Matter of Polidoro (Board decision, August 11, 1967)

Matter of Polidoro (BIA ID 1766, 1967): adult adoption did not qualify for a parent petition

Decision type
Board decision
Dockets
ID 1766, A-13858069
Decided
August 11, 1967
Outcome
Affirmed
Precedential status
Citable Board precedent
Checked against source
2026-10-15

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Board precedent from 1967, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 1967
The immigration statutes and regulations may have been amended, and later Board or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.
Final BIA decision
The Board dismissed the appeal, leaving the denial of the immediate relative petition in place. Under the Board's Policy Manual, Chapter 1.4(d), a Board order is final unless and until it is stayed, modified, rescinded, or overruled by the Board, the Attorney General, or a federal court.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official BIA release. The full text is the agency's own release.
Transcribed from a scanned original: BIA released this decision as an image-only file. The full text below is a machine transcription, proofread against the scan. Check the official release before quoting exact language.
Read the official release (justice.gov)

Plain-English summary

A naturalized citizen petitioned for immediate relative status for her adoptive father. An Italian court had entered the adoption in 1960, when she was 35 years old. The Board held that immigration law recognized this adoptive parent relationship only when the child had been adopted before age 14 and met the custody and residence requirements. Because the petitioner was an adult when adopted, the Board dismissed her appeal from the petition denial. It said eligibility, rather than discretion, controlled the petition.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited authorities: INA § 101(b)(1)(E), (b)(2).
  • Outcome: Appeal dismissed; denial of the immediate relative petition sustained.
  • Key point: An adoption at age 35 did not meet the statute's under-14 requirement for this parent petition.

Full text (BIA official public release)

Interim Decision #1766

MATTER OF POLIDORO

In Visa Petition Proceedings
A-13858069
Decided by Board August 11, 1967
Since petitioner, a naturalized U.S. citizen, was 35 years of age at the time of her adoption in 1960, she has not been adopted in accordance with the provi- sions of section 101(b)(1)(E) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, and consequently, is ineligible to confer immediate relative status on her adoptive father, the beneficiary.
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: ON BEHALF OF SERVICE:
Quirinus A. Ricciardelli, Esq. Irving A. Appleman
26 Journal Square
Appellate Trial Attorney
Jersey City, N.J. 07306
(Oral argument)
(Oral argument)

The case comes forward on appeal from the order of the District Director, New York District, dated April 20, 1967, denying the visa petition for the reason that since the adoption of the petitioner did not take place until May 20, 1960 at which time the petitioner was 35 years of age, the petitioner had not been adopted in accordance with the provisions of section 101(b)(1)(E) of the Immigration and Na- tionality Act, and the beneficiary is not eligible for any benefits under the Act. The petitioner, a native of Italy, a naturalized citizen of the United States, 41 years old, female, seeks immediate relative status on behalf of the beneficiary as her adoptive father. The beneficiary is a native and citizen of Italy, 66 years old. In support of the visa petition there has been submitted a decree of the Court of Appeals of Rome, Italy establishing that the beneficiary and his wife, Anna, adopted the petitioner on May 20, 1960. The citizen petitioner is seeking to bring in the beneficiary as her adoptive father. Section 101(b)(2) defines the term “father” to mean a father only where the relationship exists by reason of any of the circumstances set forth in section 101(b)(1). Subparagraph (E) of section 101(b)(1) defines the term “child” to include a child adopted

353
Interim Decision #1766
while under the age of 14 years if the child has thereafter been in the legal custody of, and has resided with, the adopting parent or parents for at least two years. In the instant case the adoption took place on May 20, 1960. The adopted person, the petitioner, was at that time 35 years old. It is concluded that the adoption is invalid for immigration purposes and that the petitioner is not eligible to seek immediate relative status on behalf of the beneficiary as her adoptive parent. The argument of counsel has been noted. The issue in visa petition proceedings is not one of discretion but of eligibility. The appeal will be dismissed. ORDER: It is ordered that the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed.

354

Does this precedent still control your case?

Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and applies it to your situation with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace