Citizenship Problem? Fraudulent Intent For Green Card?

[Jackolantern]

Just curious if it is that tough when somoene is say married like 20 years...vs 4 years for this application. Do they just classify it as married therefore extra hurdles/difficulty? Just curious.

The 3-year marriage rule requires not only a bona fide marriage, it also requires still having an ongoing viable marriage. So even with a 20-year marriage you can be denied if you can't provide sufficient evidence that the marriage is still healthy enough.

 

[Bobsmyth]

I really think the scrutiny varies depending on the IO.

It depends more on the case details and your district area than the IO reviewing them. For example, NYC has the highest (or one of the highest) denials rates based on sham marriages.

Again, I got my GC through work but when I applied for naturalization based on marriage, the only documents I sent in with my N-400 application to support this marriage clause were copies of my marriage certificate, wife's US passport and our son's birth certificate. At my interview, I had every single backing doc I could think of with me but I was not asked for anything except to verbally confirm my wife's and son's names. Maybe there was extra scrutiny processing done prior to my actual interview but I certainly did not feel any pressure from the IO during the interview.

Or the IO was satisfied with the fact that you had a bona fide marriage, your son being the main evidence. Had you obtained your GC through marriage, had no children and applied for naturalization right at the 3 year mark you would have faced more questioning and scrutiny.

 

[JPBoston]

Or the IO was satisfied with the fact that you had a bona fide marriage, your son being the main evidence. Had you obtained your GC through marriage, had no children and applied for naturalization right at the 3 year mark you would have faced more questioning and scrutiny.

True and a very good point. I do remember thinking to myself when I was applying and had included my son's birth certificate, that there almost could not be a better proof of legitimacy of my marriage than the fact that my wife and I had a child together.

 

[Al Southner]

True and a very good point. I do remember thinking to myself when I was applying and had included my son's birth certificate, that there almost could not be a better proof of legitimacy of my marriage than the fact that my wife and I had a child together.

JP,

I think the birth of a child to a couple of an immigrant and a native (naturalized citizen) is overrated in my view. I know of many people who leave their wives or husband even though they have kids. In reality, there's no in which USCIS can know the intent of the applicant, except that he or she submit the N400 case with solid evidence, upon being granted citizenship and obtaining a passport, leave the spouse and start a new life somewhere. You can always pay child support, except the emotional drain of not seeing your offspring might be punishment enough on some level. Do you think when i apply for naturalization, I should submit my mortgage statements showing that I am on the hook for $6,300 a month? Will this convince the IO that no fraudster is willing to oblige himself to such a huge investment, only to be an immigration fraud? I do have a son too, but which is weighed more? I mean, I could naturalize and leave my wife and son, sell out home and probably get a little over $1,4 milllion in sale, split the huge profits and share custody of the child and move on, date and NBC Today's Show producer...lol!!!

 

[WBH]

If i was you, i will just leave the US Citizenship alone and keep renewing the GC.

Most people who can settle with just GC but not citizenship are those who have good standing GC or at least think they have good standing GC.
If one has a GC that is not good standing, one is even eager to get the citizenship in order to get this matter over with. It is no fun to have a GC
for the rest of life if one himself think he obtained GC improperly

So this is a dillema.

 

[JPBoston]

JP,

I think the birth of a child to a couple of an immigrant and a native (naturalized citizen) is overrated in my view. I know of many people who leave their wives or husband even though they have kids. In reality, there's no in which USCIS can know the intent of the applicant, except that he or she submit the N400 case with solid evidence, upon being granted citizenship and obtaining a passport, leave the spouse and start a new life somewhere. You can always pay child support, except the emotional drain of not seeing your offspring might be punishment enough on some level. Do you think when i apply for naturalization, I should submit my mortgage statements showing that I am on the hook for $6,300 a month? Will this convince the IO that no fraudster is willing to oblige himself to such a huge investment, only to be an immigration fraud? I do have a son too, but which is weighed more? I mean, I could naturalize and leave my wife and son, sell out home and probably get a little over $1,4 milllion in sale, split the huge profits and share custody of the child and move on, date and NBC Today's Show producer...lol!!!

Al, if a marriage is a sham that was fronted to obtain a GC (and citizenship later), its highly likely the participants don't know each other and there was a money passed on to the USC to "get married" to the immigrant. I seriously doubt these folks would even live together, let alone have a child. The USCIS can only make a judgement call based on submitted evidence and in my own case and many like mine, I do believe proof of having a child together is seen by the USCIS as being highly indicative of a genuine marriage. Maybe that's why I wasn't pressed at all during the interview about it. Naturalization through marriage does not mean the USCIS expects you to be remain married to that USC for the rest of your life and only on that basis, they are granting you citizenship. They make a judgment call whether or not the marriage is for real at the point of time that they're adjudicating your application and then grant or deny based on that because that is the naturalization clause that the USCIS has to work and judge within. Having a child together does help bolster the applicant's case. Can the successfully naturalized citizen then later walk out on his wife and child? Sure but then this is something not alien for American society as a whole. With the divorce rates in this country, even two USCs married to each other are at a (what is it?) 50% chance of not being together til death do them part.

 

[kronos]

Here's an interesting article on the State Department website relating to INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) which states "an alien who, by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure (or has sought to procure or has procured) a visa, other documentation, or entry into the United States or other benefit provided under the INA is excludable. The determination of materiality is a fact which would make an alien excludable or shut off a line of inquiry which may have resulted in exclusion."

www state gov/documents/organization/87011 pdf

According to this I should be in the clear because:
a) The ommission was not material. "If an alien were to make a misrepresentation to establish an advantageous immigrant visa (IV) status and it were discovered that the alien was, in truth, entitled to another equally advantageous status, the misrepresentation would not be considered to be material." (page 18)
b) The ommission does not constitute a misrepresentation. "In determining whether a misrepresentation has been made, it is necessary to distinguish between misrepresentation of information and information that was merely concealed by the alien's silence. Silence or the failure to volunteer information does not in itself constitute a misrepresentation for the purposes of INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i)." (page 4)

Although b) would need to be reconciled with the purpose of AC21. I guess it would hinge on whether USCIS believed that the original application was valid (i.e., you truly intended to work for the employer). In my case it would be reasonable to assume that I did intend to work for the employer at the time of the I485 application since I had been working for them for a while and continued to work for them well after the application was made.

In either case, still need to speak with a lawyer. But I feel much better that hope is not lost.