Michael

Their wed of deceit unraveled

53% denied green cards




By LESLIE CASIMIR
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Even if the bride wore white, there's no guarantee of the green.
More than half of all green card applications stemming from marriages
to U.S. citizens in 2001 were denied by immigration officers, a top
U.S. official told the Daily News.

Of the 17,900 marriage-based petitions processed in fiscal year 2003,
9,500 were denied, or a record 53%, said Mary Ann Gantner, interim
director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services'
district in New York. The year before, 30% were denied.

"We've done a significant amount of training in the last year with our
officers so they are better able to detect fraudulent documents and
phony marriages," said Gantner, who beefed up her interviewing staff
in New York to 40 from 32.

Of those denied green cards in 2003, 11% of the couples were caught
lying in their interviews, tripping up on some of the most mundane
details of married life, interview officers reported.

For example, some people couldn't say how many bedrooms were in their
apartments, how their spouses got to and from work, or even where the
in-laws lived, Gantner said. The sham marriage participants now face
deportation and hefty fines.

Others who were rejected simply got cold feet, and never showed up for
interviews with immigrations officials. There is generally a two-year
lag between weddings and processing of marriage-based green card
applications.

Gantner said the bulk of those rejected were part of the stampede to
the city clerk's office in 2001, when long lines of immigrants wrapped
around the marriage license bureau at 1 Centre St.

The rush was set off when an immigration law was temporarily
reinstated by Congress allowing undocumented immigrants - who normally
would have to go back home and wait several years - to apply for green
cards based on family relationships and employer sponsorship.

Marriage to a U.S. citizen is the simplest and fastest way for an
unskilled worker - such as a janitor or nanny - to gain legal
residency.

And marriage remains the most popular way to get a green card,
representing the bulk of applications received in the New York
district, Gantner said.

"People are scared, people are desperate," said Marcia Needleman, a
Manhattan immigration attorney, who discourages her clients from
taking part in phony marriages.

Gantner said she does not feel sorry for those who commit fraud. "My
sympathies lie more with the individual who is waiting in their home
country - waiting in line - doing things legally," she said.

Originally published on November 24, 2003

Leslie

This has already been done.

meauxna

>QUOTE]Originally posted by Michael

By LESLIE CASIMIR
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
<snip>
Others who were rejected simply got cold feet, and never showed up for
interviews with immigrations officials. <snip>[/QUOTE<

Great reporting...(not). Another conclusion is that "they never received their notice, and never showed up for interviews..."

Not to mention the numbers of those who left the country (sometimes with their spouse) and merely abandoned the application.

Statistics never lie. Unless they do.

Caro

You can make numbers tell about anything to support any theory!

Caroline

claudia13839

EXCELLENT POINT !!! I bet you a million dollars that more than a few people never showed up for the interview because they simply didn't get the darn appointment letter in the mail.

~Claudia

Folinskyinla

Hi:

The figures show that less than 6% of the filings were found to be "fraudulent."

Of those actually interviewed, less than 9%.

Also, the "245(i)" deadline caused a race to the courthouse to get married before 4-30-2001 and get those applications in -- there were probably relationships that would have continued without marriage but for the deadline -- and many such marriages did not survive.

Aslo, as noted elsewhere, I wonder how many were denied due to lack of notice.

Of course, the article does NOT note that 91% per cent of those who pursued their applications were perfectly bona fide and approved.

Michael

Folinskyinla <member4043@british_expats.com> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > Originally posted by Michael
    > >
    >
    >
    > The figures show that less than 6% of the filings were found to be
    > "fraudulent."
    > Of those actually interviewed, less than 9%.
    >
    >
This article says nothing of the sort. Looks like you are lying as
usual Foliksymbola.

ukemigrant

Michael, if you do the math:

Of 17900 applications, 9500 were denied. Of those denied (the 9500), 11% were fraudulent, giving approx 1045. Co-incidentally, 1045 is approximately 6% of the total 17900 applications which were made.

If you're going to attack Foly, at least find something relevant to attack on...or better yet, just be nice

Sam.

Leslie

Michael you are such a loser with an obvious ax to grind. What happened? Did some cutie scam the living shit out of you? If you say one more nasty thing about Folinsky, I will hunt you down and kick you until you die.

Leslie

Folinskyinla

Hi:

I'm wondering if I should thank you for the thought? He obviously doesn't like me, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

Mrtravel

Michael wrote:

    > Folinskyinla <member4043@british_expats.com> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    >
    >>Originally posted by Michael
    >>The figures show that less than 6% of the filings were found to be
    >>"fraudulent."
    >>Of those actually interviewed, less than 9%.
    >
    > This article says nothing of the sort. Looks like you are lying as
    > usual Foliksymbola.

I think it said 53 percent were false and 11 percent of the false ones
were due to outright lying. That would come to about 6 percent of the
total filings.

Did you flunk math? 11 percent of 53 percent is about 6 percent of 100
percent.

Folinskyinla

Hi:

As pure speculation, I wonder how many of the "fraudulent" applications were for marriages that were valid in the inception, but the people were no longer living together.

I have had several of these cases. Because the case takes so long, the couple has separated but has not divorced. If the US citizen is willing to sign off on the I-864, this is perfectly fine and will support a green card approval.

However, many applicants who don't have lawyers are not aware of this and then lie about living together. A lie is a bad move in general -- but it is a stupid move when it is not necessary!

I've seen enough of these that it MAY have an appreciable effect on those percntages.

BTW, there is a typo about the 53% , but one obvious from context.