HILAIRE

19 I. & N. Dec. 566

• Court: Board of Immigration Appeals
• Decided: July 1, 1988
• Docket: ID 3048
• Status: Published

Opinion

Interim Decision #3048

MATTER Or HILAIRE

In Visa Petition Proceedings

A-2745E061

Decided by Board March 8, 1988

A petitioner may submit a certified copy of a document in sup- port of a visa petition in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 204.20)(1) (1988); however, if the Immigration and Naturalization Service requests the original document in order to determine that document's au- thenticity, the petitioner must comply with that request under 8 C.F.R. § 204.20)(3) (1988). ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: Vincent J. Agresti, Esquire Teresita R. Guerrero 56-58 Ferry Street General Attorney Newark, New Jersey 07105

BY: Milhollan, Chairman; Dunne, Morris, Vacca, and Heilman, Board Members

The lawful permanent resident petitioner applied for preference status for the beneficiary as his unmarried daughter under section 203(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(a)(2) (1982). In a decision dated March 6, 1986, the Immigra- tion and Naturalization Service Regional Adjudications Center ("RAC") director denied the petition. The petitioner has appealed. The appeal will be dismissed. The beneficiary is a 31 -year-old native and citizen of Haiti. The petitioner is a 72-year-old native and citizen of Haiti who was ad- mitted to the United States on September 11, 1985, as a lawful per- manent resident. On September 20, 1985, the petitioner filed a visa petition on behalf of the beneficiary claiming preference status for her as his unmarried daughter. A copy of an Extract from the Reg- isters of Birth Certificates executed in September of 1985, and a copy of an Extract from the Registers of Marriage Certificates exe- cuted in January 1986, submitted with the visa petition, reflect that the beneficiary is the petitioner's legitimate daughter. 566 Interim Decision *3048

On December 9, 1985, the Immigration and Naturalization Serv- ice informed the petitioner that "[gill birth and marriage certifi- cates from Haiti must be in the form of original extracts from the National Archives which have been issued subsequent to July 12, 1983." The petitioner failed to proffer the original documents re- quested by the Service. In a decision dated March 6, 198E, the RAC director denied the petition because the petitioner failed to submit the requested docu- mentation. The RAC director stated in his written decision that the authenticity of foreign documents can be more easily verified in the original form rather than through copies. On. appeal, the petitioner argues that 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(h) (1982), subsequently redesignated as 204.2(j)(1) (1988), states that a copy of a document submitted in support of a visa petition filed pursuant to section 204 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154 (1982), may be accepted, though unaccompanied by the original, if it bears a certification by an attorney. The petitioner argues that the copies of the birth and marriage certificates submitted in this case meet these require- ments and should be accepted here. The general attorney for the Service argues in a written brief to the Board that the original documents must be submitted by the petitioner if requested by the Service, citing 8 C.F.R. § 204.20(3) (1988). In this case, we note that 8 § 204.2(j)(1) (1988) provides that a copy of a document properly certified by an attorney "may be ac- cepted," but that 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(j)(3) (1988) clearly provides that the original document "must be submitted if requested by the Serv- ice." Here, the Service requested the original documents for review. The Service notes that it did so because of problems with fraudu- lent documents submitted in support of Haitian visa petitions in the past and its ability to more easily verify the authenticity of original documents. Under the provisions of 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(j)(3) (1988) the petitioner was required to submit the originals. As this was not done, the petition was properly denied. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

5A7