How to stop fraud in Fiance/Spouse Visas

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

How are joint sponsors related to fraud? Where's the connection?

From the article (thanks to the poster that found this.. I was unable to locate it at the time)

Eliminate the co-sponsor system for Americans filing immigrant visa petitions for spouses overseas. This means that Americans living below the poverty line would be unable to sponsor immigrants. Exceptions should be made for bona fide full-time students at the university level and young petitioners still listed as dependents on their parents’ most recent tax return. Since many, if not most of the Americans that engage in marriage fraud for cash are in a weak financial situation themselves, this move would add a difficult hurdle for would-be scam artists who want to engage in a sham marriage to a foreign national for money.

[pushbrk 12,877]

"So, you think people who "can't afford to travel" should not have the opportunity to love, marry and live in the USA with their foreign spouse?"

In a different post, you had mentioned that the couple will need to live together abroad for months at a time, or expect nothing less then of a denial or the same outcome they encountered with their previous visa. How does that apply to your statement here?

Good question. It's apples and oranges. I didn't say all couples need to do this. The suggestion was made to a couple who had already been denied a visa on grounds they don't have a bona fide relationship AND who had the kind of significant red flags that could ONLY be overcome by spending significant time together abroad. When such red flags are present or cause denials, time together has proven the only reliable way to overcome or avoid the denials. Yes, the small number of people who both find themselves in this position AND cannot afford to do what is needed to overcome the denial, will be out of luck.

My "So you think...." statement had context too. It was in response to a suggestion that ALL be require to spend significant time together prior to filing a petition. Not ALL have red flags and I'm not for the kind of "equality" that punishes the innocent in order to prevent crimes by criminals. That kind of equality is not "fair".

Many of the above ideas sound very good on the surface. However, what if there are U.S. children, and the marriage doesn't last five years, and the beneficiary (say, the wife) is required to return to her home country? What becomes of the children?

Good point. I realize people are brain storming but it's far wiser to think things through first.

[LoveNigarmostyle 164]

Good question. It's apples and oranges. I didn't say all couples need to do this. The suggestion was made to a couple who had already been denied a visa on grounds they don't have a bona fide relationship AND who had the kind of significant red flags that could ONLY be overcome by spending significant time together abroad. When such red flags are present or cause denials, time together has proven the only reliable way to overcome or avoid the denials. Yes, the small number of people who both find themselves in this position AND cannot afford to do what is needed to overcome the denial, will be out of luck.

My "So you think...." statement had context too. It was in response to a suggestion that ALL be require to spend significant time together prior to filing a petition. Not ALL have red flags and I'm not for the kind of "equality" that punishes the innocent in order to prevent crimes by criminals. That kind of equality is not "fair".

Pushbrk, thanks for the explanation. I see your point.

Good point. I realize people are brain storming but it's far wiser to think things through first.

[jenkatx 52]

The posted article states that we(USC) should have full access to all of the beneficiary's previous immigration or travel records. I totally agree with that. Another suggestion was that a national database needs to be established to monitor these petitions and that is also an excellent idea. I am hoping we can narrow this all down, basically agree on several suggestions, and then write a petition. If any of you are gifted writers step up now please!

Also does anyone know how we can circulate a petition here on VJ or even take it further through internet. Also are electronic signatures accepted on such things?

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Many of the above ideas sound very good on the surface. However, what if there are U.S. children, and the marriage doesn't last five years, and the beneficiary (say, the wife) is required to return to her home country? What becomes of the children?

What if the parents are both US citizens, they have US citizen children, and mom wants to move back with her family in New York but dad wants to stay with his job in California? Children are the victims of any divorce.

Immigration law currently doesn't provide legal status to anyone just because they have children born in the US. If US citizen children are to become a basis for legal status then they would also have to be a basis for people who overstay or enter without inspection. Anyone who wanted to stay in the US would only need to have a child here. Immigration law specifically prevents this by not allowing a US citizen to file a petition on behalf of it's parents until it's 21 years old. Why would this necessarily be different for someone who married and then divorced a US citizen?

Personally, I think birthright citizenship should only be granted if one of the parents is also a US citizen, or if the child has no valid claim to citizenship in any other country. The United States is one of very few countries that allows a child to acquire citizenship by birth when neither parent is a citizen.

I see your point but many marriages entered into in good faith, don't last five years. The foreign spouse often has left their whole lives behind including their careers for a new life in the USA with their spouse. They sincerely attempt to build a successful marriage but fail. Now, you want to send them home in shame to start their lives and careers over from scratch. Too harsh a penalty, IMO.

IMO, this is the reason one can remove conditions by showing they entered the marriage in good faith. If they truly did, why would we deport them? I know some slip through and use these loopholes but so it is with all our laws. Blocking the fraudsters before entry always has been and will be the best course of action.

EWI's also often leave behind everything to come to the US, and they have substantially less to look forward to, including the virtual certainty that they will never get lawful status here. Yet many of them come here with no intention of ever returning to their home country. There are no provisions in immigration law to grant them lawful status out of compassion because they abandoned their lives to come here. In fact, there are no provisions in any part of the immigration law for an immigration officer to consider that the intending immigrant has abandoned their life in their home country. It's simply not a relevant factor.

In addition, if you know with certainty what will happen depending on the long term status of your marriage then you can plan accordingly. For example, don't sell your house in your home country until you've been married for at least five years, and you know you're going to be living permanently in the US. Nobody is required to completely abandon their lives in their home country, and nobody is guaranteed a lifetime of lawful status in the US, even under the current laws, because immigration officers have discretion over your future status at every step of the way. This is equally unfair because legitimate couples are often punished because of an arbitrary decision by a USCIS officer who is primarily trying to root out fraud. What I suggest are methods to eliminate the motive for fraud, and reduce or eliminate the discretion of immigration officers.

The law, as it's currently written, has no teeth. There has always been a requirement for the US consulates to vet the relationship before issuing a visa. A fraudster who can gather enough evidence to convince a consulate officer to issue a visa isn't going to have any trouble keeping up the charade a little longer so that they can gather evidence to show they entered the marriage in good faith. Whereas fraudsters would previously pull the plug on the marriage immediately after arriving in the US (if they got a spousal visa) or after getting a green card (if they got a fiancee visa), they now wait a few extra months to get the additional evidence before walking out on the marriage (if they intend to seek the divorce waiver) or applying a few self-inflicted bruises and calling the cops (if they intend to seek the abuse waiver). There's little point in even having a two-year period for the conditional green card since they don't need to wait two years remove those conditions.

My point is that entering the marriage in good faith should not, by itself, be grounds for permanently immigrating to the United States. If that's the only requirement then why impose a two-year term on conditional residence? Why not only six months or even three months. After all, it doesn't matter what happens during the two years - it only matters if they entered the marriage in good faith, right?

A fraudster has it relatively easy since they know they only need to focus on the initial evidence. Once they've gathered that evidence then they know they can drop the charade and leave the marriage anytime. I think a substantial number of fraudsters wouldn't bother with the scam if they knew they'd have to stay in a loveless marriage for five years before getting an unconditional green card. Further, I think eliminating the VAWA route would save thousands of American citizens from having their lives ruined by false claims of spousal abuse.

In addition to increasing the conditional residence period to five years, I think removal of conditions should be automatic. You file jointly, pay the fee, and get the 10 year green card. No interviews. No discretion on the part of USCIS.

[jenkatx 52]

JimVaPhuong, would you be interested in helping to draw up a proposal we could submit to DOS, USCIS, & our local congress/senators? I think you are very eloquent and you responses are always well thought out. Would you have time to work on that?

[pushbrk 12,877]

What if the parents are both US citizens, they have US citizen children, and mom wants to move back with her family in New York but dad wants to stay with his job in California? Children are the victims of any divorce.

Immigration law currently doesn't provide legal status to anyone just because they have children born in the US. If US citizen children are to become a basis for legal status then they would also have to be a basis for people who overstay or enter without inspection. Anyone who wanted to stay in the US would only need to have a child here. Immigration law specifically prevents this by not allowing a US citizen to file a petition on behalf of it's parents until it's 21 years old. Why would this necessarily be different for someone who married and then divorced a US citizen?

Personally, I think birthright citizenship should only be granted if one of the parents is also a US citizen, or if the child has no valid claim to citizenship in any other country. The United States is one of very few countries that allows a child to acquire citizenship by birth when neither parent is a citizen.

EWI's also often leave behind everything to come to the US, and they have substantially less to look forward to, including the virtual certainty that they will never get lawful status here. Yet many of them come here with no intention of ever returning to their home country. There are no provisions in immigration law to grant them lawful status out of compassion because they abandoned their lives to come here. In fact, there are no provisions in any part of the immigration law for an immigration officer to consider that the intending immigrant has abandoned their life in their home country. It's simply not a relevant factor.

In addition, if you know with certainty what will happen depending on the long term status of your marriage then you can plan accordingly. For example, don't sell your house in your home country until you've been married for at least five years, and you know you're going to be living permanently in the US. Nobody is required to completely abandon their lives in their home country, and nobody is guaranteed a lifetime of lawful status in the US, even under the current laws, because immigration officers have discretion over your future status at every step of the way. This is equally unfair because legitimate couples are often punished because of an arbitrary decision by a USCIS officer who is primarily trying to root out fraud. What I suggest are methods to eliminate the motive for fraud, and reduce or eliminate the discretion of immigration officers.

The law, as it's currently written, has no teeth. There has always been a requirement for the US consulates to vet the relationship before issuing a visa. A fraudster who can gather enough evidence to convince a consulate officer to issue a visa isn't going to have any trouble keeping up the charade a little longer so that they can gather evidence to show they entered the marriage in good faith. Whereas fraudsters would previously pull the plug on the marriage immediately after arriving in the US (if they got a spousal visa) or after getting a green card (if they got a fiancee visa), they now wait a few extra months to get the additional evidence before walking out on the marriage (if they intend to seek the divorce waiver) or applying a few self-inflicted bruises and calling the cops (if they intend to seek the abuse waiver). There's little point in even having a two-year period for the conditional green card since they don't need to wait two years remove those conditions.

My point is that entering the marriage in good faith should not, by itself, be grounds for permanently immigrating to the United States. If that's the only requirement then why impose a two-year term on conditional residence? Why not only six months or even three months. After all, it doesn't matter what happens during the two years - it only matters if they entered the marriage in good faith, right?

A fraudster has it relatively easy since they know they only need to focus on the initial evidence. Once they've gathered that evidence then they know they can drop the charade and leave the marriage anytime. I think a substantial number of fraudsters wouldn't bother with the scam if they knew they'd have to stay in a loveless marriage for five years before getting an unconditional green card. Further, I think eliminating the VAWA route would save thousands of American citizens from having their lives ruined by false claims of spousal abuse.

In addition to increasing the conditional residence period to five years, I think removal of conditions should be automatic. You file jointly, pay the fee, and get the 10 year green card. No interviews. No discretion on the part of USCIS.

This reply is not as well thought through as your usual. First, the law doesn't provide for discretion based on compassion but rather is written with these compassionate ideas in mind. Second, if removal of conditions after five years requires no discretion on on the part of USCIS, then the couple need only avoid divorce. No need to live together or even see each other except to file some papers.

Your suggestions don't help weed out fraud. They simply discourage a broad range of potential couples from pursuing US immigration for a spouse or fiancee. An ebbing tide grounds all boats in water below the low tide line, in the same way a rising tide floats all boats. To carry the metaphor/analogy further, preventing fraud is about weeding out the boats that aren't seaworthy without harming the boats that are.

Making it more difficult for many is not a fair way to deal with the fraud perpetrated by the few.

[LoveNigarmostyle 164]

"A fraudster has it relatively easy since they know they only need to focus on the initial evidence. Once they've gathered that evidence then they know they can drop the charade and leave the marriage anytime. I think a substantial number of fraudsters wouldn't bother with the scam if they knew they'd have to stay in a loveless marriage for five years before getting an unconditional green card. Further, I think eliminating the VAWA route would save thousands of American citizens from having their lives ruined by false claims of spousal abuse."

I agree with your statement Jim. It is similar to what I had said earlier in my post. A fraudster knows what is expected, they usually keep themselves a step ahead of everyone to insure a visa when the time is right.

Well, the longer a scam artist has to stay married to a petitioner before obtaining the green card is one good way, but if that person is young, what is five years for them to sacrifice to eventually get a permanent residency?

Thanks for the detailed and well composed post

[LoveNigarmostyle 164]

The posted article states that we(USC) should have full access to all of the beneficiary's previous immigration or travel records. I totally agree with that. Another suggestion was that a national database needs to be established to monitor these petitions and that is also an excellent idea. I am hoping we can narrow this all down, basically agree on several suggestions, and then write a petition. If any of you are gifted writers step up now please!

Also does anyone know how we can circulate a petition here on VJ or even take it further through internet. Also are electronic signatures accepted on such things?

I have emailed you a website which was posted somewhere on VJ previously and it was passed down to me by another member.

[pushbrk 12,877]

As you think of ideas for change, it's important to consider the unintended consequences as well. There are often many.

[LoveNigarmostyle 164]

As you think of ideas for change, it's important to consider the unintended consequences as well. There are often many.

This is why it is important to work together collectively, regardless of different ideas. This is essential to make the petition even stronger and well balanced.

We are working to achieve 'the greater good" in this visa process. Therefore, let us work together to create, a well thought of document. Thanks.

[rsn 135]

As you think of ideas for change, it's important to consider the unintended consequences as well. There are often many.

This is quite possibly the only well-thought out statement in this entire thread. Change is not always good. Change does not always solve problems. In fact, it may cause more problems. I don't really think the legal immigration system is broken.

[pushbrk 12,877]

This is why it is important to work together collectively, regardless of different ideas. This is essential to make the petition even stronger and well balanced.

We are working to achieve 'the greater good" in this visa process. Therefore, let us work together to create, a well thought of document. Thanks.

Those participating in the work are well advised to do their own thinking, in terms of both the intended and unintended consequences. So far, I see a lot of brainstorming that shortcuts the process. The result is unproductive. Sometimes people end up realizing they simply don't have the frame of reference needed for the task they wish to accomplish. I don't to be the naysayer with no positive contribution to the discussion, so will stop with this. I don't have anything positive to add, because I don't think the system is broken. The fact that some people feel short changed by a process, does not mean it is broken except possibly in their own minds.

"It didn't work for me, therefore it is broken.", is a common fallacy engaged in by many.

[NigeriaorBust 4,087]

The fact that half the approved Nigerian couples turn out to be fraudulent relationship shows it is broken and the number of us that need repeat interviews also show it is broken. They can't tell fraudulent relationships and they can't tell valid ones ( better than 50% ) They should just hand out coins at the interview , heads you win , tails you lose you would get the same percentage.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

JimVaPhuong, would you be interested in helping to draw up a proposal we could submit to DOS, USCIS, & our local congress/senators? I think you are very eloquent and you responses are always well thought out. Would you have time to work on that?

There's no point in petitioning either DOS or USCIS. They can't change the law, and any policy changes have to conform to the law. If you could get a couple of Congressmen or Senators behind it then there's a chance of a bill being drafted. Getting the bill to become law is a different matter. The current mood in Congress reflects the mood of most of the country, and the country is split into polar opposites. Some want to see a strict crackdown on illegal immigration. Others want to see amnesty for illegal immigrants. Very few are concerned about immigration fraud or legal immigration. It's like trying to discuss how to deal with the hyenas who live on the mountain when there's a pack of lions living in your backyard. The problem of what to do about 12 million illegal aliens just seems to be far more pressing to most people.

Anyway, there are obviously some people who disagree with my ideas, so this topic definitely deserves more debate before any petitions are drafted, which brings me to...

This reply is not as well thought through as your usual. First, the law doesn't provide for discretion based on compassion but rather is written with these compassionate ideas in mind. Second, if removal of conditions after five years requires no discretion on on the part of USCIS, then the couple need only avoid divorce. No need to live together or even see each other except to file some papers.

Yes, they only need to avoid divorce for five years.

The majority of fraud cases involve an American citizen who was duped by a foreign fiancee or spouse. Few of these marriages would last five years. The US citizen will eventually realize he or she has been fooled, and they'll end the marriage.

A relatively small percentage involve a US citizen who is complicit in the fraud. Some of those cases currently get rooted out at the consulate stage. The remainder are rarely ever discovered. Most of them go into a Stokes interview better prepared than most legitimate couples. USCIS' anti-fraud methods catch as many legitimate couples as they do frauds. Their methods are ineffective, and they shouldn't have the discretion to make these decisions.

Your suggestions don't help weed out fraud. They simply discourage a broad range of potential couples from pursuing US immigration for a spouse or fiancee. An ebbing tide grounds all boats in water below the low tide line, in the same way a rising tide floats all boats. To carry the metaphor/analogy further, preventing fraud is about weeding out the boats that aren't seaworthy without harming the boats that are.

Making it more difficult for many is not a fair way to deal with the fraud perpetrated by the few.

Hardly. No legitimate couple enters a relationship with the expectation that the marriage is going to fail ever, and certainly not within five years. The only people who would be discouraged are those who are primarily motivated by a green card, and have no desire to remain in a marriage for five years. For legitimate couples, this would actually make it easier since they wouldn't have to worry about USCIS dropping the hammer on them after two years of marriage.