there is no legal significance unless the law makes one. Id. Accordingly, “[f]or many years the BIA appears to have been of the view that the concept of legitimacy turned on the substantive legal rights conferred by applicable law rather than on mere labels codified by statute.” Watson v. Holder, 643 F.3d 367, 369 (2d Cir.2011). Specifically, the BIA has defined “legitimation,” as the term is used in the INA, as “the act of putting a child born out of wedlock in the same legal position as a child born in wedlock.” In re Cabrera, 21 I. & N. Dec. 589, 591 (BIA 1996); see also Lau, 563 F.2d at 550. “Where less than equality of status results, an act of legitimation is not deemed to have occurred.” Cabrera, 21 I. & N. Dec. at 591; see also Peignand v. INS, 440 F.2d 757, 759 (1st Cir.1971) (<HOLDING>). Thus, Saldana’s paternity is established by
holding that differences in matters of succession distinguished legitimation from acknowledgment in the statute at issue recognizing that belanger may be factually distinguished from case involving defaulting debtor holding privilege was waived only as to matters specifically at issue in court action recognizing significant differences in text of state and federal equal protection clauses recognizing that there are significant differences in the definition of disability under the social security and va systems