ployed as such in a California hospital since 1968. He filed his visa petition on April 26, 1968, and it was denied on the basis of the holding in Matter of Asuncion, supra, that the occupation of medical technologist is not a profession within the meaning of the Act. The District Director thereafter reconsidered the petition but on November 24, 1969 denied it again on the same grounds. It was approved upon appeal to the Regional Commissioner.

The holding in Asuncion was influenced by a statement of the training requirements prescribed in 1962 by the Registry of Medical Technologists of the American Society of Clinical Pathologists, which is nationally recognized as the qualifying body in this medical field; and by a discussion on medical technology in the 1966-1967 edition of the Occupational Outlook Handbook of the U.S. Department of Labor. There is much in the present record, however, to indicate that the regard in which medical technology is held has been much enhanced in recent years. The Registry of Medical Technologists, for instance, has now set the actual attainment of a bachelor's degree as the minimum qualification for taking the Registry examination in 1971; and the new (19701971) edition of the Occupational Outlook Handbook, supra, contains these observations:

"Medical technologists, who require 4 years of post-secondary training, perform the more complicated chemical, microscopic, and bacteriological tests and procedures.

"Most medical technologists conduct tests related to the examination and treatment of patients. However, some do research on new drugs or on the improvement of laboratory techniques. Others teach or perform administrative duties.

"The usual minimum educational requirement for beginning medical technologists is 3 years of college plus completion of a specialized training program in medical technology approved by the American Medical Association. Undergraduate work must include courses in chemistry, biological science, and mathematics. Such studies give the technologist a broad understanding of the scientific principles underlying laboratory work. The specialized training usually requires 12 months of study and includes extensive laboratory work. In 1968 such training was given in nearly 800 hospitals and schools, most of which were affiliated with colleges and universities. A bachelor's degree is often awarded upon completion of the college affiliated program. A few schools require a bachelor's degree for entry into the program."

Thus, it is apparent that requirements are changing and have changed: registration by the authoritative qualifying body in the field of medical technology will require a bachelor's degree; and three years of college work including prescribed scientific subjects plus another year of specialized study approved by the American Medical Association has been found by the Department of Labor to be currently the usual minimum.

A medical technologist works closely with the pathologist, and professionalism is implicit in his many responsible duties as set out in the Occupational Outlook Handbook, supra. It is noted, too, that the present record contains evidence that the U.S. Civil Service Commission has made a thorough study of federal clinical laboratory functions which has resulted in the establishment "of two separate classifications: medical technician (nonprofessional) and medical technologist (professional)."

It is concluded, therefore, that a medical technologist who has a baccalaureate degree with major study in medical technology from an accredited college or university in the United States or such degree from a foreign college or university which is evaluated as its equivalent by the United States Office of Education; or who has successfully completed at an accredited college or university three years of academic study which meets the requirements for entering a school of medical technology approved by the American Medical Association plus a year of clinical training at such approved school of medical technology, may be regarded as a member of the professions as that term is used in section 203 (a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Matter of Asuncion, supra, is overruled.

The petitioner here has a baccalaureate in medical technology from the Centro Escolar University, whose degree in that field has been appraised by the U.S. Office of Education as the equivalent of that awarded by accredited American universities. The petitioner, therefore, meets the educational requirements for professional classification as a medical technologist, and his petition was properly approved.

ORDER: The decision and order of the Regional Commissioner dated March 20, 1970, directing the approval of the visa petition to classify the status of Augusto E. Panganiban under section 203 (a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, is hereby affirmed.

MATTER OF RAMIREZ

In Visa Petition Proceedings

A-19125723

Decided by Board June 26, 1970

Since there is no substantial evidence that the Civil Code of the State of Tamaulipas, Mexico, is controlling with respect to beneficiary's common-law relationship in that State in 1957, the general rule that under section 3 of Article 130 of the Mexican Constitution of 1917, as amended, common-law marriages are not “recognized" in Mexico, is applicable; hence, her subsequent marriage to the U.S. citizen petitioner in 1967 is valid to confer immediate relative classification under section 201(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:

Moises V. Vela, Esquire
P.O. Box 329

Harlingen, Texas 78550

The petitioner, a native-born citizen of the United States, appeals from an order of the District Director at Port Isabel, Texas, entered on November 21, 1969, denying his petition for immediate relative classification for his alleged wife, Carmen Zuniga de Ramirez, under the provisions of section 201 (b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended. Exceptions have been taken to the finding that the petitioner's marriage to the beneficiary is not valid for immigration purposes.

The petitioner married the beneficiary at Harlingen, Texas on February 13, 1967. He states in his petition that his wife is the mother of three children, two of whom were born respectively in Nogales, San Luis Potosi, Mexico on July 3, 1955 and June 5, 1960 and the other in Altamira, Tamaulipas, Mexico on November 12, 1957. He also states that his wife has had no prior marriages.

The District Director concludes that the beneficiary was not free to marry the petitioner on February 13, 1967 because she

was:

...

. . . legally married to Felix Guillen according to the law of the State of Tamaulipas, Mexico, where she had resided with Felix Guillen from about 1957 to about June 1958....

Included in the record is a document executed by the Vice Consul of the United States at Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, Mexico on May 22, 1968 which certifies certain documents attached thereto as having been prepared by one Homoro Montemayor Gonzalez, alleged to be a Mexican attorney. We have considered the comments of the Mexican attorney concerning the validity of common-law marriages in the State of Tamaulipas, Mexico. We find them of no probative value since the author concedes that there is an apparent conflict between the local law and the Constitution of Mexico. Furthermore, it is apparent that the comments of the Mexican attorney are not directed to the case before us because they were prepared in May of 1968 and the visa petition was filed by the petitioner in September of 1969.

66

This Board on a prior occasion has said that Mexico does not "recognize" a common-law marriage which means "that a marriage relationship cannot be created in Mexico unless a ceremony is performed," Matter of C, 1 I. & N. Dec. 301, 302 (BIA, 1942). Our position was based upon an interpretation of section 3, Article 130 of the Mexican Constitution of 1917.1 There is no evidence of record which supports the District Director's conclusion that the beneficiary ... was legally married to Felix Guillen according to the law of the State of Tamaulipas, Mexico . . ." According to the meager record before us, the beneficiary stated in an affidavit executed on September 9, 1969 that she was born in the State of San Luis Potosi. The petition submitted by her citizen husband shows that two of her three children were born at Nogales in the State of San Luis Potosi on July 3, 1955 and June 5, 1960. She was 16 years of age and in all probability living with her parents when her first child was born on July 3, 1955 in the State of San Luis Potosi. Since her third child was born on June 5, 1960 in the same state when she was 21 years of age, it is reasonable to conclude that her principal domicile was in the State of San Luis Potosi during her relationship with Felix Guillen notwithstanding the fact that the second child was born in the State of Tamaulipas on November 12, 1957. The District Director, in fact, states that the beneficiary "resided with Felix Guillen" in

1 Article 130, section 3 of the Constitution of Mexico as amended in 1917 is as follows: "Marriage is a civil contract. This and other acts of a civil nature concerning persons are within the exclusive competence of civil officials and authorities, in the manner prescribed by law, and shall have the force and validity defined by said law."

the State of Tamaulipas, Mexico "from about 1957 to about June 1958" which could mean less than one year.

Since there is no substantial evidence that the Civil Code of the State of Tamaulipas, Mexico controls in the instant case, we conclude that on this record we should apply the general rule that common-law marriages are not "recognized" in Mexico pursuant to section 3 of Article 130 of the Mexican Constitution of 1917 (supra 1).

We conclude on the basis of the foregoing that the petitioner's marriage to the beneficiary at Harlingen, Texas on February 13, 1967 is valid for immigration purposes and that she is classifiable as an immediate relative under section 201 (b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. An appropriate order will be entered.

ORDER: It is ordered that the appeal be and the same is hereby sustained.

It is further ordered that the petition filed by Manuel Ramirez in behalf of his wife, Carmen Zuniga de Ramirez, for immediate relative classification under section 201 (b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act be and the same is hereby approved.