MAY
In a decision dated September 1, 1982, the District Director denied the visa petition filed by the United Stаtes citizen petitioner to accord the beneficiary preference status as his sister pursuant to
In order to support a claimed sibling relationship under
The District Director denied the visa petition for failure on the part of the petitioner to satisfy his burden under Matter of Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966), of establishing that a brother-sister relationship exists between him and the beneficiary. Citing Matter of Cheung, 17 I&N Dec. 365 (BIA 1980), the District Director dеtermined that little weight could be assigned to the birth and family relationship certificates provided by the petitioner. In Matter of Cheung, id., the Board concluded that a certificate of family relationship issued by authorities of the People‘s Republic of China was of extremely limited probative value where, as here, the document was recently issued (i.e., not issued contemporaneously with the events described), was silent as to the source of the information provided, and the petitioner had failed to establish that it was issued after reference to official records or to a reliable, independеnt source. See also Matter of Lau, 16 I&N Dec. 115 (BIA 1976).
On appeal, the petitioner, through counsel, urges that we reconsider our position with respect to the evidentiаry value properly accorded official documents issued in the People‘s Republic of China. We find such reevaluation appropriate in light of information originating since our decisions in Matter of Cheung and Matter of Lau, supra. To the extent any conflict exists between our decisions in those cases and our present holding,1 Matter of Cheung and Matter of Lau, are herewith modified.
On July 9, 1982, thе section relating to the People‘s Republic of China in Appendix B of the State Department‘s Foreign Affairs Manual, which is used by the Immigration and Naturalizаtion Service to determine the availability of foreign documents,2 was extensively revised in a manner responsive to the concerns we voicеd in Matter of Cheung and Matter of Lau, at least with respect to documents issued by China‘s Notarial Offices. That section, as revised, provides in pertinent part:
CHINA, PEOPLE‘S REPUBLIC OF
DOCUMENTS:
Most of the documents listed bеlow will be obtained from one of China‘s Notarial Offices (Gong Zheng Chu). Notarial Offices are sited in most large Chinese cities and also in rural county seats. Nоtarial Offices are part of the Ministry of Justice structure, and as such are separate from the People‘s Court system.
Notaries in China do not pеrform the same function as their American counterparts. Chinese notaries affix their signatures and office seal to certificates which attest to the probity of claims made by the applicants. There is no manner of oath taking involved, but the notary is empowered to issue a certificate only if he concludes that the alleged facts are true. Notaries issue these certificates based either on primary documentation submitted by the applicant or as the result of an investigation conducted by notarial office staff. Notarial certificates are generally reliablе but are best used in conjunction with other supporting evidence. The certificate‘s source of information does not appear on the сertificate itself. Chinese authorities advise that documents issued by commune, brigade, or work unit officials are not to be accepted in lieu of notarial certificates.
. . . .
BIRTH, MARRIAGE AND DEATH CERTIFICATES: Available. Chinese citizens may apply for such documents at their local notarial office. Issuance of these certificates takes from a few days to several weeks, depending on whether the notary conducts an investigation. The basic issuance fee is fivе yuan per document, although this may increase if an investigation is necessary.
. . . .
See Vol. 9, Foreign Affairs Manual, Appendix B, “China, People‘s Republic of.”
We adopt the foregoing State Department assessment of the reliability of documents issued by China‘s Notarial Offices and shall remand the record to the District Director for reconsideration of his decision in light thereof. By the terms of that assessment, such notarial certificates should not be regarded as conclusive proof of the facts recited. Rather, the notarial certificates should be accompanied by any and all suppоrting evidence that the petitioner may be able to produce. Ultimately, each case must be decided on its own facts with regard to the sufficiency of the evidence provided. Cf. Matter of Serna, 16 I&N Dec. 643 (BIA 1978).
In denying the visa petition in this case, the District Director referred to a sworn statement allegedly made by the petitioner on January 17, 1961, in which he asserted that he was an only child. The petitioner insists that the District Director erroneously attributed to him a statement made by аnother alien with a similar name but different alien number, birthday, and family history. This matter should be resolved on remand.
Finally, the petitioner has submitted additional material evidence on appeal which should be considered by the District Director along with any further evidence the petitioner or the Government may wish to present. The District Director should thereupon enter a new decision in the case. In the event the decision on remand is again adverse tо the petitioner, we direct that the case be certified back to the Board for review.
ORDER:
The record is remanded to the District Director for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry
FURTHER ORDER:
Should the decision on remand again be adverse to the petitioner, the rеcord shall be certified back to the Board for review.