Married to someone with questionable greencard

O

onnerve

New Member
I am married to a person with a green card, but it turns out he might have misrepresented himself in the application (sort of a gray area). If he gets his green card revoked, will I be deported too because I got my green card through our marriage?
 
Namecheckvictim is incorrect. Your GC was based on his, so yours could be revoked if his is revoked. It's not about being "held responsible for his actions", it's that your GC is invalid if his was obtained inappropriately.

You got your green card through marriage, so yes you could be deported if they revoke his green card.

Why are you just worried about this now? Did you just find out about the discrepancy in his GC process? Did he apply for naturalization, and the interviewer harassed him about the discrepancy? Or did YOU apply for naturalization and were harassed about what happened in his GC process?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
They ran him through the wringer when he applied for greencard. When he petitioned for you, they had to check him afain. What makes you think there is anything wrong with his status?
 
Jackolantern said:
Namecheckvictim is incorrect. Your GC was based on his, so yours could be revoked if his is revoked. It's not about being "held responsible for his actions", it's that your GC is invalid if his was obtained inappropriately.

You got your green card through marriage, so yes you could be deported if they revoke his green card.

Why are you just worried about this now? Did you just find out about the discrepancy in his GC process? Did he apply for naturalization, and the interviewer harassed him about the discrepancy?
Click to expand...

JACKOLANTERN actually you are incorrect on this one.

I know a case where a bunch of applicants got their GC 's through R1, later the religious organization that sponsored them proved to be a Sham working out of a basement in Brooklyn, 134 plus person's their GC's were revoked thier derivatives were revoked but 13 guys out of the 134 plus had married after GC's were issued and thier spouses were not aware of the scam and were able to keep thier status and subsequently got their citizenships.
Very famous case in 2003 where ice agents investigated for a long time and caught them, ring leader was convicted in 2004.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/September04/khalilmohammadconvictionpr.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
namecheckvictim said:
JACKOLANTERN actually you are incorrect on this one.

I know a case where a bunch of applicants got their GC 's through R1, later the religious organization that sponsored them proved to be a Sham working out of a basement in Brooklyn, 134 person's their GC's were revoked thier derivatives were revoked but 13 guys out of the 134 had married after GC's were issued and thier spouses were not aware of the scam and were able to keep thier status and subsequently got their citizenships.
Click to expand...

USCIS and ICE may exercise prosecutorial discretion and decide not to pursue the revocation of the GC's of the spouses and children who were either derivatives or directly sponsored by the fraudsters. That doesn't mean they couldn't deport them if they decided to take that course of action.
 
Jackolantern said:
USCIS and ICE may exercise prosecutorial discretion and decide not to pursue the revocation of the GC's of the spouses and children who were either derivatives or directly sponsored by the fraudsters. That doesn't mean they couldn't deport them if they decided to take that course of action.
Click to expand...

Exactly and they use that discretion if they have reason to believe during the coarse of the investigation that the derivatives or spouses/children of these have played no role or were not even aware of the scam, the OP in this case appears to have no idea up until recently what the real deal is and seems like has nothing to do with his past indiscretions.
 
I didn't say they WILL deport the OP if her husband's GC is revoked, I said they CAN. You were apparently claiming that they CAN'T.
 
BigJoe5 said:
They ran him through the wringer when he applied for greencard. When he petitioned for you, they had to check him afain.
Click to expand...

The OP may have gotten a GC as a derivative through her husband's employment or asylum or another relative, and not by her husband initiating a marriage-based petition. If her GC was a derivative one, there most likely wouldn't be that second cycle of checks on him ... until he applies for citizenship.
 
thanks namecheckvictim and jackolantern. Just to shed some more light: My spouse got permanent residency 2 months before we even met, and I just got my GC via family based sponsorship through my spouse. Turns out the company that sponsored my spouse was about to go bankrupt a month after they filed for his petition and they ask him to make an investment in the company. Not knowing any better, and scared of losing his sponsorship, my spouse made a significant investment in the company, which makes him an active investor. We just recently found out that this is a No No. It didn't come up in the screening process for either of our GC because there is no place on the application to write about this or evidence of this fact on any of the documents we had to submit... but recently my spouse left the company, and they will become a potential competitor... If the previous employer decides to be nasty (and he is), I was just wondering if he could get my husbands green card revoked... and if so I was wondering what would happen to my status. Thanks again for responding!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is not an absolute ban on employment-based green cards if the sponsored individual has a significant (but less than 100%) ownership stake in the company. Although there is some extra burden of proof if the process requires a labor certification for the position.

However, that burden of proof is the company's responsibility to provide during the labor certification process, for which the company files the paperwork, not the worker. So you are correct in that there was no place on his individual paperwork where he was asked about his ownership stake.

See http://srwlawyers.com/Portals/0/BAL...oyer and Beneficiary Are One and the Same.pdf
The regulatory definition of “Employment” means, in pertinent part, “permanent fulltime
work by an employee for an employer other than oneself.” 20 C.F.R. §656.3. (Emphasis
added). In Modular Container Systems, Inc., 1989-INA-228 (July 16, 1991) (en banc), the Board
held that “if the alien or close family members have a substantial ownership interest in the
sponsoring employer, the burden is on the employer to establish that employment of the alien is
not tantamount to self-employment, and therefore a per se bar to labor certification.” If the job
opportunity is merely self-employment, it is barred per se. Malone & Associates, 1990-INA-
360 (July 16, 1991)(en banc). Even if an employer establishes that the employment of the alien
is not tantamount to self-employment, and thus is not barred per se, section 656.20(c)(8) requires
the employer to establish that it is providing a bona fide job opportunity clearly open to any
qualified U.S. worker. Id.

In the instant case, the overwhelming weight of the evidence establishes that the Alien
has a 100% ownership interest in the petitioning Employer and is also its General Manager.4
Other than the observation that the Alien and the Employer have two different taxpayer numbers,
the Employer presented no evidence indicating a genuine independence from the Alien’s
ownership control and involvement in the business. We find that the relationship between the
Alien and Employer is unmistakably tantamount to self-employment, and therefore a per se bar
to permanent labor certification. We find that that the requirements for qualification for an E1
Treaty visa have not been shown to be relevant to the question of whether Dr. Jimenez’s solely
owned company can sponsor him for permanent alien labor certification from the Department of
Labor. Moreover, even if the Alien-Employer relationship were not tantamount to selfemployment,
the Employer has failed to establish that there is a bona fide job opportunity open
to qualified U.S. workers. Accordingly, we conclude that labor certification was properly
denied.
Click to expand...

If somebody is going to get in trouble over this, first it would be the company, as they had the responsibility to disclose that information. If they actually disclosed that fact, USCIS will be unable to revoke his green card if they haven't initiated the revocation process within 5 years after his GC approval (there is a 5-year statute of limitations for them to revoke the card based on information USCIS already had at the time of GC approval).

It is also possible for the company to get in trouble if they fudged their financials to hide that they were nearly bankrupt at the time.

So if the company decides to inform USCIS of the situation, they will be the first to be penalized if they did things wrong in the GC process. They could be fined, and perhaps individuals criminally charged, depending on how bad their violations were. Then if USCIS wants to be cruel they could go after your husband's GC next, and if they want to be even more cruel they could go after your GC. But the company will be the first in the line of fire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top