creating the status, of stepchild occurred”). Thus, in Palmer v. Reddy, 622 F.2d 463 (9th Cir.1980), we struck down an INS requirement that applicants prove that stepchildren be part of a “close family unit” to be eligible for visa preference, in light of our conclusion that the statute made the preference “available to stepchildren as a class without further qualification.” Id. at 464 (emphasis added). Following Palmer, the BIA has said that “no qualifications beyond a valid marriage creating the step-relationship should be imposed.” Matter of Vizcaino, 19 I. & N. Dec. 644, 648 (BIA 1988). Accordingly, the BIA has refused to look beyond the fact of a stepparent-stepchild relationship to the strength of that relationship. See Matter ofMowrer, 17 I. & N. Dec. 613, 615 (BIA 1981) (<HOLDING>); Matter of McMillan, 17 I. & N. Dec. 605,
holding that trial court had jurisdiction to consider custody dispute before a divorce or separation action had commenced holding that the requisite relationship between stepparent and stepchildren existed because there had been no legal divorce or separation and that the appropriate inquiry  in cases where there has been a legal separation or where the marriage has been terminated by divorce or death is whether a family relationship has continued to exist as a matter of fact between the stepparent and stepchild holding that a claim that the defendant may be insane at the time of execution is premature where no death warrant has been signed and the defendant has not been found to be incompetent holding that the family court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hold a party in contempt where the separation agreement was incorporated but not merged into a divorce decree holding if there has been no termination of employment there has been no layoff or reduction in force