The HMA Law Firm - Immigration & Criminal Defense Lawyers

Call: 703.964.0245

  • Home
  • Our Team
  • Practice
    • Immigration >
      • Employment-Based Immigration >
        • The H-1B Visa
        • Investor and Intracompany Transfers (E & L Visas)
        • PERM Labor Certification >
          • Cross Chargeability
          • EB-5 Green Cards
      • Marriage & Fiancé Visas >
        • Special Service for Servicemen
        • Marriage Interview Questions
        • The I-751 Good Faith Waiver
        • Evidence for Filing an I-751
        • My I-751 Was Denied: Now What?
        • Same-Sex Marriage Immigration Issues
        • New 90 Day Rule
      • General Immigration >
        • Filing a FOIA from USCIS
        • Form G-639: How to Complete
        • Re-Entry Permits
        • TPS >
          • More on TPS
          • SYRIA TPS
          • TPS Yemen
        • U Visas
      • Legal Victories
      • How To Choose The Right Immigration Lawyer
      • Waivers (I-601/I-601A) >
        • Drunk Driving (DUI/DWI) and I-601/I-601A Waivers
      • Citizenship >
        • N-648 Medical Waivers
        • Naturalization Pitfalls
        • The Civics Test for Naturalization
        • Exceptions for English Test
        • Criminal Convictions and Naturalization
      • Mandamus: It's Taking Too Long >
        • Mandamus: What to Think, What to Expect
        • How an Immigration Writ of Mandamus Works
        • Petition for Hearing on Naturalization
      • Deportation Defense >
        • Overview of Removal Proceedings
        • Deportation: Preventive Maintenance
      • Deferred Action (DACA) >
        • To Lawyer Or Not To Lawyer
        • Applying for a Social Security Number
    • Criminal Defense >
      • Traffic Offenses
    • Learn >
      • Immigration In A Nutshell >
        • The Visa Bulletin and Family Immigration
      • Criminal Immigration Law 101 >
        • Know Your Rights
      • Eligibility for Citizenship >
        • Citizenship versus Naturalization
        • Why Become a Citizen?
  • Consult/Pay Fees
  • Testimonials
  • Careers
  • Blawg
  • En Español
    • Accion Ejecutiva
    • El Interdicto Temporal
    • Buscar Detenido
    • Reforma Inmigratoria
    • Papeles Por Los Indocumentados

The HMA Law Firm Blawg

    Question? Contact a lawyer now!

Submit

Marriage Fraud: Void For Vagueness?

2/19/2013

8 Comments

 
Picture
Update 4/9/2013: Baltimore City Paper publishes an article about attorney Hassan Ahmad's constitutional challenge to the marriage fraud statute.



Original Blawg Post follows:


People get married for many reasons. Love, wanting to start a family, convenience, arranged by parents, etc.  But what if getting a green card is part of the decision to get married? At what point does the marriage become "fraudulent"?

Marriage fraud - known commonly as a "sham marriage" or "marriage of convenience" or "green card marriage" or "fake marriage" - is such a large problem, and has been going on for so long, you would think the answer to that question would have long been settled.

It hasn't, and it isn't.

We've blogged about what to do when a marriage is shaky.  But today's topic is marriage fraud.


Marriage fraud has been a favorite option of the fraudsters who want to gain permanent residency quickly.  In our experience, contractual fraud is the most common type: alien meets US citizen, agree to marry, get green card, and then divorce.  Sometimes the alien and the US citizen are introduced via a marriage "broker." Other times they are friends, and may even date each other before tying the knot.  Sometimes the US citizen wants to "help" the alien who is facing deportation.

There are two main laws concerning marriage fraud.  INA 204(c) states that no visa petition may be approved under INA §204 if the “alien has previously been accorded, or has sought to be accorded, an immediate relative or preference status as the spouse of a citizen of the United States or the spouse of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, by reason of a marriage determined by the Attorney General to have been entered into for the purpose of evading the immigration laws…” 

That means if an alien entered into a fraudulent marriage, no one else can ever sponsor him for anything.

Secondly, there's the federal statute,  8 U.S.C. 1325(c) states that "any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined not more than $250,000, or both."

Note the language in each one: "enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading [any provision] of the immigration laws."

The first law, Section 204(c) is an agency, administrative remedy. In other words, it's not a crime because you won't go to jail if USCIS makes a finding under 204(c).  The second law, Section 1325(c), on the other hand, is a felony and you can go to jail if a federal prosecutor can prove you violated it.  So it is much more serious an offense.

Compare the language in each one and a few differences come to light.

  • 204(c) does not explicitly say that the act of entering into the marriage had to be known to be fraudulent; 1325(c) does.
  • 204(c) says "evading the immigration laws" whereas 1325(c) interdicts evading "any provision" of the immigration laws.

Yet there are quite a few similarities. As in, similarly deficient:
  • Both talk about "the purpose" as if the purpose for which the marriage was entered into is singular.  Which, logically, would mean that if the only reason for entering the marriage is to get a green card, it would be considered fraudulent.  But if getting a green card was only one reason for the marriage, and there were other, legitimate reasons for the marriage, then it ostensibly should not be considered fraudulent.  But this is not always how it's understood.  Some courts say that if Congress meant to criminalize a marriage only if the only reason was to procure a visa, it would have said "sole" or "only" purpose, not simply "the" purpose.  Other courts say "the purpose" is singular and so is "sole purpose" - therefore if there is a bona fide intent, it's not fraud.  Who's right?
  • Under prevailing agency regulations, USCIS or the immigration judge has to have "substantial and probative" evidence of marriage fraud in order to invoke the 204(c) bar.  That is a standard that applies nationally.  But for 1325(c), depending on where you are, the government might not have to prove anything except that you intended to evade the immigration law.  So the end result is there are some marriages that would not lead to a finding under 204(c) but could be prosecuted criminally under 1325(c)!  This was never Congressional intent.
  • The concept of a fraudulent marriage: Consider a young unmarried couple, one is a citizen and the other on a valid F-1 student visa.  They've been dating for a few months, and love each other, but although they spent a lot of time together, they do not yet live together.  Then the foreign national's father, who was paying his tuition, passes away.  He is forced to drop out of school, and falls out of status.  His US citizen girlfriend is horrified at the prospect of losing her boyfriend whom she cares for very much.  So they decide to get married and file for a green card.  They may or may not have gotten married were it not for the immigration problem, but they do care about each other and had no plans to break up.  They do intend to live together, even establish a life together, but not necessarily "till death do us part." Have they committed marriage fraud?  Arguably, yes.  They married because she did not want him deported.  Of course, they also loved each other and wanted to build a life with each other, but the decision to actually get married was hastened due to the immigration problems.  Now, a US attorney might opt not to prosecute criminally on these facts, but the fact remains that the way the law is written, they could  be prosecuted.  If you read the congressional committee reports on the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments (IMFA) of 1986, it was never Congress' intent to punish a couple like this hypothetical one, but the way the law was written, they could be.

The fact remains - people get married for many reasons, not all of which are clear.  And it's precisely because marriage is a personal decision that it needs to be as free as possible from state regulation.  The fact that a legal marriage is itself a create of regulation is of little import: what is being protected, and why marriage is a fundamental constitutional right - is that it is a nearly universally recognized building block of society.  It transcends age, culture, language, time.  Any law that not only implicates this fundamental right, but criminalizes conduct constituting exercise of that fundamental right - must be subjected to the strictest of judicial scrutiny to ensure it passes constitutional muster.  

While 204(c) might take refuge in the stalwart (but subsiding!) plenary power doctrine, statutes like 1325(c) cannot be insulated from judicial review.   Especially when they are criminal statutes.  Especially when they implicate a fundamental right.  And especially when they don't clearly indicate what they're criminalizing!

The government rightly and justifiably has to detect and deter marriage fraud.  But it is respectfully submitted that the permanent and powerful 204(c) bar - which almost always leads to deportation - provides sufficient deterrent protection.  A criminal conviction for 1325(c) rarely results in a lengthy prison sentence, and moreover the criminal aspect should be reserved for those who broker fake marriages, not the actual participants.  Criminal prosecution for marriage fraud overreaches.  It provides little deterrent effect compared to removal proceedings and an order of removal.  Basically, 1325(c) adds nothing to the mix.  As such, it's hard to justify such excessive entanglement of the state in matters of marriage.

8 Comments
hublot replica link
8/26/2014 07:38:13 pm

For a lot of events, the actual buying from the presents are extremely essential, consequently, whenever you are searching for the actual presents from the Reproduction Wrist watches, you have to allow it to be sure that event does it.

Reply
Joe link
10/1/2014 07:18:32 am

Marriage fraud for immigration purposes is very risky and potentially could ban the foreigner for life from ever immigrating to America. I would always recommend not to enter a marriage solely for immigration purposes and think that your case won't be investigated. There are always stories or rumors that someone's relative or friend did a fraudulent marriage, got away with it, and now enjoys a green card/citizenship. Remember, they are just stories and rumors. You may not be so lucky and could be deported and unable to America forever.

Reply
omega replica link
10/26/2014 09:24:05 pm

For the backpack was initially at the same time mankind around 100 % satisfaction topcoat blackout stomach lining black outfits bucks.

Reply
Dan
8/15/2016 06:05:14 pm

I am a victim of marriage fraud and it's so frustrating how as soon as they get the green card they are bullet proof from both USCIS and the justice system. In my case the whole family "played" the part and gave the illusion of being legit. My wife got her green card August 5th and on the 7th she simply vanished like a 007 agent, she left SIM card from phone, erased my iPads memory and left a note that said...' Don't look for me, Goodbye!'. An immigrant that has only been here 4 yrs has more immunity from all 3 entities, the USCIS, the American citizen she married and the justice system after she files divorce to get rewarded 50% community property. It's just so discussing to me how I got shamed and feel defenseless. The USCIS needs to put a condition on 10 yr green cards to deter this from comtinually happening.

I feel even Homeland Security needs to step in and change this serious loophole in our current system, because not all immigrants have good intentions that step into our country.

Now here I am....." SHAMMED AND FRUSTRATED.

Reply
Doug
2/12/2017 07:44:08 pm

Dan,,,,I have a similar story and still fighting. I discovered through a series of conversations I had translated to English that my wife was already in a 7 year committed relationship and once she got her green card was going to divorce me.....I immediately reported her to immigration and after 2 years and legal fees of $.... the National Visa Center finally sent me a letter saying they are looking over the file. I discovered through the conversations that she is involved in a network of people who are good at evading immigration laws. I hope justice prevails.

Reply
Jessica H Anlauf
3/28/2017 09:46:18 pm

If you are the victim of an immigration crime (like immigration fraud) please come over to Immigration Crime Victim Advocates on Facebook and submit your statement to be delivered to Congress! We are currently compiling statements to be investigated by Congress for oversight purposes! We want to clean this system up!

Jessica H Anlauf link
3/28/2017 09:44:54 pm

If you are the victim of an immigration crime, like immigration fraud, please come over to Immigration Crime Victim Advocates on Facebook! We want to hear your story!

Reply
Linda Ehgartner
3/2/2018 10:17:53 pm

I am in a bit of a different category from your usual respondents. I married a man (alien) who was accused and then deported because his x-wife wanted to take revenge on him for leaving her. She had filed a I I30 but in the mean time he had found out that she had misrepresented herself to him. He realized that he could not live with her under the circumstances of her mental illness (it was his fault for not getting to know her better and entering into the marriage too soon after they met). None the less he wanted a divorce and she took the opportunity to take her revenge by telling the INS that she entered into the marriage fraudulently. After my happy eight years of marriage to this man after he divorced the first one, the INS deported him in the year 2009 (we were married in 2000 after his divorce from this woman in 1999). During our marriage we tried repeatedly to get him a green card but were denied under the rule of 204c. After almost 30,000 spent on lawyer fees and court hearings, I gave up when my appeal was once again denied and I ran out of money. My constitutional right to marry and pursue happiness has been denied me. My husband lives in London England now and I visit him wen I can. We are not rich people so my visits happen only once every 2 years. I have two children from a previous marriage who have blessed me with four grandchildren but since one of my daughters is an epileptic and is supporting her child with money from SSI I do not have the luxury to pursue a life in England with my husband since, though I am retired, I still need to work to at least provide some support for this daughter. I had to make a choice between my husband and my children and grandchildren. 204c is a draconian law that needs amending.


Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    DISCLAIMER: If a blog post you read here contains case results, be advised that case results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case. Case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case.

    Authors

    Sharifa Abbasi, Esq.
    Hassan M. Ahmad, Esq.
    Humza Kazmi, Esq.
    Faisal Khan
    ​Valeria Prudencio
    Carly Stadum-Liang, Esq.

    Archives

    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2018
    June 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    August 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    May 2014
    April 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    April 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    August 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    July 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010

    Categories

    All
    Appellate
    Asylum
    CBP
    Citizenship
    Constitutional Rights
    Criminal
    DACA
    Deportation
    Family
    Framing
    General
    H 1B
    H-1B
    Hma Law Firm
    Immigration
    Immigration Policy
    Immigration Reform
    International
    Interns
    Muslim Ban
    National Security
    Politics
    Removal
    Syria
    Tanton FOIA Lawsuit
    Trump
    Waivers

    RSS Feed

Quick Links

  • Our Team
  • Practice Areas
  • Executive Action
  • Consult

Contact Info

8133 Leesburg Pike, Ste 801
Vienna VA 22182

Tel:  703.964.0245

Fax: 703.997.8556
Email: info@hmalegal.com

Subscribe to the HMA LawFeed

Picture

​Pay Fees Here

Book you consult online by clicking on this link now!

©2009 - 2021 by Hassan M. Ahmad. All rights reserved. No portion of this website may be copied or reproduced for any purpose without express written permission.

Photos used under Creative Commons from Beshroffline, Thorne Enterprises, alex-s, swanksalot, 401(K) 2012, hyku, Gage Skidmore, Gage Skidmore, michaeln3, Antony J Shepherd, Korean Resource Center 민족학교, Don Fulano, lewebafricain, Images_of_Money, Lord Jim, Kevinth Nunez, Joe Crimmings Photography, Cohen.Canada, Thane Eichenauer, Gage Skidmore, CGP Grey, digitalshay, anokarina, Debbie Ramone, slightly everything, loop_oh, aaron_anderer, U.S. Marshals Service, tsuacctnt, Andrew Feinberg, Official U.S. Navy Imagery, Soggydan, Keith Bacongco, photosteve101, Emery Co Photo, futureatlas.com, david_terrar, weiss_paarz_photos, juanktru, Anh Le Tran's Photogphy, Amanda M Hatfield, IcronticPrime, Fibonacci Blue, blvesboy, Carl Montgomery, zappowbang, khawkins04, kennethkonica, opensourceway, Supernico26, mynameisharsha, JBrazito, Glyn Lowe Photoworks, Justin A. Wilcox, Wesley Fryer, MAClarke21, khalid Albaih, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff