VP 13-5406
Decided by the Board January 13, 1954
Visa petition — Preference quota status under section 203(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act — Half brother.
For immigration purposes the relationship of half brother does not exist between legitimate and illegitimate sons of the same father born to different women only one of whom is married to the father. The beneficiary of a visa petition based on such relationship is not eligible for preference quota status under section 203 (a) (4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
BEFORE THE BOARD
Discussion: The case comes forward on appeal from the order dated November 12, 1953, of the district director, San Francisco denying the visa petition on the ground that the beneficiary's parents are not married, that the beneficiary is not the half brother of the petitioner, and that he is not entitled to preference status under section 203 (a) (4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The petitioner, a naturalized citizen of the United States, was born in Portugal of legally married parents. Subsequently, his father left his mother in 1928 and returned to Portugal where he lived with another woman without benefit of matrimony. The beneficiary is the issue of this latter relationship. The case presented therefore is that of 2 persons, 1 legitimate the other illegitimate, having the father as a common parent.
Section 203 (a) (4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act gives preference status to, among others, qualified quota immigrants who are the brothers or sisters of citizens of the United States. He is a brother "of the half blood" to that other (or half brother), when the two are born to the same father by different mothers, or by the same mother to different fathers. However, it is well settled that an illegitimate child draws no benefits insofar as immigration laws are concerned on the basis of its relationship to its father.
Cf. Matter of M----, 0300-433026, Int. Dec. No. 441 (Atty. Gen., 1953) dealing with an illegitimate stepchild.
The common parent in the instant case is the father. Since the beneficiary is an illegitimate son, he derives no recognition for immigration purposes on the basis of his illegitimate relationship. Nor can he do so indirectly upon a claim of kinship to an alleged half brother who is the legitimate son of the common father by the latter's lawful wife. For immigration purposes we do not recognize that there exists the relationship of half brother between legitimate and illegitimate sons of the same father born to different women only one of whom is married to the father. Accordingly, the visa petition should be denied.
This conclusion is reached as a result of the decision in Matter of M----, footnote 2.
Order: It is ordered that the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed.