WONG
(2) Notwithstanding the grant of a judgment of nullity by the Superior Court of California rendering this marriage void ab initio, the doctrine of relation back which would ordinarily apply in a situatiоn such as this will be deemed not to apply here because it does not promote the intended purрose. Although the annulment might be given retroactive effect by the California court annulling the marriage ah initin, it will not he given retroactive effect for immigration purposes.
(3) Since the respondent married beforе leaving Burma, she was in violation of the immigration laws at the time of her entry into the United States. The Board is not obliged to give retroactive effect to the California decree of annulment to cure a violation of the immigration laws and the respondent was deportable as charged.
CHARGES:
Order: Act of 1952—
Lodged: Act of 1952—
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Thomas N. Saldin, Esquire
4676 Admiralty Way, #632
Marina Del Rey, California 90291
BY: Milhollan, Chairman; Wilson, Torringtоn, Maniatis, and Appleman, Board Members
In a decision dated August 28, 1974, the immigration judge found the respondent deрortable as an alien who was excludable at the time of entry under
The respondent was born оn December 25, 1942, and she is a native of Burma and a citizen of China. She entered the United States on May 20, 1973, without а labor certification as the unmarried child of a lawful permanent resident.
During reopened proceedings, counsel moved to terminate, contending that the respondent is not deportable becаuse her marriage was judicially annulled by the Superior Court of California on October 30, 1975; and that the annulment rendered her marriage void ab initio, as of the date of the marriage, May 11, 1973. The record contains a Judgment of Nullity in support of her contention.
The record also contains a notice from the Departmеnt of State (FS-548) which informed the respondent that she would lose her preference status if she married prior to her application for admission to the United States, and that she would also be subject to exclusion. That notice was signed by the respondent and dated September 29, 1972. Although the testimony is unclear, we find that the respondent entered into a marriage prior to her admission into the United States despite the fact that she had been previously warned that she would lose her preference status if she married.
Counsel cites Matter of Samedi, 14 I. & N. Dec. 625 (BIA 1974) and Matter of V—, 6 I. & N. Dec. 153 (BIA 1954), as requiring that thе California decree of nullity be given a retroactive effect to void the marriage as though it had never existed. Accordingly, the respondent ‘would be the unmarried daughter of a lawful permanent resident at thе time of entry_ However, the immigration judge cites a more recent Board decision, Matter of Castillo, Interim Decision 2427 (BIA 1975), xvherein we held that the “relation back” doctrine should not be blindly followed where to do so would result in a gross miscarriage of justice. That decision was based on a California case, Sefton v. Sefton, 45 Cal. 2d 872, 291 P.2d 439 (1955), wherein it was held that the “relation back” doctrine was a legal fiction designed to fashion substantial justice be ftween the parties to a voidable marriage. Thus, in keeping with the decision in Castillo, supra, we will not give the California annulment
As the respondent married before leaving Burma, shе was in violation of the immigration laws at the time of her entry into the United States. Regardless of what effect the courts might give to a decree of annulment, for immigration purposes, we are not obliged to give retrоactive effect to it so as to cure a violation of the law respecting entry into the United Statеs.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.
FURTHER ORDER: Pursuant to the immigration judge‘s order, the respondent is permitted to depart from the United States voluntarily within such time and under conditions of departure as may be set by the District Director; in the event the respondent fails so to depart, the respondent shall be deported as provided in the immigration judge‘s order.