was celebrated or solemnized. See, Loughran v. Loughran, 292 U.S. 216, 223, 54 S.Ct. 684, 78 L.Ed. 1219 (1934) (finding that a marriage, if valid under the law of state in which the marriage was entered into, will generally be recognized as valid by all other jurisdictions); Shikoh v. Murff, 257 F.2d 306, 307, 309 (2d Cir.1958) (finding that a divorce registered with the Consulate General of Pakistan in New York was invalid for immigration purposes, because it did not comply with the laws of New York State); Lembcke v. United States, 181 F.2d 703, 706 (2d Cir.1950) (finding that the “validity of [a] marriage necessarily depends upon the law of the place where the marriage was contracted”); Mott v. Duncan Petroleum Trans., 51 N.Y.2d 289, 292, 434 N.Y.S.2d 155, 414 N.E.2d 657 (1980) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the BIA’s published opinions
holding husband could not have marriage annulled because wife was pregnant by him at time of marriage recognizing the common enterprise theory of marriage holding that the law to be applied in determining the validity of  an outofstate marriage is the law of the state in which the marriage occurred recognizing that basis for deportation was aliens misrepresentation about his marriage not the validity of his marriage holding that where the petitioners prior marriage was dissolved after the subsequent marriage the subsequent marriages validity should be analyzed under the law of the place where it was celebrated