/l[y^^jJi'L^ c-ZUL

S. HRG. 99-325

IMMIGRATION MARRIAGE FRAUD

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE POLICY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

UNITED STATES SENATE

NINETY-NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

FRAUDULENT MARRIAGE AND FIANCE ARRANGEMENTS TO OBTAIN

PERMANENT RESIDENT IMMIGRATION STATUS

JULY 26, 1985

Serial No. J-99-43

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

52-653 O

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON ! 1986
.)'

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

STROM THURMOND, South Carolina, Chairman

CHARLES McC. MATHIAS, JR., Maryland JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware

PAUL LAXALT, Nevada EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia

ALAN K. SIMPSON, Wyoming HOWARD M. METZENBAUM, Ohio

JOHN P. EAST, North Carolina DENNIS DECONCINI, Arizona

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont

JEREMIAH DENTON, Alabama HOWELL HEFLIN, Alabama

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania PAUL SIMON, Illinois

MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky

DENNIS W. SHEDD, Chief Counsel and Staff Director

DIANA L. WATERMAN, General Counsel

DEBORAH G. BERNSTEIN, Chief Clerk

MARK H. GmeNSTEiN, Minority Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE POLICY

ALAN K. SIMPSON, Wyoming, Chairman

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts

JEREMIAH DENTON, Alabama PAUL SIMON, Illinois

RICHARD W. DAY, Chief Counsel and Staff Director

JERRY M. TINKER, Minority Counsel

(II)
CONTENTS

STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS

Page

Simpson, Hon. Alan K., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming 1

Grassley, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa 2

Simon, Hon. Paul, a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois 2

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Nelson, Hon. Alan C, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service, accompanied by Jack Shaw, Assistant Commissioner for Investigations;

Richard E. Norton, Deputy Assistant Commissioner for Investigations;

Vernon D. Penner, Jr., Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Visa Services, accompanied by Cornelius Scully 3

Narielwala, Amita, Alexandria, VA; Patricia Beshara, New York, NY; Jose

Caringal, Gardena, CA; and Nancy J. Marrero, Philadelphia, PA 42

North, David S., Director, Center For Labor and Migration Studies, New

Transcentury Foundation; Roger L. Conner, Excecutive Director, Federation for American Immigration Reform, accompanied by Daniel Stein, Staff

Counsel; and Jules E. Coven, President, American Immigration Lawyers

Association 57

ALPHABETICAL LIST AND MATERIAL SUBMITTED

Beshara, Patricia: Testimony 44

Caringal, Jose: Testimony 48

Conner, Roger L.:

Testimony 63

Prepared statement 67

Coven, Jules E.:

Testimony 74

Prepared statement 77

Marrero, Nancy J.: Testimony 52

Narielwala, Amita: Testimony 42

Nelson, Alan C:

Testimony 3

Prepared statement 6

North, David S.:

Testimony 57

Prepared statement 60

Norton, Richard E.: Testimony 35

Penner, Vernon D. Jr.:

Testimony 23

Prepared statement 25

Scully, Cornelius: Testimony 3°

din

IMMIGRATION MARRIAGE FRAUD

FRIDAY, JULY 26, 1985

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE POLICY,

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:18 a.m., in room

SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Alan K. Simpson

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Grassley and Simon.

Staff present: Richard W. Day, chief counsel and staff director,

Carl Hampe, Deborah Gibbs, and Denise Herzog.

Also present: John Ratigan, Bureau of Refugee Affairs, Department of State.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ALAN K. SIMPSON

Senator SIMPSON. Good morning. I do apologize for my tardiness;

White House of course. Some other marvelous excuse. They get

better all the time, do they not, Chuck? Yes, they do. That is really

where I was, and dabbling in the mysteries of tax reform and deficit reduction, fascinating stuff.

Well, we have a serious issue before us this morning. We are

going to examine this issue of immigration marriage fraud, which

could best be described I think as the use of nonbona fide marriage,

or fraudulent marriage arrangements and fiance arrangements,

which are made to obtain permanent resident immigration status.

We are going to inquire into the nature and extent of this situation, determine whether we see but another way of gimmicking our

generous, very generous legal immigration laws, consider whether

legislation is necessary to address the problem, and if so, what

form that legislation might take.

I want to express to all of the witnesses on behalf of the subcommittee, and sincerely so, our deep appreciation for your agreeing to

be here today to contribute to this discussion.

I know that in many cases that is very tough, to do that. There

are elements of pain and rejection and exploitation in here that are

real, and I admire you very much for coming before the subcommittee to share your views, and your situation.

Our present immigration laws reserve our very most favored topdrawer status for spouses of American citizens, and the U.S.

system, based to a large degree upon the principle of family reunification, certainly there can be no more important reunification

than spouses, husband and wife.

(1)
Thus for spouses of American citizens there are no numerical immigration limitations. There are no backlogs. There are no waiting

periods to obtain permanent resident status. The waiting period for

citizenship is 3 years, which is 2 years less than the normal one of

5 years, and for spouses of U.S. servicemen and overseas personnel,

there is no waiting period at all.

I doubt that there are many American citizens that are aware of

that but I can tell you that it is most assuredly known by those

who yearn to come here.

And yet our concern to benefit the spouses of our citizens can

make us very vulnerable to abuse, for among those relationships

covered by family reunification, spouse is the one relationship that

is largely self-created. We do not have the choices with mother and

father and brother and sister, but we do have a rather significant

part to play in his or her spouse, and the determination of what

that is, obviously. So, today we will examine immigration marriages of convenience, and, with that, I will ask if my friend Chuck

Grassley of Iowa, who is a remarkably significant contributor to

this subcommittee in so many ways that I could not list them all,

my loyal ally in 4 years of activity as chairman here. Chuck, do

you have anything you want to add?

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHARLES E. GRASSLEY

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you very much. First of all, I, too,

should explain to everyone why I may not be here during the

entire hearing. We are considering a legislative veto provision to

the Federal Trade Commission authorization bill, and because I

have an amendment in that area, I will have to spend a great deal

of time with Senator Levin on the floor this morning.

But I do wish to thank Senator Simpson, the chairman of the

committee, for bringing to the public's attention this problem.

It is bad enough when people who are waiting for years and

years in a long lines to come to this country legitimately and are

not able to do so. Today we will have testimony presented to us,

how people use subterfuge to accomplish that goal, and more horrendous is the fact that some people are making profit off the business of arranging the subterfuge. I hope that not only will the

hearing be a success, which I expect that it will, but I hope that it

leads to our ability to bring legislative action to correct this situation which is indeed very serious.

Senator SIMPSON. Thank you, Senator Grassley. And now let me

recognize a new member of the subcommittee on Immigration and

Refugee Policy and a very fine contributing member, a thoughtful

member, a participating member, the Senator from Illinois, Paul

Simon. Paul.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL SIMON

Senator SIMON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Like Senator Grassley, I am going to have to be in and out here today.

Senator SIMPSON. I knew you would leave me here, both of you.

Go right ahead.

Senator SIMON. But I am here primarily to learn. We, obviously,

have a problem here, and I think the law has to be tightened up.
How we do this without being unfair to people, is what we have to

explore. I look forward to reading and hearing the testimony.

Thank you.

Senator SIMPSON. Thank you, Paul. All right. We will proceed to

the first panel, then: Commissioner Alan Nelson of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and Vernon Penner, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Visa Services. If you would come forward to the table, please, we would appreciate it, and Commissioner Nelson, we always appreciate having your views, and State Department views are very important. You must work together closely, that is important in this area, and so, Mr. Nelson, would you

please begin, if you would.

STATEMENT OF A PANEL CONSISTING OF HON. ALAN C. NELSON,

COMMISSIONER, THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

SERVICE, ACCOMPANIED BY JACK SHAW, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR INVESTIGATIONS; RICHARD E. NORTON, DEPUTY

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR INVESTIGATIONS; HON.

VERNON D. PENNER, JR., DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF

STATE FOR VISA SERVICES, ACCOMPANIED BY CORNELIUS

SCULLY

Mr. NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Grassley, Senator Simon. It is again a pleasure to be before you, and as you indicated in your opening remarks, a subject matter that is of extreme

importance, one that has probably not had the attention that it deserves, so the compliments to you and the subcommittee for initiating this hearing and this discussion.

I would like to just also start out, we are often negligent in not

giving credit to people, but I know of members of your staff, particularly John Ratigan, who has done an excellent job in getting

this organized, and I would like to compliment him and I would

like to compliment the staff of the Immigration Service because I

think they have done an excellent job in the prepared testimony.

And to avoid getting in trouble, I would not consider reading it because it is many pages, but I think very thorough, and it does lay

out, we think, a lot of examples of the problem of marriage fraud,

indications of the type of fraud, and the problem areas that we

have in this area and I would ask that it be incorporated in the

record.

Marriage has always played a crucial role in the laws and policies governing both the immigration and naturalization of aliens.

The existence and preservation of close family ties form the basis

for numerous benefits and waivers under the law. Unfortunately,

these special privileges are being abused by many people who feign

legitimate relationships to circumvent the law.

Tremendous draw factors and few deterrents make this type of

fraud irresistible to aliens seeking legal permanent resident status.

Marriage fraud and finance fraud now pose significant threats to

the integrity of our lawful immigration procedures, and I think

that is what we are all about, in your overall immigration reform

legislation and this, that we want to continue our heritage of legal

immigration. It is very important that we deal with these areas,

such as the marriage fraud problem, to continue that heritage.
The value placed on marriage and the unity of the nuclear

family is underscored by entirely exempting the immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, and their children, spouses, and parents from

the numerical restrictions cited in the Immigration Act. Therefore,

the immediate relatives do not have to wait for a visa number to

become available, and can cut ahead of those in the preference categories.

That is fine except for the problems we face. I think our testimony, Mr. Chairman, and again I would ask that it be incorporated in

the record, lays forth a lot of the inducements of marriage fraud,

the means of qualifying for immigration status. We talk about the

administrative penalties for fraud, the problems with the current

definition, criminal penalties for fraud, types of fraud, such as the

one-sided marriage fraud. The major kind of cases, we cite a lot of

examples there.

I understand you will be having some testimony directly into

that area, and then we turn, and I will turn now to the recommendations.

Toward the end of the testimony we have some eight recommendations. First, and I think we can maybe get some stronger language in the statute, making clear this is an important problem

and should be given attention to. It is not a victimless crime, plus

we have a thriving cottage industry in the underground economy.

We have several recommendations as to amending the statute

and I will not go into the details, but I think the law must be

changed to clearly serve intent, and these recommendations are incorporated in the testimony.

Third, we believe that the marriage relationship must be statutorily defined. Too often there is just a scam type of marriage that

gets by.

Fourth, we believe that a 2-year conditional residency requirement for all spouses will best serve to deter fraud, and again our

testimony spells out some thoughts as to how that can be carried

out.

Fifth, we believe that the burdens placed on the Government to

prove fraudulent intent must be eased to assure that the aliens

who participate in marriage fraud are more easily deported.

It is a difficult thing to prove, and therefore we are under a tremendous disadvantage, and I think there are some changes that

can be made that are fair and balanced in this area.

Sixth, we firmly believe that section 241(f) should be amended to

indicate that no equities can be claimed through a spouse or a

child unless that spouse or child resides with the alien and is fully

supported financially, and I think that speaks for itself.

Seventh, we recommend the creation of a new deportation charge

to mirror the exclusion charge in other sections of the law. This

will render an alien deportable for attempting to procure a visa or

other documentation by fraud. Currently, section 204(c) only penalizes the alien if he has already received a visa; there is no penalty

at present, apart from the criminal sanctions, for trying, and that

can be corrected, we believe.

Eighth, we believe that section 245(c) should be changed to indicate that an alien may not adjust through a marriage contracted
after an order to show cause or notice of voluntary departure has

been issued to him.

Further, he should not be able to use the marriage to reenter the

United States unless he has resided overseas for a full year.

So we believe, Mr. Chairman, that these changes are critical and

should be pursued in legislation, and we certainly very much appreciate, again, you initiating this hearing and focusing on this important area, and we very much look forward to working with you

and the subcommittee in pursuing some important changes here.

Thank you.

[The statement follows:]

(
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALAN C. NELSON

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee:

On behalf of the Iimiigration and Naturalisation Service, I am pleased to

have this opportunity to testify on the subject of immigration-related

marriage and fiance fraud.

IMMIGRATION AID MARRIAGE

Marriage has always played a crucial role in the laws and policies

governing both the immigration and naturalization of aliens. The

existence and preservation of close family ties form the basis for

numerous benefits and waivers under the law. Unfortunately, these special

privileges are being abused by persons who feign legitimate relationships

to circumvent the law. Tremendous draw factors and few deterrents make

this type of fraud irresistible to aliens seeking legal permanent resident

status. Marriage fraud and fiance fraud now pose significant threats to

the integrity of lawful iimiigration procedures.

BENEFITS UNDER THE LAW

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended on October 3,

1965, establishes both quantitative and qualitative requirements for

immigration. Limitations on the numbers of immigrants to be admitted

annually were set for seven categories to preserve family ties, provide

qualified workers for the labor market, and meet the nation's obligation

to legitimate political and religious refugees.

The value placed on marriage and the unity of the nuclear family is

underscored by entirely exempting the immediate relatives of United States

citizens {defined in Section 201(b) as their children, spouses, and

parents} from all the numerical restrictions cited in the Act. Thus,

immediate relatives do not have to wait for a visa number to become

available, and effectively "cut ahead" of. those intending preference

immigrants who must wait in line. For some preference immigrants in

oversubscribed categories, the wait is as long as 15 years.
For example, visa numbers are only now available to natives of the

Philippines seeking visas as members of the professions or aliens with

exceptional skills who applied before October 15, 197B. An alien who

marries a United states citizen, however, does not need to wait for a

number and normally will acquire immigrant status within several months.

Similarly, an alien fiance indicating an intent to marry a United states

citizen need not await a number and can readily obtain a fiance visa.

For alien visitors in the united States, marriage to a United States

citizen waives the bar to adjustment of status imposed by Section 245(c)

on individuals who have accepted unauthorized employment in the United

States. This gives a significant economic advantage to an alien who

accepted unauthorized employment, spousal relationships also exempt aliens

fran the labor certification requirements of Section 212(a) (14), thereby

allowing significant numbers of unskilled laborers to enter the marketplace.

Alien spouses benefit from waivers of excludability on the grounds of

illiteracy, mental retardation, tuberculosis, prostitution, criminal

convictions, and visa fraud. Even naturalization is greatly expedited

through marriage to a United States citizen, with the normal five year

residence requirement reduced to three years for spouses of United States

citizens {Section 319(a)}, or waived entirely for the spouses of United

States citizens who are u. S. government employees assigned abroad

{Section 319(b)).

ADDED INDUCEMENTS

Marriage has become the single largest qualifying mechanism for

immigration because it is the easiest to pursue. By virtue of a simple

ceremony taking only a few minutes, marriage to a United States citizen

confers "most favored alien" status on the beneficiary and almost

instantly results in immigrant status as no visa number or certification

from the Department of Labor is necessary. It is also perceived as the

cure-all for any immigration problem or illegality, whether the alien is

inside the United States or abroad, in legal status, or not. I
8

This perception has led to an almost exponential increase in the number of

fiance and spousal relationships creating immigrant status, while total

Migration to the United states dropped 9.6% from 681,442 in Fiscal Year

1978 to 543,903 in Fiscal year 1984, the number of immigrants acquiring

status as the spouses of United states citizens increased 43% from 78,857

in Fiscal year 1978 to 111,653 in Fiscal year 1984. Similarly, the number

of aliens acquiring second preference immigrant status through marriage to

legal permanent resident aliens jumped from 30,958 in Fiscal year 1978 to

41,814 in Fiscal year 1981, and dropped somewhat to 37,643 in Fiscal year

1984.

QUALIFYING FOR IMMIGRANT STATUS AS A SPOUSE OR FIANCE

The mechanism to acquire immigrant status through marriage is relatively

simple. Section 284 (8 U.S.C. 1154) states:

"any citiaen of the united states claiming that an alien is entitled to a

preference status by m imon of the relationships rtrwrrihtVI in paiaunajha

(1), (4), or (5) of section 203(a) {unmarried sons or daughters of United

States citizens, married sons or daughters of united States citizens,

brothers and sisters of United states citizens}, or to an immediate

relative status under 201(b) {children, spouses, or parents of a citizen

of the United States}, or any alien lawfully admitted for permanent

residence claiming that an alien is entitled to a preference status by

reason of the relationship described in section 203(a)(2) {spouse or

unmarried son or daughter of a legal permanent resident alien}...may file

a petition with the Attorney General for such classification..."

Following the marriage, the United States citizen or permanent resident

alien must file a petition accompanied by a marriage certificate and some

evidence of citizenship or lawful permanent residence with this document.

If either he or his alien spouse claims to have been previously married,

evidence of termination of that prior relationship is required.

Both the petition (which is executed by the united States citizen or legal

permanent resident alien) and the application for an immigrant visa or for

adjustment of status (which is executed by the alien beneficiary) make

specific material claims to the Service about the relationship and

residence arrangements. Both documents question whether the spouses live

together at a particular address. Cohabitation is a key indicator of

whether the relationship is a valid, viable, on-going, normal spousal

relationship, but is not a sine qua non for approval of the immigration

benefit.
9

Qualifying for status as an alien fiance and then converting to permanent

resident status is easier. Section 1191(a) (15) (K) defines such an alien as

one

"who is the fiancee or fiance of a citizen of the united states and who

seeks to enter the Doited states solely to conclude a valid earriage with

the petitioner within ninety days after entry..."

Section 214(d) spells out the mechanism by which the united States citizen

petitions for the alien fiance, and indicates only that

"...it (the petition) shall be snaeamel only after satisfactory evidence

is submitted by the petitioner to establish that the parties have a bona

fide intention to marry and are legally able and actually willing to

conclude a valid marriage in the united States within a period of ninety

days after the alien's arrival...."

The law does not presently require that these fiances have ever met. Thus

United States citizens legitimately petition for "mail order brides",

advertised in the backs of magazines and tabloids sold at the checkout

lines of supermarkets. The alien admitted as a fiance will go through the

appearance of wanting to marry and build a future life until after the

actual wedding ceremony. The alien then promptly abandons his or her

spouse.

The law, as interpreted, does not require that the marriage be intact and

viable at the time the alien applies for permanent residence under Section

214(d):

"In the event the marriage between the said alien and the petitioner shall

occur within three months after the entry and they are found otherwise

admissible, the Attorney General shall record the lawful admission for

permanent residence of the alien and mluua. children as of the date of the

emwmaat of the required visa fees."

precedent decisions demand only that a valid marriage (absent pre-existent

fraud or undissolved prior marriages) occur; consummation and

cohabitation, viability, and intent at the time the alien applies for

"recordation" of lawful admission has been deemed immaterial. Thus an

alien can acquire status even if he or she has no intent of family

reunification.
10

The liberal interpretation of fiance statutes has been reflected in the

increasing use of fiance visas to enter the United States and obtain

employment authorization. Because marriage to any United States citizen

will ultimately qualify them for immigrant status, an alien can use the

work-authorized visa to find someone who will enter into a sham marriage

more cheaply than the fiance petitioner or someone visiting the alien's

country. In Fiscal Year 1984 alone, 11,721 alien fiances were admitted

to the United States. Of these, 4,935 adjusted status, and 1,438

departed the United States•leaving almost 45% unaccounted for.

PROBLEMS WITH THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF "MARRIAGE", AS PRESENTLY INTERPRETED

Although the Act gives substantial preferential treatment to the spouses

of United States citizens and legal permanent resident aliens and to the

fiances of United States citizens, it is silent {apart from the specific

bar to proxy marriages contained in Section 101(a) (35)} regarding the

definition of marriage. Public standards for marriages, incorporated in

the individual states and foreign countries' domestic relation codes, have

largely governed and defined valid marriages. These definitions have been

circumscribed through the years by various court decisions defining what

constitutes a valid marriage for immigration purposes. The latter

frequently apply the broadest of interpretations to the relationship so

that immigration marriages often barely resemble the cannon interpretation

of a nuclear family, in consequence, it is frequently difficult to

differentiate a "good marriage" from a "bad marriage". Besides, even when

it is discovered that the spouses are not living together, they plead

temporary separation due to family arguments and invariably claim to be

in the process of reconciliation.

ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES FOR FRAUD

If a person enters into a sham marriage, lies in his application, and

cuts off lines of inquiry when he is questionned by immigration or

consular officers regarding the marriage, he is subject to both

administrative and criminal penalties. Administratively, the individual

alien caught in a fraudulent marriage is amenable to denial of the
11

petition and the immigration benefit. If an immigrant visa was already

issued on the basis of a marriage determined to be fraudulent, that alien

is precluded from obtaining another visa on the basis of a marriage

{Section 204(c)}. This latter provision does not, however, bar him from

obtaining a waiver of deportation under Section 241(f) as the spouse,

parent, or child of a united States citizen or permanent resident alien.

CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR FRAUD

More significantly, however, both participants in a sham marriage may be

subject to criminal prosecution for fraud. Title 18, U. S. C. 1001

provides for penalties of up to $1(9,0019 in fines and up to five years

imprisonment for anyone who

"...in any natter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of

the United States knowingly and wilfully falsifies, OBBCSmla or iuwa.ii up

by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false,

fictitious or fraudulent ill ill•Mill or representations, or makes or uses

any false writing or document knowing the sane to contain any false,

fictitious or fraudulent statsnent or entry..."

Title 18, U. S. C. 1546 similarly provides for penalties of up to $2,000

in fines and up to five years imprisonment for anyone who

"...knowingly makes under oath, or as permitted under penalty of perjury

under section 1746 of title 28, united States Code, knowingly subscribes

as true, any false statement with respect to a material fact in any

application, affadavit, or other document required by the iiiiiji ill inn laws

or regulations prescribed thereunder, or knowingly presents any such

application, affadavit, or other document containing any such false

Unfortunately many fraudulent marriages are never uncovered, or are

discovered only after the statutes have tolled. Even if fraud is alleged

by the petitioning spouse, it can be virtually impossible to locate the

alien participant.

Although Section 290(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes

the Social Security Administration (SSA) to release data concerning

aliens, provisions contained in the Tax Reform Act of 1976 limit the

dissemination of taxpayer identification information held by the Social

Security Administration for the purpose of locating aliens. SSA
12

disclosures under Section 290(c) now are limited to information about

Social Security beneficiaries and aliens in possession of non-work

nuiters; thus, the Service's principal tool for locating illegal aliens

and those who had obtained legal status through fraud has been eliminated.

Even if located, it is nearly impossible to bring deportation proceedings

against these aliens as, under the interpretation of Section 241(c), once

the benefit has been accorded, the government must prove fraudulent

intent. The amount of proof demanded is difficult to amass, and hinges on

statements against interest by both the alien and the petitioner.

TYPES OF FRAUD

Fraud appears in many guises. The petitioner and beneficiary may in fact

have gone through a marriage ceremony and may be living together, but one

or both may be concealing a prior undissolved marriage. The petitioner

may be an imposter using someone else's identity and birth documents. He

may even be an illegal alien using the documents of a dead United States

citizen•a situation difficult to ascertain if the exact date and place of

death are unknown. Frequently alien spouses will go through a "sham

divorce", and then contract fraudulent marriages with United States

citizens who file petitions for them. While the petitions are being

processed, the aliens continue to reside together as man and wife. After

they independently acquire permanent resident status, they remarry each

other. More conmonly, however, an alien just enters into a marriage with

a person who agrees to file the necessary forms for him to cure his

illegality.

The myriad forms of fraud can then be gathered into two broader categories

of fraud: The first might be called "contractual fraud." This occurs

when both parties to the marriage agree from the onset to participate in a

limited purpose, immigration marriage. There is no cohabitation, and

generally no consunmation.

Pre-nuptial agreements, written or unwritten, limit the relationship to

immigration matters and stipulate that the marriage will be dissolved as
13

soon as the inmigtation benefit is accorded or as soon as the parties feel

it is safe to formally terminate the contract. These accords are

particularly important so the citizen does not become responsible for any

debts the alien might incur, and does not have his or her profit cut by

having to pay for the divorce. Usually a fee or some consideration of

value is given (several months' rent, narcotics, debt forgiveness, foreign

trinkets, etc.). While marriage can be arranged for free, many cost in

the realm of $3,000 to $5,000. Some aliens have paid as much as $20,000

for marriage packages that include attorney services.

The arrangers will carefully coach the participants on how to evade

detection and pass any Service scrutiny. Detailed crib sheets may be

provided which outline the questions comnonly asked at INS interviews, or

the spouses may be subjected to a "dry run" interview by an attorney to

assure that they can answer any questions posed without faltering.

Apartment keys are exchanged, and sometimes a joint bank account is opened

to give the appearance of legitimacy. Identification may be changed to

reflect the female's new married name. The spouse may be deliberately

introduced to the landlord, building superintendent, or neighbors so that

he or she is known in the building should INS agents make inquiries.

Many Dnited States citizens and permanent resident aliens will marry

because they "feel sorry" for the alien who is facing deportation, are

inspired by resentment for a system which numerically limits immigration

(open borders and one world government types), went through sham marriages

themselves to acquire status, or are coerced by parents, lovers, or

friends to participate in the sham to facilitate the entry of their

friends, relatives, or business acquaintances.

Another common feature of these marriages, and of all fraudulent

marriages, is the dimension of coercion. Because the alien and the

arranger are well aware of the risks and penalties of disclosure,

particularly before the benefit is accorded, they feel no compunction in

intimidating their United States citizen or resident alien spouses or

fiances. Violence and threats of violence, extortion, blackmail, etc. are

frequently used to assure that the petitioner does not alert Immigration

to the fraud before the alien receives his status, and to assure that he

52-653 0-86-2
14

or she swears in any interviews held before the Service that the marriage

is bona fide. Cooperating Service informants often report such threats,

and a number of convictions have recently been secured against arrangers

under Title 18, U.s.C. 1512 (Tampering with a Witness,Victim, or

Informant) and Title 18, U.S.C. 1622 (Subornation of Perjury).

"ONE-SIDED MARRIAGE FRAUD"

The second major category of marriage fraud, and by far the more difficult

for the Service to contend with, is the "one sided marriage fraud." In

this case, a smooth-talking alien convinces an individual, usually a

United States citizen, that the marriage is real. Frequently immigration

is not discussed, or it is downplayed as the motivational factor behind

the urgency of the marriage. Immediately upon acquisition of the

immigration benefit (sometimes literally on the steps of the church or

city hall), the alien abandons the petitioner. In fiance cases, INS can do

nothing if the marriage occurs within the ninety day window. In cases of

adjustment or inmigration, the Service can do nothing if the spouses have

resided together but one day. It is difficult for an individual to

realize and admit that he or she has been duped by a clever alien; it is

twice as hard to learn that the alien cannot be removed from the United

States.

MAJOR MARRIAGE FRAUD CASES

The goal of the fraud perpetrator is to gain the benefit of legal

permanent resident status at the lowest cost with the least risk in the

shortest amount of time. Numerous underground businesses, which cater to

matching the demand of aliens for cooperative "spouses" with the supply of

individuals willing to make an easy dollar, strive to establish foolproof

ways of foiling Service detection efforts. Some of these businesses spring

into life at the command of the most legitimate of institutions; others

are unrelated to inmigration law as beauty parlors and donut shops, what

they have in common are individuals who put the alien in touch with a

willing marital partner who, for a fee, will marry the alien and petition

for his immigration.
15

The Service focuses its enforcement efforts on detecting and prosecuting

major fraud facilitators such as those who arrange sham immigration

marriages. During Fiscal Year 1984, 62 major marriage fraud rings were

investigated by INS nationwide.

The following are examples of some of the types of fraud rings recently

broken:

In Los Angeles, California, an attorney was convicted in November 1984,

and sentenced in February 1985, along with six co-conspirators, for

arranging sham immigration marriages between Filipinos and United States

citizens. Convicted on 16 counts of conspiracy and fraud, he is believed

responsible for arranging over 50 marriages for which the aliens were

charged $3,000 to $5,000.

In New York City, during March 1985, an attorney was disbarred for lying

and fabricating addresses in order to process quick divorces for alien

clients. Over 260 fraudulent divorces were uncovered by INS agents.

Although the statutes for federal fraud prosecutions had tolled and the

state chose not to prosecute for the fraud committed against itself, the

Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department of

the Supreme Court of New York County barred him from practice because of

egregious deceit.

In Oklahoma City, Oklahoma in March 1985, an attorney was sentenced for

arranging a sham marriage for an Iranian. In Honolulu, Hawaii in April

1985, an attorney was disbarred following conviction for subornation of

perjury in connection with the operation of a marriage fraud ring on the

islands of Oahu and Maui.

A notary public in Del Rio, Texas was convicted in March 1985 for

arranging "thousands'' of sham marriages over the course of ten years. A

Mexican attorney in Saltillo, Coahuila, Mexico was prosecuted in Mexico

for creating the fraudulent Mexican state records attesting to the

identity and marital status of the Mexicans who participated in the Del

Rio schemes.
16

In Chicago, Illinois, eight individuals associated with a ring that

arranged sham marriages between illegal Pakistanis and welfare mothers

were convicted and sentenced during April 1985 following conviction for

fraud and making false statements. It is estimated that over 100

marriages were arranged by the ring.

In Newark, New Jersey, a warrant is outstanding for the arrest of an

individual indicted for arranging up to 200 sham marriages. The

participants used counterfeit New York City marriage certificates and

counterfeit U. S. birth certificates to support petitions for permanent

residence.

In the Eastern District of Louisiana during Hay 1985, 25 individuals were

indicted on charges of conspiracy and making false statements in

connection with the operation of a marriage fraud ring centered in

Lafayette, Louisiana. The alien participants in the marriages included

five Jordanians, four Lebanese, an Iraqi and an Egyptian, who were

students at nearby universities. A donut shop manager has been indicted

as the arranger of the schemes.

In Belle Glade, Florida, a minister was arrested last month, together with

13 participants in fraud marriage schemes involving Haitians and United

States citizens. The illegal aliens paid up to $10,000 to the arrangers

and spouses for the filing of the petitions to accord immigration status.

In Kansas City, Kansas, seven Nigerians were recently indicted for their

involvement in sham marriages. They married United States citizens not

only to acquire INS benefits, but also to qualify for guaranteed student

loans and grants, food stamps, federally subsidized housing, and the lower

tuition fees available only to United States citizens, legal permanent

resident aliens, and state residents.

A number of marriage fraud rings have been uncovered that deliberately

attempt to avoid INS scrutiny by flying the United States citizens

overseas to marry the alien and file the necessary petitions before the

American consuls. The spouses only meet at the court, and see each other

for the time necessary to marry and drop the papers off at the consulate.
17

These spouses do not have to attempt the appearance of cohabitation

because the United States citizen immediately returns home. Rings

exploiting (or supplementing the incomes of) military personnel stationed

overseas operate similarly by avoiding INS scrutiny. The added inducement

for an alien to enter into a sham marriage with a serviceman stationed

overseas is that the alien may apply for naturalization immediately upon

entry to the United States.

RBCOMMQDATIONS

First, we urge that the sense of the Congress be expressed that marriage

fraud is a serious crime, and that prosecution of the facilitators of this

type of fraud•both the arrangers and the participants•be encouraged

under existing statutes.

Marriage and fiance fraud are not victimless crimes. The "innocent"

United States citizen or permanent resident spouse in a "one-sided

marriage fraud" may be duped, hurt financially, or destroyed

psychologically. More significantly, however, the participants in these

and the "contract fraud" marriages gut the Immigration and Nationality Act

by facilitating the entry of aliens who are generally being excluded for

good cause.

Most aliens are ineligible for visas because they have flaunted the law:

through illegal entry, as a visa abuser, as an illegal worker, as a

prostitute, criminal, narcotics violator, or terrorist. (A recent joint

EBI-INS investigation of Sikhs suspected of involvement in terrorist and

subversive activities disclosed that two of the five individuals arrested

were involved in sham marriages. One had already acquired immigrant

status, and the other was in the process of seeking permanent residence

through a marriage contracted immediately after he was arrested as an

illegal alien.) The aliens then go on to violate the law again by

entering into a fraudulent marriage to fulfill the letter of the law,

though not its spirit.

Marriage fraud, like the trade in fraudulent identification documents, is

a thriving cottage industry in the underground economy. Marrying an
18

illegal alien is viewed as a great way to quickly and painlessly earn a

several hundred tax-free dollars, and perhaps even visit a foreign country

for a few days. The illegal alien who is caught may be deported; the

permanent resident or United states citizen spouse is rarely

penalized•even if identified as an individual who has participated in

questionable marriages on more than one occasion. The arranger who brings

these two partners together, unless linked to other marriages, will

probably not be prosecuted.

Only aggressive criminal prosecution can serve to deter this crime.

Second, the law must be changed to clearly serve intent. If the

reunification of families is a priority of this nation, we should assure

that families•and not the paper creation of families•are being

reunified. Those who flaunt the law should not benefit by lax language in

the Act, but be penalized.

To this end, we reconmend that Section 101(a) (15) (K) be amended so as to

qualify the beneficiary of a fiance petition only if he and the petitioner

have personally met prior to the filing of the petition. It should also

be emended to indicate that marriage can only be contracted with the

petitioner in order to adjust status under Section 245 of the Act. The

law must specify that the conversion mechanism is via adjustment of

status, not simply through an automatic recordation proceeding. We also

strongly urge that fiances, like other spouses, be made subject to the two

year conditional entry provisions described below.

Third, we believe the marriage relationship must be statutorily defined.

We recommend that Section 101(a)(35) be amended to specify indicia of what

constitutes a marriage recognized for the purposes of conferring an

immigration benefit. Such indicia must include cohabitation after the

marriage and after the petition is filed, and viability at the time the

permanent benefit is accorded. Viability must be stated affirmatively,

not in terms of merely being the absence of a final divorce or annulment

decree.

Fourth, we believe that a two year conditional residency requirement for

all spouses will best serve to deter fraud. Sections 201(b), 203, 204,
19

212, and 214 should be amended to newly define immediate relatives,

preference aliens, and fiances as individuals who may not be accorded

permanent status if their marriage has been in existence less than two

years and formed the basis of their eligibility for an immigrant visa.

A new Section 210 is proposed which would provide for a statutory waiting

period of two years before a permanent benefit is accorded via marriage.

Conditional status, either via adjustment or immigration, will be limited

to two years. At the end of that period, the alien must affirmatively

demonstrate that the relationship is bona fide before being granted lawful

permanent resident status, or he shall be deported. If the Attorney

General is satisfied that the relationship is bona fide, the Attorney

General shall calculate the alien's period of residence back to the date

of initial immigrant entry or adjustment. We believe that the provision

needs further clarification concerning factors to be considered by the

Attorney General at the end of this two year period to determine whether

the marriage was a sham.

Fifth, we believe that the burdens placed on the government to prove

fraudulent intent must be eased to assure that aliens who participate in

marriage fraud are more easily deported. To this end, Section 241(c) must

be clarified to indicate that the burden truly is on the alien to

establish that the marriage was not contracted to evade immigration laws,

and that the alien's intent at the time of the marriage is not an

ameliorating factor. (This will cover those aliens who manage to evade

detection at the two year interview, or who immigrated on the basis of a

marriage that was already in existence for two years at the time of

imnigrant entry and thus did not fall within the parameters of new Section

210.)

Sixth, we firmly believe that Section 241(f) should be amended to indicate

that no equities can be claimed through a spouse or a child unless that

spouse or child resides with the alien and is fully supported financially.

Seventh, we recommend the creation of a new deportation charge. Section

241(a)(20), to mirror the exclusion charge comprehended in Section

212 (a) (19). This will render an alien deportable for attempting to
procure a visa or other documentation (such as adjustment of status) by

fraud. Currently Section 204(c) only penalizes the alien if he has

already received a visa; there is no penalty at present (apart from

criminal sanctions) for trying.

Eighth, we believe Section 245(c) should be changed to indicate that an

alien may not adjust through a marriage contracted after an order to show

cause or notice of voluntary departure has been issued to him.

Furthermore, he should not be able to use the marriage to reenter the

United States (even under the conditional two year status) unless he has

resided overseas one full year.

we believe all these changes are critical to deter the use of marriage as

a means to delay deportation and thereby avoid legitimate enforcement

efforts, we also believe that the integrity of our laws should be upheld

in the face of increasing abuse.

Thank you for this opportunity to set this problem before you.
IN

es9*in 6fr£'Z0I 892*66 I22'Z8 £88*06 I8Z*08 Z90*8Z SDSfl i° sasnods/saAj.}

-eiaj a^eipauuiL * IB:JOI

ew'zc iez*6£ Z9S'6£ t/I8'Ifr I2I'SE 8£t/9£ 856*0£ StfHdl io sasnods

a3ua.jaj.ajd puooas ' LBIOI

Z88'I82 095*062 28£*t/££ 161*992 09I'lfr2 0Z8'08I 8ee*092 uoi:pu}saj iBDuauinN

UIOJJ. )duiaxa te^oi

910'292 £12*692 6frZ'6S2 60t/*oee 6Zt>*682 8Zfr*6Z2 WI'IK patpu^sau /[iBDuaiunN

eo6*efrs •9Z*6S9 I£I*fr6S 009*969 6£9'0e9 8fr£'09t; 2WI09 s^uBubiumi [[V

&86IAJ C86TAJ 2861A3 186IA3 086IAJ 6Z6IAJ 8Z6IA3

SdIHSN0UV13b IVlIdVW VIA S31V1S 031INn 3H1 01 NOUVaOIWWI
22

(•puoanom)

SN3HV JO d38WnN

_J
23

Senator SIMPSON. Thank you very much, Commissioner Nelson,

and your full remarks will be included in the record, and I appreciate having them. They are very important. And now, please, Mr.

Penner, if you will proceed.

Mr. PENNER. Mr. Chairman, I certainly share with you and Senators Grassley and Simon the concern with the problem of marriage

fraud, and I welcome the statement by you and your colleagues

that spousal petition visas are among the most important forms of

the Immigration Act and family reunification is a very important

consideration.

I equally share the Commissioner's concerns that it is a type of

fraud we have to deal with; that is why I welcome this opportunity,

because we in the State Department, the Bureau of Consular Affairs, consider it perhaps one of the most prevalent forms of fraud.

We have prepared a lengthy statement. I would like to submit

that also for the record, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SIMPSON. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. PENNER. And then just summarize our findings here. I am

accompanied this morning by Cornelius Scully who is the Director

in the Visa Office of our Office of Legislation and Regulations.

With regards to marriage or fiance fraud, we have got two aspects of it. First, it is the fact that it is prevalent; second, the fact

that it is extremely complex and problemmatic.

One aspect of this problemmatic nature is that fiance fraud originates in many respects in the United States with U.S. citizens and

is initially directed against the Immigration Service.

It is INS, as you know, which has the responsibility for approving and revoking the petitions which accord alien immigrant, or

fiance status.

But while the visa process may begin and end with INS, the consular officer overseas has a very, very vital role. We have discussed

this role in this paper. In effect the process is one involving the

visa issuance.

We have also dicussed in this paper some of the prevalent forms

of marriage fraud and fiance fraud that are encountered at our

posts overseas.

I might add that it is not just marriage; sometimes it is the concealment of marriage which is fraudulent in itself, to accord an

alien a certain type of status under our law.

But in processing the visa applications I would direct your attention to one thing I would like to underscore. The consular officer

receives from INS approved petitions, and we begin right then at a

screening, at a review process, using what knowledge we have received in training, knowledge of local conditions.

In the beginning some petitions are in fact returned to INS but

by and large most fraud is detected and prevented, if it is prevented, at the time of the visa interview.

The consular officer walks a very fine line between invasion of a

person's privacy and trying to protect the integrity of the visa process.

In many cases Americans may even be unwitting accomplices to

the fraudulent scheme. We have to of course protect those interests

as well, but I would like to emphasize how difficult it is for a
24

person overseas confronted with a situation like that to try to protect both a person's privacy and the integrity of our visa.

I would like to also underscore that we have been focusing on the

fraudulent aspects of the visa process for some years now. The

Bureau has supported the creation of, at nine major embassies, specific antifraud units, and every major visa-issuing post has an antifraud designated officer.

For a consular officer to take the visa process to its conclusion,

either the visa is issued or the visa is denied. There are ways to put

it on a hold process, but at some time a visa has to be processed. If

proof is insufficient there again it is a problemmatic aspect. Only

sufficient proof of fraud must be inevidence before turning to our

INS colleagues to pursue the matter further.

So the scope of the problem is made difficult in those two respects primarily. I might also add that in looking at how many of

these types of frauds we might encounter, quantifying the problem

is almost as difficult as qualifying the problem.

We issue some 70,000 visas at some 225 posts abroad which deal

with spousal relations. That is a very large number.

In pursuing this matter, we have informally queried a number of

posts overseas. Many of them have indicated that sham marriages

and fiance sham things are in fact a problem.

But in summary, we believe that the answer perhaps lies in

better utilizing resources presently at our command strengthening

both coordination and cooperation with INS, rather than looking at

some across-the-board legislation.

Fine-tuning is something that we think is very significant. I

would only add that in our legislative section we focus on several

aspects that we think might create some concerns.

In particular we have discussed the Bureau's statement, that our

own answer may lie less in new programs than in more training,

continuing improvement in our information-sharing with INS, and

closer operational cooperation with the Immigration Service.

To finally summarize, I would suggest that while we consider

this problem a highly significant one, a problem that is growing,

we would like to work closer with INS to resolve it. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

[The statement follows:]
25

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VERNON D. PENNER, JR.

Mr, Chairmun, members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the

Bureau Of Consular Affairs I welcome the opportunity to testify

on the subject of immigration marriage fraud for two particular

reasons. Marriage or fiance(e) fraud is a prevalent form of

visa fraud increasingly encountered by our consular officers

abroad. Moreover, it is a form of fraud which is highly complex

and problematic in its detection and prevention. Marriage or

fiance(e) fraud is especially challenging to the consular

officer because much of it originates in the United States and

is directed initially against the Immigration and Naturalization

Service.

INS, as you know, has the responsibility for approval or

revocation of petitions according aliens immigrant or fiance(e)

status. It is INS to whom the consular officer turns to

investigate stateside evidence, reconsider petitions or

follow-up a report of possible fraud after visa Issuance. The

fiance(e) visa process begins and ends with INS. The vital role

of the consular officer falls In the middle of the process. We

screen the documents, interview the applicants and issue the

visas.

MARRIA6E AND FIANCE(E) FRAUD DEFINED

Marriage or fiance(e) fraud occurs when such a relationship

is entered into or concealed for the purpose of circumventing

the Immigration and Nationality Act, An objective of the

consular officer is to establish that both partners are legally

free to marry and that the claimed relationship is bona fide.

There are several common types of fraudulent relationships.

Probably the most prevalent marriage fraud is encountered in

applications of spouses of American citizens (IR-1 Category) and

spouses of alien residents (P2-1 Category). One type of abuse

is bigamy with fraud committed to conceal an existing prior
marriage. The petitioning American citizen may or may not be

aware that his/her new spouse was not legally free to marry.

Unfortunately, this particular fraud may only come to light

after permanent resident status has been obtained and the new

resident divorces the American citizen and "remarries" the

original spouse from the home country. A second abuse is the

apparent lawful marriage which was entered into solely for visa

purposes in exchange for money or other considerations.

A second type of relationship fraud occurs in the cases of

married aliens claiming to be the unmarried sons or daughters of

permanent resident aliens who are seeking status in the (P2-2)

category. Generally the parent files a petition with the INS

claiming that the beneficiary child is unmarried. The

beneficiary, in turn, attempts to conceal from the consular

officer at the time of the visa application the evidence of an

existing marriage. After admission to the United States, the

beneficiary may file a petition for the spouse and children

remaining abroad.

A third type of fraud involves the flance(e) nonimmigrant

visa category (K-l). Misrepresentations in this category are

not dissimilar from the types of fraud which arise in

immediate-relative and second preference cases. In addition,

applicants for fiance(e) visas may be "Mail-order" brides who

have never met their American citizen petitioners.

PROCESSING VISA APPLICATIONS

The Consular Officer is reauired to screen INS approved

petitions upon receipt to ensure the accuracy of information on

the petition and accompanying documentation. The officer may

note obvious discrepancies in marital status during this first

step and return the petition to INS for reconsideration. In the

majority of cases, however, suspicions of marriage or fiance(e)

fraud occur during the interview process when the beneficiary

applies for a visa.
27

The Consular Officer, when interviewing visa applicants, may

draw on area expertise and knowledge of conditions and fraud

patterns in the alien applicant's home country. While this

specialized skill is useful, the officer must evaluate the facts

of the relationship strictly in the context of the specific case

in making a determination whether or not to approve the visa

application.

Consular Officers find it particularly difficult to handle

suspected incidents of marriage or fiance(e) fraud when an

American citizen could have been victimized unknowingly by the

scam or is a willing party to visa fraud, In questioning the

validity of a spousal or fiance(e) relationship, the Consular

Officer walks a thin line between protecting the interests of a

perhaps unwitting American citizen "accomplice" to a fraudulent

scheme, and being accused of invading an individual's privacy.

I cannot stress enough how difficult it is for Consular Officers

to both protect a person's right to privacy and to protect the

integrity of the visa process.

The Consular Officer during the interview might ask where

and when the beneficiary and petitioner met, whether

correspondence is available showing that the two have maintained

contact while the petition was being processed, and details

concerning the marriage ceremony. Also, civil documents, such

as the beneficiary's passport or previous visa applications, may

be reviewed to determine if a previous marriage was indicated.

If the Consular Officer notes significant discrepancies during

the interview process and the petition or beneficiary does not

admit the commission of fraud, the Consular Officer may refer

the application to the post's Anti-fraud Officer for an

additional Interview and/or the performance of a field

investigation.

The anti-fraud section might review local church or civil

registry records to determine if a previous marriage exists or

the section could send an employee to perform a neighborhood

check. The investigator will ask the applicant's friends.
neighbors, or relatives about the applicant's marital status in

an attempt to determine the validity of the relationship. If

the petitioner has remained in the United States rather than

accompany the beneficiory to the interview, the Consular Officer

has the option of requesting INS to conduct an investigation

stateside to ensure the validity of the claimed relationship.

1 might add that during the past several years, the Bureau

of Consular Affairs has supported the creation at nine major

embassies of anti-fraud units which are staffed by FSO's and by

Foreign Service National Staff Members. All of our major visa

issuing posts have designated Anti-fraud Officers responsible

for addressing the fraud problem in their consular districts.

Furthermore, the Bureau provides anti-fraud training segments in

junior and mid-level courses for Consular Officers at the

Department's Foreign Service Institute as well as consular

conferences and workshops abroad.

Our objective is to develop conclusive evidence proving a

fraudulent situation, such as a marriage certificate showing a

bigamous relationship or the execution of a notarized affidavit

by a party to the marriage attesting to the commission of

fraud. If evidence establishes that fraud has been committed, a

report to this effect with supporting evidence and the petition

will be sent to INS for its review and determination if the

petition should be reconsidered or revoked. Such evidence must

be adequate for presentation in a United States court of law

should INS's revocation of a petition be contested. I stress

that while suspicion may point to the possibility of fraud, the

Consular Officer may have considerable difficulty developing the

necessary conclusive evidence, particularly without the

cooperation of local government officials or the petitioner or

beneficiary. Short of conclusive evidence, there is little

choice but tu proceed with the visa application and ultimately

approve issuance of a visa.
SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM

The difficulties in identifying fraudulent relationships and in

establishing the hard evidence which would enable the INS to

revoke petitions based on fraud also makes quantifying the

problem a speculative task. I believe that marriage fraud is a

worldwide phenomenon, which occurs to a greater or lesser extent

at most all of our immigrant visa issuing posts. A

representative sampling of comments from posts which issue

immigrant vlsos Illustrate the extent to which the problem

occurs.

An embassy in the Caribbean reported that "the sham marriage

phenomenon...is the single most popular ploy used by persons

seeking to obtain an immigrant visa through fraud." The post

stated that fraudulent marriages have achieved "folkloric"

proportions and brokers and documenters "supply everything from

happy looking witnesses at bogus marriage ceremonies to reusable

cardboard and paste wedding cakes that appear in wedding photo

after wedding photo." The post estimates that b5Z of the cases

which have been investigated result In findings of fraudulent

relationships.

Fraudulent marriages are increasing in Europe as well, where

a growing third-country national community from the Middle East,

the Indian Sub-continent and Africa provides the bulk of suspect

cases. According to one embassy, marriage fraud cases are

relatively easy to spot by the lack of common cultural or

religious ties or the brief period of acquaintance prior to the

marriage. The beneficiary normally has a good deal more

education than the petitioner who is often unemployed or working

in a low paying job. Other notable groups sometimes involved in

questionable marriages are U.S. military personnel, typically a

young male petitioner with a much older beneficiary, and members

of cult groups.

Reports from Canada indicate that in a majority of fraud

cases, a sham marriage was contracted simply to help out a

52-653 0-86-3
30

friend. Petitioners who admit the fraudulent nature of the

relationship have often stated they would not have become

involved if they had known that the visa process would take so

much time or involve so much travel. One Canadian post

estimates that in perhaps 15% of the sham marriages involving

female petitioners, the petitioner admits that despite not

having lived with the beneficiary nor consummating the marriage

with him, she was now in love with the beneficiary and was

hoping that the sham marriage woula become a "real" marriage

after the beneficiary received his visa.

In one Asian country, the beneficiaries of petitions based

on bigamous marriages take additional steps to confound Consular

Officers and Anti-fraud Investigators and to conceal prior

marriages. Visa applicants commonly hide their real names,

addresses, ages, children, and occupations. In support of each

misrepresentation, they provide either fraudulent documents or

genuine documents fraudulently issued by counterfeiters.

SUHHARY

Unfortunately, marriage fraud appears to be a "growth

industry," because it is a non-risk proposition for all parties

concerned and the fraud is difficult to prove. A Consular

Officer abroad is in a unique position to evaluate the approved

1-130 petition forwarded oy a stateside in office, but

developing the conclusive evidence required for remanding a case

involving fraud to that INS office for reconsideration or

revocation is frustrating, labor intensive, and sometimes

impossible. Absent an admission by the petitioner or

beneficiary that the relationship is fraudulent, or other

evidence to prove fraud which would withstand legal review, the

Consular Officer does not have the needed Justification to

return the petition to the INS.
31

Tne State Department issued last year over sixty-nine

thousand visas at 225 posts based on marriage or fiance(e)

relations, As visa demand increases, I suspect we will see

increasing numbers of questionable relationships. We are

utilizing every possible resource to prevent marriage fraud.

Sham marriages have been the subject of specific anti-fraud

bulletins to all posts. Me also have continued to stress the

Importance of strengthening our ties and coordination with INS.

Towards this end, we certainly encourage INS to make every

effort to conduct interviews, document checks, and, if

appropriate, investigations, before giving its stamp of approval

to petitions.

LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATIONS

I will now turn to the specific issues which you have

indicated are under consideration. In doing so, I will talk of

them in terms of anti-fraud efforts.

First, there is the question of making the initial approval

of a spousal petition conditional and subject to further

review. As far as I am aware, this would be a substantial

departure from previous practice and, while it may be Justified

as an anti-fraud measure, it will certainly be a highly

controversial one since it directs itself to precisely those

groups of immigrants who have traditionally been most favorably

treated under the immigration law. I assume that the further

review contemplated would provide an opportunity to determine

whether the marriage had been entered into in good faith or was

entered into for the purpose of evading the immigration laws.

In considering such a significant departure from existing

provisions of low, careful consideration should be given to

whether enforcement of existing law might not render the

provision unnecessary.

I would comment, as a technical matter, that any such

provision should more appropriately be formulated in terms of
32

limiting and imposing conditions upon the alien's admission

than upon the visa petition or immigrant visa. Some precedent

for admitting aliens as immigrants but for less than permanent

residence may be found in the Immigration Act of ly24, Section

<»(e) of that Act defined foreign students as nonquota

immigrants but they were not admitted for permanent residence.

Rather, under Section 15 of that Act, their admission wus to be

for such time and under such conditions as the Attorney General

prescribed by regulation. A formulation similar to that one

would appear preferable for technical reasons.

We are not entirely clear what concept lies behind the

suggestion to authorize the Attorney General to review spousal

petitions on a "post-audit" basis. Presumably, the alien

spouses would be admitted for permanent residence as is now the

case, but there would be some post-admission inquiry to

determine whether the marriage had in fact been a genuine one.

Both of these suggestions would appear to call for new

adjudicating or investigative programs, or both, while I

cannot speak for the Immigration and Naturalization Service In

this matter, I do not believe that we in the consular field

would welcome the addition of such new programs. From our

perspective, the answer really lies in enhancing our existing

anti-fraud programs, which means, more training, continuing

improvement In our 1nf ormatl orrShar1ng, and operational

cooperation.

Cohabitation of the parties after a marriage ceremony is

certainly a factor which is worthy of consideration. Under

existing law, regulations, and decisions, the lack of any

cohabitation whatsoever is a very strong indication of a sham

marriage and will form a substantial basis for the denial of a

visa petition or the revocation of a previously-approved

petition.
A more difficult question arises when the parties cohabited

for a period of time after the marriage ceremony but then

ceased to cohabit. It may be in some such cases that the

petitioning party entered into the marriage solely to procure

an immigration benefit for the alien. On the other hand, there

will also be cases in which both parties entered into the

marriage in good faith, but one or both eventually realized

that it was a mistake. Suppose for example, that the parties

ceased to cohabit because one physically abuses the other. In

that case, one can say that the abused spouse made a mistake.

Such a mistake, however, would not constitute an act of fraud

or a sham marriage.

It has been suggested that certain requirements might be

added for approval of a fionce(e) petition - a requirement that

the parties have met prior to petition filing, that they shore

a common language and that they have a firm intent to marry.

INS regulations now specify that a prior meeting between

the parties be given great weight in the adjudication of a

fiance(e) petition. Me perceive no objection to making a prior

meeting between the parties a condition for petition approval,

but only if the meeting took place within a reasonable period

of time prior to petition filing. Proof that the parties, now

both adults, met years before when both were infants, toddlers

or elementary school age children would not be sufficient.

We are concerned about the requirement that the parties

share a common language. Clearly, if they cannot communicate

at all, it would be most unusual that they could agree to enter

Into a meaningful marital relationship. On the other hand, we

foresee very difficult administrative problems. How fluent

must they be in order to "share a common language?" How much

English must the alien know to share it with the American? How

much Spanish, Tagalog, Chinese, Finnish, French, Swahill, or

Farsi must the American know to share it with the alien? While

conceptually this is a logical requirement, there is a
34

likelihood that its imposition Mould require large expenditures of time and money to administer language testing.

The intent of the parties to enter into a valid marriage

after the fiance(e)'s entry into the United States is already

an integral part of the law and implementing procedures. In

order to qualify for issuance of a fiance(e) visa, the alien

must "seek to enter the united States solely to conclude a

valid marriage with the petitioner." In the implementation of

this provision, the petitioner is required to swear that he or

she is legally free to marry the beneficiary and Intends to do

so within 90 days after the beneficiary's entry. Similarly,

the beneficiary is required to swear to the same thing as part

of his or her visa application. There is thus already a sound

legal basis for denying a petition if it can be established

that the petitioner lacks the requisite intent, or for denying

the beneficiary's visa application if the beneficiary lacks the

requisite intent. We would not object if the stotutory

language were strengthened but we don't believe that

strengthening the language would add anything. Here, as

elsewhere, the real issue is the ability to get at the reality

which lies behind the representations made by the parties.

As to possible additional penalties or forms of deterrence,

the Department has one suggestion concerning Section 204(c) of

the Act. That section now prohibits the approval of visa

petitions for any alien who was previously accorded status on

the basis of a marriage determined to have been entered into to

evade the immigration laws. It does not, however, apply to a

case in which status on the basis of such a marriage was sought

but not obtained because the sham was discovered sooner rather

than later. We can see no basis for applying this prohibition

only to sucessful shams.

The final two issues -- (1) whether an alien who enters

into a marriage after becoming deportable should be allowed to
35

adjust status and, (2) whether the five-year limit on

rescission of adjustment of status is adeauute • are both

matters within the jurisdiction of the INS and, consequently,

we are not really in a position to comment on either in a

meaningful way,

Thank you for this opportunity to present to you our views

on this most serious issue.

Senator SIMPSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Penner; very helpful. I would like to go to some questions now of both of you, just a

few.

Alan Nelson could you give us your estimate as to how many

persons involved in fraudulent or non bona fide marriages may

have obtained permanent resident status in this manner, say, in

1984; how many there are?

Mr. NELSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. First, if I might introduce two

people who have joined me up here. Jack Shaw is our Assistant

Commissioner for Investigations. Rick Norton who also works with

him recently returned from a grant, German Marshall fund grant

in Europe, who are active in this, and I might defer a number of

these questions to the experts here.

But to answer your question, Mr. Chairman, based on a preliminary survey•and I would emphasize it is that•on marriage fraud,

and this is in 3 cities during fiscal year 1984, we believe as much as

30 percent, which is an extremely high figure, of the spouse relationships may be fraudulent.

Now again we are not saying these are hard, but there is indication of a significant percentage and that could mount up to 45,000

individuals who could have received permanent status through

non-bonafide marital relationships.

So the problem is clearly significant.

Senator SIMPSON. YOU mentioned that fraudulent marriage petitions sometimes involve impersonation of American citizens. Could

you elaborate for me a bit on that, impersonation of American citizens?

Mr. NELSON. By agreement with Mr. Shaw, Mr. Norton, if you

would answer that.

Senator SIMPSON. Either one there. I am going to have Dick Day

come down. He was one of the Marshall fund winners, along with

you, you know, Mr. Day, the chief counsel, but since the immigration bill has come up, we had to scrub his tour in August, one of

the failures of the system. Please.

Mr. NORTON. Our problem is that there are thousands of jurisdictions that issue the various documents that can be used in support

of the visa petition to show that you are a U.S. citizen, for example,

and able to petition for an alien spouse.

With this multitude of documents, the ability to counterfeit them

presents us great hurdles. We have had a case in Newark, NJ, for
36

example, where over 200 counterfeit documents showing U.S. citizenship were used in support of these visa petitions. In many cases,

the documents were used by illegal aliens posing as U.S. citizen

spouses.

Senator SIMPSON. SO that is the impersonation that you described, that type of thing?

Mr. NELSON. Yes.

Senator SIMPSON. And this is one incident you speak of?

Mr. NELSON. Well, there are many also. We have had other examples where people have posed as U.S. military personnel overseas, and not actually being so, but acquiring counterfeit documentation again, indicating that they are able to petition, as military

personnel, for persons to join them back in the States when they

have finished their tours overseas. But it is a problem we have

many examples of.

Senator SIMPSON. And they actually present themselves, perhaps

in uniform, or whatever that may be, at that time; is that correct?

Mr. NELSON. Oh, yes, and apparently official documentation

showing their status on the military base. It is quite thorough documentation. We have even had completely fraudulent immigrant

visa packages, including the face sheet of the immigrant visa itself,

based entirely on counterfeit documentation stemming from that

original posing as a U.S. citizen.

Senator SIMPSON. And of course, just for the record, you might

share with us just what the benefits are to a U.S. serviceman with

regard to special immigration benefits. Would you please relate

that briefly, the special benefits that go to the spouse of a serviceman.

Mr. NORTON. Well, of course, they are entitled to benefits as the

spouse of military personnel: on-base billeting and various health

care benefits, and support by other means, as is common with

many persons who acquire permanent residence through this type

of arrangement.

If you are illegally in the United States, of course, you are not

normally entitled to many entitlement programs, receipt of Social

Security, supplementary income benefits, for example, or unemployment compensation.

However, if you do pose, or do acquire permanent residence on

the basis of this fraudulent relationship, you do become eligible for

all these benefits.

Senator SIMPSON. And of course swift naturalization is also a

great benefit, is it not?

Mr. NORTON. Yes; especially in the case of military personnel

who can have their spouses naturalized virtually immediately after

acquiring permanent resident status.

Senator SIMPSON. Did you have any comment on any of that, Mr.

Penner, any of this?

Mr. PENNER. Well, I would only say that obviously, in not every

immigrant visa interview is the petitioner present. I would certainly hope that when you have a petitioner impersonating an American citizen, this is one thing we would certainly hope to examine at

the time of the visa interview, if the petitioner was available.

Mr. NELSON. I might just add, Mr. Chairman, that obviously

interrelationship of all of these aspects of immigration and immi-
37

gration reform, we need to control our borders but part of the problem is, when illegal aliens get into this country, whether they cross

the border or whether they come in fraudulently through a fraudulent marriage, is that they can access themselves to jobs which

they are not otherwise entitled to, or to the benefits.

And as we know there are millions and millions of dollars in this

country, and all the benefits that Mr. Norton indicated, plus

others, that are accessed by these people, and that is one reason, of

course, we are pursuing the SAVE Program to screen out illegals

from improperly drawing benefits, and we are pleased with the efforts there, but this marriage fraud and other fraudulent activities

tie into that problem.

Senator SIMPSON. Well, of course there are the benefits that

accrue to the serviceman overseas, and then there are the benefits

that accrue here in the United States to the spouse with regard to

any number of Federal entitlements, and what are those here in

the United States, just very briefly, the benefits that become available?

Mr. NELSON. I think Mr. Norton hit a number of them, and obviously you have got the Social Security, the supplemental security

income, SSI, unemployment compensation, HUD-subsidized housing, the AFDC Program, food stamps, numerous Department of

Education-funded programs including student loans and opportunity grants.

You have got Small Business Administration loans. Mr. Norton

has already hit the military, and there are probably others there,

but there is quite a panoply of various social benefits that are

available out there for people who have no right to obtain them.

Senator SIMPSON. Let me ask you this: You mentioned that it is

particularly difficult for the INS to prosecute cases of one-sided

marriage fraud in which an American citizen has been duped or

deceived by an alien spouse.

If the citizen comes to the INS and is prepared to testify that the

marriage is a sham, or was a sham, so far as the alien was concerned, from the outset, why is there this difficulty? Why is that?

Mr. NORTON. Well, as the law states right now, at least on the

surface in section 241(c) it appears as though, if that is the circumstance, the alien must then prove that the marriage was not entered into in order to acquire the immigration benefit.

However, court precedent does not allow us to proceed in any

sort of a proceeding against the alien, unless we can go back in an

investigation, and establish that at the time the marriage was entered into, that fraud was intended by the alien. This means that

we have to place ourselves inside the mind of the alien. If they concealed that fact to the U.S. citizen, or never discussed it with anybody that we find as witnesses, then it is impossible for us to establish that the intention was solely to violate immigration laws. This

situation exists notwithstanding anything that may have happened

since the marriage that caused the divorce or separation, the dissolution of the marriage.

Senator SIMPSON. Let me ask just one other question and then I

will go to Senator Grassley. I will ask this of Mr. Penner and then

come back for just a couple more, and then we will go on.
38

The marriage fraud and the U.S. serviceman, we are discussing

here, and I would like your views on it as to the extent of the problem and what is involved there, and for example, where does this

fraud mostly take place in the world, internationally, and are U.S.

servicemen often knowing participants, or sometimes unknowing?

I would like your thoughts on that, please.

Mr. PENNER. Well, certainly the fraud would occur most logically

where U.S. servicemen are stationed overseas. That is readily apparent. During my most recent service in Europe, we worked very

closely with military authorities to ensure that the U.S. servicemen•and it is no longer just men but women who marry overseas,

of course•were aware of all aspects of visa requirements when

they in fact enter into a relationship.

We worked with military authorities, chaplains, and what we

call the civilian personnel officers. In effect there was a military

clearance process of the spouses in Germany, and that was, I think,

a strong deterrent to some of these frauds that we are talking

about. In the time that was permitted us before these hearings, we

made informal soundings of our posts overseas. Several in Asia in

fact said yes, this is a concern, and yes, there are servicemen who

are either unwitting dupes or in fact may be entering into relationships for sums of money.

We try of course to weed these things out. From my experience

in Germany, I would hope that posts are working with military authorities.

Part of the answer is also working with immigration authorities.

Senator SIMPSON. I would think that the place of the largest

problem would be areas where there is the largest backlog of legal

persons waiting in line. Is that not so?

Mr. PENNER. Well, certainly those backlogs create pressures and

pressures create temptations, and temptations give us fraud, that is

correct; and if you couple with those areas, areas where there are

also servicemen stationed, or servicewomen, then in fact there

is

Senator SIMPSON. Such as Korea, or the Phillipines, I would

think that that would be heavy.

Mr. PENNER. That would be correct, Senator.

Senator SIMPSON. Mr. Grassley.

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Penner, you

spoke in terms of correcting the problem by fine-tuning. Mr.

Nelson, you spoke in terms of eight changes needed in the law.

Now, do we have one administration position here, or two, or do

we have no position on the part of the administration as to how to

solve this problem? Is there still debate going on within this administration on how to take care of this problem?

Mr. NELSON. I will take a shot at it and let Rick pickup on it. I

think we are consistent. I think obviously, this is an area

Senator GRASSLEY. Well, it seems and•maybe I misread Mr.

Penner, but it seemed that he did not want any change in any statute.

Mr. PENNER. I referred to actual finetuning of what statute is

available. Perhaps I was unclear in my testimony, Senator.

Senator GRASSLEY. Well, do you consider his suggestion
Mr. PENNER. Well, I would actually have to review it and get

back to you on that.

Senator GRASSLEY. All right, I may have misunderstood Mr.

Penner slightly, however, my question I believe still is valid. What

is the position of the administration?

Mr. NELSON. I think, Senator Grassley, of course this hearing is a

real kickoff on this issue. The problem has not been addressed,

publicly, as it should be, and I think with our respective testimony,

it is an indication we are all together in looking for a solution.

There is no absolutely clear way. We think the recommendations

we made are solid. I do not really see inconsistencies between the

two departments, so I think we are really on the right track.

A lot more work needs to be done, and again, as I say, I see this

as a good kickoff, and I am sure we will work very effectively

Senator GRASSLEY. Well, do you anticipate as a result of this

hearing, that there will be a formulation of a policy in this area by

this administration?

Mr. NELSON. I think that is already underway and of course a lot

of the administrative action ties into that, too. It is not strictly legislative. It is a combination of both.

I think that public attention to this is important, and I think we

are on that track and we certainly will continue on that track.

Mr. PENNER. I would not be so optimistic as to say "solving this

problem." I think the problem will always be with us, but I think

doing a better job of what we are trying to do, that is certainly in

our power.

Perhaps you would like to hear comments on this in terms of the

legislation.

Mr. SCULLY. Senator, if I may, in our statement we raise what we

think are some points that need to be looked at in the formulation

of actual legislative text. We were made aware, a letter was sent to

us, indicating that in a general way, certain sorts of ideas, or suggested directions for legislation, possible legislation, were under

consideration, and we have addressed our comments in our opening

statement to the suggestions that were thrown out, not precise legislative text, but in essence, suggestions for possible types of legislation.

There were a couple of those that we felt there were some factors

that needed to be explored more fully, such as in the statement, we

talk about this notion of requiring that the parties to a fiance petition share a common language.

It seems to us there are some things that need to be thought

about in terms of how one would formulate that, so we tried to set

those out in the statement.

That does not necessarily mean that we would oppose, conceptually, that sort of a requirement, if it was decided that that was an

appropriate thing to add to the legislation, but I do think that one

needs to understand some of the administrative problems, the practicalities that would arise if one does that, and that is what we

were attempting to do in our statement, was to lay out some of

those things.

Senator SIMPSON. Let me ask just a couple more questions and

then we will move on, because you both talk about a conditional,

and placing of conditions, and conditional restraint. Would not the
40

creation of conditional resident status of the kind that you recommend, Mr. Nelson, result in a tremendous workload increase for

the service? I will ask you that.

Mr. NORTON. We do not believe so. First, only those aliens who

have been married less than 20 months would be subject to the provisions that would require us to review their cases. Second, not all

those would be required to appear for interview. We would go

through a screening process and determine which cases had to go

forward for an actual physical interview.

The Service believes that the statute will effectively deter the

submission of fraudulent applications, too, which will result in a

net decrease in the number of applications filed.

Senator SIMPSON. Would not that kind of a conditional resident

status actually lead to a kind of downgrading of the status of a

spouse, then, of an American citizen?

Mr. NORTON. We feel it would not. First of all, we are proposing

that the period of temporary residence be retroactive, that if you

are determined to be in a valid relationship, that you would not

start the clock ticking on your period of permanent residence, but

would be retroactive to the date of initial entry or adjustment on

the basis of the marriage.

Second, there would be no distinction in the type of documentation carried by the temporary or permanent resident, only perhaps

an expiration date on the card itself, that would be renewed after

the status is determined to be viable.

Senator SIMPSON. Mr. Penner, you suggest placing those type of

conditions on the alien's admission and not on the visa petition or

immigrant visa. Could you explain briefly what you mean by that

suggestion and your reasons for preferring that?

Mr. PENNER. Certainly. Let me defer to Dick Scully on that.

Mr. SCULLY. Senator, this is a technical matter. Under the law as

it stands now, all immigrants are admitted for permanent residence, and the petition and the visa are essentially•the petition is

essentially used up in connection with the issuance of the visa.

The visa has been used in connection with the admission. So if

you want to establish this condition subsequent, it seems to me as a

technical matter, it needs to be established on the admission, because if you admit the alien for permanent residence, then the conditional nature of the visa or the petition is irrelevant, if in fact

when the alien arrives at the port of entry, the alien is granted admission for permanent residence.

What you really want to get at here, mechanically•this is a

very technical thing, it is not a substantive thing•but it seems to

me, technically, if you are going to establish this kind of requirement, what you want to do is something analogous to what was

done under the 1924 act for students.

They were admitted as immigrants but they were not admitted

for permanent residence. They were admitted for time limited periods under conditions established by regulation. Now, one could

admit the spouse's or fiances in a conditional status or a time-limited status, under conditions that were established either by statute,

or by regulation, depending on how the Congress chose to do it.

But it seems to me that as a technical matter, it is preferable to

establish the conditions, of the kind the Commissioner is talking
41

about, on the admission, rather than on the visa issuance or the

petition because those are transitory documents anyway, whose life

ends when the alien is admitted, and that essentially is just a technical issue, sir.

Mr. PENNER. If I could only add, Mr. Chairman, from a procedural standpoint I would not like this kind of secondary examination

or conditional entrance to in any way detract from the necessity to

investigate and carefully review every application during the initial application process.

I would not like this second stage approach to detract from the

importantance to us in the consular field, of carefully reviewing at

the time of application each visa and each visa applicant.

Senator SIMPSON. IS that the postadmission inquiry that you

speak of? Is that what you are saying?

Mr. SCULLY. In either form, Senator, I think. I think one of the

things that we•Mr. Penner and I were discussing this•as we see

it, assuming these conditions might be established by law, we do

not see that that would or should in any way diminish the adjudication, and any necessary investigations that might be associated

with the initial application process, either with the initial petition

approval process, or the visa issuance process.

I think one of the things that one might get led into is the

notion, ah, well, if this is all going to be dealt with after 2 years in

any event, there is not as much necessity to pursue inquiry and investigation, and adjudication, initially, in the petition adjudication

of visa issuance process; and it is our view that even the establishment of these subsequent conditions will not in any way detract

from or modify the process that we currently go through, and that

is the point.

Senator SIMPSON. Well, you know, I just want to be sure that

when you are talking about this later inquiry, or postadmission inquiry to determine whether the marriage is genuine, I gather that

the consular service is not welcoming that, and yet it is my understanding that the INS does prefer a process which might entail

such an inquiry. The State Department then would not be involved

and I would like to see the two agencies of Government discussing

that, and sharing with me your views as to how best that might be

coordinated. That would be very important to me and I wonder if I

could inquire and request you to do that, and give me a kind of a

memorandum on that, or, a white paper.

Mr. NELSON. We will do that, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SIMPSON. I would really appreciate that because I see

that distinction.

Well, I want to thank you very much. You have kicked us off on

what I think is going to be of very great interest to us all. Thank

you so much.

Now the next panel, Ms. Amita Narielwala and Ms. Patricia Beshara, and Mr. Jose Caringal, and Ms. Nancy Marrero. If you

would come forward we would certainly appreciate hearing from

you.

It is deeply appreciated that you would come and share your

very personal experiences, the things that have happened to you

with regard to this area. The information we are seeking is to perhaps make some corrections in our laws, and I know that you have
42

really not submitted any kind of written testimony. That is most

pleasing to us here sometimes, they get quite bulky, and so I will

ask to receive your testimony through some questions that I might

ask, so let me just proceed there.

Please know that this is an informal proceeding. It is not a court

hearing. We are not limited by the rules of evidence but we are

certainly limited by the rules of good taste, and I always try to observe those. This is not a probing personal thing but the things

that you would share will be very important to us.

STATEMENT OF A PANEL CONSISTING OF AMITA NARIELWALA,

ALEXANDRIA, VA; PATRICIA BESHARA, NEW YORK, NY; JOSE

CARINGAL, GARDENA, CA; AND NANCY J. MARRERO, PHILADELPHIA, PA

Senator SIMPSON. SO MS. Narielwala, I understand you are an

American citizen of Indian origin, and that in keeping with the

common practice in India, your family then arranged your marriage with a young Indian doctor, and that you returned to India

for that marriage on June 15, 1982.

And that after your husband obtained his immigration visa at

the consulate in Bombay, then there was a change in the relationship, change in attitude toward you, that became very evident, and

if you would please share with us exactly, the circumstances of

that, we would appreciate hearing that

Ms. NARIELWALA. Sir, after we got married in 1982, we went to

the consulate in India a day before our marriage to apply for a

visa. Two days after our marriage we were given•he was granted

a visa to enter into this country. At the time of the marriage, the

day after the marriage, once be received his visa, his attitude

changed completely to the point where he did not want to have

anything to do with me.

Senator SIMPSON. Had you concluded that?

Ms. NARIELWALA. Yes, sir.

Senator SIMPSON. His attitude changed completely and he

wanted nothing to do with you at that point. And when you entered the United States, then, on August 2, 1982, and your husband

was granted immigrant status, what then was his attitude toward

you?

Ms. NARIELWALA. Well, once we entered into the United States•

he is a psychiatrist•his attitude, you know turned completely to

be professional and he disregarded our personal life completely,

went off to obtain a job in the United States. Then he left me in

October, so we had been married 3 months.

He left in October and in January, was the first time he called

me, and let me know at that time that he had married me for a

green card, and he had nothing•he did not want to have anything

to do with me.

After that, he has changed his address, and so I could not locate

him, and we had to hire a sheriff who located him for us, and I

delivered an annulment paper which was based on marriage fraud.

The courts disregarded that, and I sent divorce papers, which he

disregarded.
43

And I have been to INS, Senator Heinz, Senator•I have spoken

to your committee. I have spoken to Congressman Goodling. I have

been to INS at least 50 times, putting in requests, asking them to

look this matter over, and have had no results.

Senator SIMPSON. SO several months after your marriage then,

your husband left you in Pennsylvania to look for a medical residency, and then he left, and he returned, and he indicated to you

that he had married you only for the purpose of immigration, is

that what you are saying?

Ms. NARIELWALA. Yes, sir.

Senator SIMPSON. And said that it was for the purpose of getting

a green card?

Ms. NARIELWALA. Yes, sir.

Senator SIMPSON. And when you asked to join him down there in

Texas, what was his response to that, since he had found a job?

What did he say?

Ms. NARIELWALA. He said that "I no longer required your support, or your family's support. I'm a doctor, I can earn my own

way," and thanks for the ticket to America, basically.

Senator SIMPSON. And did he ever indicate to you his knowledge

of the worth of that green card? In other words, that once he had

it, that was it and he was quite able to carry on and it would never

be taken from him?

Ms. NARIELWALA. Yes, sir.

Senator SIMPSON. Was that true?

Ms. NARIELWALA. He stated it more clearly than that. He said

that he has, he has what he calls the green card which is the only

thing he needs to live in this country, and there is nobody that can

take it away from him, and if he holds off divorcing me for 2 years,

then INS cannot get to him.

Senator SIMPSON. Do you know what your husband's immigration

status is now?

Ms. NARIELWALA. He is getting ready to apply for his citizenship

because we have been married for 3 years and still have not•he

still has not agreed to a divorce.

Senator SIMPSON. And do you know whether he is a citizen as

yet? You are not aware of that?

Ms. NARIELWALA. I am not aware of it.

Senator SIMPSON. Yes. Since the subject of the hearing is indeed

fraudulent marriages, let me come back to the point: What further

detail can you furnish the subcommittee about his indicating to

you that he married you only for the green card? Anything more to

add to that?

Ms. NARIELWALA. Sir, I did find a letter that he had written to

his parents, and in the letter it basically stated•he had written it

to his parents and was getting ready to mail it when I found it•

and it stated that "I have married you to obtain a green card," or

"I have married her to enter into this country, primarily as a

doctor, and I am hoping to call all of my family here and build our

empire."

And so he will get his citizenship and bring his family here.

Senator SIMPSON. He said•those were the words he used in the

letter, "to build the empire"?

Ms. NARIELWALA. Yes, sir.
44

Senator SIMPSON. I think that sometimes American citizens also

forget that a person using the legal immigration systems of the

United States, and petitioning for relatives who are not in the

United States, can bring in relatives as•I don't want to use the

word remote but I will, because the American citizen, I think,

thinks of a, "cohesive family" or "nuclear family" as spouse and

children, minor children; but to an Asian, it is the spouse, minor

children, parents, brothers, sisters, and we have a preference called

the fifth preference, which is brothers and sisters of adult U.S. citizens. And I do think we have a recordholder in that area, one

person who petitioned for 64 derivative relatives. That may be

called building the empire I think, and indeed, it is real. But that

in essence is what he said?

Ms. NARIELWALA. Yes, sir. My personal feeling is that I have received no help, no matter how many trips I have made to INS, and

their reason is backlog. They are saying they just do not have the

people, and that our case is, my case is falling, in their priority list,

on the bottom because it is over with, and they can stop bigger and

better things. And I feel that just as justice in this, not to make

this happen again, that they should set an example, that this

cannot be done all the time.

Senator SIMPSON. Indeed. Finally, a question: Do you have any

suggestions for this subcommittee as to how to deal with this problem? I would like your views; I really would.

Ms. NARIELWALA. I think that a stricter law should be made, one

that aliens are afraid of, to follow, you know. They are afraid that

if they come here and they do something like this, there is definitely a great possibility of deportation, which is not there at this time.

Senator SIMPSON. In other words, they just scoff at what would

happen if they are apprehended?

Ms. NARIELWALA. Yes.

Senator SIMPSON. And we should tighten the penalties then for

this type of conduct. Is that correct?

Ms. NARIELWALA. Yes, sir.

Senator SIMPSON. And of course we get into sensitive areas of cohabitation, did the parties live together? How long? How long have

they known each other? You get into the personal aspects and that

is what makes it difficult to legislate in such an intimate situation.

You agree with that?

Ms. NARIELWALA. Yes, sir, I do, but when the evidence is so clear

as to the fact that he only stayed with me for a month and a half,

it•you know•I can understand if it was 2 or 3 years and then I

came up with this•that it was a month and a half before he left

me, and he has told numerous amount of people that be married

me for this reason.

Senator SIMPSON. Thank you very much, and now, please, some

questions to Patricia Beshara. You live in New York, and you

might just share with us, if you wish to narrate your situation.

Ms. BESHARA. Well, if you think her situation was bad, wait until

you hear mine. I am here because I think there is much more of

this that goes on than anybody remotely imagines. I know many

other cases of people like the young lady, and myself, who are defrauded, deceived, and it is not easy to get up and make this state-
45

ment•you feel like a fool•and many people do not want to do

that.

They are not so eager to say, look, I was taken in by some man,

and also men who are taken in by some women. I have a similar

story. I was working in Italy, teaching English in an American

school. I met an Egyptian who was the cook in a little trattoria

where I ate in the neighborhood. This was in 1980. He started

asking me out. He had, I realized in retrospect, ascertained that I

was American, that I planned to go back to my country, and that I

was not married.

So he started asking me out, and to use an old-fashioned word,

courting me. He could not have been more wonderful. I do not

know what your initial experience was, but, I mean, the flowers,

the gifts. He did not want to go anywhere without me. He was the

perfect companion.

Any suspicions that I might have had were alleviated, and even

my friends in Italy said, "Patricia, this man is so wonderful; I

mean, really, you have just picked a winner."

This happy state of affairs continued until we got married. We

were married in March, and because we were two foreigners in a

foreign country, it took a while to process the documents.

He wanted to leave immediately and I did not. I still did not get

the picture that I had been married for fraudulent reasons. I said

why do we not wait until the fall, the weather is nice, it is easier to

find an apartment.

No; he wanted to leave right away. So the minute we had all our

documents in order, we came to America. I am not exaggerating, if

I tell you that the minute I got off the plane, almost, my life

changed.

I lived in what I can only describe as a nightmare. I could not

understand. My husband had become another person. It was like

Ingrid Bergman in "Gaslight." I did not know what was happening,

because I was basing my reactions on this man who had been so

wonderful to me. And we came to America, and my friends were

welcoming us and giving parties. He was sullen; he would not show

up; he would not talk to me. I spent most of my first month job

hunting and crying.

I did not understand what was wrong. A few months passed. My

husband got work as a cook. I worked for the New York Times

during the day; he worked as a cook at night. We rarely saw each

other which suited him fine. He had one night off a week and he

would instigate an argument, and walk out, and say, "You learn,

you learn," and he would leave me.

So our return to America first was quarrels, and abuse, and then

it became neglect. A few months after we were in the States I was

leaving our apartment, and a strange woman came up to me and

she said, "Are you Mr. Beshara's wife?" and I said yes.

And she said, "Well, I want to tell you I have been having an

affair with your husband for 3 months." The affair started apparently within 2 months of our arrival.

The first month we did not even have an apartment or jobs. He

picked her up on the street, told her that he was single, started an

affair with her, took her to relatives of his in New York who had

no idea that he even had a wife, that he was married, and present-
46

ed her as his fiance. They also went to this particular young

woman's family and presented himself as her fiance. Because I

worked during the day and he worked at night, he invited her into

our apartment during the day, and at some point she saw some

mail addressed to Mrs. Beshara, and she said, "Well, you're not

single; you're married." And he said, "Well, I met her in America

and I married her to stay in this country. I only have to stay with

her 6 months, and in December I'm leaving her and we'll get married."

He did not leave me then. I mean

Senator SIMPSON. NOW he told that only to her. Did he ever tell

that you to?

Ms. BESHARA. She told me this.

Senator SIMPSON. I know, but did he ever tell you that very fact,

that he married you

Ms. BESHARA. Oh, yes, later. Yes; and he was much younger than

I was so he used to call me up. He laughed. He called me up and

said you're too old, I want someone younger; you are too old for

me. You know. I want a family.

And before we were married, I said you know I am older than

you, I am about 15 years older than you.

It doesn't matter; what's in my heart is the only thing that matters; I don't care; I don't want to talk about it; I love you so much.

He had affairs with about, I discovered, at least 20 women in the

first 3 months of our marriage. He broke my jaw in three places. I

had to have my mouth wired together for 7 weeks. I had to call the

police twice. He threatened me with a knife. And at the finish,

after some months, he cleared out our joint bank account, left me

with $64, the rent unpaid, and when I said to him, "What am I

going to do?" he said, "Sleep in the street; I don't care."

I was involved in some kind of nightmarish situation. I went to

the Immigration and I asked them to take some action against my

husband and they said that there was really nothing that they

could do.

I had to have proof that he had married me for a green card. He

had told me, but they needed proof other than that. So I went

scouting around to find people. I finally did•the original woman

who had the affair, whom he told he married me for a green card,

was kind enough to testify for me.

I had four witnesses. I had a terrible time at the Immigration,

and it is not their fault; they are very depressed people because

there is nothing•they do not have the manpower, they do not

have the money, and they hear cases like this every day. It is

really tragic.

I took 2 years with Immigration. I got depositions from people,

and it is hard to get that, and then Immigration said I had to get

another set of depositions, that these people would agree to testify

in a court hearing.

And I am not blaming Immigration because•the laws are such,

that it is almost impossible for them to do anything about cases

like this young lady and myself, and that is one reason nobody

hears about it, because they are not prosecuted, nobody knows

what to do with them, and they are swept under the rug, and they

are very numerous.
47

The New York Immigration Office told me they have two to

three cases like mine every day and usually they do nothing because they cannot.

I was angry enough that I made the effort to do the work to get

the witnesses, to get the depositions, and I was fortunate. After 2

years there were hearings in my case.

My husband was issued an order of deportation and he told me

after that, "I don't care," he said, "Nobody takes my green card."

He said, "Not President Reagan, he takes my green card; nobody

can touch me."

And he said, "Anyway, if you throw me out, 100 women will

bring me back." That I do not doubt.

However, I have not gotten a divorce, in my case•unlike yours•

because I understand from Immigration and from my own lawyer,

that if I divorce him, he can indeed find someone to marry him

"like that" and then claim hardship, then he cannot be deported

because he has a wife who will need his support in this country.

I would just like to say one thing: When I went to Immigration

and I said this man had 20 affairs, he broke my jaw, he stole all

my money, they said, "Any marriage can be like that." And I, I

just•their hands are tied. There is nothing•you know•I just

think the law should be tightened. The thing about the 2 years I

think is an excellent idea.

I know many other marriages of this nature and in no case do

they ever last 2 years, or usually even 1 year, and that would do,

go a long way toward alleviating some of this, I think.

Senator SIMPSON. Let me ask you just for the record: We want to

establish when and where you were married.

Ms. BESHARA. I was married in March 1981 in Rome, Italy.

Senator SIMPSON. And please describe when he personally first

told you that he had married you only for the purposes of obtaining a green card for his own immigration purposes.

Ms. BESHARA. A few months after our arrival in the States, at

some point, he let that slip out.

Senator SIMPSON. And you do not recall that specifically. But he

told you personally? I want to establish that.

Ms. BESHARA. Oh, yes, yes. He told me personally, he did not

want the marriage. After he cleaned out the bank account I said I

want the money back. He filed for a divorce and he said, "You give

me a divorce and I will pay you your money back." I did not give

him the divorce and I still have not gotten any of the money back.

Senator SIMPSON. YOU have not divorced him at this point, have

you?

Ms. BESHARA. I have not because if I divorce him be can marry

someone else and it will be very easy for him to stay, and so I am

not divorcing him at this time. He said that to me. He said, "I

want the divorce and I can find other women to bring me back;

you're not going to throw me out."

He has now appealed. After 2 years of this case, and 4 hearings,

finally, they did issue an order of deportation. He has mounted an

appeal.

I talked to the New York Department of Immigration before I

came, and they told me this could give him another 6 to 9 months

<
48

to a year, and he can then mount another appeal after that, if he

wants.

I feel very strongly, Senator Simpson, that the message is out

that the way to stay in this country is to marry an American

woman. That is the easiest way.

I have a new job. I left my office the other day•no one knew

why I was coming here•but a young man in the office, who is not

an American citizen, and not knowing my story at all, said to me,

"I don't know if I want to stay in America or go back to my country," he said, "but I don't want to marry an American woman like

everybody else does. I don't want to do that, like everybody else

does." The message is out that this is the way to stay in America,

and I think we have got to send another message out.

Senator SIMPSON. Well, you have certainly sent a message here I

can tell you, and I appreciate it very much, and your recommendations then to the subcommittee are to tighten the penalties for this

kind of conduct, and to make some kind of conditions on that, as I

hear what you are saying?

Ms. BESHARA. Yes.

Senator SIMPSON. And that it is very prevalent and much more

prevalent than we think, in the United States?

Ms. BESHARA. Much more.

Senator SIMPSON. I do believe that. I have said since I have been

on immigration and refugee matters, that there is a communications system that goes out through the world which beats Ma Bell

to shreds.

Ms. BESHARA. Absolutely. I just•last year when your bill was

up, the Simpson-Mazzoli bill, I had an Egyptian acquaintance, and

he said to me, "They're passing the bill. We all get amnesty; everybody stays." And I said, "Don't be too fast, because only one part

has passed the bill; it hasn't been completely passed." Later, when

the bill did not pass, I spoke to this same man, and he said, "It's all

right; everybody's married."

Senator SIMPSON. Well, I tell you, you have certainly shared

some provacative material with us. I really appreciate it very, very

much, and for all of you to expose your vulnerability here is•you

phrased it better than I ever could. Now, please, Mr. Jose Caringal.

Let me say about Mr. Caringal. He is a permanent resident alien

of the United States, who worked for a lawyer who is in the business of arranging marriages. That was the purpose of this lawyer's

activity, arranging marriages of aliens to U.S. citizens in Los Angeles.

And then Mr. Caringal became a witness for the Government in

a successful prosecution of the lawyer in Los Angeles. Mr. Caringal, when did you first come to the United States?

Mr. CARINGAL. I first came to the United States some time in

June 1979.

Senator SIMPSON. When did you begin work for the lawyer who

was the arranger of marriages, a Mr. Aquino? When did you begin

work for him?

Mr. CARINGAL. I started working for him some time during the

latter months of 1979.

Senator SIMPSON. And how long did you continue to work for

him?
Mr. CARINGAL. The first time I worked for him was, as I said, the

latter months of 1979 to May or June 1980, and then I was laid off

for about 3 months, and on the latter month of 1982, June 1981, I

worked for him again.

Senator SIMPSON. And what was it that you did for him? Would

you describe that, please, for the record.

Mr. CARINGAL. OK. I was the legal assistant in the law office and

I did the leg work and the work in the office for this lawyer, and

when aliens would consult the office, they will be advised that the

easiest way to stay permanently in the United States is to marry a

U.S. citizen.

Now the office had contacts outside, about three people who

would provide the office with U.S. citizens for our clients to marry.

OK? And after the lawyer advised the clients to marry, and they

will take the advice, I will have to get in touch with these providers of American citizens, and tell them the criteria of the office,

about the age and the height of the applicant, and these people

now, our clients, will get married to an American citizen.

And after introducing them to the provider of this U.S. citizens,

we will go to a place in North Hollywood where they will be married, and I will cause all the documents to be filled out and executed, and after I am done with the documentation, I will bring the

documents to my boss for his signature. And before we go to the

Immigration, or before the clients are brought to the Immigration,

I will have to coach them on the probable areas of examination

down the Immigration. We have some sort of a questionnaire or a

question sheet, where we caution the applicants, our client, to

master, to avoid getting caught in the Immigration during the

interview.

Senator SIMPSON. What was the coaching? What did the coaching

consist of?

Mr. CARINGAL. The coaching consist of principally the behavior

of the petitioner, and the alien during the interview, that they

should be very convincing that they are indeed husband and wife.

OK. And we coached them on the areas of cohabitation, like they

should know the activities of each other, how the house looks

inside•you know•their daily activities, the time when they get

off, and on to work, things like that.

Senator SIMPSON. Who hid the toothpaste?

Mr. CARINGAL. Something like that, Mr. Senator.

Senator SIMPSON. So that was done just to disclose that they had

cohabited, they had lived together, and that that was shown?

Mr. CARINGAL. Yes, sir.

Senator SIMPSON. Trying to show habits of a married couple, that

was the coaching?

Mr. CARINGAL. Yes, sir.

Senator SIMPSON. And then you would take them to this place in

North Hollywood to Doc O'Connor? Is that the name that I saw in

your

Mr. CARINGAL. Yes; yes, sir.

Senator SIMPSON. What did Doc O'Connor do?

Mr. CARINGAL. Well, he had a church, you know, right in his

apartment where he does the solemnizing of the marriages.
50

Senator SIMPSON. He was a preacher, a rector, or some, something of a church? I mean that was his church?

Mr. CARINGAL. Yeah, apparently it was his church; I do not

know.

Senator SIMPSON. DO you remember the name of the church?

Mr. CARINGAL. I do not remember.

Senator SIMPSON. Well, was he an ordained minister?

Mr. CARINGAL. I do not think he was an ordained minister.

Senator SIMPSON. Well, Doc O'Connor's church. There are many

denominations in America. [Laughter.]

Well, do you think, or was there information that came out in

the earlier trial, or whatever, that he was found to have established that church solely for the purpose of performing these type

of marriages?

Mr. CARINGAL. Yeah, I would feel so, that this church was put up

to perform these type of marriages, because I met this guy in the

law firm, and he was introduced to me by my boss, and I have•I

was given instruction that in case we have seme marriages to do, I

have to bring the applicant and the sponsor, so-called, to his

church, so that the papers will easily be done, you know, because it

takes some time to get a copy of the record of marriage.

And if we bring it to his church, we easily get the copy of that.

Senator SIMPSON. Let me ask you, what was the rate for Mr.

Aquino and Doc O'Connor? What was the full "blue plate special"

rate for that? What was the cost?

Mr. CARINGAL. You mean the price that they had to pay?

Senator SIMPSON. Yes, the price of it.

Mr. CARINGAL. I am•OK. Actually, there is, there are three

other people. You know, Doc O'Connor is the one who just solemnized the marriages. There are three other contacts, and I usually

had•the office would charge about $2,300 if an alien decides to

marry a citizen, and $1,500 of that will have to be paid to the provider of the citizen.

Senator SIMPSON. TO the arranger?

Mr. CARINGAL. Yeah, to the arranger.

Senator SIMPSON. Where would the other $800 go?

Mr. CARINGAL. The remaining $800 will have to be split up between me and my boss.

Senator SIMPSON. OK. So then of the $2,300, the going rate, the

fee, $1,500 to the arranger, $400 to Mr. Aquino, and $400 to you in

that circumstance?

Mr. CARINGAL. That is right, sir.

Senator SIMPSON. And was there an additional retainer fee for

Mr. Aquino?

Mr. CARINGAL. Yeah. To retain the services of the office, there

will be•the alien will be charged $1,200 at least.

Senator SIMPSON. DO you know how much the arranger might

then have given to the U.S. citizen?

Mr. CARINGAL. I am not fully aware of that but I•understand

that they are not well paid, too.

Senator SIMPSON. That they were well paid?

Mr. CARINGAL. They were not well paid.

Senator SIMPSON. Not well paid. OK. But you do not really know.

There was no set fee to the U.S. citizen?
51

Mr. CARINGAL. I am not aware of that.

Senator SIMPSON. That is very interesting, and yet, it is your

opinion, and you knew it intimately, that at least you would imagine that they were paid something, would you not?

Mr. CARINGAL. Yeah, I know; I know that.

Senator SIMPSON. OK. Do you think this kind of fraud is widespread, or is this just something that is, you know, we see as not

common? What do you think about this?

Mr. CARINGAL. Yeah. It is widespread; it is widespread.

Senator SIMPSON. DO you think this is true among all ethnic

groups?

Mr. CARINGAL. Among all ethnic groups.

Senator SIMPSON. DO you think one of the reasons that it is widespread is because people think they can get away with it?

Mr. CARINGAL. Yeah, one reason is, you know, they are not deterred from doing it; they can get away with it; that is their impression.

Senator SIMPSON. They are not frightened by laws, if they get

caught in this one, are they?

Mr. CARINGAL. NO.

Senator SIMPSON. IS that perhaps the first and foremost reason

why they•I mean obviously, the money•why they would do it,

and then freedom, and things like that. However, is one of the reasons that they do it because they know that not much is going to

happen to them?

Mr. CARINGAL. Yeah, it is easy to do.

Senator SIMPSON. Would you say that?

Mr. CARINGAL. Yeah, I would say so.

Senator SIMPSON. DO you have any suggestions for us as to how

we might combat that?

Mr. CARINGAL. Well, to prevent such a problem, I would say that

if they still have the so-called one-step processing in the Immigration, I would suggest that it should be applied with a lot of caution.

See, the cases I got into were filed at such time when the Immigration was having the so-called one-step processing.

Now another suggestion wculd be to give more emphasis on the

investigation as to the cohabitation of the spouses. See, these fixed

marriages, usually they are not living together; they are only pretending so.

If there is more on the investigation, see, more of these cases will

surface.

Senator SIMPSON. Let me ask you finally, was there any difficulty

that you had when you were involved in this activity, any problem

in finding U.S. citizens who were willing to participate in this?

Mr. CARINGAL. Yeah. There, there is a lot of problem insofar as

our clients are concerned. You know, most of our clients are professionals, and they have got good jobs, and they would rather pay the

money rather than to look for one, so

Senator SIMPSON. Pay the money rather than look for?

Mr. CARINGAL. So they would rather, they would rather pay than

go into the labor of hunting for somebody to marry.

Senator SIMPSON. But did you have any trouble finding those

kind of people who were ready to do that?
52

Mr. CARINGAL. Well, we did not have, because we have at least

three providers, you know.

Senator SIMPSON. Three steadies?

Mr. CARINGAL. Three persons who would come up with American

citizens.

Senator SIMPSON. SO they were just the arrangers?

Mr. CARINGAL. Yeah. All I would do is just call them up and give

them the criteria that the office needs and they come up with the

citizen.

Senator SIMPSON. They would come up with the citizen?

Mr. CARINGAL. Yeah.

Senator SIMPSON. But I am asking, was that difficult for them to

come up with the citizen?

Mr. CARINGAL. I

Senator SIMPSON. Was it easy to get U.S. citizens to do that? Do

you know that?

Mr. CARINGAL. I would say no because they will always come up

with one.

Senator SIMPSON. Yes. Well, let me go on now. Thank you very

much. You have been there. Nancy Marrero. Would you please describe how you first met the man who eventually became your husband. I would appreciate having your narration on that.

Ms. MARRERO. OK. The first time I met the man, he came to me,

I was a live entertainer in New Jersey, and he came into my job

and said "Will you marry me?", and I thought this guy is really

off

Senator SIMPSON. YOU were an entertainer, you say?

Ms. MARRERO. Yes, live entertainer.

Senator SIMPSON. OK.

Ms. MARRERO. And he said "Would you marry me?," so I remember I just took a number, and said, "No, I can't, I'm really busy, I

have to work," and I talked like this. And I took the number, and I

have never seen him again, and I have never called the number,

just threw it away.

Then I went to visit a friend of mine, and when I was there she

was visiting with a gentleman, and she said, "I'll be right back;

stay here; I'm going to leave and I'll be right back." I said OK.

When she came back she said, "That gentleman knew you." And I

said, "He does?" And she says, "Yes, he met you at work, and he

asked you to marry him." And I remembered that incident because

not everybody comes in and says, "Will you marry me?" And she

says, "Yes, well, he's from Syria and they're looking for girls to

marry them so they can stay in the country for a green card."

I never knew you had to have a green card, or visa, or immigration.

Senator SIMPSON. YOU had not heard about those

Ms. MARRERO. I had never even heard about it until they said it

to me then. They said, "Yes, they're willing to pay you to marry

them, to stay in the country." And then after 6 months to a year,

whenever, I decided that I wanted to get a divorce, they would pay

for the divorce.

Senator SIMPSON. And so your first, your first experience, you

were working as an entertainer, and he came and asked you to

marry him, and you told him no, but later, you encountered him
and then he•then what were the terms of the arrangement? What

was the arrangement that was made?

Ms. MARRERO. OK. What he did is, he offered me $2,000 to marry

him. He said "We have to go down for a license, and I'll pay you

the first $1,000 when we get married. And then after we get married"•the day afterward we went and applied for his green card.

And when he receives his green card, then he pays me the other

$1,000.

Senator SIMPSON. And what exactly did he describe to you as to

the preparations for that, and the petitioning, and so on? Did he

describe that to you in detail?

Ms. MARRERO. Yeah. Well, once I started getting involved with

him I said to him, I was really curious about immigration, I did not

know how it worked, and, "How did you get in the country if you

didn't have a green card?" And how they were doing it, it was•

there was 5 guys living in a 2-bedroom apartment, and they were•

how they first came to the countries, they said they're coming for

schooling for, and they signed and register in schooling, and that is

how they get to stay first, without the green card, and then they

were looking for girls like in schools, or they go different places.

And they were working for their uncle, under the table, in his

stores. So they had money, financially, and they had school. All

they had to do is find the girls.

And he went over the procedures, "Well, what we have to do is, I

want you to stop over my house and let people see you. If Immigration's investigating, I want them to see you coming in and out and

visiting," so people get familiar with my face, thinking that I am

his wife.

They will just go on to the assumption that I am his wife, and he

wanted me to get to know the colors of his furniture and his rugs.

And then later on he eventually asked me for 10 more girls. For

each girl I would receive $1,000.

Senator SIMPSON. Each girl that you helped to obtain?

Ms. MARRERO. Yes.

Senator SIMPSON. And you would be given $1,000 dollars if you

could get the U.S. citizen, girls, for his friends

Ms. MARRERO. U.S. citizen girls.

Senator SIMPSON [continuing]. For his friends, for marriage purposes, solely for the purpose of getting a green card for the 4 or 5

Syrians you described. Is that correct?

Ms. MARRERO. Yes.

Senator SIMPSON. Well, let me ask you: Was divorce a part of the

package when you bought in?

Ms. MARRERO. Yes, yes.

Senator SIMPSON. OK. What was said there with regard to that?

Ms. MARRERO. OK. He said after 6 months he receives his green

card. I can wait 6 months, I can get a divorce, or, 1 year. He says,

"It's up to you." He says, "We can even live together and have a

home, and never get divorced," and I said, no, that is not what I

want. It was up to me, what I wanted to do. They lead you to think

that whatever you want, and however you want to handle it, they

are going to coach you because they are the ones for the green

card, and they are not going to do anything to hurt you, or they

are going to do whatever you want, so they can get their green
54

card. But at the same time, they are intelligent enough to protect

themselves.

Senator SIMPSON. So in this situation, he said he would marry,

he would pay you a sum for that, he would file for divorce after a

certain period of time, and this was 1 year, did he say?

Ms. MARRERO. Yes.

Senator SIMPSON. After 1 year. And he would pay the cost of the

divorce?

Ms. MARRERO. Right.

Senator SIMPSON. The works?

Ms. MARRERO. Yes.

Senator SIMPSON. And your agreeing to go ahead with that situation, what were some of your thoughts as to why that was good for

you?

Ms. MARRERO. I was OK until I received the papers, the application for immigration, and then I started reviewing over it, and

when I got to the part that said 10 years imprisonment if you get

caught, I thought, oh, my God, what am I doing? and I was a little

scared and sorry that I did it, and it was already too late, but it

kept me from being pushy, and more hesitant, and so I finished,

went through with it. And the Immigration Office was really•it

was fast, simple and easy, and completely surprised me, but I was

still scared and conscious of it afterward, but it was too late. I had

already done it.

Senator SIMPSON. But the money was, I am certain, a great part

of that, was it not?

Ms. MARRERO. Yes.

Senator SIMPSON. I mean was that one of the reasons you did it?

Ms. MARRERO. That was the only reason I did it.

Senator SIMPSON. The only reason?

Ms. MARRERO. Yes.

Senator SIMPSON. And you mentioned that there were some special preparations before you went to the Immigration Service. He

knew what he wanted you to do, did he not?

Ms. MARRERO. Yes.

Senator SIMPSON. And those things were visiting the apartment,

seeing the landlady, doing things, is that not what you are saying?

Ms. MARRERO. Right. But I think everything that he knew that

he was doing, he was going through his uncle that he was working

for, which was already a citizen in the country and owned his own

business. And at the time that he was marrying me, I did not know

everything he was doing, but he went into business himself and

bought a business himself, which I never knew about until the end

of everything, that came out in the end.

Senator SIMPSON. And so he was

Ms. MARRERO. His uncle more or less prepared him for everything, and they had•I guess each time somebody went over to Immigration, they would grab so many applications, and they more or

less practiced and went over it, and rehearsed themselves, and from

somebody else going from before, they let them know what it is

like, afterward.

Senator SIMPSON. And did you ever find other American citizens

for him?
55

Ms. MARRERO. NO; 10 girls. I only knew of myself and I was not

proud of it, so I was not going to run out looking for other women

and tell them what is going on. I did find one friend that I offered

to, that was very close, and she went only halfway with the procedures.

Senator SIMPSON. DO you think these types of immigration marriages are a common occurrence?

Ms. MARRERO. Excuse me?

Senator SIMPSON. DO you think there are a lot of them? Do you

think there are a lot of these kinds of arrangements?

Ms. MARRERO. Yes, in many different ways.

Senator SIMPSON. DO you?

Ms. MARRERO. Yes.

Senator SIMPSON. Just from what, talking with your friends, or

knowing people that are doing it? What? Why do you feel that it is

a common thing?

Ms. MARRERO. Why do I feel it is a common thing?

Senator SIMPSON. Yes.

Ms. MARRERO. It is something that is happening everywhere. It is

easier for businessmen because they can pay them under the table.

It is not even minimum wage. They help them out, they make so

much money, and a lot of these people that are coming from foreign countries do have a very lot of money, so they are willing to

do anything they possibly can to get into the country and start

their own thing. And it is very easy to get past Immigration. The

only reason that they got caught is because they, each guy continued to go to the same doctor for blood tests for marriages. Other

than that, they would never have gotten caught.

Senator SIMPSON. They went to the same doctor for

Ms. MARRERO. Same doctor; every guy went to the same doctor;

did not even know how to talk English.

Senator SIMPSON. Well, you learned a lot about immigration

laws, did you not, in that period?

Ms. MARRERO. Afterward, yes.

Senator SIMPSON. Afterward. Let me ask you a final question. Do

you have any suggestions, just as a citizen of the United States,

and it does not have to be any legal jargonese. What do you think

we ought to do, to try to stop that?

Ms. MARRERO. I do not know anything about the rules and regulations, but I think that the people that work in the Immigration

offices may have ideas, already, to suggest to you, that they can

put down something stricter.

Senator SIMPSON. At any time did you think that they were

afraid, that if they did get caught, that something bad would

happen to them, or, did they just kind of scoff that off?

Ms. MARRERO. NO. They got caught and went to jail and had to

pay fines, and the one uncle that was bringing them in, he still

owns his business, still owns his home. He paid a penalty, and life

still goes on, so it is going to happen again. And I ran into one of

them, after it was all over, after he came out of jail, and he was

heading to Texas.

Senator SIMPSON. DO you think that if we made those penalties

tougher, that that might send a signal to those people?
56

Ms. MARRERO. It is possible, but on the application it already

says there is imprisonment and everything else. If that is something that is not going to scare them, then that is not the way to go

about it. I am sure there is something else that you can do.

Senator SIMPSON. Are these persons you describe, are they still

in the United States?

Ms. MARRERO. I do not know if they got deported yet, or some of

them been•I received even a Christmas card from one, and this is

after he is arrested, and caught, and everything, and he was in

Texas then, and he wrote his address in Syria, but it was postdated, postmarked Texas.

Senator SIMPSON. Well, let me thank you very much and let me

note for the record, that Miss Marrero fully assisted the Immigration and Naturalization Service in the investigation of this marriage arrangement, and served as a key witness in the INS's successful prosecution, and I thank you. And you, too, Mr. Caringal.

You have all been very helpful and shared a great deal of yourselves, and as I say, that is tough to do. You have, through your

own sharing and willingness to expose your vulnerability in the situation, have helped us to decide what we might be able to do, and I

think we have a task in front of us and the job is to do it in a way

where we do not impinge upon the privacy of citizens, but we do

have a task. And I think it is very real, or I would not have had

this hearing.

I do not do hearings to see how many people will show up or how

many lights will bounce off my bald dome. I do them to see if we

can find out what is going on, and this, I kept coming across this

stuff, and getting the letters, and coming to the subcommittee, and

Dick would come in and John Ratigan, and say, you know, here is

something really cooking, and people are not paying a bit of attention.

I think it is very real and I think it is very prevalent, and I

think we ought to be about our business, and you are helping us do

that, and I thank you so much, really. I appreciate it.

Now our final panel, Dr. David North, director of the•sorry.

Doctor. I keep doing that to you. You have always impressed me

anyway, so, Dr., Mr., the Honorable. Anyway, Dave North, director

of the Center for Labor and Migration Studies of the New TransCentury Foundation.

David North, director of the Center for Labor and Migration

Studies of the New TransCentury Foundation. Mr. Roger Conner,

executive director of the Federation for American Immigration

Reform, and Mr. Jules E. Coven, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. And if you would proceed in that

order as on the agenda, please. David.
57

STATEMENT OF A PANEL CONSISTING OF DAVID S. NORTH, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR LABOR AND MIGRATION STUDIES, NEW

TRANSCENTURY FOUNDATION; ROGER CONNER, EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR, FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION

REFORM, ACCOMPANIED BY DANIEL STEIN, STAFF COUNSEL;

AND JULES E. COVEN, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN IMMIGRATION

LAWYERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. NORTH. Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me here. I

would like to say that, first of all, though she is not in the room,

that I have a valid marriage to a perfectly wonderful U.S. citizen,

and there are some happy marriages, unlike the four that we

heard about just a few minutes ago.

Senator SIMPSON. We will have a special hearing on that.

Mr. NORTH. Let me not talk about case histories, because as I indicated, I cannot talk to you on that. These were dramatic witnesses and I am a more traditional one. Let me talk about numbers

and computers, and television cameras.

First of all, in terms of numbers, let me trot out a couple for you,

and I have two concepts here. One is ail-American marriages, that

is, all marriages recorded in the United States of America, and the

other is visa-creating marriages. Visa-creating marriages were the

kind that we just heard talked about. It is a marriage between an

alien on the one hand, and a citizen, or a permanent resident alien

on the other, that leads to the granting of an immigrant visa.

OK. Those are the two kinds of marriages. Let me quote four

numbers. In 1962, there were 1.6 million marriages of all kinds. By

1984, there were 2.5 million marriages of all kinds. This is an increase of about 60 percent.

In the same time period, there was an increase in the visa-creating marriages from 23,962 in 1962 to 149,296 in 1984.

So, while Americans generally were getting married at a rate

about 60 percent higher in 1984 than in 1962, the visa-creating

marriages increased not by 60 percent or 160 percent, but by 600

percent. There were six times as many.

I submit to you that some, to perhaps many of those marriages,

were fraudulent. Second, there are 2 different kinds of marriage

fraud. Your two first witnesses, here just before me, belong to what

I call the one-innocent cases. The other two dealt with the second

kind of marriage fraud which is the no-innocent cases.

In the no-innocent cases, the alien pays money to the citizen to

go through a marriage that both realize is fraudulent. In the

second, the alien woos a citizen, or a green card holder for the purpose of securing an immigrant visa. The no-innocents cases are

easier for INS to do something about. It is not easy to do anything

about any of them, but they are easier to cope with than the oneinnocent case. Because the woman who was sitting here just a few

minutes ago was an innocent, and she could not tell INS, at the

moment she was filing for an immigrant visa, or the consular officer in that case, that there was anything wrong, because she did

not think that there was anything wrong.

So, those are two different kinds of cases, and they require a

couple of different approaches. What I would do about it is this: I
58

think the United States should borrow something that the British

have been doing for a number of years.

An alien marrying a British subject is granted a nonimmigrant

visa good for 1 year. The alien is allowed to work in the United

Kingdom, to enter and leave that country, and if the marriage is

still valid 1 year later, the alien can apply for permanent status.

I think the 2 years that INS is suggesting is probably better than

the 1 year that the Brits are using. But Great Britain is a nation

that believes in civil liberties. We get much of our legal tradition

from Great Britain, and if they are doing that, I think it is something that we might copy. I also gather that it would be useful to

have a better set of prosecutorial tools to deal with violators.

I will leave those legal concepts to lawyers. I am not one. But I

would like to suggest something else that should be done on a systemic basis.

Too often laws are written by lawyers. Too often laws are administered by lawyers. Too often everybody is thinking in terms of

cases, precedents.

I would like to suggest that in addition to those useful approaches, we think more about systems. For instance, I would like to see

INS able to make full use within sensible bounds, of Internal Revenue, Social Security, and other computer systems, to check on the

validity of visa-causing marriages.

Congress authorized such data matches in section 290 of the INA,

but subsequently, an internal ruling made within the Internal Revenue Service changed things.

It was made in reaction to the Tax Reform Act of 1976. Currently, if a citizen complains, as we heard the two women sitting here,

that an alien has misled her, INS is helpless. It has issued the

green card, or sometimes only the work authorization stamp on the

1-94. It does not know where the alien is, and the alien no longer

has to register, as the alien used to, until the Efficiency Act of a

few years ago.

If INS asks either the Social Security Administration, or, IRS, to

help locate that person, IRS or Social Security will say, "Gee, we'd

like to but we can't because of our interpretation of the Tax

Reform Act of 1976."

Congress needs to intervene on the side of INS in this interagency squabble. Beyond using IRS and SSA computers in this way, I

think INS should conduct some carefully modeled experiments

with State and local computers carrying information about marriages and divorces, as the applying citizen may have frequently

married and divorced aliens in the past.

There are presumably systems in some places where you could

find that out. Is the applying citizen, frequently married? Is anyone

involved, guilty of bigamy? That would be nice to know.

Can we detect patterns among post-adjudication divorces? One of

the witnesses suggested that a careful review of the medical evidence would be helpful, and was helpful in the case that she talked

about.

Further, all INS offices should do what one of them does; the one

in New York. When it encounters in marriage applications•and

these relate to new marriages•female residents with children, it

checks the names of the newly wed woman with the AFDC roles.
59

That is Aid for Families of Dependent Children. In some of the noinnocent fraud cases, women receiving welfare benefits file a petition on behalf of the alien. Now, the alien should not be allowed to

do what he is doing to the system, and similarly, she should not be

able to claim to the welfare system that there is no spouse, while

claiming to the Immigration Service that she has just acquired a

spouse.

Now that is a pretty open and shut case, and INS should be encouraged to followup on those leads where it can.

I have talked a little bit about numbers, and I have talked a

little bit about computers. I also want to talk about television.

I was reminded this past Monday night while watching "Taxi,"

which is a TV show on a rerun basis, one of the cab drivers, Jim,

the aging hippie, was being teased by the others for forgetting that

he had played preacher•Doc Conner•that he had played preacher

at a mock wedding designed to save someone from deportation.

Here marriage fraud was presented as both a routine part of

American life and as a joke. What I suggest in that connection is

that the Government should mount a serious, well-designed campaign, not just in the United States but also in some of the countries where this kind of fraud originates. The Government should

try to get pictures of U.S. citizens on film going to jail for their

part in conspiratorial marriage frauds, and showing aliens being

deported for the same reason.

And a few TV clips, as you know, are worth thousands and thousands of words.

So I think we should change the law, somewhat along the lines

that INS suggests, but we should do more. We should set in motion

some systems to prevent and deter marriage fraud, and then let

the world know that we are doing that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The statement follows:]
60

PREPARED STATHerr OF DAVID S. NORTH

Mr. Chairman. There are three populations eligible for

US immigration visas:

o the first and the largest are relatives of US citizens

and Permanent Resident Aliens (PRAs).

o highly skilled employees of U.S. firms.

o refugees.

Many people want to migrate to the United States, and many

of those who do do not fall Into these three categories. Unlike the

laws In other immigrant-receiving nations, there is no room for the

so-called "Independent" immigrant. We do not welcome the restless

talent of the world; we chase away the would-be Immigrant Investors;

ours is a system heavily tilted towards nepotism, a word rarely heard

in this room. Knowing that this is the case many aliens take advantage

of our system and seek their visa by arranging a fraudulent marriage.

The very highest priority In the Immigration process goes,

and this is understandable, to aliens who marry US citizens. There fs

no waiting once the application has been approved; these new spouses are

admitted outside the numerical limits. Spouses of PRAs can secure

immigrant visas as well, but there 1s a wait of about one year for

most such applications, and considerably longer waits for those married

to people from Hdng Kong, Mexico and the Philippines.

It Is against this setting that It 1s useful to review the

trend in all U.S. marriages and visa-creating marriages over the last

few years. The latter have grown at ten times the rate of the former;

all marriages have increased by 601 between 1962 and 1984, while visacreating marriages have Increased by 600X. Some to many of the latter

are presumably fraudulent. The numbers follow:

'ear All Marriages Visa-Creating; Marriages

1962 1,577,000 23,962

1970 2,159,000 51,895

1982 2,495,000 99,268

1984 2,487,000 149,296

Source of Data: All U.S. marriages, for years through 1982, Statistical

Abstract of the United Slates. 1984, Table 82; for subsequent years,

unpublished data from the National Center for Health Statistics; visa-creating

marriages for years through 1982 were extracted from The Statistical Yearbook

of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1982. Table IMM 1.5 and

predecessor tables; for 1984, unpublished data from the Immigration and

Naturalization Service.

There are two different kinds of marriage fraud, different

from each other but equally unattractive. There are the no-innocents

cases and the one-innocent cases. The first happens when the alien pays

money to the citizen to go through a marriage that both realize Is

fraudulent. In the second, the alien woos a citizen or green card

holder for the purpose of securing an immigrant visa. The Innocent US

citizen or PRA thinks that It Is a real marriage, only to discover some

months later that the loved one had defrauded both the spouse and the

US Government.
61

INS' attempts to prevent and detect marriage fraud are

designed for the no-innocents cases only, as the other kind Is extremely

difficult to detect (and has not yet been detected by the resident spouse.

What INS does In this area 1s awkward, labor-intensive and not terribly

rewarding. It Is called the parallel Interview, 1n which two INS Investigators, simultaneously and in separate rooms, ask the bride and groom a

parallel series of questions regarding their lives together (e.g. what

1s the color of the bedroom curtains? What is the size of the bed?)

Since this tactic is well-known, the couples so tested often are prepared

for It.

What should the US do about the apparently growing number

of fraudulent marriages?

First, the United States should borrow something

from the British. An alien marrying a British Subject Is granted,

upon application, a non-immigrant visa good for one year; the alien

is allowed to work in the UK, to enter and leave the country, and ,

one year later to apply for permanent status if the marriage is still

valId. If granted, the one year of nonimmigrant status can be counted

towards naturalization. Neither the British subject nor the new spouse,

loses anything in this process but it must discourage abuse of tbe system

and It certainly prevents any Briton from marrying an alien for money

more than once a year.

I understand that our Immigration Service is supportive

of a similar system, the creation of a two-year conditional (interim)

resident status for new spouses of citizens or green-card holders;

aliens in marriages that last through the following two years then 'i

would be able to seek permanent resident alien status, with their first

two years counting towards naturalization. At the time of application

for permanent status the burden of proof would be on the alien; the

applicant would have to show that the marriage was a viable one. If

INS is concerned about the validity of a marriage, two years after it

grants permanent resident alien status, it now has to prove the case.

The introduction of the two-year Interim period would be a good idea

simply because it would tend to discourage marriage abuse; one would

think twice about trying to maintain a sham marriage for such a length

of time. Passage of such a statute would be a good idea, but only the

first step.

Second. The Government needs some additional tools to

prosecute those who engage in fraudulent marriages. I defer to the

Immigration Service on the legal steps needed. What I want to talk

about are computers.

I would like to see INS able to make full use (within

sensible bounds) of IRS, Social Security and other computer systems

to check on the validity of visa-causing marriages. Congress authorized

such data matches 1n Section 290 of the INA but subsequently an Internal

ruling, within IRS, made in reaction to the Tax Reform Act of 1976,

over-ruled section 290. Currently if a US citizen complains that an

alien misled her (or him) into a marriage INS 1s helpless. It has

issued the Green card (or sometimes only a work-authorization 1-94)

but does not know where the alien is. If INS asks either Social Security

or IRS to help locate the offending alien, the reply will be that they
62

would like to help, but can not. Congress needs to Intervene, on the sidt

of INS, in the inter-agency squabble.

Beyond using IRS and SSA computers in this way, I think that

INS should conduct some carefully modelled experiments with state and

local computers carrying information about marriages and divorces. Has_

the applying citizen frequently married and divorced aliens in the past?

Is anyone involved guilty of bigamy? Can we detect patterns among

post-adjudication divorces? INS should get a better handle on what

has been happening to such cases, and what it can do about them in the

future.

Further, all INS offices should do what the one in

New York does; when it encounters, in marriage applications, female

residents with children it checks the names of the newly-wed woman

with the AFDC rolls. In some of the no-innocent fraud cases the woman

is receiving welfare benefits. She should not be able to claim to

the welfare system that there is no spouse while claiming to the INS

that she just acquired a spouse

Once the first two steps have been taken it is time

for the third one -- a serious, well-designed, international public

relations program to let those who may be thinking about defrauding

the system know that it will be more difficult in the future. A television

show on this past Monday night stimulated this suggestion. "Taxi"

was on the air (a rerun) and one of the cabdrivers • Jim, the aging

hippie -- was being teased by the others for forgetting the time that

he played a preacher at a mock wedding designed to save someone from

deportation. Here marriage fraud was presented as both a routine

part of life and as a joke. The Government should try to get a different

message across, showing U.S. citizens, on film, going to jail for their

part in the conspiratorial form of marriage fraud, and showing aliens

being deported for the same reason.

Let us change the law, but more; let us set in motion

some systems to prevent and deter marriage fraud, and the let's tell

the world that we are doing so.
63

Senator SIMPSON. Thank you very much, and now, Mr. Conner,

please.

Mr. CONNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and

members of the subcommittee, my name is Roger Conner and I am

the executive director of FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

We appreciate very much the opportunity to testify before the

subcommittee on FAIR's views, on ways we can improve our immigration policies to improve the detection of fraudulent marriages

that have been entered into solely to avoid the immigration laws,

and we hope that new legislative proposals will come out of these

hearings, Mr. Chairman, the problem of marriage and immediate

relative fraud to gain immigration benefits has really grown to epidemic proportions.

Although you have heard these dramatic individual witnesses,

FAIR conducts one of the largest programs of research and information-gathering on immigration in the United States.

In our own newsletter, in the last 2 years•I just went back and

glanced at some of the few items, samples that we had included in

our written statement and we have discovered, as you have, Mr.

Chairman, that this issue keeps bubbling up over and over. These

reports and the witnesses you saw represent but the tip of the iceberg on a never-ending fraud on the Immigration Service. Why has

this become so commonplace? The reason, we think, is simple.

There are massive backlogs, huge waiting lists, literally millions

of people want to come, to be permanent residents to the United

States, and marriages to American citizens are now the simplest,

easiest way to skirt the immigration laws.

Moreover, there is a lack of an overall ceiling on immigration, so

when the number of permanent residents grows every year, nobody

complains because no shoe gets pinched.

And there is also weak enforcement and the ready availability of

fraudulent documents. Put it together and perhaps the most telling

commentary of the scope of the problem comes in an anonymous

letter from an immigration lawyer to "Interpreter Releases," the

newsletter of the Immigration Bar.

He wrote about all the people that come into his office, and he

does not counsel them to evade the law, does not encourage fraud,

and yet he and his office know that 90 to 95 percent of these cases

involve sham marriages.

He writes:

It is our experience that the INS will never detect a sham marriage unless one of

the parties to the conspiracy actually tells them outright that the marriage was contracted for immigration purposes, or unless the client handles his arrangements in a

completely idiotic fashion. The record is fairly clear. In 3 years, 250 sham marriages

have gone through this office•referring to his own immigration office. INS has detected nothing despite the fact that these clients have not taken extraordinary precautions to avoid detection.

It is common knowledge in immigrant communities that the INS

cannot and will not apprehend them, or identify them, if they

engage in fraudulent marriage, and it is viewed in many immigrant communities as legitimate, even an honorable exercise, to

secure the admission of their friends.
64

So, we assert the problem as large and growing. In our testimony

we have made a large number of very concrete and specific suggestions.

All of them revolve around two basic changes in policy. The first

of these is, it is essential that in some way you require the person

who gets an immigration benefit by marriage to secure only a temporary residence in the United States, and require them to come

back to the Immigration Service after a period of time has passed,

to document that their marriage is in fact valid.

This is not going to be a burden on the valid applicant; it will be

a real burden on those who are trying to get around the system,

because to hold something like what the last witness described to

you, together for 6 months or 1 year is one thing; but 2 years is

another. The notion that has been suggested of postaudit reviews

we think is a bad idea because the Immigration Service is so overburdened, it tends to deal only with that which it has to.

So, require the aliens to come back and to have a review before

they get their permanent resident status would make it considerably more difficult for the fraud to take place.

In addition, let me just highlight some of the other recommendations that I think are key. If a divorce occurs within 2 years of

marriage, we believe that the alien should be required to notify the

Immigration Service, and if they fail to notify the Immigration

Service, that should be grounds for either rescission of the benefit

they have been granted, or for denial of adjustment status later on.

The key here is that the burden of proving a valid marriage

needs to be shifted off of the Government and on to the person who

is securing an immigration benefit.

Remember, the right to live permanently and work in the United

States is an incredibly valuable commodity and one that we ought

to protect.

We also simply do not understand why there is no statutory bar

to a section 245 adjustment for a "K" visa holder, say, who comes

in, then does not get married. And they come in as a fiance, but

they do not get married, and yet they can still yet adjust their

status to permanent resident alien. That, we think, ought to be

eliminated.

So, first, shift the burden on to the alien. The second thing is, the

penalties for this sort of thing have got to be made more realistic

and serious.

For one thing, we should amend section 241(f)(1)(A) (i) and (ii) to

require that the Attorney General may not waive as a ground of

exclusion, the fact that the person previously engaged in immigration fraud.

That is, if you engage in a fraudulent attempt to secure an immigration benefit by marriage fraud, you ought to be permanently

barred from the United States. Or barred from the United States

for a very long time.

Because that is at least a modest deterrent that we ought to have

put in place, to let them know that we are serious about stopping

immigration fraud.

We also believe that section 245 which allows for adjustment of

status, should be amended, to make it clear that nonviability of the
65

marriage at the time they filed the application is prima facie

grounds for denial of the application.

What happens now is, they come in and apply for adjustment of

status, and later it is learned that the marriage was not viable at

the time they made the original application. That in and of itself is

not a ground for rescission of permanent residents status.

One of the reasons that the women who testified here expressed

frustration that the INS will not help them, when they tell INS

what has happened, is because the law has become so skewed in

favor of the person who secured the immigration benefit by fraud.

That is why we suggest, for example, that if a spouse comes in and

alleges that there was fraud, and there has not been a trial, that

should create a rebuttable presumption of fraud. We should shift

the burden of proof to the individuals who married these women to

come in and prove good faith intent to the Immigration Service.

What happens now is, the burden remains on the Immigration

Service to prove that the marriage was entered into fraudulently,

and of course it is, in these matters, virtually impossible for the

INS to prove it. We must shift the burden back to where it belongs,

on the alien beneficiary.

We concur with and would support any proposal that would

amend section 245(c), to add a provision barring adjustment of

status by any alien, where the petitioner's application is based on a

marriage entered into at any time after the "Order To Show

Cause" has issued.

What happens here is an "Order To Show Cause" is issued, and

the first deportation proceedings have been started. So what happens? The person goes out and starts looking for the wife, or for

the husband, as the case may be.

And if you simply removed any opportunity for the person to

apply for an adjustment of status and stop the deportation proceedings by finding a citizen spouse that vehicle would be closed off.

The last thing we recommend is that the act should be amended

to bar any alien who has acquired immigration benefits through

marriage to a U.S. citizen from filing a second preference petition

within 5 years, because again, here is what happens.

The alien gets an American citizen spouse. As soon as the alien

gets his green card, they file for divorce. And then we have the Immigration Service faced, 6 months later, or a month later, with an

application for the admission of the real spouse as a spouse of a

permanent resident alien, or under the second preference.

Part of the frustration of the INS staff is they see this fraud all

the time. They are just as aware of it as you or I, and they see this

guy who comes in, or this woman who comes in, got the marriage,

got a divorce, and the next day or the next week is applying for the

spouse, and there is nothing they can do about it. So we believe

there should be at least a 5-year wait after they secure the permanent resident status by marriage to an American citizen, before

they can come and apply for a later spouse.

The final statement I would make is this: We believe that by

adopting the long list of recommendations that we have made here,

that it will go a long way toward restoring the integrity of the marriage preferences.
66

The grant of immigration benefits based on marriage is an act of

generosity and kindness given to immigrants by the American

people, and it should not be allowed to degenerate into a vehicle

for massive fraud; because if we do not adopt proposals of this kind,

our humanitarian instincts and national ethics may be threatened

as the American people begin to feel that those making these assertions about marriage are trying to manipulate and take advantage

of citizens.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that our staff counsel of FAIR

is with me today, Dan Stein, and he has been doing significant research on this subject for over 2 years now. The detailed recommendations that we have here are largely the result of his research

work. I wanted to mention that.

Senator SIMPSON. Thank you very much.

[The statement follows:]
67

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROGER L. CONNER

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, my name is Roger

Conner, and I am executive director of PAIR, the Federation for

American Immigration Reform.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify before

the subcommittee to offer PAIR'S views on the ways we can improve

the detection of fraudulent marriages that have been entered into

solely to avoid the ceiling on legal immigration. We hope that

this forum will provide a basis for legislative proposals to

curtail this growing phenomenon in a meaningful way.

He are confident that with the strong leadership of this

subcommittee, every opportunity for a sound legislative

initiative will present itself.

Marriage Fraud • An Epidemic

Mr. Chairman, the problem of marriage and immediate

relative fraud to gain immigration benefits has grown to epidemic

proportions. We have all seen or read tragic stories of the

innocent American caught in a whirlwind of passionate romance

with a foreign lover, leading to the quick marriage, only to find

that the aggressive suitor has suddenly lost interest as soon as

permanent resident status was obtained.

It is a truly sad tale, one with a human face, reminding us

of the scope of human suffering occasioned by a chaotic and

unenforced immigration policy. And it is a tale that is repeated

all across the country, with appauling frequency.

Even more common is the collusively fraudulent marriage,

where the citizen spouse is paid several thousand dollars to

enter into a marriage that will be annulled several months later,

no questions asked.

What follows are typical marriage fraud schemes of the year

1985 all as previously reported in the FAIR Immigration Report:

* In October 1984, agents from the INS and the San

Antonio, Texas, Sheriff's Department raided 14

massage parlors in the San Antonio area and

confiscated the green cards of about 50 women

charged with prostitution, pandering and massage

parlor violations. According to the Sheriff's

Captain Rolondo Taroffa, "About 90 percent of the

masseuses are women who came in marrying GI's."

Many of those arrested entered the U.S. as brides

of American servicemen stationed overseas.

American servicemen in Korea and the Philippines

are often approached by women seeking marriage for

immigration purposes. The GI's are typically paid

between $1,000.00 and $5,000.00 for their marriage

and they are granted a quick divorce upon their

return to the United States. Though the woman is

no longer married to an American serviceman, she

retains her immigration benefits and can even

petition for the admission of her relatives.

* In Philadelphia, six Syrian men were charged with

paying women to marry them in order to gain

permanent resident status. The arranger was a

convenience store owner who helped friends on

nonimmigrant visas obtain permanent residence.

* In August 1984, the Portland office of the INS

charged that 95 percent of marriages between

(U.S.) citizens and (alien) members of the
disciples of guru Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh are

phony; they are designed to insure his followers

can stay in the country.

Also in August 1984, the Los Angeles Times

reported that marriage fraud has taken a new

twist: illegal aliens are using stolen

identification documents and stand-in grooms and

brides to "marry" U.S. citizens. Usually, the

citizen is unaware that he has been "married" at

all. Peggy Martinez of Pacoima, California, was

shocked to find her stolen documents had been used

to marry her, her sister and her brother to

illegal aliens seeking permanent resident status

in the United States. [In fact, several years

ago, immigration inspectors in Chicago discovered

17 illegal aliens all married to a single

unsuspecting Americanl]

In July 1984, an indictment was returned against

Los Angeles Attorney Paulino Amadno Aquino (a

cousin of slain Filipino opposition leader Benigno

Aquino, Jr.) for arranging sham marriages.

And next month's FAIR Immigration Report records this typical

story from 1985:

* Clerks who issue marriage licenses in Miami have

noticed the same brides and grooms popping up to

marry recently arrived foreigners. After

examining the records of 50,000 weddings in Dade

County, Florida, the Miami Herald found more than

50 citizens involved in 175 suspected fraudulent

marriages since January 1983 (See, June 13, 1985).

Though most citizen spouses were women, one man

married four different women in less than a month.

Roughly half of the questionable marriages were to

Haitians; the rest involved men and women from

around the globe, including Spain, Jamaica, India,

Argentina, Norway, Guatemala, China, El Salvador,

and Bolivia. When a Miami Herald reporter,

claiming to be an illegal alien, visited Luzcar

Immigration Counseling at 752 H. Flagler St.,

Miami, director Carmen P. Hernandez said that for

$4,000.00 she would provide a two-week "course to

answer intimate questions that the INS might pose

to the reporter and his "wife" in order to

determine if the marriage was valid. Said

Hernandez, "you'll have to study hard for two

weeks. You have to do what I say. I have 100

percent success because people do what I say."

The Herald also reports that black-market birth

certificates obtained in Puerto Rico are part of

many marriage fraud schemes.

And on June 13, 1985, a federal grand jury

indicted 29 people, and the INS apprehended 14

people, including a pastor, on charges of

operating a marriage fraud ring in Belle Glade,

Florida. The marriages involved cash payments as

high as $10,000.00 a marriage. Many of the

marriages were performed at night in a funeral

parlor, often to single mothers seeking quick

money.

Mr. Chairman, these reports represent but the tip of the

iceberg in a never-ending fraud on the American people. The list

goes on and on.
Why have fraudulent marriages become so commonplace? The

reason is simple: In an era of backlogs and huge waiting lists,

marriages to U.S. citizens have become the simplest, most

foolproof way of skirting the per country and annual ceilings on

legal immigration.

Moreover, it has been fostered by the lack of an overall

ceiling on the number of citizen spouses, a weak investigative

enforcement posture, and the ready availability of fradulent

documents. Today, marrying a U.S. citizen nearly guarantees

approval of an application for permanent residence.

Perhaps the most telling statement of the state of the

citizen-spouse super-preference comes from an anonymous

immigration attorney in New York. A few years back, he related

the following all-too-familiar professional experience to the

editor of the Immigration law digest. Interpreter Releases (Vol.

59, No. 9, February 24, 1982, at 144, 145):

Your recent talk to the New York Lawyer's Association was,

as one might expect, a nice job of exposition.

Unfortunately, your views on the sham marriage situation

will make experienced immigration lawyers shake their heads

at your naivete.

On page 693, you state, 'The INS is zealous in its efforts

to expose sham marriages and la highly successful in doing

so.' I, for one, wish that this were so; but accumulated

experience tells me that it isn't.

The firm at which I now work as an associate handles on the

average about 100 spousal I-130's per year. Like any

sensible practitioners, we do not induce clients to commit

fraud; nor do we receive confessions from clients on the

subject. Thus, in any given case, we never 'know' that a

sham marriage is involved. Yet we are all quite certain

that between 90 and 95 percent of these cases Involve sham

marriages. The circumstances make it completely obvious.

It is our experience that INS will never detect a sham

marriage unless one of the parties to the conspiracy

actually tells them outright that the marriage was

contracted for immigration purposes (as, for revenge) or

unless the client handles his arrangements in a completely

idiotic fashion (e.g., he fails to learn the name of his

'wife,' he gets an accomplice who is twice his age and can't

speak his language, etc.). The record is fairly clear: in

about 3 years, roughly 250 sham marriages have gone through

this office. INS has detected nothing despite the fact that

these clients have not taken extraordinary precautions to

avoid detection and despite the fact that many secure

dissolutions almost immediately after the Green Card issues.

So beneficial is the status of 'spouse of a U.S. citizen,'

so simple is the procedure, so high the success rate, that

it becomes more and more difficult to dissuade clients from

taking this route to a Green Card.

It is common knowledge in immigrant communities that the INS

is woefully understaffed to investigate properly the number of

immediate relative petitions filed on behalf of prospective

immigrants annually. Many within immigrant communities consider

fraudulent marriages a legitimate • even honorable • exercise

to secure the admission of friends, relatives and fellow

nationals.

The results of internal studies by the INS indicate that 30

to 40 percent of all applications submitted in support of

relative status (the so-called 1-130) are fraudulent, supported

either by bogus documents, altered documents, imposters, or no

documents at all. In particular, the INS has concluded, and we
70

have no reason to disagree, that based on their own procedures

and available resources, inadequate information is collected on

the petitioner to determine if 1) prior marriages have been

annulled, 2) the petitioner in front of the examiner is the same

petitioner who appeared when the petition was filed, 3) the

petitioner is who he/she says he/she is or that person has filed

previously on behalf of any other aliens, 4) the petitioner was

accorded permanent residence as a result of a recent fraudulent

marriage in which this petitioner was the beneficiary in the

earlier proceeding and the original petitioner in the previous

proceeding (a putative lawful spouse) is now filing as the

beneficiary today, 5) the beneficiary is actually related to the

petitioner in the manner alleged, 6) or the petitioner has a

separate address.

Many of the marriage petitions are adjudicated in

streamlined adjudications procedures, in which neither the

petitioner nor the beneficiary is adequately identified. In many

cases, the files are not routinely consulted to verify

allegations as to identity, claims to status, and kinship.

Moreover, the average interview with the petitioner and

beneficiary lasts perhaps ten or fifteen minutes, hardly enough

time to thoroughly evaluate the legitimacy of a marriage.

INS currently estimates that the number of fraudulent I130's filed in any given year is between 150,000 and 200,000 and

that the number is growing. Without adequate information or

documentation on the petitioner and beneficiary, the potential

for fraud is obvious. For those engaging in fraudulent

marriages, it is generally a risk-free operation. The entire

system is in dire need of overhaul.

The dramatic escalation in fraud is also suggested by the

overall number of visa-causing marriages, which have doubled

between 1970 and 1983 to dramatically outpace the overall

increase in American marriages generally over the same period.

There is no reason to believe the situation will improve in

coming years.

Possible Solutions

Hr. Chairman, you have asked us to address some of the

approaches you are considering for possible new legislation,

will discuss them in turn.

1. Should the "initial approval of a spousal petition [be]

conditional, subject to a further, final review by the

Attorney General, perhaps two years after the initial

filing?" In the alternative, should the Attorney General be

authorized to review spousal petitions on a "post audit"

basis?

Currently, the allocation of investigator manhours to detect

applications based on fraudulent relationships has been

subordinated to the more important priorities of criminal alien

investigations, the employers of illegal aliens, the detection of

smuggling or counterfeiting rings, or the detection of aliens not

eligible for welfare (the so-called "Impact Level I" priorities).

The investigation of the facts supporting an 1-130 petition is a

time-consuming process, and, in terms of available resources, can

be one of the least rewarding ways in which an investigator can

spend his time. (In some high risk areas, investigations of the

overseas facts underlying 1-130 applications can take more than a

year, mostly because of backlogs.)

Worse still, under the current statutory scheme, an

investigator must appraise a marriage perhaps within days or

weeks after the marriage was concluded. Too often, investigators
71

must evaluate a marriage before there Is any lifestyle to

appraise. Hoverover, several recent court decisions have

constrained the investigator from asking certain kinds of

'intimate* questions that could help reveal more about the

marital relationship.

Therefore, we believe that it is highly desireable that

where entry and status are based on marriage, section 241(c)

should be amended to provide that when a divorce occurs within

two years of the marriage, the alien must come forward to

demonstrate that the marriage was not entered into solely for the

purpose of evading immigration law ceilings. Failure to report a

judicially-terminated marriage within two years should be grounds

for rescission in and of itself absent reasonable excuse,

inadequate notice, or substantial equities compelling a waiver.

This would deter the recently-adjusted beneficiary from getting a

quick divorce, and immediately filing a second preference

petition on behalf of a new nonimmigrant or overseas spouse.

In the alternative, we agree that consideration should be

given to a proposal to create a two-year provisional status for

an alien who obtains benefits by marriage. At the end of two

years, all beneficiaries would be required to come forward to

prove the bona fides of a marriage with objective documentation

(i.e., income tax statements, insurance beneficiary forms,

leases, bank accounts, etc.), as well as testimony or other

evidence regarding courtship, wedding ceremony, and overall

cohabitational experience.

The key is to insure that, given an overall shortage of

investigators, the alien is presented to the INS either as soon

as the divorce occurs, or at the end of two years, whichever is

later, to insure that the INS has a true "lifestyle" to examine.

Respectfully, Mr. Chairman, we are somewhat skeptical of the

"post audit" approach, in view of the fact that section 241(c)

already provides the Attorney General with authority to postaudit petitions if he believes the marriage "was made for the

purpose of procuring his or her entry as an immigrant." Any

provision that requires a proactive INS is unlikely to meet

greater success. We believe the burden of proving a valid

marriage should be shifted back from the government to its proper

placet on the alien beneficiary.

2. For either approach, what should be the standard of

review? Bow major a factor should cohabitation be, and

should birth of children be a factor?

At the initial adjudications level, those factors mentioned

above as objective indices of a bona fide marriage should weigh

heavily in the decision. Clearly, cohabitation will be shown as

a matter Incident to an on-going, viable relationship. Moreover,

if there are offspring from the marriage, and the petitioner or

beneficiary, as the case may be, can prove paternity, it would

seem almost by definition to have been a legitimate marriage for

immigration law purposes.

On the administrative appellate review level, the findings

of the adjudicating officer should be reviewed to see if they are

supported by substantial evidence. This is in keeping with the

tradition of providing the alien with substantial procedural

process at the administrative level, while limiting judicial

review to respect the broad discretion granted by Congress to the

Executive Branch in these types of decisions.

Judicial review should be available in accordance with

section 106(c) in concert with review of the Final Order of

Deportation. The same standards of judicial review as to the

Attorney General's findings of fact should also apply in this

context: was the finding arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of

discretion?
72

3. Should the statute's definition of a fiance(e) be

changed to include such matters as prior meeting, common

language, or a firm intent to marry?

Mr. Chairman, the fiance or "K" nonimmigrant is the

principal domain of the so-called "mail-order" marriage. So much

so, in fact, that question 18 on the fiance petition (form I129F) is as follows:

18. I [] have []have not personnally met and seen the

beneficiary.

(Place an "X" in the appropriate box. Also, if the

first box has been checked, state the place and date

of such meeting.)

Failure to have met the beneficiary is certainly an

indication of fraud. But just because the petitioner has not met

the beneficiary, that is not an express statutory basis for

denial.

The section 214(d) automatic recordation provisions of an

alien to permanent residence for K visa holders who legally

conclude marriages within 90 days is out of step with other

provisions in the law that generally permit the INS to appraise

the legitimacy of a marriage before final adjustment to permanent

residence takes place. We believe that substantial changes are

needed in section 214(d) to allow more discretion after the

marriage and to bring the evidentiary burdens of this provision

more in line with other types of benefits based on marriage,

i.e., the Attorney General should be satisfied that the marriage

is legitimate, based on objective, articulable facts.

Further, section 101(a)(14) should be amended to define

expressly the term fiancee or fiance of a citizen of the U.S. to

include only one who has personally seen and met the petitioner.

The business of mail order marriages has spread rapidly, and even

if one acknowledges that in some rare cases legitimate cultural

purposes are served by completely arranged marriages, there is

still no excuse for retaining such a loophole on the books given

today's ease of transcontinental travel.

Lastly, we do not understand why there is no statutory bar

to section 245 adjustment of status for K visa holders where the

marriage does not take place as planned. Where the alien

beneficiary has resided in the United States less than 90 days,

and probably has no relatives in this country, it seems

inequitable to allow that person to remain here absent

exceptional and compelling reasons.

4. What penalties or other forms of deterrence, if any,

might be available to discourage persons considering

fraudulent marriages? Should marriages entered into after an

alien has become deportable be eligible for adjustment of

status in the Dnited States? Is the present five-year

statute of limitations on rescission of adjustment of status

adequate to detect or deter such frauds?

In response to these issues, we make the following

recommendations:

a. Section 241(f)(l)(A)(i)&(ii) should be amended to

require that the Attorney General may not waive section

212(a)(19) exclusion grounds where the relative in question is a

citizen or permanent resident alien spouse, and the fraudulent

procurement at issue is an attempt to acquire immigration

benefits via a fraudulent marriage. Currently, this waiver

operates almost as a rubber stamp for aliens who may engage in

conduct prohibited by section 212(a)(19).
78

Further, the Department of State has taken the position that

section 212(a)(19) bars an alien who "seeks to procure, or has

sought to procure, or has procured a visa or other

documentation...by fraud, or by willfully misrepresenting a

material fact" does not apply to the situation where an alien

misrepresents a material fact on an application for adjustment of

status. This interpretation is in conflict with that of the INS

General Counsel, and the language should be amended to add the

words "to a Consular Officer or Immigration Officer, whether the

misrepresentation is detected before or after the alien has

entered the United States" after the words "material fact."

b. Where adjustment of status is based on marriage, section

246(a) might be amended to create a two-year rebuttable

presumption of fraud where the marriage terminates within two

years after adjustment of status. Consideration should be given

to the use of the temporary provisional status with automatic

rescission for failure to report to the INS an annulment or

termination within two years of the date of adjustment to

provisional status (similar to the arrangement considered above

in connection with 241(c)).

Further, because aliens often wait more than five years to

apply for citizenship, another approach might be to extend the

246 statute of limitations for fraud rescissions for ten years or

until the alien reapproaches the INS to apply for citizenship,

whichever is earlier.

c. He believe that section 245 should be amended to make it

clear that nonviablility of the marriage at the time the 1-130 is

filed is prima facie grounds for denial of the application or

rescission of status. The current status quo makes a mockery of

the policy goal of "family reunification," particularly where the

couple is childless. In the alternative, one might create a

rebuttable presumption of fraud if a childless marriage is

alleged by one of the parties to have been nonviable at the time

the 1-130 was filed.

d. We suggest that section 204(c) should be amended to

operate to deny subsequent adjustment applications to aliens who

have previously applied for adjustment of status based on a

fraudulent marriage, but because fraud was detected before the

earlier status was granted, never received status previously.

The current language permits aliens to reapply for adjustment of

status so long as an earlier attempt at fraud did not result in

the actual grant of permanent residence. Aliens should not be

rewarded with permanent residence merely because a previous

fraudulent marriage scheme was detected too early in the attempt

to come within the statutory bar. It is a loophole that needs to

be closed.

e. We would concur with and support any proposal that would

amend section 245(c) to add a provision barring adjustment of

status by any alien where the petition's application is based on

a marriage entered into any time after the order to show cause

has issued under section 242(l)(b).

f. Lastly, we recommend that the act should be amended to

bar any alien who acquired immigration benefits through marriage

to a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident alien from filing

a second preference petition on behalf of any other spouse for a

period of five years from the date of admission or adjustment of

status.

Mr. Chairman, we believe that adoption of these

recommendations would go a long way towards restoring the

integrity of the marriage preferences. The grant of immigration

benefits based on marriage is an act of generosity and kindness

given to immigrants by the American people, and it should not be

allowed to degenerate into a vehicle for massive fraud. With

these proposals, we can allow our humanitarian instincts and
74

national ethics to remain intact, while insuring that those who

assert the benefits of a marriage are possessed of a relationship

worthy of the institution.

Thank you for the opportunity to present FAIR'S views on

this important subject. I would be happy to answer any questions

you may have at this time.

Senator SIMPSON. Next we have Jules Coven.

Mr. COVEN. Thank you very much. My name is Jules Coven. I am

the president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association,

and I wish to thank the committee for allowing us to testify on this

subject today.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association is a specialty

bar association of approximately 1,850 lawyers nationwide. We

have 29 chapters in the United States plus at-large members.

We were founded in 1946 and I have been the president since

June of this year. I have been a practicing attorney in immigration

law in New York City for approximtely 25 years and I am presently an adjunct professor at Brooklyn Law School teaching immigration law.

I not only feel that I am speaking for the American Immigration

Lawyers Association, but since we are an organization that does

represent aliens and citizens in the United States, and since the

aliens who are possibly going to be future candidates for immigrant

visas based upon their marriage, I am also here for that unspoken

for group of people.

We, one, wish to thank the committee for bringing attention to a

problem that is a problem that has been involved in immigration

law for many, many years.

However the serious nature of the problem, there are more serious problems with the immigration law. I also would like to point

out, Mr. Chairman, that the present system that is in fact in the

immigration law probably could take care of most of the situations

that we have seen described before your committee today.

However, as one of the first witnesses who testified in the second

panel said, "I went to Immigration and the job wasn't done."

There is no question, as a lawyer, in my mind, that if that case

was presented to the Immigration Service, the best counsel would

not have been able to help that particular alien doctor, because if

he admits that he committed a fraud, and the action is brought

before the Immigration Service, that man can be deported from the

United States.

The second case was very interesting, Your Honor. In fact the

Immigration Service did enter an order of deportation.

There the system has worked, Your Honor. I also would like to

say that in a fourth case, the situation, and the present law, also,

was effective in dealing with the problem, the people went to jail,

and as she indicated, she thinks some of them were deported.

Unless you want to bring back the rack, Mr. Chairman, I do not

know what more we can do. I would also like to say that, as Mr.

Penner said, what we need, Mr. Chairman, is more effective and,

the Immigration Service should be more effective review of petitions at the time of the initial interview.
75

They can question the aliens and in fact they do question the

aliens. If the law would be enforced presently, these problems

would not be in existence.

One of the questions raised was, if a person gets an immigration

benefit based upon a fraudulent marriage, he should not be allowed

to get another green card.

Mr. Chairman, that is in the law. 204(c) says, that if you are the

beneficiary of an immigrant visa based upon a marriage fraud, and

it is discovered by the Immigration Service, you are permanently

barred from admission to the United States on two grounds.

One of the grounds, Mr. Chairman, is that another petition

cannot be filed even if it is filed on another ground.

That means that if you lose your green card based upon a fraudulent marriage, if your brother becomes a citizen, or you should remarry, a visa petition cannot be filed in your behalf.

It cannot be approved, and there is no waiver of this, Mr. Chairman, because you cannot file such a petition. It cannot be approved

and there is no waiver.

The criminal penalties are there. All we need is enforcement. If

the Immigration Service finds a fraud, we say the law should be

enforced, and when, Mr. Chairman, attorneys are found guilty of

arranging sham marriages, we are not against those attorneys

being prosecuted, or the marriage arrangers being prosecuted.

However, it is, Mr. Chairman, a difficult problem. In many instances, we, as lawyers representing aliens, do become cynical.

I remember when I first started practicing a number of years

ago, I had a client come to me who was an American citizen, and

her boyfriend basically had been arrested by Immigration, and she

said, "Mr. Coven, I love this man." This fellow was a Greek crewman who jumped ship. Many of these people come here and they

really create a relationship so that they possibly can get a green

card. I said, "Listen, I know this business and I know aliens."

So I went up to see the seaman at the detention facility, and

after interviewing him I said•I came down and spoke to my client

and said, "This fellow is a phony; don't marry him; and not only

that, don't put up the bond for him because you're going to lose

your money."

She said, "Mr. Coven, I love him." Well, love conquers all. She

bailed him out; she married him. I filed a petition for him, if she

insists she loves him, what more can I do?

Anyway, Your Honor, this man is still a client of mine, he is an

American citizen, they have two or three children, and at that

point, Mr. Chairman, I found it difficult to start to make a determination as to what was a true marriage and what was not a true

marriage.

However, in the system that presently exists, there are protections for the American public and for the Immigration Service, because one, when you file for citizenship, you can only file after 3

years if you are living with your wife who is an American citizen;

you must wait 5 years if you are not living with your wife.

Certainly the case of the person saying, well, after 3 years you

can become an American citizen, is incorrect, because if you are

not living with your wife and you do not make such an allegation

in your naturalization petition, you cannot become a citizen.
76

Two, the interviewer, who interviews the person when they

apply for naturalization, his job is to checkup and to see whether

that immigrant visa was properly issued, and in fact, right in the

system, we have this follow-up, not a post audit, because if this

person who wanted to extend that empire came to a naturalization

examiner 3 years later•first, his application should be denied because he was not living with his wife; and second, if the immigration examiner and naturalization examiner asked him, "Where is

your wife?", and found out that the marriage had been terminated,

or she had left shortly after he arrived, the examiner would deny

the application for naturalization, and the alien could lose his immigrant status, and certainly could not establish any empire.

Second, the question of filing an application for a second spouse,

after you divorce your first spouse, again is a responsibility by the

Immigration Service to take a look at that second petition.

They take a look at the divorce papers. Those divorce papers are

submitted. If you see a divorce was entered into shortly after the

person's green card, the Immigration Service has a public duty to

bring it forth and say hey, maybe we should call this person in for

an interview and review the situation.

Mr. Chairman, I think, by the way, one of the suggestions made

by Mr. North is an important suggestion and it appears in a different form, basically, in our statement.

The concept of advising citizens and the people who file the petition, that filing a petition is a serious matter, and that there are

criminal penalties, and say advertise, and these hearings are doing

that, and I thank you for bringing this matter to the attention of

the public. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[The statement follows:]
77

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JULES E. COVEN

HI. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you today to

testify on the subject of immigration marriage and fiance(e)

abuse.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) is a

specialty bar association of some 1,850 attorneys nationwide,

organized into 29 local chapters plus at-large members. AILA

was founded in 1946 and is an Affiliated Organization of the

American Bar Association. I have had the honor to serve as

President of AILA since June of this year and have been a

national officer of the Association since 19S0. I have been

engaged in the private practice of immigration law in New York

City for over 25 years, and I am currently teaching immigration

law as an Adjunct Professor at the Brooklyn School of Law.

ABUSE OF IMMIGRATION BENEFITS ACCORDED TO SPOUSES AND FIANCES

For the record, I wish to begin my remarks by stating that

our Association unequivocally condemns those who would seek to

obtain benefits under our immigration laws by engaging in fraud

or by knowingly assisting in the fraudulent abuse of such laws.

Immigration to the United States continues to be as

attractive a prospect to individuals in many lands as it was to

the ancestors of most Americans in years past. The Immigration

and Nationality Act rightfully accords special immigration

benefits to the spouses of United States citizens, and it

permits the temporary entry of fiances to marry United States

citizens and the permanent immigration of spouses of lawful

permanent residents. These benefits are based on the desire to

encourage and support family unification, which has long been an

accepted and principal goal of United States immigration policy.

In a qualitative sense, it is difficult to imagine an abuse

of our immigration laws more serious than fraudulently entering

a marital relationship. Marriage fraud for immigration purposes

is not only a serious violation of our nation's laws, it is an

offense against [what many Americans still consider to be I the

sacred institution of marriage.
78

However, in a quantitative sense, it is less clear that

immigration fraud through marriage is the most serious problem

confronting the enforcement of our immigration laws today.

Please do not misunderstand me on this point, I am as outraged

as anyone by a single case of marriage fraud for immigration

purposes and will support the vigorous prosecution of those

knowingly involved without exception. Rather, it is not

apparent from my general familiarity with developments in the

immigration field that the number of spouse petitions based on

"sham marriageshas significantly increased over the past ten

years or, for that matter, since I began practicing law in

1958. Moreover, I would be extremely surprised to learn, if it

could be shown statistically, that more than one or two percent

of the 'green cards" issued anually on the basis of marriage

involved fraud. I base this opinion on my experience from

representing thousands of immigrants, years of "shop talk" with

hundreds of immigration lawyers and government officers, and on

my knowledge of the Immigration and Naturalization Service's

current procedures to detect fraud in the examination and

investigation processes which, given its present resources, I

conclude are relatively successful.

Let me now repeat, on behalf of myself and AILA, that

marriage fraud for immigration purposes is a serious subject

that, while not some new hemorrhage of abuse of United States

immigration laws, is worthy of the Subcommittee's attention in

the interest of better deterring and detecting such violations

as may now exist.

PRESENT DETERRENTS AND PENALTIES FOR FRAUDULENT MARRIAGES

Before addressing the proposals and questions now under

consideration by the Subcommittee staff, I would like to briefly

outline the existing deterrents to marriage fraud for

immigration purposes and some of the penalties to which an

abuser would be subject- under current law.

Qualifying for nonimmigrant admission to the United States

as the fiance(e) of a U.S. citizen. An alien may qualify for

admission to the United States as a "K-l" nonimmigrant if she

can prove she is the fiancee of a U.S. citizen and that she
79

seeks to enter solely to conclude s valid marriage with such

U.S. citizen within 90 days after entry (8 U.S.C. SllOl(a)

(15)(K)). The burden of proving eligibility is on the alien

(and the U.S. citizen fiance(e)) and oust be met at three

separate and distinct points.

First, the U.S. citizen fiance(e) must obtain approval of a

petition on behalf of the alien from an INS District Office.

Second, the alien beneficiary of an approved petition Bust then

apply for a *K-1" visa at a U.S. Consulate overseas. Because,

under 22 C.F.R. $41.66(c), applicants for *K-1' visas are to be

treated as if they were applying for an immigrant visa, it is

common knowledge that processing of *K-1" applications by U.S.

Consulates normally takes longer and will be subject to more

scrutiny than other nonimmigrant visas.

Finally, before admission to the U.S. is permitted, the

alien holder of a *K-1" visa will be inspected at the U.S. port

of entry or border check point. At this point, any doubt as to

eligibility must be resolved by an immigration judge in

exclusion proceedings. Only after concluding the marriage to

the U.S. citizen will the *K-1* nonimmigrant be eligible to

apply for adjustment of status in the United States to permanent

residence.

Qualifying for adjustment of status to permanent residence

as the spouse of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

Like the process of qualifying as a nonimmigrant fiance(e), the

procedure for obtaining permanent residence based on marriage is

a multi-step process, with the burden of proving eligibility on

the alien beneficiary (and the U.S. citizen petitioner). The

U.S. citizen spouse must obtain approval of a petition on behalf

of the alien spouse, and the alien spouse must apply for

adjustment of status.

As a matter of administrative efficiency, the petition and

the application for adjustment are often filed simultaneously.

Approval of the petition is, practically speaking, usually a

matter of establishing documentary eligibility. However,

approval of the adjustment application involves one of the

highest levels of scrutiny now employed in adjudications by the

Immigration and Naturalization Service.
Under the present "Balanced Adjudications System"

necessitated by the limited resources available to the Service,

the adjustment of status application is one of the few remaining

adjudications of the INS in which personal interviews are

required in every case. In addition to the usual determinations

of the statutory eligibility and the absence of applicable

grounds of excludability, applicants for adjustment of status

based on marriage are routinely interviewed separate from their

spouse in what is commonly called the 'marriage fraud

interview."

Not unlike a popular T.V. game show, each spouse is asked

questions about the minute details of their married life,

answers to which would be very difficult to provide accurately

unless the couple were, in fact, living together as husband and

wife. If the couple is unable to meet their burden of proof, a

subsequent interview may be scheduled or the case may be

referred to Investigations for detection of possible fraud. If

the interview is successfully completed, the application is held

for 60 days and, if no adverse information is received, will

then be adjudicated without further interviews.

Rescission, denaturalization, and deportation based on

marriage fraud. A comprehensive description of the procedures

involved in rescission of adjustment of status, denaturalization, or deportation of a "lawful" permanent resident, where

it is alleged that such status was obtained on the basis of a

fraudulent marriage or documentation, is set forth in

Immigration and Nationality Law-39th Anniversary Symposium of

the American Immigration Lawyers Association (1985). Current

law,however, can be faitly summarized as holding that permanent

residence (and any subsequent naturalization) obtained through a

fraudulent marriage is void and that there is no effective

statute of limitations that would prevent deportation or

denaturalization. Evidence of marriage fraud may be in the form

of testimony by one of the parties, but even where both parties

assert the validity of the marriage, contrary inferences may be

properly drawn from their subsequent conduct. Most commonly,

the government will rely on the statutory presumption that an
81

alien who obtains permanent residence based on a marriage

entered into within two years admission is presumed to have

obtained it by fraud if the marriage is judicially terminated

within two years of entry (8 U.S.C. S1251(c)). Quite candidly I

must add that this presumption is regarded by the immigration

bar as an extremely high hurdle and that no immigration lawyer I

know would presume to attempt to overcome it unless thoroughly

convinced of the validity of the marriage in question, and of

course, communications of a lawyer in futherance of a fraud are

not covered by the attorney-client privilege.

Collateral consequences of marriage fraud. Perhaps the

greatest deterrent to an alien's attempting to obtain an

immigrant visa through a fraudulent marriage is that the penalty

therefor is the most severe, non-criminal punishment found in

our immigration laws: the perpetual bar from lawful permanent

residence under 8 U.S.C. 51154(c). An alien who obtains a visa

through marriage fraud is also thereafter barred from

eligibility for a nonimmigrant visa and from entering the United

States under 8 U.S.C. S1182(a)(19).

Criminal penalties for marriage fraud. In addition to the

severe immigration law penalties to which an alien is subject

for obtaining immigration benefits through marriage fraud, both

the alien and the U.S. citizen "spouse" are liable to criminal

prosecution under a variety of federal statutes. These offenses

include: (1) knowingly making any false statement under oath

with respect to a material fact in any application, affidavit,

or other document required by the immigration laws or

regulations (18 U.S.C. S1546: punishable by $2000 fine, or five

years imprisonment, or both); (2) perjury (18 U.S.C. S 1621:

•2000 fine, or 5 years imprisonment or both); (3) materially

false statements to a federal agency (18 U.S.C. S1001: $10,000

fine, or 5 years imprisonment, or both); and (4) conspiracy to

commit an offense against a federal agency (13 U.S.C. S371:

$10,000 fine, or 5 years imprisonment, or both).

Professional responsibility of counsel. In my opinion,

attorneys practicing in the immigration field also play a

significant role in deterring marriage fraud for immigration
82

purposes. Beyond refusing to represent clients who are

determined to commit fraud, we believe it is a professional

responsibility of lawyers to strongly counsel against any

considerations of fraud and to advise both aliens and U.S.

citizens of the severe consequences that can result, I think

this is a sermon routinely preached by lawyers to those who are

naive or cynical enough to believe that a marriage license,

however obtained, will solve all immigration problems. I will

not deny that there have been and probably will be a few

unscrupulous lawyers whose greed will lead them to participate

in marriage fraud or to recklessly disregard the truthfulness of

clients' circumstances that they have every reason to believe

are false, they should be shunned from the professional and

dealt with by other enforcement agencies. But I am convinced

that the immigration bar plays an important positive role in

deterring fraud and that the dishonest few, however despicable,

are the extreme exception.

RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO DETER AND DETECT MARRIAGE FRAUD

I have outlined above the wide variety of opportunities,

procedures, and penalties to deter and detect marriage fraud for

immigration purposes in order to show that there is, under

current law, no shortage of enforcement mechanisms. Rather, if

there is a present weakness in our ability to prevent or

penalize such fraud, it is the shortage of resources and

experienced personnel in the Examinations and Legal Departments

of the INS District Offices and of Consular Officers at the U.S.

Embassies and Consulates overseas, imposed by currect budget

constraints. In my view, these limitations will only be more

severely aggravated and will not bring about the desired result

if the main procedural proposals now contemplated by the

Subcommittee staff are enacted into law.

CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF SPOUSAL PETITIONS

Of the two main approaches suggested to us in preparation for

these hearings, AILA would least support the conditional approval

of spouse petitions subject to final approval after two years.

The imposition of a second review of all marriage cases•the
83

overwhelming majority of bona fide petitions along with the

relatively small number of 'sham marriages' for which petitions

are approved•however attractive in theory, could not

help but, as a practical matter, double the workload of the

already beleaguered District Offices of the INS. This would be

an extremely unfortunate consequence in the absence of

substantially increased appropriations, mindful as I am that it

would also result in increased legal fees paid to immigration

lawyers.

Dnder this proposal, we would also fear that the conditional

approval of a spousal petition would come to be mistaken for a

policy that the act of marriage itself to an alien was likewise

conditional. While I have no doubt that an alien already

determined to commit fraud could 'hold out* for the extra period

of time, such a policy would seem to undermine support for the

success of the altogether valid marriages that are more subject

to the frailties of human nature.

'POST AUDIT' REVIEW OF SPOUSAL PETITIONS

The other main approach suggested by the Subcommittee staff,

'post audit' review of spousal petitions, appears to differ from

current law only in that it would require universal review of

all such petitions rather than what I would characterize as the

present "selective" review of only those cases where there is

reason to believe that the underlying marriage was fraudulent.

Obviously, this would impose a substantial increase in the

INS workload, as mentioned above, although presumably to a

lesser degree,. What would prevent such a universal post audit

review from developing into a pro forma exercise, in the absence

of substantially increased appropriations, I cannot predict. I

do know that, under present law, the validity of marriages that

are soon terminated after accordance of an immigration benefit

continue to receive scrutiny and review upon any subsequent

filing of petitions for immigration benefits or naturalization,

and even upon subsequent entries in extreme cases.
84

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Even if either of the above new approaches were adopted, we

would argue that the fundamental question must remain what was

the intent of the parties at the time the marriage was entered

into. If, as under present law, it is determined that the

marriage was entered into for the purpose of evading the

immigration laws, it was a sham marriage. Under this standard,

judicial termination of the marriage within two years should

continue to establish the presumption of fraud, while evidence

of lack of cohabitation, of fees paid, etc., and conversely of

the birth of children and mutual family involvement, etc., must

be weighed by the trier of fact and appropriate inferences can

be drawn.

Beyond the "two-year presumption," we would argue against

imposition of any further "longevity test" that would result in

the automatic revocation of the immigration benefits obtained in

the event a marriage did not "last" a requisite period of years.

OTHER MEASURES TO DETER MARRIAGE FRAUD

There are a number of measures we can suggest that could

reduce the incidence of marriage fraud for immigration purposes

without such radical changes to the present law.

First and foremost is the provision of increased

appropriations to the Immigration and Naturalization Service and

the Bureau of Consular Affairs for more examinations and legal

personnel and Consular officers to deal specifically with these

issues.

Second is consideration of increases in the penalties for

convictions of fraud and other criminal offenses cited above.

Third is encouragement of increased investigatory and

prosecutorial vigor against the organizers of "sham marriage

rings."

Finally, and in conjunction with all of the above, is

increased warnings and publicity of the unlawfulness and dire

consequences of participating in a "sham marriage" for

immigration purposes, targeted both at naive and unscrupulous

aliens and their U.S. citizen and lawful permanent resident
85

counterparts. Por instance, the current form 1-130, petition to

classify status of alien relative for issuance of immigrant

visa, contains only three short lines of fine print warning of

unspecific "severe penalties" for knowingly and willfully

falsifying or concealing a material fact or using any false

document. A single, full-page attachment more clearly and

specifically setting forth laws and potential penalties for

abusers would be an economical first step to deter those who may

believe there is little risk, especially to a U.S. citizen, of

casually conspiring to commit marriage fraud.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I respectfully submit that no statutory

changes would be as effective as the provision of more adequate

agency resources\to examine spouse petitions and to prosecute

"sham marriages."

I thank you, on behalf of the American Immigration Lawyers

Association, for this opportunity to be heard, and I would be

pleased to answer any questions you or the other Members of the

Subcommittee may have.

Respectfully Submitted,

JULES E COVEN

President

American Immigration Lawyers

Association
Senator SIMPSON. Thank you very much. Just a few questions.

David North. I might ask, is it your belief that marriage to an

American citizen has really become almost the preferred method

by which otherwise ineligible aliens can obtain permanent resident

status, and, if that is so, what factors do you feel contribute to

making that so extremely attractive?

Mr. NORTH. The first thing we should bear in mind, and I am

looking at this again from a broad picture, not on a case-by-case

point of view•the first thing we should bear in mind, that our immigration law, quite frankly, is soaked in nepotism.

Something like 17 percent of the visas that we issue within the

numerical limits are for people other than relatives, 83 percent are

for relatives.

This is first and second and fourth and fifth preference. In addition, virtually all the people coming in outside the numerical limits

are coming in as somebody's relatives.

So an alien who wants to come to the United States or adjusts to

permanent resident alien status while in the United States is faced

with a system that says that something like 80 or 90 percent of the

immigrant visas are given to somebody's relatives.

Well, the aliens are no fools and they recognize that what is important, apparently, to our immigration law are these relationships. Some of these relationships, as you have suggested, are quite

distant.

One does not even have to have ever met the niece or the

nephew on fifth preference to file for it. And so I think that because we do not have any kind of independent class of immigrants,

there is no possibility, for instance, of somebody without a U.S. employer, who has a skill•it is extremely difficult for such a person

to immigrate though they might be very valuable.

Investors who are pursued with vigor by the Australian and Canadian Governments are quite thoroughly barred from coming to

the United States as investors.

So I think our whole system is rigged for relatives and some

people are taking advantage of it by these sham marriages.

Senator SIMPSON. That is a statement that many American citizens would not be able to track one whit, but you are very, very

correct in what you say, and in the early measures of the first

draft of the first Senate version of the bill that passed, we opened

the special category of "independent immigrants," of 75,000 a year,

trying to break that long chain of simply family members, you

know, without any recognition or even knowledge as to who some

of those family members were. You know, just that "it is important

that I get them here," and here we go. It is extraordinary, you

know, as you get into it, but anyway, you suggest the British plan.

If we were to incorporate the British plan and grant the alien

spouse a 1-year nonimmigrant visa, and authorize his employment

during that year, what effect would that have on the INS practice,

which is the parallel husband and wife interviews•you know•

trying to show this intimate relationship?

What effect would that have there, or, would it enable INS in

any way to get out of that business? Tell me your thoughts on that.

Mr. NORTH. Again I am thinking in terms of systems, and I think

it is useful to make everybody aware that they will have to prove
87

that they have in fact been married 2 years later. I think that that

is a deterrence, in and of itself.

I think it is a perfectly legitimate one. Two people who are really

in love with each other will not be hurt by this. The alien in a case

like that will be inconvenienced, in the sense that the alien will

have to go to the Immigration Service twice instead of once, but

that is the only drawback in a legitimate case.

And my suggestion would be like INS's, that it be a 2-year

period, that the 2 years be counted retroactively for naturalization

later. That the alien during that period will have complete freedom

in the American labor market, and a document that allows him to

cross our borders.

So the only people who would be hurt by that are the people who

were engaged in a sham marriage, or the people who are discouraged from being engaged in a sham marriage for fear that they

would have to carry this out for 2 years.

Now, that is why I think that that is a good approach, because I

think it would deter people from doing that.

Senator SIMPSON. All right. Thank you. Roger Conner, if I might

ask. Now Mr. Coven, in his testimony, has stated that creation of a

conditional status for spouses would imply that the marriage itself

was conditional and that the status would downgrade the status of

the alien citizen marriage, and how do you respond to that viewpoint?

Mr. CONNER. I guess I was sadly disappointed from the testimony

that I heard from my fellow lawyers this morning, which is: (a)

there is no problem, or (b) if there is a problem, blame it on the

INS.

That is an old explanation of the problem but I guess I was

hoping for more in the way of constructive solutions, The suggestion that giving a person who has applied for permanent residence

on the basis of the fact that they are married to an American citizen, to give them temporary residence for 2 years, I just do not see

how, in any way, that relates to the sanctity, validity, strength, or

meaningfulness of their marriage. The strength, sanctity, and

meaningfulness of their marriage is based on their marriage vows,

the strength of the relationship between the people, and frankly,

for the valid marriage, I do not think a provisional status would

have much to do with the success of the marriage.

It would be little more for the person who is making a valid application than, as Mr. North just suggested, a minor inconvenience.

It would be a major obstacle for those who are trying to fraudulently secure admission to this country by either manipulating the

emotions of an American citizen or conniving with an American

citizen by the payment of money, because stringing the thing out

for a 2-year period would be far more difficult.

I just cannot see how this throws any doubt on the marriage relationship.

Senator SIMPSON. Well, if we were to provide for a 2-year conditional period, which you suggest, would not the word go quickly out

in the communities, that you should stay married for 2 years to get

this status?

In other words, that would be quite an obvious message. How

would that have helped the witnesses who were here today, or,
88

those other citizens who were duped into marriage? I would like

your views on that.

Mr. CONNER. First of all, the reason we have listed a long series

of loophole-closing amendments in addition to that one, is that this

is not a panacea.

But second of all, speaking as one who has lived with the same

spouse for somewhat over 10 years now, 2 years is a good long time

to keep a marriage going, and so that it would tend to cut down on

the quickie marriage and divorce, but it is not, as I concede, a panacea.

Senator SIMPSON. Mr. Coven, just a few questions, and you can of

course have rebuttal here with your colleague at the table. But

Commissioner Nelson mentions a rate of fraud in these cases of as

much as 30 percent, and the testimony that Mr. Conner shares

with us contains a letter from a New York immigration lawyer

saying that 90 to 95 percent of the marriage cases that came to his

office involved sham marriages.

And yet your testimony pulls that down, down plays that, estimating perhaps 1 or 2 percent of marriage-based visas.

Why do you feel there is such a diversity of opinion on that question?

Mr. COVEN. Well, one, Mr. Chairman if the rate was 30 to 40 percent, then the Immigration Service is not really performing properly, and I do not believe that•I think they are doing a better job

than that, Mr. Chairman.

One, in New York, they conduct fairly extensive interviews and

with reference to the letter sent by the anonymous person, who we

do not know who it is, if he said that all of those cases went

through, I will tell you something: He is doing better than I am

with legitimate cases, because my rate of success on marriage

cases, at the initial stage, is not 100 percent.

On cases which I am sure that the marriage is a valid marriage

and not for immigration purposes, my success rate is not that high,

and there are problems created by the Immigration Service.

They ask very detailed questions and I will say this to you: That

I sometimes am embarrassed by some of the questions put to the

parties by the Immigration Service.

Now I am not saying, Mr. Chairman, that every case submitted

by an attorney or every case submitted by an alien and a citizen is

a valid marriage.

But that 30 to 40 percent, I do not know where they get it from

because I know other statistics show that 95 to 97 percent of the

visa petitions that are filed are approved.

Now it may be that that 30 to 40 percent means both discovered,

also suspected cases. Now I do not think all of the cases that are

fraudulent get through. I do not believe so, and in fact, the testimony by the number of cases that was stopped in New Jersey, that is

a substantial part of the numbers.

They detected 200 that did not go through, so they are doing

their job in that way.

Senator SIMPSON. Let me ask you what it is that you see in the

system today, that presently exists, that makes it likely that an

overburdened and sometimes overwhelmed INS will discover a
89

fraudulent marriage, such as that of our first citizen witness, Ms.

Narielwala?

And if the husband/alien were wise enough to refrain from declaring that his citizen/wife was his ticket to America or his green

card deluxe?

Mr. COVEN. Well, one, in that particular case there was an admission by the person that he did commit the fraud. However, the

burden within the 2-year period is on the alien to prove that the

marriage was a valid marriage and it was not made for immigration purposes.

And I will say this: that they are very difficult cases to defend if

you are in a deportation proceedings. It is a very difficult burden to

overcome.

If the woman comes in and says, "This man married me," or the

man comes in and said, "This woman married me to obtain permanent residence within that period" it is difficult to win the case,

and I would say the courts are full of cases where the spouse has

lost his green card or permanent residence in the United States because of that.

Senator SIMPSON. If the reason for granting spouses our most

very preferred immigrant status is family reunification, husband

and wife reunification, what justification then do you see for

making a permanent grant of residence status to an alien who divorces his wife within a matter of a few months after the marriage?

Is that not sort of a situation which gives a strong argument for

creating some period of conditional status?

Mr. COVEN. Well, I think you have to look at what are you assuming? If we assumed that a majority of the marriages were entered into in good faith and a problem arose after the marriage,

and possibly 1 year after, 1 year and 11 months after, in many

cases the citizen-spouse or the permanent resident alien might be

at fault in that marriage.

I have had cases where, while the application was pending, because of the very frailties of a marriage, a woman would call up

and say withdraw the petition; 3 weeks later come back, put the

petition back in.

I think what happens is that by the very frailties of marriage

and human beings, we are•this is a very personal situation in

many cases. In most cases. And if we are saying that a majority of

the marriages•and nobody is saying that less than the majority of

the marriages are bad marriages. But people get divorced in the

United States.

Unfortunately the divorce rate is very high, approximately 50

percent, and we are sort of ignoring that particular problem.

Now in many cases, if the citizen-spouse is at fault, and they say,

"Well, if this person wants to terminate her marriage, and one of

the ground that she can•the threat that she could have is say

'We're going to get you deported,' " on a marriage that was entered

into for true love and for no other reason, that would, I would say,

put pressure on people. That would sometimes make life more difficult, and I understand in this country we try to make life worth

living, and I feel, Mr. Chairman, that the pressures that are in
90

marriages today, in all marriages, would certainly, the problems

would be heightened.

Senator SIMPSON. Well, just a final question. How about a provision, if we were to, as we pursue this possible legislation, that

would require an alien before being admitted as the fiance of an

American citizen, to have at least met the citizen face to face on

some occasion?

Mr. COVEN. On the fiance petition?

Senator SIMPSON. Yes.

Mr. COVEN. Yes. Well, Mr. Chairman, it is there, it is in the regulations. It is not specifically said but in the regulations

Senator SIMPSON. Yes; I know.

Mr. COVEN [continuing]. It says that

Senator SIMPSON. That ought to be a first thing for true love,

should it not?

Mr. COVEN. The meeting

Senator SIMPSON. That you have met the person face to face

somewhere?

Mr. COVEN. Absolutely. However, that is a factor that first the

Immigration Service must consider and also the consul in reviewing the application must consider.

Interestingly enough, Mr. Chairman, in a fiance petition you

have three or four reviews, the first of the initial filing of the petition with the Immigration Service and the specific question is

asked, have you met the person? Two, the consular interview of the

fiance. And three, after they get married, when they come back,

they are reinterviewed by the Immigration Service to see that they

are, were married.

So there is a lot of protection there.

Senator SIMPSON. Well, I want to thank you very much for sharing with us some very important material and we are going to

pursue it. It is a very vexatious thing to me, and in the 4 years I

have been chairing the subcommittee I think it has kind of been

fascinating for me to get back and listen to things I used to listen

to in 18 years of practicing law, especially with the citizen witnesses.

I did about 1,400 divorces in 20 years of law practice and it just

spirited me back, thoroughly. That was something that was very•

it was not the main part of my practice, certainly, but it was a part

that, where I learned a lot about human beings and their anguish

and pain, and I appreciate those witnesses, more than you know,

appearing here to do that.

I appreciate also hearing how•I think it is a prevalent thing

and I think we had better get into it, and I think we can remedy it.

At least we can prevent people from hauling the garbage to a new

pit, when they do it once, and then do it again, and then do it

again.

So, I appreciate the thoughtful testimony; it was well done. I

think there is a need for legislation. We are going to begin to draft

that.

And since we have been talking about spans of marriages•I

have heard that bandied about, the 10 year and the 20•and I just

see this chick I have been living with for 31 years has wandered in

here, and there she is back there. Married all that time of course.
91

And so, thank you, and I want to thank John Ratigan for the marvelous work he has done here. He leaves me now. He has been here

for 1 year on assignment from the State Department.. He put together this hearing.

He goes back to the Bureau of Refugee Affairs. He has been here

as a Pearson fellow. I do not know Pearson but I know Ratigan and

he is quite a fellow, and I really appreciate, and I thank him for all

he has done. You have been remarkable, John, and especially with

this fine hearing that you presented.

And to all those who assisted, Dick Day and the fine staff of the

subcommittee, I appreciate it, and particularly to these witnesses

on a very provocative area that I am going to pursue. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 11:39 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, subject to call of the Chair.]