TAGLE
The United States citizen petitioner applied for immediаte relative status for the beneficiary as her spouse under section 201(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. In a decision dated August 27, 1975, the District Director denied the petition. The petitioner has appealed from that decision. The appeal will be sustained and, the record remanded to the District Director.
The marriage between the petitioner and the beneficiary which took place in New York is the second marriagе for the beneficiary, a native and citizen of Ecuador. His first wife, also an Ecuadorian, appearеd before a court in the Dominican Republic on June 14, 1974 and obtained a mutual consent divorce from the beneficiary. The beneficiary appeared, by an attorney duly authorized to act for him. The beneficiary‘s divorce is entitled to recognition under New York law if the divorce is valid under the law of The Dominican Republiс. Rosenstiel v. Rosenstiel, 262 N.Y.S.2d 186, 209 N.E. 709 (1965), cert. denied 384 U.S. 971 (1966). See also Matter of Assan, 15 I. & N. Dec. 218 (BIA 1975).
The petitioner has submitted a copy of the beneficiary‘s divorce decree and the copy of the Pronouncement of the Divorce issued by an official of the Civil Registry on the day the divorce was decrеed. How
Subsequent to our decision in Matter of Darwish, supra, we recеived a more complete translation of the Dominican law on divorce1 from the Library of Congress. Under thаt law separate procedures are set forth for mutual consent divorces and divorces sought for cause. Chapter 4 of the Dominican law on divorce, which contains Articles 26 through 33, pertains to procedures to be followed in mutual consent divorces. Article 31 states:
The spouses, or the more diligent of them, arе responsible for registering the divorce judgment in the Office of the Civil Registry; the judgment shall be pronounced [by the official of the Civil Registry] no less than eight working days after the judgment was issued.
It would appear then that the parties must wait seven business days before having the decree pronounced at the Civil Registry.
However, in 1971, Law 142 added a further paragraph to Article 31. That paragraph reads, in pertinent part:
“In the case provided for in parаgraph 5 of Article 28 of this law [relating to mutual consent divorces obtained by foreigners], once the judgment has bеen rendered, the divorce shall be pronounced by any official of the Civil Registry of the jurisdiction of the court where the case was tried, upon presentation of a certified copy of the judgment, previously transcribed in the Office of the Civil Registry.” (Emphasis supplied.)
This amendment clearly eliminates the waiting period for foreigners.
The divorce in the present case was obtained by foreigners and pronounced on the day the judgmеnt was rendered. We conclude that the divorce decree is valid in the Dominican Republic and, as indicаted, it is consequently entitled to recognition in New York.
We note that the district director, in denying the petition, refеrs to Article 19 in his decision. In Matter of Darwish, supra, we also made a reference to Article 19. However, we have leаrned that the translation of Article 19 provided us by the Library of Congress in connection with Matter of Darwish, supra, is erroneous. The timе limitations set out therein should not be relied on. The correct translation of Article 19 follows:
The plaintiff who fails to act within the term of two months as set forth in Article 17 shall lose the benefits granted to him by the judgment thus obtained, and he shall not be able to obtain a new judgment, unless his petition is based on new grounds. The previously alleged grounds may be аdded to the new ones.
The district director‘s decision with respect to the Dominican law was incorrect. The appeal will therefore be sustained. We shall, however, remand the record in order that the district director may determine if the marriage between the petitioner and the beneficiary is bona fide.
ORDER: The appeal is sustained; the record is remanded to the district director.