How to stop fraud in Fiance/Spouse Visas

[pushbrk 13,065]

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...

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.

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.

Well, opinions and circumstances vary. If your suggestions had been implemented before I met my wife, I'd still be single. There would have been no hope of being together in the USA. I can name numerous other couples impacted similarly. Only fools expect a marriage to fail. Only fools ignore the fact that 50% do. A failed marriage does not indicate fraud. It indicates a failed marriage.

[LoveNigarmostyle 164]

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.

You are absolutely right. Thus, we go back to the lie detector, background checks and other methods to detect the fraud, by proof, and not on a gut feeling, or stereotyping couples. "The coin" theory is a scary thought, but it is probably true, for when all is said and done, most of the Nigerian interviews seem to fall into this pitiful coin toss.

It has become a joke of a system and process. So what is one to do? If changes are so difficult, or even close to impossible? something has to be done.

[TBoneTX 45,914]

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?

The analogy is not entirely correct. The children and parents would be free to visit each other, as they could or chose to.

Take a USC husband and a PR wife. The wife is deported and perhaps banned from re-entry. The husband is left (probably) with a full-time job, and with an infant or toddler who can't understand why Mommy isn't around and is inconsolable around-the-clock. Daddy is grieving, stressed, and sleepless, and maybe with no wherewithal to arrange for child care for an infant or toddler who's in emotional uproar already. This seems to be another unintended consequence, as mentioned by others.

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.

No, they wouldn't.

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

Agreed re this aspect of birthright citizenship, but that's not central to what this thread purports to discuss. Edited August 4, 2011 by TBoneTX

[rika60607 215]

Same here. I would not have married either. The main reason - I could not have risked that I have a child and then I am forced to leave it behind in the US if US daddy decided that he likes another chick more and divorced me.

Draconian measures will stop a number of legitimate couples first, then some fraudsters, then... the really well prepared and cold-hearted fraudsters will remain to game the system.

As is, the system is by no means perfect, but at least it is balanced when it comes to immigrant vs US citizen rights.

...and to the person who wants to draft a petition - you really could explore better avenues to heal the damage that your fraudster caused to you. Making the journey even harder for those behind you is not the way. Remember, your journey is over, theirs just begins and is full of hope.

Well, opinions and circumstances vary. If your suggestions had been implemented before I met my wife, I'd still be single. There would have been no hope of being together in the USA. I can name numerous other couples impacted similarly. Only fools expect a marriage to fail. Only fools ignore the fact that 50% do. A failed marriage does not indicate fraud. It indicates a failed marriage.

[pushbrk 13,065]

Another thing to remember is that being "legal" in the USA is currently not all that necessary once you're here. A fraudster would rather be legal than illegal but most would rather be IN the USA than not. Once here, "laws" that say they need to leave if they don't....whatever....are pretty much useless if they'll be willing to stay illegally anyway. Pretty much any community of foreigners have their own underground economy and sources of work or income. Getting here, is all that's needed to access that.

You can wade a river or climb a fence but getting across an ocean is a different matter. This is WHY our laws require Consular officers to presume (until they provide compelling evidence to the contrary) all non-immigrant visa applicants intend to enter the US and then stay illegally after entry. This presumption is necessary BECAUSE we don't have the resources to round them up and ship them home once they've overstayed.

Any solution to family based immigration fraud issues must necessarily be implemented in ways that prevent entry, not simply denies them legal status once they're here and must not be unduly burdensome on the vast majority of legitimate couples hoping to live together in the USA. Let's try not to punish the innocent.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Well, opinions and circumstances vary. If your suggestions had been implemented before I met my wife, I'd still be single. There would have been no hope of being together in the USA. I can name numerous other couples impacted similarly. Only fools expect a marriage to fail. Only fools ignore the fact that 50% do. A failed marriage does not indicate fraud. It indicates a failed marriage.

How, exactly, would it have impacted you? The process, from petition to adjustment of status, would have been virtually the same. The only thing that would have been different is the period of conditional residence, and the process for removal of conditions. If anything, it might have made things a little easier at the consulate in Guangzhou because they might not be as quick to presume that the beneficiary is a fraud.

What I'm suggesting is precisely what the law was originally intended to do - reduce immigration fraud by establishing a period of time during which the alien's immigration status is conditional upon their remaining married to the US citizen that petitioned for and sponsored them. That is exactly what the law purports to do now. The only difference is that the law has two major loopholes that allow an alien to circumvent this requirement if they can sufficiently convince an immigration officer that they were sincere when they said "I do". Once again, the two year conditional residence period becomes irrelevant since everything hinges on the alien's intent when they entered the marriage. There's no real requirement that they remain married for two years. Even if they do, they're subject to an immigration officer's ability to read minds to determine if the marriage is legitimate in order to get the conditions removed. Immigration officers can't read minds, so they make decisions based on a paper trail that only remotely correlates to a bona fide relationship. Genuine couples who can't provide sufficient documents get denied, even if their relationship is still going strong after two years.

The analogy is not entirely correct. The children and parents would be free to visit each other, as they could or chose to.

The only difference is that international travel would be required for visitation. Otherwise, virtually identical.

Take a USC husband and a PR wife. The wife is deported and perhaps banned from re-entry. The husband is left (probably) with a full-time job, and with an infant or toddler who can't understand why Mommy isn't around and is inconsolable around-the-clock. Daddy is grieving, stressed, and sleepless, and maybe with no wherewithal to arrange for child care for an infant or toddler who's in emotional uproar already. This seems to be another unintended consequence, as mentioned by others.

Banned from reentry for what reason? I never suggested that losing their LPR status would come with an automatic ban of any sort. The other factors you mentioned can exist in any divorce, whether or not immigration is involved.

[pushbrk 13,065]

How, exactly, would it have impacted you?

I was referring to the suggestion that a minimum of 60 days be spent together prior to filing. Perhaps it was not YOU suggesting that or agreeing with that suggestion. An extended period of conditional residency would not have had an impact except the cost. My wife entered on a K3 visa with the intent of delaying the completion of status adjustment for her daughter and herself until after they qualified for unconditional residency. As it was, we applied days before the fee increase of July 2007.

Are you also suggesting that the IR1 visa and associated status require 5 rather than 2 years of marriage?

Few people are able to spend extended time abroad. I only suggested it as the remaining viable option for those in circumstances where it needed to overcome severe red flags or denials based on severe red flags. The vast majority of our members bringing a spouse to the USA would never be able to do so if there was a 60 day live together requirement.

I think the vast majority of fraudsters would simply vanish into the underground culture and economy rather than leave the USA. Clearly there's plenty of evidence that once you're here, you have a pretty good chance at a far better life than the one you committed fraud to get here from. Risk, yes. Worth it? Ask one of the 12 million or so available "witnesses".

Secure the border first. Stop fraud on the other side. Once inside, it's too late.

Edited August 4, 2011 by pushbrk

[jenkatx 52]

Same here. I would not have married either. The main reason - I could not have risked that I have a child and then I am forced to leave it behind in the US if US daddy decided that he likes another chick more and divorced me.

Draconian measures will stop a number of legitimate couples first, then some fraudsters, then... the really well prepared and cold-hearted fraudsters will remain to game the system.

As is, the system is by no means perfect, but at least it is balanced when it comes to immigrant vs US citizen rights.

...and to the person who wants to draft a petition - you really could explore better avenues to heal the damage that your fraudster caused to you. Making the journey even harder for those behind you is not the way. Remember, your journey is over, theirs just begins and is full of hope.

Um actually I am still with my Honey. The purpose of this is that in our particular Embassy we are having a large number of legit couples denied, while the fraud couples get right on through. Several of us felt that if there is a better system to detect the fraud in advance then it would benefit all of us. The fraudsters would not get through as easily and those who are legit won't suffer because they are not as slick. I personally would trade a month or two of wait time to be able to have a stronger guarantee that we would be approved. Sadly there is no easy answer. Maybe that is why the system is not fixed. None of us can even agree upon a single measure that would help without harming innocents. The only one that no one has found strong reason against is the fraud/immigration attempt database. I would be interested to hear peoples opinions on that.

[NigeriaorBust 4,087]

Checking IP addresses wouldn't work for a scammer that wanders for internet cafe to internet cafe and would harm the legit guy that happen to sit down right after the head mugu chaser. Phone record are also a bust in a country where I have seen people wander about with no less than 5 cell phone ( probably one for each girl friend )

[jenkatx 52]

I was referring to the suggestion that a minimum of 60 days be spent together prior to filing. Perhaps it was not YOU suggesting that or agreeing with that suggestion. An extended period of conditional residency would not have had an impact except the cost. My wife entered on a K3 visa with the intent of delaying the completion of status adjustment for her daughter and herself until after they qualified for unconditional residency. As it was, we applied days before the fee increase of July 2007.

Are you also suggesting that the IR1 visa and associated status require 5 rather than 2 years of marriage?

Few people are able to spend extended time abroad. I only suggested it as the remaining viable option for those in circumstances where it needed to overcome severe red flags or denials based on severe red flags. The vast majority of our members bringing a spouse to the USA would never be able to do so if there was a 60 day live together requirement.

I think the vast majority of fraudsters would simply vanish into the underground culture and economy rather than leave the USA. Clearly there's plenty of evidence that once you're here, you have a pretty good chance at a far better life than the one you committed fraud to get here from. Risk, yes. Worth it? Ask one of the 12 million or so available "witnesses".

Secure the border first. Stop fraud on the other side. Once inside, it's too late.

[/quote

I agree with you that 60 days is not feasible or fair. You have to take into consideration that not all of our fiances or spouses come from a place that is safe for us to live or visit for an extended time. For example mine is in Nigeria. Every time I visit I know there is a very high chance I will be kidnapped or robbed. I absolutely can not take my children there either. The medical care if available is substandard, malaria, typhoid, the list is endless. I agree 1 visit is not sufficient but sometimes it is a huge risk to even go once. Not to mention work and family obligations.

What are peoples thought on the lie detector test proposed?

[jenkatx 52]

Another option suggested in the article posted earlier;

Create a third option for USCIS adjudicators when a couple is interviewed to remove the foreign spouse’s “conditional” status on his or her green card (typically after two years of marriage). Rather than just revocation or approval, conditional status could be extended for up to three years with a supervisor’s approval. Would-be cheaters would have no guaranty that they would only need to remain married for two years.

[pushbrk 13,065]

Another option suggested in the article posted earlier;

Create a third option for USCIS adjudicators when a couple is interviewed to remove the foreign spouse's "conditional" status on his or her green card (typically after two years of marriage). Rather than just revocation or approval, conditional status could be extended for up to three years with a supervisor's approval. Would-be cheaters would have no guaranty that they would only need to remain married for two years.

People who commit fraud to enter the USA as a fiance or spouse, will simply disappear to remain in the US as illegal aliens. Would you like 12 million examples?

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

I was referring to the suggestion that a minimum of 60 days be spent together prior to filing. Perhaps it was not YOU suggesting that or agreeing with that suggestion. An extended period of conditional residency would not have had an impact except the cost. My wife entered on a K3 visa with the intent of delaying the completion of status adjustment for her daughter and herself until after they qualified for unconditional residency. As it was, we applied days before the fee increase of July 2007.

That was actually NigeriaorBust who suggested that. I argued against it in this post. I don't think it's a good idea to mandate a specific amount of "face time", and I don't think it would prevent fraud.

Are you also suggesting that the IR1 visa and associated status require 5 rather than 2 years of marriage?

Yep. I'm also suggesting that the alien necessarily wouldn't be eligible for US citizenship until they've been an LPR for five years, just like all other LPR's.

Few people are able to spend extended time abroad. I only suggested it as the remaining viable option for those in circumstances where it needed to overcome severe red flags or denials based on severe red flags. The vast majority of our members bringing a spouse to the USA would never be able to do so if there was a 60 day live together requirement.

Agreed.

I think the vast majority of fraudsters would simply vanish into the underground culture and economy rather than leave the USA. Clearly there's plenty of evidence that once you're here, you have a pretty good chance at a far better life than the one you committed fraud to get here from. Risk, yes. Worth it? Ask one of the 12 million or so available "witnesses".

Secure the border first. Stop fraud on the other side. Once inside, it's too late.

Perhaps, but giving them a relatively easy path to unconditional permanent resident status isn't a solution.

Nobody comes to the US with a fiancee or spousal visa expecting that they'll be satisfied to settle for being an illegal alien. Fraudsters usually know darn well what they're getting themselves into, and they know what their options are going to be. Many have no intention of sitting through two years of marriage with the petitioner. Some plan the divorce or VAWA filing before they step on the plane.

What I'm suggesting is to remove those options completely. The fraudster would know in advance that they either ride out five years of marriage and file jointly with their US citizen spouse to remove conditions, or they'll lose their status - no other options. A sincere couple wouldn't be put off by this requirement because they don't go into the marriage making contingency plans for divorce. A fraudster would be a lot less likely to even try to hook a US citizen for a visa because they know they couldn't keep pretending to love their US citizen spouse for five years. The only ones left would be the cases where both the US citizen and foreign spouse are in on the scam. This would be the only type of fraud the consulate would need to try to screen out, which would make the consulate interview easier for most people.

[rika60607 215]

Then may be your efforts would be better spent on trying to appeal with that specific embassy, rather than overhaul the whole USCIS approach. It is not USCIS that causes denials at Nigerian Embassy.

Lie detector would be cool, but it is not always correct (have you seen "Lie to me"?)

Um actually I am still with my Honey. The purpose of this is that in our particular Embassy we are having a large number of legit couples denied, while the fraud couples get right on through.

.....

[NigeriaorBust 4,087]

Then may be your efforts would be better spent on trying to appeal with that specific embassy, rather than overhaul the whole USCIS approach. It is not USCIS that causes denials at Nigerian Embassy.

Lie detector would be cool, but it is not always correct (have you seen "Lie to me"?)

On TV the crime is alway solved by fancy forensics. The thermal imaging detectors are much more accurate. ( the brain heats up when making a lie / new memory )