How to stop fraud in Fiance/Spouse Visas

[TBoneTX 45,294]

One method also blocks a lot of valid coules the other turns a more or less blind eye. The biggest difference in these petitions is the sex and skin color of the beneficary.

I thought about this for some time, and then into my mind popped a comment from an immigration attorney (and former CO himself, at two posts). This comment was made when I was in the depths of despair from being jacked around by the ####### Guayaquil consulate; we were discussing my situation. I asked the more general question of "what standards are used to judge fraudulent intent or potential on the part of the beneficiary." The attorney promptly replied, "If he or she is from any poor country."

Because the poorer countries are typically populated by nonwhite people (or at least fewer white people than are in richer countries), I lean toward believing that skin color is incidental to the "poorness" factor.

Discussion, all?

---

Second issue, raised in the hope that it won't raise a firestorm of condemnation from those with skin in the game: In one country in particular (Philippines), there seems to be a high expectation that the immigrant fiancee/wife will come to the U.S. and send varying amounts of money home to her family -- whether this be from her own eventual earnings or from her husband's salary. The motives of the Filipina may be in question or be hidden to a greater or lesser extent (see several posts on VJ in various forums over time). First question: Does this constitute fraud, or fall under the umbrella of it? Second question: How does or doesn't this differ from Mexicans or Central Americans who come here illegally to work and send "remittances" home to their families? I really wonder, especially in light of some of the extreme differences in age between Filipina immigrants-to-be and their husbands-to-be.

I emphasize that I would like a thoughtful, reasoned discussion about this second issue, without indignant defensiveness or attacks from anyone with skin in the game.

[NigeriaorBust 4,087]

If poorness is a fraud indicator then the white man / asiani pacific ilse female petition combo should be just as suspect as a white woman/ Mena or African male. But there is a huge difference between the level of interviews for these groups. Interviews with a female petitioner usually are twice the hell as when a man petitions , somehow implying a woman is more scammable. I really think that neither group is immune to being scammed. So many of the male bringing a woman end up in a cut and run situation.

[pushbrk 12,884]

I thought about this for some time, and then into my mind popped a comment from an immigration attorney (and former CO himself, at two posts). This comment was made when I was in the depths of despair from being jacked around by the ####### Guayaquil consulate; we were discussing my situation. I asked the more general question of "what standards are used to judge fraudulent intent or potential on the part of the beneficiary." The attorney promptly replied, "If he or she is from any poor country."

Because the poorer countries are typically populated by nonwhite people (or at least fewer white people than are in richer countries), I lean toward believing that skin color is incidental to the "poorness" factor.

Discussion, all?

---

Second issue, raised in the hope that it won't raise a firestorm of condemnation from those with skin in the game: In one country in particular (Philippines), there seems to be a high expectation that the immigrant fiancee/wife will come to the U.S. and send varying amounts of money home to her family -- whether this be from her own eventual earnings or from her husband's salary. The motives of the Filipina may be in question or be hidden to a greater or lesser extent (see several posts on VJ in various forums over time). First question: Does this constitute fraud, or fall under the umbrella of it? Second question: How does or doesn't this differ from Mexicans or Central Americans who come here illegally to work and send "remittances" home to their families? I really wonder, especially in light of some of the extreme differences in age between Filipina immigrants-to-be and their husbands-to-be.

I emphasize that I would like a thoughtful, reasoned discussion about this second issue, without indignant defensiveness or attacks from anyone with skin in the game.

I'm not sure what your actual question to the attorney was and its answer with full context but detailed interviews to discover potential fraud are more common for beneficiaries coming from poor countries. That's based on the level of potential motivation to commit fraud to get to the USA as well as the difficulty in getting here any other way.

If poorness is a fraud indicator then the white man / asiani pacific ilse female petition combo should be just as suspect as a white woman/ Mena or African male. But there is a huge difference between the level of interviews for these groups. Interviews with a female petitioner usually are twice the hell as when a man petitions , somehow implying a woman is more scammable. I really think that neither group is immune to being scammed. So many of the male bringing a woman end up in a cut and run situation.

"Poorness" in and of itself is not a fraud indicator but most immigration fraud comes from the poorer countries. I would be careful in inferring what pieces of data "imply". It's usually not as simple as what first may come to mind. This may help explain what I mean.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/questionable-cause.html

[rin and john 71]

I thought about this for some time, and then into my mind popped a comment from an immigration attorney (and former CO himself, at two posts). This comment was made when I was in the depths of despair from being jacked around by the ####### Guayaquil consulate; we were discussing my situation. I asked the more general question of "what standards are used to judge fraudulent intent or potential on the part of the beneficiary." The attorney promptly replied, "If he or she is from any poor country."

Because the poorer countries are typically populated by nonwhite people (or at least fewer white people than are in richer countries), I lean toward believing that skin color is incidental to the "poorness" factor.

Discussion, all?

---

Second issue, raised in the hope that it won't raise a firestorm of condemnation from those with skin in the game: In one country in particular (Philippines), there seems to be a high expectation that the immigrant fiancee/wife will come to the U.S. and send varying amounts of money home to her family -- whether this be from her own eventual earnings or from her husband's salary. The motives of the Filipina may be in question or be hidden to a greater or lesser extent (see several posts on VJ in various forums over time). First question: Does this constitute fraud, or fall under the umbrella of it? Second question: How does or doesn't this differ from Mexicans or Central Americans who come here illegally to work and send "remittances" home to their families? I really wonder, especially in light of some of the extreme differences in age between Filipina immigrants-to-be and their husbands-to-be.

I emphasize that I would like a thoughtful, reasoned discussion about this second issue, without indignant defensiveness or attacks from anyone with skin in the game.

Interesting post. Maybe the difference is "cultural norm". For a Filipina from a rural area to work in the US and send money to her family is not far afield from working in Manila and sending money to her family (just changes the magnitude). For poor families in Philippines, SE Asia, and China this would be a "cultural norm". Having met several Thai-Thai couples in Thailand, most of them contribute money to parents (and grandparents, siblings, etc) if they have the resources.

I guess to decide if it is fraud, you would have to discern a persons motive for marrying. Marrying to improve your lot in life is not fraud (I married Rin and my life is "better" than before in that I am much more happy). Marrying with the sole intent of obtaining immigration benefits is fraud. If coming up with an ironclad system to determine this were simple (or even possible), it would already exist.

[pushbrk 12,884]

Interesting post. Maybe the difference is "cultural norm". For a Filipina from a rural area to work in the US and send money to her family is not far afield from working in Manila and sending money to her family (just changes the magnitude). For poor families in Philippines, SE Asia, and China this would be a "cultural norm". Having met several Thai-Thai couples in Thailand, most of them contribute money to parents (and grandparents, siblings, etc) if they have the resources.

I guess to decide if it is fraud, you would have to discern a persons motive for marrying. Marrying to improve your lot in life is not fraud (I married Rin and my life is "better" than before in that I am much more happy). Marrying with the sole intent of obtaining immigration benefits is fraud. If coming up with an ironclad system to determine this were simple (or even possible), it would already exist.

It's worth clarification that the kind of fraud that is supposed to get a visa denied is exactly what you describe in the sentence I made bold above, though I think the law uses the term "exclusive" rather than "sole". Same meaning. It's the immigration benefit itself that is key, though usually the potential financial benefit derived after securing immigration is the primary motivation for perpetrating the fraud.

[PantomimeGoose 59]

I find it interesting that this thread has so far neglected to question whether fraud is really the issue that ought to be at the heart of such a petition, or whether it ought to be citizens' rights. I would submit that the government has the right only to establish A) that the petitioner is indeed a USC B) that the beneficiary and the petitioner are legally married (having met and consummated) by US standards C) that the beneficiary is not a terrorist. Grudgingly, I will admit that sharing a common language should also be mandatory. Anything that goes beyond that, or delays the reunion of an American with his/her chosen spouse (say beyond 3 months) fails to provide equal protection to our marriages. Ultimately, we should argue for our rights because they our are rights, and not because they are currently convenient to take away or because we can't be assured someone unscrupulous won't take advantage.

With that said, I think the improvement of fraud-prevention helps make for a more persuasive argument, especially since there appears to be very little advocacy for those of us who are meekly waiting in line. Rather than front-loading proofs and restrictions, which is slow and puts an unjust and unconstitutional burden of proof on citizens for a basic right, I would suggest letting people be reunited more easily, and taking more aggressive actions against those who breach trust. 

I think the idea of a prolonged conditional residency period is a good one. As some have mentioned, no real couple would balk at 10 years of marriage, but it would be difficult to deceive a spouse for that length of time. If some of the screening restrictions were removed, couples could be united faster, and at the end of ten years, they should have plenty of evidence to submit to authenticate the ongoing union. Unlike the current screening situation where spouses may not have had a chance to mingle funds etc, once in the US, it would be far easier for to subscribe to a list of financial/social/legal parameters outlined by immigration that a couple who was not living together would find difficult to fake. For the record, I still believe this is an inequitable invasion of privacy, but at least it is not accompanied by financial hardship and deprivation.

If someone exchanged money for marriage, they would still have to prove that they had been living together as husband and wife for ten years. I don't know about you, but ten years of my life in a fake marriage would require a prohibitive amount of doss, especially if at the end of it, I might lose it all or go to prison. For those who say that the con artists will always persist, I say if someone who doesn't really love you stays with you for ten years, making things function enough for you not to want to divorce them and leaves for greener pastures thereafter- congratulations- you have a marriage exactly like most Americans, only longer.

The burden of choosing a spouse wisely falls to the individual even though there are sheisty people out there. This is the case whether a USC marries another USC or a foreigner. For the same reason the government does not get to screen our emails lest we are duped into send large quantities of American capital to 'a Nigerian prince', the government is not responsible for policing who we marry; though as with any scam they may have to take a role in rectifying our honest mistakes.

The full disclosure of any prior attempts by the beneficiary to enter the country/marry under suspicious circumstances, and the furnishing of common red flags/statistics on fraud just seems like common sense. It would allow the USC to make a more informed decision, and is certainly no more invasive to privacy than the current inquiries. Although no one should be punished for someone else's lie, if your spouse arrives in the country only to disappear, you should be indebted for their eventual repatriation, and perhaps have future restrictions on petitioning for a foreign spouse. The foreign spouse, when apprehended, should be stripped of any assets, fingerprinted, sampled for DNA, put into a facial recognition database, and deported with no chance of return.

To remove the current financial restrictions, a foreign spouse should be given no recourse to public funds. The American spouse (and offspring) would retain the same access as he/she would if he/she were a single adult/parent. If it became necessary for the foreign spouse to leave the country for financial reasons, at that point there should be conditions (financial proofs, debt of repatriation, the cessation of need for welfare for the family, or a waiting period) before they could return. 

In the case of divorce before conditions are removed, the foreign spouse should not be able to remain in the country to adjust, with rare exceptions. Good faith is not enough. The fact that your life in your old country was not as nice as life in the US is not enough. Death of the American spouse, serious asylum issues, or spousal abuse seem like good outside parameters. It's rough to leave a place you've been living in for several years, but it happens. If people have been making good use of their time in America, hopefully they will have some assets from the divorce or some new experience/education/skills to show for it.

Except in cases of abuse, extended divorce counseling should be mandatory to prevent USC from casually discarding mail-order-bride types. Divorce proceedings should take into account the financial hardship of travel and reestablishing life in the country of origin. In cases of divorce, the USC should have a waiting period of 5-10 years before being allowed to attempt to petition for another foreign spouse. 

In a divorce, sole custody of any children common to the union should go initially to the USC parent except in cases of suspected abuse, or mutual agreement between spouses that the child should be with the foreign spouse.  Under such conditions (mandatory paternity test proving the child is the issue of the union, and say five years of marriage), perhaps the foreign spouse could be allowed to apply independently to remove conditions on his/her residency, and then go through legal proceedings for custody. This would discourage people from coming, having a baby and then trying to adjust status, but would help prevent tearing apart families for whom things legitimately did not work out. 

No remarriage during deportation proceedings, no future ability to come to the US via marriage (or a delay of another 10 years): if you really fall in love with an American twice in your life, the second can choose to emigrate to your home country for a while. Those with conditions removed should have no right to petition for their own new foreign spouse for at least several years after the divorce. This would discourage the people who divorce a spouse in one country, marry an American, divorce and remarry etc.

The VAWA issues seem to me the most complicated, and I must admit I am somewhat ignorant of current incidences of abuse/false abuse, or regulations in either case. A good starting point might be standardized prenuptial agreements, ensuring that both spouses are to some degree protected, and never deprived completely of a portion of the marital assets.

Maybe more resources should go to mandatory outreach, focused on periodically giving the foreign spouse an opportunity to interface with case workers, so that they are not ignorant of their rights, or sequestered with an abusive spouse. The same kind of outreach might be helpful for the yanks who get scammed in this way: having a sounding board throughout the relationship might help people realize that your spouse always having inexplicable bruises or throwing him/herself down the stairs are red flags. It would also create a chain of evidence so that if things escalated, impartial witnesses on both sides would have a sense of what had been going on.

I've probably overlooked a number of issues, but I have surely rambled on enough for now.

[rika60607 215]

That proposal is too harsh for any female beneficiary who cares any for her children born in the marriage to the USC. Imagine, having a baby and then being deported without said baby (a breastfed infant, to make the example even more pathetic) because your husband decided he likes another woman more and files for divorce after a few years of marriage! And to make things worse, the woman would not be allowed to ever come back to visit her child, because she is not from a visa waiver country!

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

Under what you propose you may slow down those just looking for a GC but it will make it much much easier for those that simply choose to turn left instead of right at the airport.. They do not care about being here illegally, and now you have given them a nice easy free fast avenue.. A few lies, a few months, turn left at the airport and disappear into the country... They join the other 12 million and wait for legislation to grandfather them in.

How many would be willing to do this? Nigeria is all over this thread lets look at them.. Last year there over one million applicants from Nigeria for the 3000 lottery visas.. one million for 3000 for one year.. I would submit that under what you propose the number of of fraudulent immigrants streaming through from just this one country would be the exact maximum capacity that an ever expanding consulate could possibly put through. 50,000 a year? no problem.. 100,000 a year? no problem.. Are you going to put limits on the total number and just let the appointments back up for years and totally defeat the initial reason for the change?

Any process that involves bringing someone here first and then finding out if it is fraudulent is a system that 100% guaranteed beyond any reasonable doubt to utterly fail.

[PantomimeGoose 59]

Sorry, I should have qualified that: I meant if the foreign spouse intended to independantly adjust status to stay in the US, that way the child remains the charge of the US spouse until such a time as the foreign spouse had status/recourse to public funds. An infant that hasn't been weaned surely requires a medical provision for staying with a mother, whether she was the USC or the foreign spouse, and of course child support is paid in those situations.

[PantomimeGoose 59]

How many Nigerian applicants for spousal visas are currently ongoing? 50,000 people who want marriage visas still need to find 50,000 dupes willing to marry and sponsor them. Criminal background could still be a veto. Fingerprinting etc would still be a necessity. If those USCs were given their spouse's travel and immigration history, were penalized with the cost of repatriation, and were not allowed to petition for another spouse for a number of years after, you think it would have no effect on how people would make their decisions? Maybe I just have too much faith in the intelligence of my fellow Americans.

I think another crucial component is the enforcement of deportation laws. I think we're capable of enforcing them much more than people are aware, but the government has no interest, because the illegal population is much more vocal than us. Maybe that's the real issue.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

That proposal is too harsh for any female beneficiary who cares any for her children born in the marriage to the USC. Imagine, having a baby and then being deported without said baby (a breastfed infant, to make the example even more pathetic) because your husband decided he likes another woman more and files for divorce after a few years of marriage! And to make things worse, the woman would not be allowed to ever come back to visit her child, because she is not from a visa waiver country!

The exact same scenario you described is possible right now. A female alien who loses her status can be deported and she won't be able to take children from her marriage to the USC husband without his permission.

But I see your point, and I agree. Child custody is a matter for family courts and not immigration law.

[rika60607 215]

It is possible, but easily avoidable.

All a K-1er has to do is wait until AOS is submitted (3 months?) and only get pregnant after that. At the moment AOS approval takes less than gestation period. Of course, something can go wrong and petitioner can decide to pull affidavit of support, but then the female could leave for her home country while still preggers. She would not lose a child.

Under the 5 to 10 year rule, a female would have to wait at least 4.5 years before knowing she would not be losing her child if her spouse changes his mind. It's cool for some, but not so cool if female is over 30 years old.

Having babies (especially 1st ones) can be stressful on the marriage and it can be a breaking point for some marriages. I would hate to see a woman becoming effectively a voiceless slave because of fear of losing her infant.

The exact same scenario you described is possible right now. A female alien who loses her status can be deported and she won't be able to take children from her marriage to the USC husband without his permission.

But I see your point, and I agree. Child custody is a matter for family courts and not immigration law.

[PantomimeGoose 59]

That is part of why I think intensive pre-divorce counselling should be mandatory. I know for any marriage in the state of Texas, a judge can currently require several months worth if they see fit. So in the case of marriages to immigrants make it a year, two years. It would help prevent/force the couple to try to get past scenarios where things just got tough when the baby came along, or the American spouse got bored and decided he/she liked someone from work. Maybe as with abuse, provisions for admitted/proven adultery with stricter financial measures are a good idea (I tend to see things like gambling away the family's money, hard drug use, infidelity etc as abuse anyway) Extensive counseling is also very good in helping inform the divorce process ala alimony, child support, and custody; there is then a third party with extensive insight into who's trying to make the marriage work and who's not.

The idea that child custody is simply a matter for family court is not tenable in immigration cases. There are messages all over this board of people whose family lawyers had no knowledge of VAWA, no idea what options the foreign spouse had for AOS, visitation and so forth. International divorces need lawyers and arbiters who understand both divorce law and immigration law.

The idea is to force people to think long and hard about their decision to marry and impose serious consequences when they decide to back out of the comittment, rather than penalizing everyone up front, and putting the strain of distance, time, and money on everyone's marriages. Marriage should be a really really big decision. Children should be a really really really big decision. Divorce is often ugly, and both parties *should* be afraid of it.

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

That is part of why I think intensive pre-divorce counselling should be mandatory. I know for any marriage in the state of Texas, a judge can currently require several months worth if they see fit. So in the case of marriages to immigrants make it a year, two years. It would help prevent/force the couple to try to get past scenarios where things just got tough when the baby came along, or the American spouse got bored and decided he/she liked someone from work. Maybe as with abuse, provisions for admitted/proven adultery with stricter financial measures are a good idea (I tend to see things like gambling away the family's money, hard drug use, infidelity etc as abuse anyway) Extensive counseling is also very good in helping inform the divorce process ala alimony, child support, and custody; there is then a third party with extensive insight into who's trying to make the marriage work and who's not.

The idea that child custody is simply a matter for family court is not tenable in immigration cases. There are messages all over this board of people whose family lawyers had no knowledge of VAWA, no idea what options the foreign spouse had for AOS, visitation and so forth. International divorces need lawyers and arbiters who understand both divorce law and immigration law.

The idea is to force people to think long and hard about their decision to marry and impose serious consequences when they decide to back out of the commitment, rather than penalizing everyone up front, and putting the strain of distance, time, and money on everyone's marriages. Marriage should be a really really big decision. Children should be a really really really big decision. Divorce is often ugly, and both parties *should* be afraid of it.

I guess I am seeing this from the exact opposite perspective.. Once somebody is here it is next to impossible to make them leave if they choose to stay. I would rather have a policy that is much more friendly once someone arrives and have very little interest in trying to remove someone who comes here in good faith and things don't work out. We should do our best to vet someone before they are allowed to come but once here we should do our best to let them live their lives without a constant fear of being removed at some point... That would also remove some of the power dynamics in these relationships that can lead to abuse and put pressure on marriages.

Edited August 28, 2011 by OnMyWayID

[NigeriaorBust 4,087]

But what of the penalty that legimate couples pay when they are caught up in the 'stop them from coming at all costs" mentality in some consulates. I would rather see a tougher enforcement on the US side than to be denied the company of my significant other for 2 years. If you made it impossible for the immigration fraud to ever keep permanent residence or citzenship then they would be less inclinded to abuse a USC and run. Make it harder to start the chain immigration or eliminate it. Make it longer before an immigrant can file a family based petition if the marriage they immigrated on lasts less than 7 years. But they should put a limit on how long immigration can jerk couples around under the cloak of invisability. Make getting denied a known process. Make disclosure of the "evidence" mandatory so the USC can make informed decisions. How does a generic " relationship for immigration purposes only " do anything ?