how can I have wife removed for marriage fraud?

[Boiler 45,466]

Thanks for all advice. Bear in mind my fiancé told me I got her pregnant which I believed then said the child died. She left her 2.5 month old child in Vietnam and came to USA hiding the fact the child was not mine all the while calling and getting money from me. Does this sound like a person ANYONE on here would want to be married to? This is also the story she told to the consular officers in Saigon. This is not fraud to you? Now we are married, she told me the truth after our child in USA was born. Everyday I come from work and pick up our daughter from daycare while my wife works. We work together under just my SS #. Her parents, brother, sister and other family members call 2 or 3 times a month asking for money usually $200- $500 at a time which she gives to them. We are still living in a studio apt. I will find out if an annulment is possible but I'm also contending with her family and friends telling her all about alimony, child support, etc which is why she won't go home. Yes I got myself into this because I trusted someone but I want out wouldn't anyone else? Again thanks for all the ideas and advice

That sounds like fraud.

[christeen 966]

The "work" thingy popped to me as well... How does that work exactly? The TWO of you working under ONE SSN# ?

[aaron2020 11,651]

Here is the basis for annulment.

She told him she was having his baby and it died. She was lying. She was concealing she had another man's baby. If she had told the OP the truth, would he have married her? No. So she tricked him by lying to him. Her motivation? To get to the US by him getting her a K-1. Ergo, she committed fraud to get him to marry her so she can immigrate to the US.

How long they have been married and the child they have together are irrelevant because neither has anything to do with her tricking him into marriage.

The 4 years statue of limitation starts when he discovered the fraud. That is when she told him.

The SSN fraud is a separate issue and has nothing to do with getting an annulment based on fraud.

[Boiler 45,466]

As I have said earlier what evidence is there that what she said is true?

But for argument sake lets say it is. And can be proven.

K1, is it material, possibly, there have been sort of similar cases I have seen in PI that has resulted in refused visa's.

Green Card, well obviously not.

Marriage, well she hid a child that was not the OP's, but how did this induce him to marry her. Marriage does not require a full disclosure of past activities.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

For those with no ideas about annulments but stating reasons why it can't be done for one reason or another, please do a little research rather than pull stuff out of thin air.

http://www.courts.ca.gov/1037.htm

Read the part about annulment based on fraud - in particular about entering the marriage for a green card. Then look at the statue of limitation which is 4 years in California AFTER the fraud is discovered (not 4 years after the marriage).

If the laws are similar in the OP's state, then an annulment is completely possible.

From your link, since you are just throwing stuff out there:

Getting an annulment does not depend on how long you have been married or in a domestic partnership. Even if you have been married/in a partnership only a very short time, you may not be able to prove to the judge that your case has 1 of the legal reasons that makes your marriage/partnership invalid.

Proving that there is a legally valid reason to get an annulment can be very difficult. Talk to a lawyer for help understanding exactly what you need to show to a judge before he or she will agree to give you an annulment.

The statute of limitations only limits who may file for annulment on what grounds. It does not obligate the court to grant an annulment if filed within the time limits.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

That sounds like fraud.

If the OP's story is true and complete, yes it does.

[clayr 35]

We work together same place as 1099ers. I have no choice I cannot feed 3 people, diapers, dr. visits on just 1 check. I get a check she gets a check made out to me, I endorse and she puts in her bank account. Her GC app was declined last yr due to insufficient income and assets I didn't use a co sponsor. USCIS said we have to reapply and pay fees again I have yet to do so which is why she has no GC

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

How old is your daughter, if you don't mind answering?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

We work together same place as 1099ers.

You only work for one place and that is an an independent contractor, or as a statutory employee? Do you live in a community property state?

You have some tax issues. You may have some serious tax issues.

You need some sound legal and tax advice. Since you have limited income, I would look first for free legal services in your area.

[clayr 35]

_{Daughter is 19 months. We get 1099s just gross income no taxes taken out. So we pay both halves of soc sec employer pays nothing, at end of year we owe a lot in taxes. I don't know how the IRS allows this. I guess like a commissioned salesperson}

[Boiler 45,466]

We work together same place as 1099ers. I have no choice I cannot feed 3 people, diapers, dr. visits on just 1 check. I get a check she gets a check made out to me, I endorse and she puts in her bank account. Her GC app was declined last yr due to insufficient income and assets I didn't use a co sponsor. USCIS said we have to reapply and pay fees again I have yet to do so which is why she has no GC

You said she send her income back to her family?

You did have a choice, you could have got a co sponsor, you would have been given a RFE and time to get a co sponsor, no more fees.

Sort of begs the question with 2 persons income in your name how you could not have met the AoS requirements.

Edited May 4, 2014 by Boiler

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

_{Daughter is 19 months. We get 1099s just gross income no taxes taken out. So we pay both halves of soc sec employer pays nothing, at end of year we owe a lot in taxes. I don't know how the IRS allows this. I guess like a commissioned salesperson}

You may both may be statutory employees and your employer may be obligated to pay his share of the payroll taxes. This is not related to your issue at hand, but once you get this crisis resolved, it is something you may want to look into. If could put a lot of money back in your pocket.

http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Statutory-Employees

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Sort of begs the question with 2 persons income in your name how you could not have met the AoS requirements.

If he is filing schedule C and deducting all the business expenses he can to limit his tax obligation, that may be entirely possible.

[Boiler 45,466]

If he is filing schedule C and deducting all the business expenses he can to limit his tax obligation, that may be entirely possible.

I assumed that was the case, so he maximised his deduction voluntarily to bring his income below the threshold and went with no co sponsor.

He did do the I 134.

[Leatherneck 693]

Depends on the jurisdiction the divorce/custody would be filed in - there are still many counties in this country stuck in the dark ages.

I agree with you, there are always exceptions. However, given that family court judges have a lot of discretion with regards to issuing orders based on what is in the best of the child -- it's better than it was when men had little chance of even 50% custody. Do men still get hosed? Yes.

What does the DA have to do with it? Divorce/Child custody are not criminal matters. A temporary support order will only happen if at least one of the parties to the divorce files such motion - the presiding judge will then decide what the conditions will be if a consent temporary order cannot be agreed upon by the parties prior to the hearing.

To your first question -- nothing. Of course divorce and child custody are judicial matters adjudicated by a family court judge. I intended to write judge and not DA.

Until temporary custody issues are ironed out in court, physical custody of the child can go back and forth in a continual, very destructive circle. Father drops child off at daycare … mother picks up child from daycare an hour later … father shows up at the end of the day and doesn't know where the child is; father calls the police; police determine child is with the mother; police determine there is no restraint on the mother having custody of her child; police tell mother and father to go to court and figure it out, police return to the donut shop.

Hence, the very point of suggesting OP get away from his wife and file for divorce/custody if they are not getting along (his sentiment, not mine), so as to negate any bogus claims of abuse/DV and the potential for a back-an-forth tug-of-war over the minor child. Why wait for 'all hell' to break out considering the already elevated tension? Being proactive can also show the court that father stepped up to provide the child a more stable environment, which, once established, respondent might be burden with making a compelling argument why minor child should be taken from a stable environment and placed with her. Better for OP to start with 100% custody and finish up with 50% rather than start with wondering when/if he might get a chance to see his child again. We know that courts rarely hold custodial parents (especially mothers) in contempt for violating visitation orders.

Without a court order specifying the custody parameters, neither parent can legally prevent the other parent from being with the child or taking possession of the child.

Not something suggested in my remarks.

If OP wants custody - he should file a motion for divorce with a concomitant motion for temporary order specifying custody, living arrangements and support matters whilst the divorce proceeds.

Again the very point of my original comment, OP can be a proactive petitioner rather than the respondent to the summons. Having 100% physical custody of minor child on the day of the temporary custody hearing can be advantageous provided OP has not damaged his credibility by acting in an over aggressively manner in assuring his parental rights -- at the very least, it makes it easier for OP to negotiate with respondent, and to get respondent to stipulate to 50/50 custody/visitation.