表受益人寻求非配额身份，受益人是一名菲律宾本地人和公民。双方当事人于1065年2月28日在旧金山结婚，
In our decision of October 28; 1965 we relied upon the Petition of Sam Boo, 63 F. Supp. 439 (N.D. Cal. S.D., 1945), where the pe- titioner rested on a presumption of validity accorded by California law to his marriage to an American citizen, and the court held that the burden of proof required of an applicant for United States citi- zenship never shifts, found there- was no satisfactory evidence of the dissolution of the prior rharriag,e, and that the presumption of valid- ity was not a sufficient basis upon which to sustain the burden of proving a valid marriage as the basis of a claim to eligibility for citizenship. We held the reliance upon presumption as to the dis- solution of a prior marriage was unsatisfactory evidence of the ter- mination of the prior marriage. We noted that in the event the petitioner instituted an action (of which the Service would be no-
在我们1965年10月28日的决定中，我们依据了Petition of Sam Boo, 63 F. Supp. 439 (N.D. Cal. S.D., 1945)，在该案中，申请人依赖加利福尼亚州法律赋予其与美国公民婚姻的有效性推定，而法院认为，申请美国公民身份所需的举证责任从不转移，认定没有令人满意的证据证明先前婚姻的解除，并且有效性推定不足以作为维持证明有效婚姻的举证责任的基础，而该有效婚姻是主张公民身份资格的依据。我们认为，依赖关于先前婚姻解除的推定是先前婚姻终止的不令人满意的证据。我们指出，如果申请人提起诉讼（服务局将获通知）并获得确认其婚姻有效性的宣告性判决，则将考虑重新开启的动议。
493
493
Original page 2
Interim Decision #1553
临时决定第1553号
tified) and secured a declaratory judgment affirming the validity of - his marriage, a motion to reopen would be entertained. In the present motion counsel indivates that a declaratory judgment in the California courts as to the validity of the marriage cannot be obtained and seeks to differentiate Petition. of Sam Hoo on the ground that the petitioner in that case knew his second wife to be alive within the five-year period antedating his California marriage, that he had no reason to believe her dead when he married his Am- erican wife and that she did not 'die until -the year after such mar- riage took place. . 'While the facts of the cited case are as recited by counsel, the hold- ing of the court appears to go further. The court stated that it may well be the validity M petitioner's California. marriage, if attacked by an interested party, would be sustained under California law be- cause of the presumptions indulged in and recognized by the Cal- ifornia courts. These presumptions clearly find their rationale in the laudable desire to sustain, in the public interest and well being, the stability of the marriage status in matters relating to legitimacy, inheritance, and other relationships growing out of and dependent upon the marital status_ But the burden upon petitioner, when he seeks American citizenship, is different. The presumptions of Cal- ifornia law must give way to the burden of proof required of an applicant for United States citizenship. The court held that the evi- dence as to the validity of petitioner's California marriage was 'not satisfactory; that citizenship is not to be bestowed upon an applicant by stowing that he has indulged in a ceremony of marriage with an American citizen spouse which would leave the door open to fraud if an applicant could rest his case upon a ceremony of marriage in a so-called presumption of validity under California law. The burden of proof never shifts from a petitioner for citizenship to the Gov- ernment and the petitioner must by satisfactory evidence establish the validity of his marriage before he may acquire the valued gift of citizenship. The court overruled a recommendation by the Naturali- zation. Service that the petition be granted and instead denied the petition. In Petition of Lujan, 114 F. Supp. 150 (D.C. Guam, 1956), the petitioner, a citizen and resident of the Philippines, obtained a Mex- ican mail-order divorce from her first husband in 1941 and married her United States citizen husband in 1951. The court held the mail •order Mexican divorce was invalid but the petitioner contended that the court should follow the California law to the effect that the le- gality a. regularly solemnized marriage is presumed and that the
（服务局将获通知）并获得确认其婚姻有效性的宣告性判决，则将考虑重新开启的动议。 在目前的动议中，律师表示无法获得加利福尼亚州法院关于婚姻有效性的宣告性判决，并试图区分Petition of Sam Hoo，理由是：该案中的申请人知道其第二任妻子在其加利福尼亚州婚姻之前的五年期间内仍然在世，他在与其美国妻子结婚时没有理由相信她已经死亡，并且她直到该婚姻发生后的第二年才死亡。 虽然所引案件的 facts 如律师所述，但法院的裁决似乎更进一步。法院指出，如果申请人的加利福尼亚州婚姻受到利害关系方的攻击，由于加利福尼亚州法院所采用和承认的推定，该婚姻的有效性很可能根据加利福尼亚州法律得到维持。这些推定的理由显然在于一种值得称赞的愿望，即为了公共利益和福祉，在涉及合法性、继承以及由婚姻状况产生并依赖于婚姻状况的其他关系的事项中维持婚姻状况的稳定性。但是，当申请人寻求美国公民身份时，其承担的举证责任是不同的。加利福尼亚州法律的推定必须让位于申请美国公民身份所需的举证责任。法院认为，关于申请人加利福尼亚州婚姻有效性的证据不令人满意；公民身份不应通过表明申请人与美国公民配偶举行了结婚仪式而授予申请人，如果申请人可以依赖在加利福尼亚州法律下所谓的有效性推定中的结婚仪式来支持其案件，这将为欺诈敞开大门。举证责任从不从公民身份申请人转移给政府，申请人必须通过令人满意的证据确立其婚姻的有效性，然后才能获得宝贵的公民身份礼物。法院推翻了归化服务局关于批准申请的推荐，反而拒绝了该申请。 在Petition of Lujan, 114 F. Supp. 150 (D.C. Guam, 1956)中，申请人是一名菲律宾公民和居民，于1941年从其第一任丈夫处获得墨西哥邮购离婚，并于1951年与其美国公民丈夫结婚。法院认为墨西哥邮购离婚无效，但申请人主张法院应遵循加利福尼亚州法律，即合法庄严举行的婚姻被推定为有效，并且
494.
494.
Original page 3
Interim Decision #1553
临时决定第1553号
burden of proof is upon him who seeks to attack such marriage, even though such burden might involve the proof of a negative, citing sections, 61 of the California Civil Code and the Guam Civil Code. The court relied upon the holding of Petition of Sara Hoo, supra, and stated that the court was making no attempt to pass upon the validity of the-petitioner's marriage if the question were raised in a different type of proceeding; however, the court held simply that the petitioner had failed to sustain her burden of proof that she was the wife of a United States citizen. 1 In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proof to establish el- igibility sought for the benefit conferred by the immigration laws rests upon the petitioner. Both the prior and present regulations 2 require that if a petition is submitted on behalf of a spouse, it must be accompanied by a certificate of the marriage to the beneficiary and proof of the legal termination of all previous marriages of both spouses. However, we note that the motion encloses an affidavit by petition- er's daughter, now in the United States, regarding the absence of her mother. In order to give the petitioner every opportunity to establish the. validity of his present marriage, we. will reopen the proceedings to permit the daughter to be questioned under oath by a Service officer regarding the absence of her mother; and to as- certain what efforts were made by the petitioner to communicate with his first wife. A written memorandum should accompany the de- cision. ORDER: It is ordered that the proceedings be reopened in ac- cordance with the preceding paragraph and to afford the petitioner every opportunity to establish the validity of his present marriage.
举证责任在于试图攻击该婚姻的人，即使该责任可能涉及证明否定事实，并引用了加利福尼亚州民法典和关岛民法典第61条。法院依据了Petition of Sara Hoo, supra的裁决，并表示法院并未试图在不同类型的程序中提出该问题时对申请人婚姻的有效性作出判断；然而，法院仅认为申请人未能维持其举证责任，即证明她是美国公民的妻子。1 在签证申请程序中，证明符合移民法所赋予福利资格的举证责任由申请人承担。先前和现行的法规2均要求，如果代表配偶提交申请，必须附有与受益人的结婚证书以及双方配偶所有先前婚姻已合法终止的证明。 然而，我们注意到动议附有申请人女儿的宣誓书，她目前在美国，关于其母亲的缺席。为了给申请人一切机会确立其当前婚姻的有效性，我们将重新开启程序，允许服务局官员在宣誓下就她母亲的缺席询问女儿；并查明申请人采取了哪些努力与其第一任妻子联系。决定应附有书面备忘录。 命令：兹命令按照上一段重新开启程序，并给予申请人一切机会确立其当前婚姻的有效性。
2 See also Matter of T—S—Y—, 7 I. & N. Dec. 582. "8 CFR 205.5(b) and 8 CFR 204.2(d) (2).
2 另见Matter of T—S—Y—, 7 I. & N. Dec. 582。 8 CFR 205.5(b)和8 CFR 204.2(d)(2)。
405
405
