The agency cannot deem the claimant to be the widow of NH for Title II benefit purposes.
                  The claimant and NH’s long-term relationship did not meet the requirements of a de
                  facto union in Guatemala and thus the agency cannot deem it as a marriage under the
                  Social Security Act (Act). Additionally, although the couple was legally married,
                  the marriage did not meet the nine-month durational requirement.
               
               Background
               The claimant and NH began living together as a couple in Guatemala City on August
                  XX, 1984. They were legally married on May XX, 2010 in Guatemala.
               
               The NH died of natural causes on September XX, 2010 and in March 2014, the claimant
                  applied for widow’s benefits on the NH’s record.
               
               Analysis
               Our discussion of the law of Guatemala is based in part on information we received
                  from the Library of Congress. To be entitled to widow’s insurance benefits under the
                  Act, a claimant must show, among other things, that she is the “widow” of an insured.
                  42 U.S.C. § 402(e)(1). As pertinent here, the Act provides two methods for a claimant
                  to show she is the widow of an insured who was domiciled outside the United States.[1] First, a claimant is the widow of such insured if the courts of the District of Columbia
                  would find that the claimant was validly married to the insured at the time the insured
                  died. 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A)(i); 20 C.F.R. § 404.345. Second, if the claimant was
                  not validly married to such insured at the time the insured died, the claimant will
                  be deemed to be the insured’s widow if, under the law applied by the courts of the
                  District of Columbia in determining the devolution of intestate personal property,
                  the claimant would have the “same status” as a widow of the insured with respect to
                  the taking of such property. 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A)(ii); 20 C.F.R. § 404.345.
               
               The claimant and NH were validly married, but the marriage did not meet
                        the nine-month durational requirement. 
               Under the law of the District of Columbia, the validity of a marriage is determined
                  by the law of the jurisdiction where the marriage was entered into.[2] See McConnell v. McConnell, 99 F. Supp. 493, 494 (D.D.C. 1951); Carr v. Varr, 82 F. Supp. 398 (D.D.C. 1949); Gerardi v.
                     Gerardi, 69 F. Supp. 296 (D.D.C. 1946).
               
               Here, the claimant and the NH were legally married in Guatemala on May XX, 2010. However,
                  the NH died in September 2010. Because the marriage did not last at least nine months
                  before the insured died as required under Sections 216(c), 216(g) of the Act; 20 C.F.R.
                  § 404.335, the claimant is not entitled to Title II widow’s benefits on the record
                  of the NH.
               
               The Claimant Does Not Have the Same Status as a Widow of the NH under the
                        Intestacy Law of Guatemala.
               Since the claimant was not married for at least nine months, the agency can deem the
                  claimant to be the NH’s widow if, under the law applied by the courts of the District
                  of Columbia in determining the devolution of intestate personal property, she has
                  the “same status” as a widow of the NH with respect to the taking of such property.
                  42 U.S.C § 416(h)(1)(A)(ii); 20 C.F.R. § 404.345.
               
               Under District of Columbia law, the law of the decedent’s domicile determines intestate
                  inheritance rights. Javier v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 407 F.3d 1244, 1247 (D.D.C. 2005) (citing In re Gray’s Estate, 168 F. Supp. 124 (D.D.C. 1958)).
               
               Here, the NH was domiciled in Guatemala at the time of death. Guatemala is not a common
                  law country, so the term “common law marriage” is not used there. Instead, Guatemala
                  recognizes a de facto union. The Civil Code states that a de facto union between a
                  man and a woman who have the capacity to marry will have legal effect upon their declaration
                  before the mayor of the place where they reside or a notary public, provided that
                  a home exists and their life in common has been continually maintained for more than
                  three years in the eyes of their relatives and social relations.[3] Voluntary declaration must be set forth in a special legal document known as an “act”
                  issued by the mayor or notary, or in a public instrument. The parties must state under
                  oath their names and surnames, place and date of birth, domicile and residence, profession
                  or trade, date when the de facto union started, names and ages of their children,
                  and the property acquired during their life in common.[4]
               A party to the union may also request that the court recognize a de facto union because
                  the other party has died. In this instance, the court declares the existence of a
                  de facto union, if it has been fully proved, and specifies in the declaration the
                  date or probable date on which the union began and the possessions that were acquired
                  by the parties during the union. The certification of a court decision favorable to
                  the requesting party must be presented for registration to the Civil Registry and
                  to the Property Registry if there is any real property.[5] In a de facto union, the man and woman mutually inherit under the laws of intestate
                  succession under the same terms provided by the Code for spouses.[6]
               In the instant case, the NH and claimant lived together beginning in August 1984 and
                  did not have a legal marriage until May 2010. In September 2010, the NH passed away.
                  Although the claimant and NH lived together as a couple, there is no indication that
                  they entered into a de facto union. The third party statements confirm a long-term
                  relationship between the claimant and the NH, but they do not confirm that a registered
                  de facto union existed. Since there does not appear to be a registered de facto union,
                  the claimant cannot be treated as a spouse between August 1984 and May 2010 pursuant
                  to Guatemala’s Civil Code. Even though the NH is deceased, the claimant may still
                  be able to request that the court recognize the existence of a de facto union. However,
                  it does not appear that the claimant has taken such action. Accordingly, we cannot
                  find that the claimant and NH were in a de facto union. As a result, the claimant
                  cannot inherit like a spouse and therefore does not have the same status as a widow
                  of the NH for purposes of obtaining widow’s benefits.
               
               Conclusion
               Although the claimant and the NH were in a valid marriage it did not meet the nine-month
                  durational requirement. Additionally, the claimant and the NH’s long-term relationship
                  prior to their legal marriage does not entitle the claimant to the same intestate
                  succession rights as a widow of the NH under the law of Guatemala. Thus, the agency
                  cannot deem the couple married for title II purposes.