VP 5-7802
Decided by District Director July 28, 1952 Decided by Board October 21, 1952
Visa petition — Marriage, invalidity of proxy marriage in Japan.
(1) The registration of a marriage on March 7, 1952, in Japan, when the United States citizen veteran husband was in the United States and wife in Japan, which marriage was not preceded by a Japanese or Christian ceremony, is in the nature of a proxy marriage and is deemed not to be a valid marriage within the contemplation of the act of August 19, 1950 (Public Law 717, 81st Cong.), as amended by the act of March 19, 1951 (Public Law 6, 82d Cong.).
BEFORE THE DISTRICT DIRECTOR
(July 28, 1952)
Discussion: Upon consideration of the entire record it is hereby ordered that the above-entitled application (or petition) be and the same is hereby denied for the following reason or reasons:
The petitioner claims to have married the beneficiary, S---- L----, in Kobe, Japan, on March 7, 1952, by civil ceremony. The petitioner is a member of the United States Army. After his return to the United States from Japan he completed a portion of a form entitled "Notification of Marriage." The form was then mailed to the American Consul, Kobe, Japan, where the beneficiary completed a portion of the form. The American consul then attached to the form a certificate to the effect that the notification of marriage was submitted in accordance with article 739 of the Japanese Civil Code and its acceptance by the ward office constituted lawful registration of the marriage under article 739 of the Japanese Civil Code. Since the signing of such document, the petitioner has remained in the United States and the beneficiary in Japan.
There was no signing or ceremony of any kind performed in the presence of both the petitioner and the beneficiary.
Section 28 (n) of the Immigration Act of 1924 provides that the term "wife" or "husband" does not include a wife or husband by reason of a proxy marriage.
As the circumstances under which this marriage was entered into place it in the class of a proxy marriage, the petition must be denied.
Discussion: This case is before us on appeal from a decision of the district director dated July 28, 1952, denying the visa petition on the ground that the alleged marriage of the petitioner and the beneficiary was in the nature of a proxy marriage.
The visa petition was filed in behalf of S---- L----, the alleged wife of the petitioner, and contains the statement that the marriage occurred on March 7, 1952, at Kobe, Japan. There has been submitted to us a document entitled "Notification of Marriage" dated January 31, 1952. In item 11 of this document reading "Date and place of marriage (religious) ceremony:" which appears separately in the questions to be answered by the groom and by the bride, the place of the marriage is shown as Fort Belvoir, Va., in the groom's portion of the document and no statement was made as to the place of the marriage in the bride's portion of the document. The date of the marriage was left blank in both portions of the document. The document also shows that the notification of marriage was filed and accepted by the director of Ikuta Ward Office, Kobe, Japan, on March 7, 1952. There is attached a certificate by the vice consul of the United States at Kobe, Japan, which contains information that a signed statement by J---- D---- L---- is on file at his office to the effect that he resided in Japan previous to the registration of his marriage; that he was acquainted with S---- U---- during his residence in Japan; and that he initiated his courtship in Japan. During oral argument before this Board the petitioner stated that he became engaged to the beneficiary of the visa petition in May 1949; that they intended to be married but that he was required to depart from Japan on a few days' notice; that he left Japan on November 8, 1951; and that there was no ceremonial marriage prior to his departure from that country.
While the American consul general at Kobe, Japan, informed the petitioner that there have been many similar cases in which the Immigration and Naturalization Service has approved visa petitions, we have made informal inquiry of that Service and have been informed that where there had been a ceremonial marriage and a subsequent registration thereof with the Japanese authorities, visa petitions have been approved and that where there was merely a registration but no prior ceremonial marriage, such visa petitions have been denied.
We note that the Immigration and Naturalization Service issued an instruction on May 26, 1952, File 56323/921, to the effect that ceremonial marriages performed in Japan between members of the United States Armed Forces and Japanese nationals are not valid unless registered in accordance with Japanese law; that such marriages could be registered in Japan after the departure of the United States citizen spouse; and that the registration of a marriage under the procedure mentioned in that instruction was merely a legalization of the ceremonial marriage and was not a proxy marriage within the purview of section 28 (n) of the Immigration Act of 1924. Such marriages are valid as of the effective date of the registration. The decision in Matter of S----, 4 IN Dec. 622, C.O. April 1, 1952, is to the same effect.
Section 28 (n) provides that the term "wife" does not include a wife by reason of a proxy or picture marriage. The purported marriage in the instant case does not appear to be even a proxy marriage but it clearly comes within the type of marriages which Congress was endeavoring to exclude from the category of marriages which would be valid for immigration purposes. In the instant case the only evidence relied upon is the certificate of the consular officer on March 7, 1952 (alleged to be the date of the marriage), at which time the petitioner was in the United States and the beneficiary was in Japan. Clearly, the procedure relied upon is effective only where there was a ceremonial marriage during a time when both parties were in Japan and the only defect in the proceeding was that the marriage had not been registered under the laws of Japan. Here we have only a registration of a purported marriage which in fact did not exist. Under the circumstances, we conclude that the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is his lawful wife. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed.
Order: It is ordered that the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed.