domiciles, occupations, and educational attainments. The notification of marriage also contains a provision for listing the place and date of marriage ceremony (religious), and whether or not the requisite medical certificate was exchanged by the parties prior to the marriage ceremony. The consular certificate attached to the notification of marriage recites, in part, that:

I *** do herby certify that the annexed copy of the notification of marriage of MR and K-K- is a true and faithful copy of the original, a duplicate of which is on file in this office, ***. I further certify that the original of the said notification of marriage, was submitted in accordance with article 739 of the Japanese Civil Code and is attested by receipt No. 3365, dated January 25, 1952, retained in the archives of the Nihombashi Branch of the Chuo Ward Office, Tokyo, Japan.

I further certify that the acceptance by the ward office of the said notification of marriage constituted the lawful registration of the marriage between MR—

and K———— K————, in accordance with the provisions of article 739 of the Japanese Civil Code.

It is noted that the foregoing notification of marriage contemplates that a prior marriage ceremony had been performed. In this connection, Service file no. 56323/921 contains a copy of an operations memorandum dated November 8, 1950, from the supervising consul general, USPOLAD, Tokyo, which reads in part as follows:

It has come to the attention of USPOLAD that in certain visa cases based on approved petitions the marriages in question were not registered by the appropriate above Japanese authorities prior to the departure of the American-citizen spouse for the United States. It appears from the petitions that the marriages were performed by Japanese or christian ceremony and it is believed that most if not all of them were contracted in good faith without intent of fraud.

In view of the fact that the approval of these petitions is based upon the enactment by Congress of laws which waive racial restrictions in the cases of the beneficiaries, and in view of the fact that in instant cases the American-citizen spouse is no longer connected with the occupation, this office perceives no objection to assisting the couple concerned upon the notarized request of the Americancitizen spouse, in registering their marriage, which registration, it is understood, may be accomplished under Japanese law even though one party to the marriage contract be abroad.

The quoted operations memorandum also recites the type of affidavits which may be submitted to have a marriage registered, and indicates the action to be taken by consular officers. It must be borne in mind that this procedure was designed for the purpose of obtaining the registration of a prior marriage ceremony, in order to effect legalization of the previous marriage.

In the instant case the notification of marriage expressly recites that no prior marriage ceremony had been entered into by the parties. In a letter addressed to the district director of this Service at Los Angeles, Calif., dated March 5, 1952, the petitioner stated that he was "rotated to the United States from Japan before I could get married." After

his return to the United States, the petitioner made inquiry about returning to Japan for the purpose of being married before the expiration date of Public Law 717, 81st Congress, as extended by said Public Law 6. Under date of December 21, 1951, petitioner was advised by a consular officer, in part, as follows:

It may be possible for this office to register your marriage with the appropriate Japanese authorities without your returning to Japan. I am therefore inviting your fiancee to call at this office at her earliest convenience to obtain for forwarding to you, the documents required for an "absentee" marriage.

Thereafter the beneficiary furnished the petitioner with the necessary forms for the purpose of effecting their marriage, which the petitioner filled out and returned to her. Such documents included an affidavit of nonimpediment to marriage, a marriage data sheet, and notification of marriage. The record shows that the petitioner stated to a representative of this Service, on March 17, 1952, that he was not married by ceremony prior to the absentee marriage.

Under the circumstances recited above, the notification of marriage filed by the petitioner and the beneficiary did not constitute confirmation of a prior ceremonial marriage as contemplated by the proceedings. Such notification did not legalize a prior marriage of the parties. It assumed the character of a proxy marriage, which has not been consummated by cohabitation of the parties, and, therefore, may not be recognized for purposes of the Immigration Act of 1924, as amended.

On the record, it is concluded that the petitioner has failed to establish that he was lawfully married to the beneficiary as alleged in the petition, within the contemplation of section 4 (a) of the Immigration Act of 1924, as amended. Therefore, the petition should be denied.

Order: It is ordered that the petition of M-R- for issuance of an immigration visa to KKR under the provisions of Section 4 (a) of the Immigration Act of 1924, as amended, be denied.

BEFORE THE BOARD

(October 2, 1952)

Discussion: This case presents an appeal from an order entered by the Assistant Commissioner on May 9, 1952, directing that the petition of MR for issuance of an immigration visa to KK-R― under the provisions of section 4 (a) of the Immigration Act of 1924, as amended, be denied.

The petitioner, Sergeant MR, in a letter written in Tokyo, Japan, on August 26, 1952, advised this Board that he and his wife, K▬▬▬▬▬ K▬▬▬▬▬ R-(beneficiary of the aforementioned petition) had been living together as man and wife since his return to Japan during

the summer of 1952. The petitioner advised that he only had 4 weeks remaining before he must return to his organization in the United States and he requested that his wife's visa petition be given immediate approval so that she will be able to return to the United States with him.

Attached to the petitioner's letter is a self-explanatory affidavit executed and sworn to before the United States vice consul in Tokyo, Japan, by the petitioner and the proposed beneficiary on August 26, 1952. In addition to the foregoing, the petitioner submitted a copy of his orders issued on July 26, 1952, at headquarters of the United States Army Hospital, Camp Cooke, Calif., the contents of which are self-explanatory and need not be discussed in this opinion. In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the appeal and enter the following order.

Order: It is ordered that the appeal be sustained and the visa petition be approved.

IN THE MATTER OF RG

In DEPORTATION Proceedings

A-7398042

Decided by Hearing Officer May 21, 1952

Approved by Board August 7, 1952

Suspension of deportation, economic detriment-Section 19 (c) (2) of the Immigration Act of 1917, as amended-Exercise of discretion.

(1) The exercise of the discretionary power to grant suspension of deportation pursuant to section 19 (c) of the Immigration Act of 1917, as amended, is not warranted in the case of a native and citizen of Cuba, who recently arrived in the United States in 1948 and whose husband, a native and citizen of Cuba, resides there, even though she has a dependent, native-born United States citizen child.

BEFORE THE HEARING OFFICER

(May 21, 1952)

Discussion: This record relates to a 23-year-old married female, a native and citizen of Cuba, whose only entry into the United States occurred at the port of Miami, Fla., by plane, on March 7, 1948, at which time she was admitted as a visitor under section 3 (2) of the Immigration Act of 1924 for a temporary period until April 6, 1948. That entry has been verified. She has testified that at the time of entry it was her intention to return to Cuba prior to expiration of her temporary admission. As a consequence of her meeting her present spouse, she has remained here continuously although she never applied for nor received an extension of her temporary admission. As of record, she was a bona fide visitor at the time of entry; such entry was a lawful one. Having remained beyond the period of her lawful admission, she is now amenable to deportation under the Immigration Act of 1924.

The record shows that the alien was legally married on June 11, 1948, to a native and citizen of Cuba who has resided in Cuba ever since about October 18, 1950. They have one minor citizen child who is residing with the respondent. The respondent is employed as an armhole baster, earning $50 to $60 a week; her assets consist of $500 which includes amount in bank and $1,000 in general assets. She testified that her husband, who is residing in Cuba, has been ill and

unemployed. It is the respondent's allegation that the child is wholly and completely dependent upon her for support. Upon the basis of the foregoing, the record supports the respondent's allegation that her deportation would result in a serious economic detriment to her citizen minor child.

A check of the appropriate local and Federal records has failed to reveal an arrest. Inquiry has disclosed membership by the respondent in the Amalgamated Clothing Workers Union, and, through such membership, she has become party to an insurance policy on which she pays $10 a year. The respondent was unable to disclose the name of the carrier of this alleged insurance. She has, however, denied any membership in the International Workers order. She has produced affidavits of witnesses sufficient to establish that she has been a person of good moral character since her arrival in the United States.

The record discloses that the respondent has no close family in the United States other than her daughter; her husband is residing in Cuba. She alleges that he is endeavoring to make application for an immigration visa for permanent residence.

Suspension of deportation is a form of relief which is discretionary in its nature; it may not be claimed as a matter of right. In view of the respondent's comparatively short residence in the United States, her husband's presence in Cuba, it is believed that suspension of deportation is not warranted in the present matter.

The alien has established her eligibility for voluntary departure and that relief is the maximum which will be granted to her as a matter of administrative discretion. To assure compliance with the grant of this privilege, deportation will be directed to follow in the event the alien fails to avail herself promptly of the grant of voluntary departure.

Findings of Fact as to Deportability: On the basis of all the evidence in the case, it is found that:

(1) The respondent is an alien, a native and citizen of Cuba. (2) The respondent's only entry into the United States occurred

at the port of Miami, Fla., by plane, on March 7, 1948, at which time she was admitted as a visitor under section 3 (2) of the Immigration Act of 1924 for a temporary period not to exceed April 6, 1948.

(3) Although the respondent never applied for or received an extension of her temporary admission, she has remained here continuously and for a longer time than permitted.

Conclusion of Law as to Deportability: On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, it is concluded:

(1) That under sections 14 and 15 of the Immigration Act of May 26, 1924, the respondent is subject to deportation on the ground

260397-54- -43