Dave Dubya

Since michelles case, and some other posts, there have been some talk
about this subject. According to this article below, they seem to say
that marriage fraud is when a USC accepts money for the marriage.

I don't really see that it is worth the trouble of the USC to even
fool with this, but I guess people do it.



I have seen examples where the marriage didn't work out and the USC
wants to cry fraud at that point, but I don't think it works that
way. That is just a marriage gone sour as it talks about in this
article as well.



Marriage fraud has been prosecuted, inter alia, under 8 U.S.C. § 1325
and 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a). The Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments Act
of 1986 amended § 1325 by adding § 1325(c), which provides a penalty of
five years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine for any "individual who
knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any
provision of the immigration laws." Under 8 U.S.C. § 1151(b), "immediate
relatives" of U.S. citizens, including spouses, who are otherwise
qualified for admission as immigrants, must be admitted as such, without
regard to other, ordinary numerical limitations. The typical fact
pattern in marriage fraud cases is that a U.S. citizen and an alien get
married. They fulfill all state law requirements such as medical tests,
licensing, and a ceremony. But the U.S. citizen is paid to marry the
alien in order to entitle the alien to obtain status as a permanent
resident of the United States; the parties do not intend to live
together as man and wife. A legal issue arises where the parties tell
the INS they are married, and they subjectively believe they are telling
the truth because they have complied with state marriage requirements.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the validity of their marriage under
state law is immaterial to the issue of whether they defrauded INS. See
Lutwak v. United States, 344 U.S. 604 (1953). Lutwak was followed in
United States v. Yum, 776 F.2d 490 (4th Cir. 1985); Johl v. United
States, 370 F.2d 174 (9th Cir.1966), and Chin Bick Wah v. United States,
245 F.2d 274 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 870 (1957). But see,
United States v. Lozano, 511 F.2d 1 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S.
850 (1975); United States v. Diogo, 320 F.2d 898 (2d Cir. 1963). But cf,
United States v. Sarantos, 455 F.2d 877 (2d Cir. 1972).



There have been situations where a bona fide marriage turns sour but the
alien induces the U.S. citizen spouse to maintain the marriage as a ruse
only as long as necessary for the alien to obtain status as a permanent
resident alien. There is a line of cases holding that the viability of
the marriage, if initially valid, is not a proper concern of the INS.
United States v. Qaisi, 779 F.2d 346 (6th Cir. 1985); Dabaghian v.
Civilleti, 607 F.2d 868 (9th Cir. 1979), and cases cited therein.
However, the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986, 8 U.S.C. §
1186a, were designed, inter alia, to eliminate the Qaisi type loophole
by establishing a two-year conditional status for alien spouses seeking
permanent resident status, and requiring that an actual family unit
still remain in existence at the end of the two year period.

Lpdiver

It usually seems to arise as the result of a failed marriage and the
spouse wanting to punish the alien spouse by having them deported. Bad
blood I say, marriages fail. Get your divorce and get on with your life.









Originally posted by dave dubya

    > Since michelles case, and some other posts, there have been some talk
    > about this subject. According to this article below, they seem to say
    > that marriage fraud is when a USC accepts money for the marriage.

    > I don't really see that it is worth the trouble of the USC to even
    > fool with this, but I guess people do it.


    > Marriage fraud has been prosecuted, inter alia, under 8 U.S.C. § 1325
    > and 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a). The Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments Act
    > of 1986 amended § 1325 by adding § 1325(c), which provides a penalty
    > of five years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine for any "individual who
    > knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any
    > provision of the immigration laws." Under 8 U.S.C. § 1151(b),
    > "immediate relatives" of U.S. citizens, including spouses, who are
    > otherwise qualified for admission as immigrants, must be admitted as
    > such, without regard to other, ordinary numerical limitations. The
    > typical fact pattern in marriage fraud cases is that a U.S. citizen
    > and an alien get married. They fulfill all state law requirements such
    > as medical tests, licensing, and a ceremony. But the U.S. citizen is
    > paid to marry the alien in order to entitle the alien to obtain status
    > as a permanent resident of the United States; the parties do not
    > intend to live together as man and wife. A legal issue arises where
    > the parties tell the INS they are married, and they subjectively
    > believe they are telling the truth because they have complied with
    > state marriage requirements. The Supreme Court has ruled that the
    > validity of their marriage under state law is immaterial to the issue
    > of whether they defrauded INS. See Lutwak v. United States, 344 U.S.
    > 604 (1953). Lutwak was followed in United States v. Yum, 776 F.2d 490
    > (4th Cir. 1985); Johl v. United States, 370 F.2d 174 (9th Cir.1966),
    > and Chin Bick Wah v. United States, 245 F.2d 274 (9th Cir.), cert.
    > denied, 355 U.S. 870 (1957). But see, United States v. Lozano, 511
    > F.2d 1 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 850 (1975); United States v.
    > Diogo, 320 F.2d 898 (2d Cir. 1963). But cf, United States v. Sarantos,
    > 455 F.2d 877 (2d Cir. 1972).


There have been situations where a bona fide marriage turns sour but the
alien induces the U.S. citizen spouse to maintain the marriage as a ruse
only as long as necessary for the alien to obtain status as a permanent
resident alien. There is a line of cases holding that the viability of
the marriage, if initially valid, is not a proper concern of the INS.
United States v. Qaisi, 779 F.2d 346 (6th Cir. 1985); Dabaghian v.
Civilleti, 607 F.2d 868 (9th Cir. 1979), and cases cited therein.
However, the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986, 8 U.S.C. §
1186a, were designed, inter alia, to eliminate the Qaisi type loophole
by establishing a two-year conditional status for alien spouses seeking
permanent resident status, and requiring that an actual family unit
still remain in existence at the end of the two year period.

Dave Dubya

Originally posted by lpdiver

    > It usually seems to arise as the result of a failed marriage and the
    > spouse wanting to punish the alien spouse by having them deported. Bad
    > blood I say, marriages fail. Get your divorce and get on with your
    > life.





yes, amen brother;



some folks don't learn to let go of grudges and bad feelings until they
get older, and some people never learn I guess. They want to run and try
to get the other person in trouble just because they are mad at them,
kinda like a little kid snitching on his brother or something like that.

Supernav

When was the last time someone was jailed for marraige fraud (aside from
that black chick this year who married 20 pakistanis) -- 10 years ago???



marraige fraud is HARD to prove unless you're caught on camera trying to
broker an agreement with an undercover officer.



-= nav =-

Folinskyinla

Originally posted by dave dubya


    > There have been situations where a bona fide marriage turns sour but
    > the alien induces the U.S. citizen spouse to maintain the marriage as
    > a ruse only as long as necessary for the alien to obtain status as a
    > permanent resident alien. There is a line of cases holding that the
    > viability of the marriage, if initially valid, is not a proper concern
    > of the INS. United States v. Qaisi, 779 F.2d 346 (6th Cir. 1985);
    > Dabaghian v. Civilleti, 607 F.2d 868 (9th Cir. 1979), and cases cited
    > therein. However, the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986, 8
    > U.S.C. § 1186a, were designed, inter alia, to eliminate the Qaisi type
    > loophole by establishing a two-year conditional status for alien
    > spouses seeking permanent resident status, and requiring that an
    > actual family unit still remain in existence at the end of the two
    > year period.



Hi:



The last paragraph of the article is wildly inaccuarate. First of all,
the "viablity" issue discussed Qaisi and Dabaghian is not a "loophole."



The 1986 IMFA law recognized this by allowing a "good faith, good cause"
waiver of the 2 year condition. Inasmuch as the "good cause" prong
included a requirement that the alien had to be the one to seek divorce,
this often led to a "race to the courthouse" scenario. Also, many
states have "no fault" divorce. So Congress eliminated the "good cause"
prong making it "good faith" only.



IMHO, it would be more accurate to say that, rather than closing a non-
existent loophole described above, it removed a procedureral loophole
inherent in the fact that the marriage was examined only once -- now it
is examined twice. It was a procedural loophole.



Actually, the "loophole" which eliminated by IMFA was what appeared at
first to be a minor stylistic change in the misrepresentation ground of
inadmissiblity. Before 1986, the section had two alternative prongs --
1. seeking or having sought a visa or documentation by fraud or
misrepresenation or 2. seeking entry by misrepresentation. Prong 2 was
collapsed into prong 1. In the 1950's the BIA had ruled [and
reaffirmed many times thereafter] that an oral misrepsentation at the
Port of Entry [eg prong 2] barred THAT entry only. That is no longer
true. [As a related item, section 204(c) prohibition against future
visa petitions due to marriage fraud was changed from successful
marriage fraud to any attempt].

Folinskyinla

Originally posted by supernav

    > When was the last time someone was jailed for marraige fraud (aside
    > from that black chick this year who married 20 pakistanis) -- 10
    > years ago???


    > marraige fraud is HARD to prove unless you're caught on camera trying
    > to broker an agreement with an undercover officer.


    > -= nav =-



Hi:



It is hard to prove in the individual case -- and usually its by the US
citizen ratting on the alien.



Prosecutorial discetion seems to be aimed at the arrangers of sham
marriages. Although Mr. Lutwak was the US citizen "bride", I agree that
the US citizen spouse is rarely, if ever prosecuted, just for their own
sham marriage.



Back in the 80's I started getting a small number of marriage cases
referred by a particular individual. Note the reference to "small." It
later turned out that the particular individual was running a marriage
fraud ring and he spread the work around 7 different attorneys. We
discovered this when we started bumping into each other while waiting on
marriage fraud interviews. It later turned out that the referral's
business of sham marriages was the tip of the iceberg on his business
activities. DEA got him before INS did.

Elo

Originally posted by lpdiver

    > It usually seems to arise as the result of a failed marriage and the
    > spouse wanting to punish the alien spouse by having them deported. Bad
    > blood I say, marriages fail. Get your divorce and get on with your
    > life.



That's easy for you to say. You were not duped into marrying someone
that admitted the night before your second anniversary that it was just
a green-card marriage.



It is the cruelest of intentions. And that's the behavior that allows
these types on incidents continue ...



I have a feeling that many foreign spouses take these marriages a lot
lighter than their counterparts, because they have "nothing to lose."

Lpdiver

I know an immigration attorney who got duped also. But in her case the
spouse waited until the day after he got his brother over her on a
family based visa. She was dumped the next day. She also got duped a
second time.



I apologize if I prased this in such a manner as to be hurtful.



"Marriage fraud" occurs between US/US couples also.





Originally posted by Folinskyinla

    > Hello:


    > I have responded to your other string regarding marriage fraud.


    > You are right -- it IS easier to talk about it from the vantage of
    > being outside.


    > However, there is also a germ of truth in what lpdiver says, although
    > it is expressed in a way that is personally hurtful to you.


    > As I mentioned in the other posting, YOUR focus should be on
    > protecting YOURSELF and starting your life over again. Please see
    > about availing yourself of the resources available for
    > battered/threatened women. Those resources are there and you just
    > have to find them.


Good luck -- it will work out for you.

Jeffreyhy

Tony,



I agree with you that the desire to have the alien spouse leave the
country often is an emotional reaction. But as a practical matter, the
onus of the I-864 is a strong motivator as well.



It can be difficult to get on with one's life when one is faced with the
possibility of having to support to someone else, and possibly their
children as well, for the rest of their life.



Regards, JEff



Originally posted by lpdiver

It usually seems to arise as the result of a failed marriage and the
spouse wanting to punish the alien spouse by having them deported. Bad
blood I say, marriages fail. Get your divorce and get on with your
life.

Dcmark

Again, you all have been hood winked. This is the same troll as before,
SeaDave, Bill Wilson, etc. Notice that the post is now gone?



Come on people, wake up!!!!



xoxox