Former Immigration Agent - Sham Marriages, DV Allegations 'Epidemic'
June 3rd, 2009 by Robert Franklin, Esq.Women from foreign countries have caught on quickly. They've discovered the magic wand that allows them to - presto! - obtain green cards without meeting most of the usual requirements for same. The process is simple - marry an American man, claim DV, divorce him and, if you're not found to be a person of bad moral character (and what would a false allegation of DV have to do with that?), you're in.
Sound simple? It is. It's so simple that, according to 27-year I.N.S. investigator John Sampson, as many as one marriage in three of a foreign woman to an American man is a sham. Read about it here (CBS 4 Denver, 5/27/09).
I wrote about this not long ago here. In that case, there were allegations about a company in Phoenix coaching women in their false allegations. (The company denied the allegations.) Attorneys in the Phoenix area were quoted as saying that sham marriages coupled with sham DV claims were a common method of obtaining legal residency status.
Now Sampson has added his expertise to the matter. In fact, having retired from the Immigration Service, he's started a company that investigates allegations of sham marriages. Sampson says that in the first six months of operation, he's been contacted by over 200 men who suspect they've been duped. Sampson describes the scheme this way:
What happens is they enter into a one-sided sham marriage to defraud an American citizen into believing they love him. And once they get in, they allege domestic violence to get themselves out of the sham marriage and to throw off suspicion this was a sham marriage to begin with.
Amazingly, all that's required is an allegation of DV. No charges need be filed, no investigation done, no findings made, no conviction obtained. Just file the appropriate documents with the appropriate federal agency and, as Sampson says, "[T]hey're here to stay. They have an ace-high flush."
"));
19 queries. 0.377 seconds.
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:50 am
wonderful. So anyone who falls in love with someone outside of the US is abusive?
Maybe they are looking for love because they can't find anything in the US?
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:19 am
And IMBRA feeds right into this pathology.
To those who've suggested looking outside of the border for someone who isn't a spoiled, angry entitlement princess: Sorry, it looks like the foreign women are finding out how easy American men and the American legal system are. We've successfully outsourced "female victimhood" as a profession.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:53 am
Women from all countries in general look for financial security - this is a common trait. I observe here in South America that because America is the richest country in the world, most American men are considered rich to most foreign woman (and men).
Gold digging knows no boarders.
Be careful of foreign women who have been in the USA for more than 3-4 years - they get "Americanized". Women share information with each other more than men (present company excluded), so any woman - foreign or domestic - in the USA can get the "scoop" on easy money about the USA's man bad, women victim, no proof required laws.
But in general not all foreign women are gold diggers, just as not all American woman are gold diggers.
The fault is largely with the DV laws. I say repeal the DV laws. There are already laws in place that cover criminal violence.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:17 am
Mr. Franklin,
I found your post less than convincing, for the following reasons:
First, the article you cited presents a classic "she said/he said" situation between a wife alleging DV and the husband denying it -- with little or no independent confirmation of either story. The mere fact that she alleges DV does not make it so, and equally speaking, the mere fact that he was not arrested does not prove the absence of DV.
Second, your blog posting makes no reference to the huge perceptual gap between the law enforcement officer cited in the article -- who estimates 33% sham marriages -- and the immigration attorney quoted in the same article -- who estimates 1% sham marriages. Why did you not even mention this 33% vs 1% gap, much less even try to explain it?
In my view, selection bias and confirmation bias are the most obvious and likely explanation for this perception gap: law enforcement officers are likely to come across very different types of cases than immigration attorneys, and neither is likely to encounter many cases that challenge or disprove their preferred narratives.
My point is that your blog posting appears to be following a similar pattern of selection and confirmation bias: Your blog posting quotes from one article only those opinions that agree with your preferred narrative, and the "supporting" evidence offered for these opinions appears to be limited to selective and anecdotal data. At the same time you are ignoring both contrary (and yes, equally biased) opinions and (and yes, equally anecdotal) data -- available in the same article -- that tend to disagree with your preferred narrative.
Third, the woman described in the article ALREADY RECEIVED her green card -- which means that the immigration provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) are not relevant. (Why? Because the VAWA provisions make it possible for DV victims to APPLY on their own for an immigration benefit -- which is obviously irrelevant if you have ALREADY obtained that immigration benefit.) If VAWA's immigration provisions are irrelevant, then the whole matter devolves into what is, at its core, a garden-variety he-said/she-said DV dispute between husband and wife.
That last point is worth repeating: The real issues with the husband and wife quoted in the article are NOT immigration benefits or VAWA's immigration provisions. The real issues presented by this case appear to be the prevalence of false DV accusations, and the lack of due process for those accused of DV in family courts.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:20 am
"But Laura Lichter, a Denver immigration attorney, believes the claims of sham marriages are being overblown. She has handled hundreds of immigration cases and says she believes the foreign women are usually telling the truth about being abused by their American husbands.
"I'm sure there's some people who might think this is a good way to go, but we haven't seen it," Lichter said.
Lichter contends that American men who seek foreign women are typically controlling and prone to violence. "
Hatred of Men: The Acceptable New Bigotry for the 21st Century. Everybody needs somebody to hate, I guess...
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:23 am
re He was never arrested or charged with assaulting his Russian born wife.
...Lucky guy. He ought to cut his losses, count his blessings and move on.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:30 am
My buddy married a foreign women (she's totally un-American). He said that he has two citizenships (His "green card" process in this other country was about $150 and 2 years).
Anyway, he jokes that if his wife divorces him in the U.S. courts, he'll claim that he's a citizen of another country, so he is not completely bound by U.S. laws.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:35 am
I work in a law firm that does a SUBSTANTIAL amount of immigration law (though that is not my area). While I have seen many marriages that could appear to be sham marriages (who is to say? Russian-speaking women are generally very attractive!), we never know for sure.
And, we see many foreign men coming in too. In fact, my law partner was able to use VAWA to get permanent residency for a 6'5", 250# immigrant who was physically abused by his 5'2" wife.
That is very unusual to see, of course.
-Jut
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:47 am
My former marriage to a recent immigrant was a sham. Only problem was, I wasn't in on the sham.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:50 am
JutGory: "And, we see many foreign men coming in too. In fact, my law partner was able to use VAWA to get permanent residency for a 6'5", 250# immigrant who was physically abused by his 5'2" wife."
You are correct -- despite its name, the Violence Against Women Act allows both male and female victims of DV to petition solo for immigration benefits.
However, you should be careful with your wording ("... use VAWA to get permanent residency ... "): VAWA does NOT automatically confer lawful permanent resident (LPR) status on DV victims. Nor does it open a separate pathway to immigration benefits. Nor does it lessen or ease any eligibility criteria for immigration benefits.
Rather, the immigration provisions of VAWA waive the requirement, in DV cases, for both the applicant and US citizen spouse to file a joint petition for immigration benefits. This makes a great deal of sense -- if the US citizen spouse is abusive, the abused foreign spouse should not have to rely on the abusive spouse's cooperation to file for immigration benefits.
Lastly, any foreign spouse who gets divorced or separated from the US citizen spouse -- for any reason, including domestic violence or extreme cruelty -- still has to meet ALL of the general requirements in order to be granted LPR status. If it can be shown through credible evidence that the marriage was not bona fide or was entered into to evade immigration law, then the US Citizenship & Immigration Services agency (USCIS) has full authority to deny the petition for immigration benefits.
Let me repeat that last point: For immigration purposes, the relevant issue is not the circumstances under which the marriage was dissolved. Rather, the relevant issue that will be examined by the USCIS is the circumstances under which the marriage was entered into.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:51 am
Knock-Knock,
you say you cannot explain the 33 vs 1% observations?
consider this, the police officer is a presumably neutral party, there to enforce the law.
The Immigration Attorney is an openly biased advocate for one side, the party seeking legal immigration, through whatever means are available. The very job of any attorney is to piant the absolute best position for their client(s) and I'm sure if the Immigration attorney felt they could claim absolute zero false claims, they would, it's the opposition's job to refute any claim made by an attorney.
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Our office recently completed a research study on many visa cases handled by us from Year 2000 to the present. The study results appear to tentatively suggest that marriage and relationship longevity rates for Latina-American "International Romance" marriages are numerically higher than what is usually seen in domestic marriages: marriage longevity rate 90%, relationship longevity over 75%. By implication, the study also suggests that divorce rates are correspondingly well lower than the often-cited domestic rate of 50%
Here are the numbers: 198 total cases in the raw database. Total Marriage dissolutions or divorces: 15 Broken down as follows: At One Year (or less):12. At Three years: 2. At Five Years: 1. Fiancee Visa Cases Where Couple Chose Not to Marry: 29. Of the 198 cases in the raw database, we subtract the 15 divorces plus 29 fiancee visa cases where the couple declined to marry which equals 44. The remaining cases where the couples have married and stayed together is: 154.
Most marriage dissolutions occur sooner rather than later.
Marriage failures in Latina-American marriages, when they happen, tend to occur quickly rather than slowly, usually within the first 12 months or less. Of the 15 total divorces in the database, 13 of them occurred in the first 12 months or less. Further, it appears that those couples who remain together longer are less likely to divorce. There is only one divorce at the 5 year mark, and two at the 3 year mark.
The Fiancee Visa helps to reduce divorce.
The 90 day Fiancee Visa courtship period effectively helps to reduce potential divorces because some couples simply choose to not marry at all. This visa encourages couples to be more serious about the relationship and potential marriage commitment and to consider their options more slowly and deliberately. Of the 198 total cases, there are 29 cases where people chose not to marry at all, which probably prevented what otherwise might have been some additional divorces. An additional observation is that most couples, about two-thirds, choose to do a fiancee visa over a spousal visa (Totals: Fiancee 145, Spousal 53).
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:04 pm
pat: "Anyway, he jokes that if his wife divorces him in the U.S. courts, he'll claim that he's a citizen of another country, so he is not completely bound by U.S. laws."
Sure, ok, , you, your buddy, I, and other readers of this forum, we all get the joke.
But do advise your friend to be careful not to crack that joke in any official or legal context -- federal officials tend to take claims of citizenship (or lack thereof) quite seriously.
We're getting off topic here, but since you mentioned it, here is a link to the US government's policy on dual nationality, which dates from 1990.
For a more informative description and history of the subject, see this unofficial FAQ on Dual Nationality and US Law.
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:11 pm
@ Knock Knock:
Like I said, it's NOT my area of the law.
Honestly, I don't know what happened for sure; I just know that he has been allowed to stay using VAWA (whether that is through a removal of the conditions on his green card, a withholding of removal, or some other reason).
However, for what it is worth, my partners have more than 20 years of combined experience in immigration law and this is the ONLY VAWA case they have had involving a male immigrant.
With female clients, VAWA is almost always considered as a possible avenue of relief (but I am not suggesting that it is always used; you need to have a basis).
-Jut
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Robert wrote "...one marriage in three of a foreign woman to an American man is a sham. " That's 33% sham rate.
One marriage in two of a domestic woman (read: 50%) to an American man is a shame.
Statistically an American man is safer marrying foreign woman by almost 20%.
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Up in Smoke: "Knock-Knock, you say you cannot explain the 33 vs 1% observations?"
No! (Did you even read what I wrote?!?)
I wrote that it was Mr. Franklin, the author of this blog post, who did not even mention, much less try to explain, the 33% vs 1% observations.
My own answer (provided above) is that this perceptual discrepancy likely arises due to selection and confirmation bias.
"the police officer is a presumably neutral party, there to enforce the law."
No. That's just plain wrong. It is not the law enforcement officer who is neutral assessor of truth. Rather, that is the role assigned to a judge: to be an independent party who presides over an adversarial process as each side presents its case, and dispassionately weighs the evidence.
"The Immigration Attorney is an openly biased advocate for one side, the party seeking legal immigration, through whatever means are available."
Yes, this I agree with. Any attorney is indeed an "openly biased advocate for one side", namely the client.
But by the same token, the job of a law enforcement officer is to investigate allegations, uncover evidence, identify suspects, and zero in on the guilty. This does not make a law enforcement officer "neutral" -- by definition, the law enforcement officer is on the side of the prosecution.
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Who's there??
"In fact, my law partner was able to use VAWA to get permanent residency for a 6'5", 250# immigrant who was physically abused by his 5'2" wife."
MCA says..what does size have to do with it?? Ones size is only relevant, if the man was to fight back. If a man so much as protects himself from an attack by his 5'2 wife...he will be going to jail. End of story.
So now our only option left is to call the police and have her arrested.
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:50 pm
MCA: I had two points.
First: VAWA can be used to benefit the male immigrant.
Second:The only case I know of where it was used successfully was one in which one would expect it NOT to be successful.
-Jut
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:08 pm
I wonder how many domestic marriages are sham marriages as well? There is an extra twist to this story due to the foreign bride angle, but the concept that someone would marry someone else as a temporary way out of a mess is probably not unique.
Men need legal protection from financially predatory marriages, foreign and domestic. My solution for this would be to change the marriage contract. Social and legal changes have out paced the religious part of the marriage vows to where they no longer have any real teeth. The promise of "For better or worse, sickness and health, richer or poorer" is now often broken for the most trivial or selfish reasons with no reprocussions.
With 50% of divorces ending in divorce, you would think the State would have a compelling interest in making sure parties sign a pre-nup before they issue a marriage certificate if for no other reason that they are the ones who have to collect them money afterwards. Alimony laws need to be shortened radically to temporary spousal support. While there will always be a need for child support, equal custody laws need to be the norm so there will be less of a pissing match over money.
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:36 pm
If the feminists legislators refuse to repeal the laws, then they ought to put a "warning label" on marriage. Rookie Marriage Program or Marriage Education Program.
For example, before a marriage license is issued, the State ought to require both a written test and Family Court course. The test will cover knowledge of current federal and state domestic violence law, family law, and marriage & divorce statistics, among other things. The state ought to also require one hour of Family Court time - listening and observing legal proceedings in the local county's Family courtroom.
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:42 pm
@pat
This has always been my position on marriage as well (pre-marriage education before getting a license). The problem, though, is that with our current PC climate (heavily influenced by feminist ideology), they would essentially be worthless. E.g., the DV section would be more man-on-woman abuse with little to no mention of woman-on-man abuse.
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:51 pm
"the State ought to require both a written test and Family Court course. The test will cover knowledge of current federal and state domestic violence law, family law, and marriage & divorce statistics, among other things."
I would just give them a puppy and tell them to come back in a year to see if they had raised a good, happy, healthy dog.
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Here in New Zealand, Indian women from Fiji pull the same stunts, the local Kiwi guy gets thrown out of his house that has been his too. I have known cases where a man who is resident but not a citizen, and after false allegations resulting in a criminal record, which results in automatic expulsion from New Zealand. So she now has automatic residency, the man is thrown out and she keeps the house !
Of course, men under that much injustice and stress usually break
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:15 pm
I live in s small country in South America. There is no legal definition of Domestic Violence here.
Many white guys arrive with their wives from many countries - New Zealand, Canada, Belgium, Australia, UK, and the USA - to name a few. I live in a city of about 8 million people. Most guys get their foreign card (Carne de Extranjeria), find work, and live a good life - the people are nice. The food is great. The weather is awesome. It's not perfect here, yet I'm free of feminist styled laws and rules in government or at work or at home. I have no intentions of leaving.
I knew I was in the right place when I read a post on an expat blog from a feminist complaining about my new country. I was like - "Perfect"
There is no "silent culture" of violence in families here. Families come first. The church is also important. They support men in leadership at home - no male bashing like in the U.S. churches. Fathers are honored along with Mothers (look for no relief on Father's Day, however, as it is a minor holiday compared to Mother's day - just like in the U.S.).
At parties here I meet couples married for 30-40-50 years. And when asked, they do not joke about killing each other or how they survived or whatever. They respect the marriage relationship. I see it as they sit close to each other and in the tone of voice.
An international domestic violence campaign is a money making deal - mostly about jobs and job growth. Also it beats getting a real job working in construction, fishing, farming, truck driver, or as garbage-person. "I'm a woman's advocate." as she sips her glass of wine at a party. Nice way to earn a living, if you can get it.
I observe that a domestic violence shelter for women is redundant. If violence does occur, and it may - a daughter knifed her mom recently - , that is what a hospital and family is for.
I would love to see the accounting books of a U.S. DV organization. I suspect that salaries and perks and "fund raisers" and advertising (read: parties) are a hugh expense item. I suspect that little money comes in contact with "victims" it was intended.
Violence against women legislation is redundant. Domestic Violence laws ought to be repealed.
The divorce rate here is about 5 or 10%.
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:50 pm
DV laws and allegations are also used by domestic women for personal gain.
Instead, foreign women seem to sham in a lower percentage - 33% versus about 50%.
Due process is over rated.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:50 am
I don't blame these guys for being so lonely due to being fed up with American women, as to seek out these relationships with foreign women. They are doubly victimized.
June 5th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Brainwashing at its finest. As men are increasingly outsourcing their love lives, we have legislation like IMBRA and propaganda like this to discourage that "unacceptable" behavior. Distortion in presentation to make a few anomalous cases seem like the majority.
That said, there is indeed a risk... albeit small (American men/Foreign women marriages in the US have an overall 20% divorce rate, compared with 50% or more for AM/AW). What percentage of that 20% end acrimoniously, or due to scamming by the foreign woman, is unknown... but I would bet dollars to donuts it's a small fraction, compared to the percentage of domestic marriages which end on the same note.
In any case, it's still wisest to move to the woman's country, instead of bringing her back, because latent scamming intent aside, the Draconian laws of the US still hang over a man's head like a sword of Damocles, and women of any stripe can Americanize very quickly when on US soil. ("The problem is not American women; it's women in America").
Of course, one must do one's research thoroughly before choosing a country, to be sure it is low on the feminism scale. It would do no good to marry a woman from a feminized nation such as Sweden or South Korea or Brazil where the laws and culture are as (or nearly as) misandric as in the Anglosphere. Though it is notable that the "most free country" in the world is the only one with actual legislation such as IMBRA...
June 9th, 2009 at 10:57 am
This dialouge is timely an in keeping with the launch of the UN Secretary-General's database on violence against women. The outsourcing of love is an interesting commodity. It is true. Immigration has to be freer i believe it is my human right to see the the world, the earth we inherit. these restriction causes drastic measures. Tourists move around freely, why not the minority population even buffaloes used to roam freely. Its a crime to have to go to such lengths for travel.
June 15th, 2009 at 9:57 am
This has been in full rage for many years with Indian American men who were either born in the US or raised in the US. Many of these men can not find a women to marry because most Indian American women are marrying white men and the Indian American men have to go to India to find a bride. The Indian legal system is overwhelmingly tilted towards women and Glenn Sacks needs to do an article on it. In India an accusation of DV can land not only the man in jail but his whole family and since it is a non bailable offense the real victim the man can remain in jail with his mother, father and siblings for up to two years while the await trail. Meanwhile since there is an active extradition treaty with the US the man can actually be forced out of his home in the US and taken to India by US marshals if he is wanted in India.
DEAR GLEN
Please please investigate this
There was a case of the youngest doctor in America who was of Indian origin and his older brother went through hell and was eventually found not guilty in Indian court of years of cruel persecution.