SA kasong United States v. Windsor, na lumabas noong Hunyo 2013, sinabi ng U.S. Supreme Court na ang Section 3 ng Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), na nagsasaad na ang salitang “kasal” ay tumutukoy lamang sa legal union ng isang lalaki at isang babae, bilang mag-asawa, at ang salitang “asawa” ay tumutukoy lamang sa magkaibang kasarian na silang mag-asawa ay unconstitutional.
Bago lumabas ang Supreme Court decision sa United States v. Windsor, hindi kinikilala ng U.S.CIS ang mga relasyon ng parehong kasarian bilang kasal alinsunod sa Section 3 ng DOMA. Subalit dahil sa United States v. Windsor, kinikilala na ng USCIS ang kasal ng parehong kasarian. Katulad ng determinasyon ng USCIS kung ang kasal ng magkaibang kasarian ay may bisa sa ilalim ng place-of-celebration rule, ang USCIS ay magbabatay din sa place-of-celebration rule sa pagdetermina kung may bisa ang kasal ng magkaparehong kasarian.
Ang bisa ng kasal ay alinsunod sa mga batas kung saan ginanap ang kasal. Ito ang tinatawag na “place-of-celebration rule”. Sa ilalim ng place-of-celebration rule, ang kasal ay may bisa para sa mga immigration purpose kung ang kasal ay may bisa sa ilalim ng batas ng lugar kung saan naganap ang kasal. Susuriin ng USCIS ang mga batas sa lugar kung saan naganap ang kasal upang magkaroon ito ng wastong determinasyon ukol sa bisa ng kasal ng magkarehong kasarian at kasal ng magkaibang kasarian. Susuriin ng USCIS kung ano ang mga kailangan para sa kasal at kung ang mag-asawa ay sumunod sa mga tuntunin at regulasyon ng lugar kung saan naganap ang kasal. Kung ang mga batas kung saan naganap ang kasal ay hindi kumikilala ng kasal ng magkaparehong kasarian, ang kasal ay walang bisa.
Halimbawa ang kasal ng magkaparehong kasarian ay naganap sa Pilipinas. Dahil ang batas ng Pilipinas ay hindi kumikilala sa kasal ng magkaparehong kasarian, ang kasal ay walang bisa para sa mga U.S. immigration purpose. Subalit kung ang alien-beneficiary ay magpapakasal sa kanyang kasintahang U.S. citizen sa California, kung saan ang kasal ng magkarehong kasarian ay may bisa, ang kasal ay may bisa para sa mga U.S. immigration purpose. Ang asawang U.S. citizen ay maaaring magpetisyon sa kanyang dayuhang asawa bilang immediate relative sa ilalim ng U.S. Immigration Laws.
Sa mga kasal ng transgender persons, tatanggapin at kikilalanin ng USCIS ang kanilang kasal kung may bisa ang kanilang kasal sa state o local jurisdiction kung saan ito naganap.
In the case of United States v. Windsor, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2013, the Supreme Court held that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which states that: “the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman, as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife” is unconstitutional.
Prior to the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor, the USCIS did not recognize the relationships between two persons of the same sex as marriages or intended marriages in accordance with Section 3 of DOMA. In accordance with the Supreme Court decision, the USCIS recognizes same sex marriage and determines the validity of same-sex marriage by place-of-celebration rules, just as USCIS applies this rule to determine the validity of an opposite-sex marriage.
Generally, the validity of the marriage is determined by the law of the place where the marriage was celebrated. This is called the “place-of-celebration rule”. Under this rule, a marriage is valid for immigration purposes if the marriage is valid under the law of the jurisdiction in which it is performed. Since the place-of-celebration rule governs same-sex marriage in exactly the same way it governs opposite-sex marriage, USCIS will review the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage took place to determine the requisites of marriage and if the parties complied with these requisites. If the laws of the jurisdiction in which same-sex marriage took place does not recognize same-sex marriage, then such marriage is not valid.
For example, if the same-sex marriage is celebrated in the Philippines, said marriage is not valid for U.S. immigration purposes as the laws of the Philippines do not recognize same-sex marriage. However, if the alien-beneficiary marries the U.S. citizen spouse in California, where same-sex marriage is valid, then the marriage is valid for U.S. immigration purposes. The US citizen will be able to petition the alien spouse as immediate relative under U.S. immigration laws.
In cases involving transgender persons, USCIS accepts the validity of their marriage if the state or the local jurisdiction in which the marriage took place recognizes their marriage as a valid marriage.
***
ATTY. RHEA SAMSON is the principal of SAMSON LAW FIRM, P.C. She has been a member of the State Bar of California for over 15 years and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for over 20 years. Atty. Samson received her Legal Management degree from the Ateneo de Manila University and her Juris Doctor degree from the Ateneo Law School. She was a Professor for over 10 years, teaching Obligations and Contracts, Labor Laws and Social Legislation and Taxation Law. Atty Samson is the author of The Law on Obligations and Contracts (2016), Working with Labor Laws-Revised Edition (2014) and Working with Labor Laws (2005).
SAMSON LAW FIRM, P.C., 3580 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1710, Los Angeles, CA 90010; Phone: (213) 381-5710; Email: [email protected].
