Administrative precedent · Family immigration
Matter of Garner
15 I&N Dec. 215 (BIA 1975)
A U.S. citizen petitioned for preference classification for her half sister under section 203(a)(5), but the beneficiary was born out of wedlock and was 23 when legitimated by her father's marriage, so she did not satisfy the 18-year legitimation requirement. The Board of Immigration Appeals held that a claimed brother-sister relationship requires proof that both parties once qualified as children of a common parent under sections 101(b)(1) and (2), and dismissed the appeal.
Rule cited
To support a brother-sister relationship under section 203(a)(5), the petitioner must establish that both the petitioner and the beneficiary once qualified as children of a common parent under sections 101(b)(1) and (2); a child born out of wedlock must be legitimated before age 18 to qualify as a sibling for preference classification.
Scope of application
Applies to BIA adjudication of brother-sister preference petitions under section 203(a)(5); it requires the child and parent definitions in sections 101(b)(1) and (2) to be satisfied first, and expressly overrules the 1955 and 1957 precedents to the extent they held section 101(b)(1) inapplicable to brothers and sisters.
Official citation and verification records
Checked：2026-11-04 · Official decision source
- Chapter 2 - General Eligibility Requirements
[^ 29] See INA 101(b)(1) and INA 101(b)(2) . See Matter of Garner (PDF) , 15 I&N Dec. 215 (BIA 1975) (To support a claimed brother-sister relationship under INA 203(a)(5) , petitioner and beneficiary must have once qualified as children of a common parent as provided in INA 101(b)(1) and INA 101(b)(2) .).
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 #
临时决定编号
M A T T E R O F G A R N E R
GARNER 案
In Visa Petition Proceedings
在签证申请程序中
A-20253948
A-20253948
Decided by Board March 20,1975
由委员会于1975年3月20日决定
(l) The visa petition to classify the beneficiary as a preference immigrant under s 203(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as the sister of the petition; denied by the district director because beneficiary did not meet the definition of' set focth in section 101(b)(1)(C) of the Act. While beneficiary and petitioner we children of a common parent (the father), beneficiary had not been legitimated p her eighteenth birthday. (2> While the term "aster" is not defined in the Act, to support a claimed brother relationship necessary for qualification under section 203(aX5), petitioner ai nefieiary must establish that they once qualified as children of a common par provided in sec. 101(b)(1) and (2) of the Act. (S)Matter o/C—, 6 L & N. Dec 617 (BIA1955) and Matter ofD—M—, 71, & N. I> (BIA1957) are overruled insofar as they hold that the requirements of section 10 of the Act are not applicable to "brothers" and "sisters" under section 203(a)(5) Act.
(1) 依据《移民与国籍法》第203(a)(5)条将受益人归类为申请人的姐妹而作为优先移民的签证申请，因受益人不符合该法第101(b)(1)(C)条所规定的定义而被地区主任拒绝。虽然受益人和申请人是共同父母（父亲）的子女，但受益人在其18岁生日前未被准正。 (2) 虽然“姐妹”一词在该法中未作定义，但为支持第203(aX5)条下资格所需的声称的兄弟姐妹关系，申请人及受益人必须证明他们曾经符合该法第101(b)(1)和(2)条所规定的共同父母的子女资格。 (3) Matter o/C—, 6 L & N. Dec 617 (BIA1955) 和 Matter ofD—M—, 71, & N. I> (BIA1957) 案中认为该法第10条的要求不适用于第203(a)(5)条下的“兄弟”和“姐妹”的裁定，予以推翻。
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: Essel W. Baily, Jr., Esquire Richard M. Wood & Associates 320 North Main Street Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104
代表申请人：Essel W. Baily, Jr. 律师 Richard M. Wood & Associates 320 North Main Street Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104
The United States citizen petitioner applied for preference elas. tion for the beneficiary as her legitimated half sister under si 203(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The district dii denied the petition. The petitioner has appealed from that denial appeal will be dismissed. The petitioner is a legitimate child of her parents. The beneficiar bom out of wedlock to the petitioner's father and a different moth appears from the record that the beneficiary was legitimated und( laws of Great Britain, the place of her father's domicile, by the mai of her parents. However, that marriage took place when the benef was 23 years of age. The district director concluded that the beneficiary could not q as the petitioner's "sister" through their common father becauf beneficiary was illegitimate at birth and had not been legitime
美国公民申请人依据《移民与国籍法》第203(a)(5)条，为受益人作为其经准正的同父异母姐妹申请优先分类。地区主任拒绝了该申请。申请人已对该拒绝提出上诉，上诉将被驳回。 申请人是其父母的婚生子女。受益人系申请人的父亲与另一名母亲非婚所生。记录显示，受益人依据其父亲住所地大不列颠的法律，因其父母的婚姻而获准正。然而，该婚姻发生在受益人23岁时。 地区主任认定，受益人不能通过其共同父亲而符合申请人“姐妹”的资格，因为受益人在出生时为非婚生且未在
215
215
Original page 2
Interim Decision #2357
临时决定编号2357
compliance with the 18-year age requirement of section 101(b)(1)(C) of the Act. Counsel maintains that the requirements of section 101(b)(1)(C) are inapplicable to an alien whose classification as a "sister" is sought under section 203(a)(5) of the Act. The term "sister" is not defined in the Act. However, the term "child" is defined in section 101(b)(1) of the Act. Section 101(b)(1)(C) defines the term "child" as including "a child legitimated under the law of the child's residence or domicile, or under the law of the father's residence or domicile, whether in or outside the United States, if such legitimation takes place before the child reaches the age of eighteen years and the child is in the legal custody of the legitimating parent or parents at the time of such legitimation." The definition of "child" contained in section 101(b)(1) has been applied in determining whether aliens are eligible for preference clas- sification under section 203(a) as "sons or daughters," ' or "brothers or sisters." z It is also applicable in determining whether an individual is a "parent" under section 101(b)(2) of the Act. 3 The application of the section 101(b)(1) definition of "child" in determining whether an indi- vidual qualifies as a "son" or a "daughter" under section 203(a) has been approved in Nasareno v. Attorney General of United States, 336 F. Supp. 1219, affirmed 512 F.2d (D.C. cir. 1975), cert, den. sub norm Nasareno et ai v. Levi, Attorney General, 423 U.S. 832 (1975). In Matter oftteung, 15 I. & N. Dee. 145 (BIA November 25, 1974), we held that in order to support a claimed "brother" or "sister" relation- ship under section 203(a)(5), a petitioner has to establish that both he and the beneficiary once qualified as "children" of a common "parent" within the meaning of sections 101(b)(1) and (2) of the Act. In Matter of Kim, U I. & N. Dec. 561 (BIA 1974), we specifically dealt with the issue of whether a child born out of wedlock who was over the age of 18 years when legitimated by his father could qualify for
符合该法第101(b)(1)(C)条的18岁年龄要求。律师主张，第101(b)(1)(C)条的要求不适用于根据该法第203(a)(5)条寻求被归类为“姐妹”的外国人。 “姐妹”一词在该法中未作定义。但是，“子女”一词在该法第101(b)(1)条中有定义。第101(b)(1)(C)条将“子女”一词定义为包括“根据子女的居住地或住所地法律，或根据父亲的居住地或住所地法律，在美国境内或境外经合法化的子女，如果该合法化发生在子女年满18岁之前，且该子女在合法化时处于合法化父母一方的法定监护之下。” 第101(b)(1)条所载的“子女”定义已被适用于确定外国人是否有资格根据第203(a)条作为“儿子或女儿”'或“兄弟或姐妹”获得优先分类。z 该定义也适用于确定个人是否是该法第101(b)(2)条下的“父母”。3 在确定个人是否有资格根据第203(a)条作为“儿子”或“女儿”时适用第101(b)(1)条的“子女”定义，已在Nasareno v. Attorney General of United States, 336 F. Supp. 1219, affirmed 512 F.2d (D.C. cir. 1975), cert, den. sub norm Nasareno et ai v. Levi, Attorney General, 423 U.S. 832 (1975)一案中获得认可。 在Matter oftteung, 15 I. & N. Dee. 145 (BIA November 25, 1974)一案中，我们裁定，为支持根据第203(a)(5)条主张的“兄弟”或“姐妹”关系，申请人必须证明其本人和受益人均曾符合该法第101(b)(1)和(2)条含义下共同“父母”的“子女”资格。 在Matter of Kim, U I. & N. Dec. 561 (BIA 1974)一案中，我们专门处理了以下问题：非婚生子女在其父亲使其合法化时已超过18岁，是否有资格获得
1 Legitimated was or daughters: Matter of Coker, 24 I. & N. Dec. 621 (BIA 1974); Matter o/JvHama* 14 I. & N. Dec. 435 (BIA 1973); Matter of Amstasiadis, 12 I. & N. Dec. 99 (BIA 19(>7); Matter of Mandemrth, 12 I. & N. Dec. 199 (BIA 1967); Matter of Lauer, 121. &N. Dec. 210 (BIA 1967). Adopted sons or daughters: Matter of Ng, 14 L& N. Dec. 135 (BIA 1972); Matter ofCaramavzava, 121. & N. Dec. 47 (BIA 1967); Matter of Yue, 12 I. & N. Cec. 747 (BIA 1968). Stepsons or stepdaughters: Matter of C - , S I. & N. Dec. 692 (BIA I960); Matter ofPagnerre, 13 I. & N, Dec. 688 (BIA 1971). 3 Legitimated brothers or sisters: Matter of Kim, 14 I. & N. Dec. 561 (BIA 1974); Matter ofVanPamelm, 12 I. & N. Dec. 11 (BIA 1966); Matter ofK-~W~S—, 91. & N. Dec. 396 (BIA 1958,1961; A.G. 1961). Adopted brothers and sisters: Matter of Butterly, 14 I. & N. Dec. 160 (BIA 1973); Matter ofBoghdadi, 12 I. & N. Dec, 666 (BIA 1968); Matter ofFonQ, .10 I. & N. Dee. 497 (BIA 1964). Stepbrothers or stepsisters: Matter of Heung, 151. & N. Dee, 145 (BIA November 25,1974), overruling Matter of Campbell, 13 I. & N. Dec. 652 (BIA 1970). 3 Matter of PoVdoro. 12 I. & N. Dee. 353 (BIA 1967); Matter of Schaad, 101. & N. Dec. 555 (BIA 1964).
1 婚生子女或女儿：Matter of Coker, 24 I. & N. Dec. 621 (BIA 1974)；Matter o/JvHama* 14 I. & N. Dec. 435 (BIA 1973)；Matter of Amstasiadis, 12 I. & N. Dec. 99 (BIA 19(>7)；Matter of Mandemrth, 12 I. & N. Dec. 199 (BIA 1967)；Matter of Lauer, 121. &N. Dec. 210 (BIA 1967)。收养的儿子或女儿：Matter of Ng, 14 L& N. Dec. 135 (BIA 1972)；Matter ofCaramavzava, 121. & N. Dec. 47 (BIA 1967)；Matter of Yue, 12 I. & N. Cec. 747 (BIA 1968)。继子或继女：Matter of C - , S I. & N. Dec. 692 (BIA I960)；Matter ofPagnerre, 13 I. & N, Dec. 688 (BIA 1971)。3 婚生兄弟或姐妹：Matter of Kim, 14 I. & N. Dec. 561 (BIA 1974)；Matter ofVanPamelm, 12 I. & N. Dec. 11 (BIA 1966)；Matter ofK-~W~S—, 91. & N. Dec. 396 (BIA 1958,1961; A.G. 1961)。收养的兄弟和姐妹：Matter of Butterly, 14 I. & N. Dec. 160 (BIA 1973)；Matter ofBoghdadi, 12 I. & N. Dec, 666 (BIA 1968)；Matter ofFonQ, .10 I. & N. Dee. 497 (BIA 1964)。继兄弟或继姐妹：Matter of Heung, 151. & N. Dee, 145 (BIA November 25,1974)，推翻 Matter of Campbell, 13 I. & N. Dec. 652 (BIA 1970)。3 Matter of PoVdoro. 12 I. & N. Dee. 353 (BIA 1967)；Matter of Schaad, 101. & N. Dec. 555 (BIA 1964)。
216
216
Original page 3
Interim Decision #2367
临时决定编号2367
preference classification under section 203(a)(5) as a '"brother" through the paternal relationship. We applied the section 101(b)(1)(C) definition of a legitimated "child" and held that the b'eneficiary was not entitled to preference classification. We are aware of several cases which indicate that the section 101- (b)(1) definition of "child" is not applicable in determining whether a beneficiary qualifies as a "brother" or a "sister" under section 203(a)(5) (formerly section 203(a)(4)). Matter of€~-t 6 I. & N. Dec. 617 (BIA 1955); Matter ofD—M—, 71. & N. Dec. 441 (BIA 1957). Over the years, we have receded from the view expressed in these cases, and we now specifically overrule them insofar as they hold that the requirements set forth in section 101(b)(1) are not applicable to "brothers" or "sisters" under section 203(a)(5). Finally, counsel argues that the beneficiary can qualify as the peti- tioner's stepsister by virtue of the marriage between the petitioner's father and the beneficiary's mother. It is clear, however, that for immi- gration purposes no steprelationship between the petitioner and the beneficiary was created by the marriage, because the beneficiary was beyond the 18-year age requirement of section 101(b)(1)(B) of the Act. Matter of Heung, 15 I. & N. Dec. 145 (BIA November 25, 1974); Matter of Kim, supra. The district director's decision was correct. The appeal will be dis- missed. ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.
依据第203(a)(5)条通过父子关系作为“兄弟”获得优先分类。我们适用了第101(b)(1)(C)条关于经准正“子女”的定义，并裁定受益人无权获得优先分类。 我们注意到若干案例表明，第101(b)(1)条的“子女”定义不适用于确定受益人是否有资格依据第203(a)(5)条（原第203(a)(4)条）作为“兄弟”或“姐妹”。Matter of€~-t 6 I. & N. Dec. 617 (BIA 1955); Matter ofD—M—, 71. & N. Dec. 441 (BIA 1957)。多年来，我们已逐渐背离这些案例所表达的观点，现在我们明确推翻这些案例中认为第101(b)(1)条所载要求不适用于第203(a)(5)条下“兄弟”或“姐妹”的裁定。 最后，律师主张，受益人可因申请人的父亲与受益人的母亲之间的婚姻而符合申请人继姐妹的资格。然而，显而易见的是，就移民目的而言，该婚姻并未在申请人与受益人之间创设继关系，因为受益人已超过该法第101(b)(1)(B)条规定的18岁年龄要求。Matter of Heung, 15 I. & N. Dec. 145 (BIA November 25, 1974); Matter of Kim, supra。 地区主任的决定是正确的。上诉将被驳回。 命令：上诉驳回。
217
217
