Marriage Fraud: she disappeared with Permanent Residency (10 yrs.)

[pushbrk 12,106]

He said/She said can be quite enlightening to the readers.

If both are interested in learning, and not just proving their point...............

I absolutely agree, but it can be hard to tell, sometimes.

It can be. However, there are times when either or both sides feel strongly that their point is critical to understanding an issue. People often mistake this for one or both attempting to convince the other. In my case, nothing could be further from the truth. I'm writing for the reader's information, not to convince an opponent in a debate, but rather to assure the reader has enough information to make what for them, will be a wise choice. I think this is best done by clearly understanding the results to be achieved by the various choices available.

Back on topic, I think this OP can choose whether or to what extent to attempt to involve the USCIS in his family issues but that he would be unwise to expect his attempts to involve them to result in any penalty to his wife or release from I-864 obligations, unless there's a whole lot more going on than some suspect motives upon her arrival. If there is more going on, then he would need to gather some concrete evidence before altering his expectations.

Feeling strongly about a point doesn't make it a point that will be helpful or informative to the reader.

Well, people have a tendancy to quite often think their opinion is the most important but this isn't adding to the on topic discussion one bit. Generally comments like, "This is not necessarily so." without a suggested alternative, are counter productive, so their ommission is usually the more effective alternative.

"Opinions vary" makes your same point.

[Alt name 1]

Mags, actually it was me who suggested that a "he said she said" battle with immigration court might be a long, protracted waste of time. There is currently a 2-year wait on case reviews in immigration court and I was merely suggesting to the OP that it might be better to cut losses at this point then fight any support issues that may come up later. Otherwise, I didnt intend to muddy any issues and have sympathy for the OP

Regards,

David and Nitadyah

And I can't resist saying that DM is absolutely correct. We can't be certain the OP is even reading the thread at this point but the discussion is both civil, and on topic.

We can't be certain that any OP of any thread is reading them, but we shouldn't assume they aren't or won't come back at some point to see if there is any advice worth taking. And at no point have I said that either of you have been uncivil.

He said, she said. I understand that there is validity in correcting misinformation in threads here and of course I'm all for it as a rule. But in this particular case it is taking over the whole thread and, if I was the OP, I'd be thoroughly confused by now. I can see this discussion going on until the cows come home and still achieving nothing.

I'm going to ask that you both chill out and take a step away from this thread now. Thanks.

Mags,

In all due respect, I think this discussion is germane to the OP's questions. Pushbrk's words "he said, she said" relate to the USC and the alien's version of why the marriage ended...it is not a reference to what I have said and what he is saying.

To ask us to step away from this thread is wholly inappropriate, firstly and doing the OP a disservice as well. We are discussing the likelihood that anything the OP would report to USCIS would bring about results.

Actually, my useage of the terms "he said, she said" were in reference to you and Pushbrk and not Pushbrk's quote. I wholly understand WHY you are both discussing this and at no point have I mentioned that you were being rude or uncivil...because you weren't.

However, there comes a point when two people have completely taken over a thread and there is constant back and forthing - this gets confusing and can make it hard to weedle out any useable information. THAT'S why I posted what I did.

I actually value both of you here on VJ, you both provide a different aspect to VJ and are both informative, however I must just clarify that the reason I asked you both to take a breather is simply because it was taking over the thread - not due to any lack or civility or similar behaviour.

Perhaps, in the future, when quoting each other it might be best to remove all but the previous quote, this can makes things a bit clearer and can seem less cluttered when reading.

[diadromous mermaid 36]

And I can't resist saying that DM is absolutely correct. We can't be certain the OP is even reading the thread at this point but the discussion is both civil, and on topic.

We can't be certain that any OP of any thread is reading them, but we shouldn't assume they aren't or won't come back at some point to see if there is any advice worth taking. And at no point have I said that either of you have been uncivil.

He said, she said. I understand that there is validity in correcting misinformation in threads here and of course I'm all for it as a rule. But in this particular case it is taking over the whole thread and, if I was the OP, I'd be thoroughly confused by now. I can see this discussion going on until the cows come home and still achieving nothing.

I'm going to ask that you both chill out and take a step away from this thread now. Thanks.

Mags,

In all due respect, I think this discussion is germane to the OP's questions. Pushbrk's words "he said, she said" relate to the USC and the alien's version of why the marriage ended...it is not a reference to what I have said and what he is saying.

To ask us to step away from this thread is wholly inappropriate, firstly and doing the OP a disservice as well. We are discussing the likelihood that anything the OP would report to USCIS would bring about results.

Actually, my useage of the terms "he said, she said" were in reference to you and Pushbrk and not Pushbrk's quote. I wholly understand WHY you are both discussing this and at no point have I mentioned that you were being rude or uncivil...because you weren't.

However, there comes a point when two people have completely taken over a thread and there is constant back and forthing - this gets confusing and can make it hard to weedle out any useable information. THAT'S why I posted what I did.

I actually value both of you here on VJ, you both provide a different aspect to VJ and are both informative, however I must just clarify that the reason I asked you both to take a breather is simply because it was taking over the thread - not due to any lack or civility or similar behaviour.

Perhaps, in the future, when quoting each other it might be best to remove all but the previous quote, this can makes things a bit clearer and can seem less cluttered when reading.

Well, I'm shocked at your response, Mags. I'll offer this for contemplation, Mags, and quite frankly, after this commentary I can't see much reason in continuing to participate in a forum if one is limited in the number of responses one should post. After all, isn't that the whole premise of a site like VJ? To encourage discourse and to offer direction to a member?

If this had been banter back and forth that was completely off topic, I could understand intervention and a request to decease. And further, if you peruse other threads on VJ, if it had been completely off topic, chances are it would have been overlooked! But since it is ON TOPIC, but between primarily two members, and not more, then it is disallowed. Quite possibly it was a case that no other members had much else to offer. Quite possibly, it was that I was asked for my imput! But to have offered it and then be cautioned for participating is a bit much.

Regardless, if this isn't the most wishy-washy position to take, I don't know what is. I'm gobsmacked.

[pushbrk 12,106]

And I can't resist saying that DM is absolutely correct. We can't be certain the OP is even reading the thread at this point but the discussion is both civil, and on topic.

We can't be certain that any OP of any thread is reading them, but we shouldn't assume they aren't or won't come back at some point to see if there is any advice worth taking. And at no point have I said that either of you have been uncivil.

He said, she said. I understand that there is validity in correcting misinformation in threads here and of course I'm all for it as a rule. But in this particular case it is taking over the whole thread and, if I was the OP, I'd be thoroughly confused by now. I can see this discussion going on until the cows come home and still achieving nothing.

I'm going to ask that you both chill out and take a step away from this thread now. Thanks.

Mags,

In all due respect, I think this discussion is germane to the OP's questions. Pushbrk's words "he said, she said" relate to the USC and the alien's version of why the marriage ended...it is not a reference to what I have said and what he is saying.

To ask us to step away from this thread is wholly inappropriate, firstly and doing the OP a disservice as well. We are discussing the likelihood that anything the OP would report to USCIS would bring about results.

Actually, my useage of the terms "he said, she said" were in reference to you and Pushbrk and not Pushbrk's quote. I wholly understand WHY you are both discussing this and at no point have I mentioned that you were being rude or uncivil...because you weren't.

However, there comes a point when two people have completely taken over a thread and there is constant back and forthing - this gets confusing and can make it hard to weedle out any useable information. THAT'S why I posted what I did.

I actually value both of you here on VJ, you both provide a different aspect to VJ and are both informative, however I must just clarify that the reason I asked you both to take a breather is simply because it was taking over the thread - not due to any lack or civility or similar behaviour.

Perhaps, in the future, when quoting each other it might be best to remove all but the previous quote, this can makes things a bit clearer and can seem less cluttered when reading.

Well, I'm shocked at your response, Mags. I'll offer this for contemplation, Mags, and quite frankly, after this commentary I can't see much reason in continuing to participate in a forum if one is limited in the number of responses one should post. After all, isn't that the whole premise of a site like VJ? To encourage discourse and to offer direction to a member?

If this had been banter back and forth that was completely off topic, I could understand intervention and a request to decease. And further, if you peruse other threads on VJ, if it had been completely off topic, chances are it would have been overlooked! But since it is ON TOPIC, but between primarily two members, and not more, then it is disallowed. Quite possibly it was a case that no other members had much else to offer. Quite possibly, it was that I was asked for my imput! But to have offered it and then be cautioned for participating is a bit much.

Regardless, if this isn't the most wishy-washy position to take, I don't know what is. I'm gobsmacked.

Gobsmacked. I like it. I'm questioning my motivation to participate as well. You want two people to stop dominating an on topic discussion (as if we had any control over who else participates) but blatant personal attacks seem perfectly acceptable. Time to get some consistency of courage or lose meaningful participation.

Actually, I think the on topic discussion had runs its course without any babysitting.

It makes me wonder just what it IS valued on VJ. If it's not about helping people through the immigration process, but rather about territorialism and posting quotas, I'm outa here. So, CAPTAIN EWOK, what is it YOU value.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

[Mags 112]

And I can't resist saying that DM is absolutely correct. We can't be certain the OP is even reading the thread at this point but the discussion is both civil, and on topic.

We can't be certain that any OP of any thread is reading them, but we shouldn't assume they aren't or won't come back at some point to see if there is any advice worth taking. And at no point have I said that either of you have been uncivil.

He said, she said. I understand that there is validity in correcting misinformation in threads here and of course I'm all for it as a rule. But in this particular case it is taking over the whole thread and, if I was the OP, I'd be thoroughly confused by now. I can see this discussion going on until the cows come home and still achieving nothing.

I'm going to ask that you both chill out and take a step away from this thread now. Thanks.

Mags,

In all due respect, I think this discussion is germane to the OP's questions. Pushbrk's words "he said, she said" relate to the USC and the alien's version of why the marriage ended...it is not a reference to what I have said and what he is saying.

To ask us to step away from this thread is wholly inappropriate, firstly and doing the OP a disservice as well. We are discussing the likelihood that anything the OP would report to USCIS would bring about results.

Actually, my useage of the terms "he said, she said" were in reference to you and Pushbrk and not Pushbrk's quote. I wholly understand WHY you are both discussing this and at no point have I mentioned that you were being rude or uncivil...because you weren't.

However, there comes a point when two people have completely taken over a thread and there is constant back and forthing - this gets confusing and can make it hard to weedle out any useable information. THAT'S why I posted what I did.

I actually value both of you here on VJ, you both provide a different aspect to VJ and are both informative, however I must just clarify that the reason I asked you both to take a breather is simply because it was taking over the thread - not due to any lack or civility or similar behaviour.

Perhaps, in the future, when quoting each other it might be best to remove all but the previous quote, this can makes things a bit clearer and can seem less cluttered when reading.

Well, I'm shocked at your response, Mags. I'll offer this for contemplation, Mags, and quite frankly, after this commentary I can't see much reason in continuing to participate in a forum if one is limited in the number of responses one should post. After all, isn't that the whole premise of a site like VJ? To encourage discourse and to offer direction to a member?

If this had been banter back and forth that was completely off topic, I could understand intervention and a request to decease. And further, if you peruse other threads on VJ, if it had been completely off topic, chances are it would have been overlooked! But since it is ON TOPIC, but between primarily two members, and not more, then it is disallowed. Quite possibly it was a case that no other members had much else to offer. Quite possibly, it was that I was asked for my imput! But to have offered it and then be cautioned for participating is a bit much.

Regardless, if this isn't the most wishy-washy position to take, I don't know what is. I'm gobsmacked.

Once more I will stress that I added my comment purely for the OP and clarity in this thread, hence my previous suggestions. Nothing more.

Edited January 1, 2008 by Mags

[diadromous mermaid 36]

And I can't resist saying that DM is absolutely correct. We can't be certain the OP is even reading the thread at this point but the discussion is both civil, and on topic.

We can't be certain that any OP of any thread is reading them, but we shouldn't assume they aren't or won't come back at some point to see if there is any advice worth taking. And at no point have I said that either of you have been uncivil.

He said, she said. I understand that there is validity in correcting misinformation in threads here and of course I'm all for it as a rule. But in this particular case it is taking over the whole thread and, if I was the OP, I'd be thoroughly confused by now. I can see this discussion going on until the cows come home and still achieving nothing.

I'm going to ask that you both chill out and take a step away from this thread now. Thanks.

Mags,

In all due respect, I think this discussion is germane to the OP's questions. Pushbrk's words "he said, she said" relate to the USC and the alien's version of why the marriage ended...it is not a reference to what I have said and what he is saying.

To ask us to step away from this thread is wholly inappropriate, firstly and doing the OP a disservice as well. We are discussing the likelihood that anything the OP would report to USCIS would bring about results.

Actually, my useage of the terms "he said, she said" were in reference to you and Pushbrk and not Pushbrk's quote. I wholly understand WHY you are both discussing this and at no point have I mentioned that you were being rude or uncivil...because you weren't.

However, there comes a point when two people have completely taken over a thread and there is constant back and forthing - this gets confusing and can make it hard to weedle out any useable information. THAT'S why I posted what I did.

I actually value both of you here on VJ, you both provide a different aspect to VJ and are both informative, however I must just clarify that the reason I asked you both to take a breather is simply because it was taking over the thread - not due to any lack or civility or similar behaviour.

Perhaps, in the future, when quoting each other it might be best to remove all but the previous quote, this can makes things a bit clearer and can seem less cluttered when reading.

Well, I'm shocked at your response, Mags. I'll offer this for contemplation, Mags, and quite frankly, after this commentary I can't see much reason in continuing to participate in a forum if one is limited in the number of responses one should post. After all, isn't that the whole premise of a site like VJ? To encourage discourse and to offer direction to a member?

If this had been banter back and forth that was completely off topic, I could understand intervention and a request to decease. And further, if you peruse other threads on VJ, if it had been completely off topic, chances are it would have been overlooked! But since it is ON TOPIC, but between primarily two members, and not more, then it is disallowed. Quite possibly it was a case that no other members had much else to offer. Quite possibly, it was that I was asked for my imput! But to have offered it and then be cautioned for participating is a bit much.

Regardless, if this isn't the most wishy-washy position to take, I don't know what is. I'm gobsmacked.

Once more I will stress that I added my comment purely for the OP and clarity in this thread, hence my previous suggestions. Nothing more.

Mags,

I'm not wishing to pick apart this issue...but, if you made the choices you did to maintain clarity, what was unclear? We were discussing on topic, and I can't imagine the OP not being able to follow the line of discussion. However, if he had come back to query, I can understand your intervention. You were speculating that he'd find it difficult. But without the OP suggesting that he was finding the topic difficult to follow, isn't that being a bit overreaching as an Admin? And if it is the case that each topic should only flow in one very clear direction and in concert with the original question, how do you propose that 90% of the discussions on this site manage to veer from that? I've seen oodles of threads go from a discussion about point A into wagers on who's going to win a fight, popcorn offerings and the likes. How come you took such a stand here?

Anyway....

The OP asked for suggestions on proven methods. Pushbrk and I were offering his point of view and my personal experience with regard to what USCIS deems compelling enough to launch an investigation ex facto. I'd say that is clearly valuable and 'spot on' information.

And in closing, (as is suspect I shan't spend much time on VJ after this) I have contributed to this thread for a very important reason. Actually my participation on VJ, as a whole, has been focused on this forum...for a very crucial reason.

To all that would be inclined to claim that USCIS does little to feret out individual cases that involve marriage fraud, think again!

[mawilson 2,133]

This basically sums it up pretty accurately:

An allegation isn't enough to result in a revocation. The immigrant has rights and USCIS has to prove the allegation in court. Suspicions and he said, she said evidence rarely results in a deportation order. The service knows this and so doesn't waste time on investigations and court costs unless there's far more to go on than one party's suspicion.

Although it's possible, in theory, to get someone's green card revoked, it would take some pretty

damn strong evidence to convince USCIS to even look at it. "I don't like her anymore, she's a fraud"

is not gonna cut it.

[Aussielad 37]

clearly valuable and 'spot on' information.

And in closing, (as is suspect I shan't spend much time on VJ after this) I have contributed to this thread for a very important reason. Actually my participation on VJ, as a whole, has been focused on this forum...for a very crucial reason.

To all that would be inclined to claim that USCIS does little to feret out individual cases that involve marriage fraud, think again!

what is your crucial reason??? not to be rude or anything, but have you yourself passed through the experience and know what it's like??? (just asking a civil question, not to offend) or do you yourself work for or have worked for USCIS???

*smiles at the mermaid*

[diadromous mermaid 36]

clearly valuable and 'spot on' information.

And in closing, (as is suspect I shan't spend much time on VJ after this) I have contributed to this thread for a very important reason. Actually my participation on VJ, as a whole, has been focused on this forum...for a very crucial reason.

To all that would be inclined to claim that USCIS does little to feret out individual cases that involve marriage fraud, think again!

what is your crucial reason??? not to be rude or anything, but have you yourself passed through the experience and know what it's like??? (just asking a civil question, not to offend) or do you yourself work for or have worked for USCIS???

*smiles at the mermaid*

Yes, that's why I take those to task that post without experience.

[pushbrk 12,106]

clearly valuable and 'spot on' information.

And in closing, (as is suspect I shan't spend much time on VJ after this) I have contributed to this thread for a very important reason. Actually my participation on VJ, as a whole, has been focused on this forum...for a very crucial reason.

To all that would be inclined to claim that USCIS does little to feret out individual cases that involve marriage fraud, think again!

what is your crucial reason??? not to be rude or anything, but have you yourself passed through the experience and know what it's like??? (just asking a civil question, not to offend) or do you yourself work for or have worked for USCIS???

*smiles at the mermaid*

Yes, that's why I take those to task that post without experience.

It would be far easier to understand where you were coming from, if you would give any specific example. All you've indicated is the cryptic, "written" evidence. We/I can use our imaginations but apparently you don't need to. Won't you help us understand any specific example that supports your assertion? Your "yes" answer to the above "or" question isn't helpful either. As in, "Are you a man or a woman"? Answer, "Yes".

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

clearly valuable and 'spot on' information.

And in closing, (as is suspect I shan't spend much time on VJ after this) I have contributed to this thread for a very important reason. Actually my participation on VJ, as a whole, has been focused on this forum...for a very crucial reason.

To all that would be inclined to claim that USCIS does little to feret out individual cases that involve marriage fraud, think again!

what is your crucial reason??? not to be rude or anything, but have you yourself passed through the experience and know what it's like??? (just asking a civil question, not to offend) or do you yourself work for or have worked for USCIS???

*smiles at the mermaid*

Yes, that's why I take those to task that post without experience.

It would be far easier to understand where you were coming from, if you would give any specific example. All you've indicated is the cryptic, "written" evidence. We/I can use our imaginations but apparently you don't need to. Won't you help us understand any specific example that supports your assertion? Your "yes" answer to the above "or" question isn't helpful either. As in, "Are you a man or a woman"? Answer, "Yes".

I'd like to speak up for te Mermaid (without speaking for her) on this one because perhaps she isn't well known to you.

DM has been a member of this community for some time. Someone referred yesterday (in another post - now deleted) to persons either no longer participating here, or who rarely visit. Mermaid is part of that group. As I mentioned yesterday, each of these individuals usually had an area of expertise by virtue of their experience or by study of that area. In the past, some latitude was afforded these members simply because others in the community trusted their experience and counsel. This is the respect for other members I believe was alluded to yesterday. Within any real-life or virtual community of students, there end up being people you trust that what they are saying is factual.

I'm not saying one should flatly take someone at their word. BUT - there are times when privacy should be respected. It's up to DM what she discloses here.

There are just times when a link or a soul-baring confession should not be necessary. I hope that is something you can relate to and afford to others in this community.

Edited January 2, 2008 by JohnnyQuest

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

****

Edited January 2, 2008 by JohnnyQuest

[pushbrk 12,106]

clearly valuable and 'spot on' information.

And in closing, (as is suspect I shan't spend much time on VJ after this) I have contributed to this thread for a very important reason. Actually my participation on VJ, as a whole, has been focused on this forum...for a very crucial reason.

To all that would be inclined to claim that USCIS does little to feret out individual cases that involve marriage fraud, think again!

what is your crucial reason??? not to be rude or anything, but have you yourself passed through the experience and know what it's like??? (just asking a civil question, not to offend) or do you yourself work for or have worked for USCIS???

*smiles at the mermaid*

Yes, that's why I take those to task that post without experience.

It would be far easier to understand where you were coming from, if you would give any specific example. All you've indicated is the cryptic, "written" evidence. We/I can use our imaginations but apparently you don't need to. Won't you help us understand any specific example that supports your assertion? Your "yes" answer to the above "or" question isn't helpful either. As in, "Are you a man or a woman"? Answer, "Yes".

I'd like to speak up for te Mermaid (without speaking for her) on this one because perhaps she isn't well known to you.

DM has been a member of this community for some time. Someone referred yesterday (in another post - now deleted) to persons either no longer participating here, or who rarely visit. Mermaid is part of that group. As I mentioned yesterday, each of these individuals usually had an area of expertise by virtue of their experience or by study of that area. In the past, some latitude was afforded these members simply because others in the community trusted their experience and counsel. This is the respect for other members I believe was alluded to yesterday. Within any real-life or virtual community of students, there end up being people you trust that what they are saying is factual.

I'm not saying one should flatly take someone at their word. BUT - there are times when privacy should be respected. It's up to DM what she discloses here.

There are just times when a link or a soul-baring confession should not be necessary. I hope that is something you can relate to and afford to others in this community.

Respecting privacy isn't a problem. However, DM hasn't indicated there's a privacy issue preventing her from providing context to her assertions by providing an example. One cannot have it both ways. "Trust me. I know what I'm talking about." just doesn't hold water when, in my experience (by that I mean the experiences others have shared with me) An allegation isn't enough to result in a revocation. The immigrant has rights and USCIS has to prove the allegation in court. Suspicions and he said, she said evidence rarely results in a deportation order. The service knows this and so doesn't waste time on investigations and court costs unless there's far more to go on than one party's suspicion.

I don't think I or anybody else would disagree that USCIS cares about and investigates "Marriage Fraud" cases but we're talking about an unconditional LPR and a spouse that thought the relationship was "suspect" after her arrival even though the marriage had endured more than two years.

Edited January 3, 2008 by pushbrk

[rebeccajo 14]

There's something kinda bugging me about this I'd like to throw out there.

What difference does it make - and I'm not being a smarta$$ - if the marriage is past the two year point, or that it was blessed by a consular officer? If I have read this case correctly, the marriage was spent with the husband and wife mostly living apart in a long distance relationship. Correct me if I am wrong.

I remember googling (ages ago) about LDR's for greencards. I tried to find the article again and I apologize that I can't find it now. At any rate, I recall having read that the duration of a relationship is statistically moot when it comes to marriage fraud. The writer of that paper stated that the time spent on a relationship really meant nothing to a desperate fraudster. It takes time to cultivate and groom the innocent petitioner. To start over with someone else would mean a waste of time invested on the first person, and more time lost on finding someone else to bring them to the US. The expert in the piece I read claimed it made more sense to the intending immigrant to stick with the 'sucker' they already had on the hook.

As far as the CO's blessing of the marriage via the visa - I really don't believe that holds a lot of weight insofar as some sort of 'relationship validation'. CO's go on what is hand-carried to them by the beneficiary, who stands to benefit by producing whatever evidence will get them their visa. If the CO has the paperwork necessary to mark their file, and they aren't getting 'cultural vibes' to ding 'red flag' bells, they'll approve the visa. They aren't omnipotent and they can be duped - CR1, K3 or K1. I even recall seeing a thread here where members were queried as to how little evidence of the relationship they sent in with successful I-130 files. I think we can agree here that in many cases, the bar is fairly low for evidence of the bonafides.

Soooooooo.......it makes sense to me that if a beneficiary flees within a few weeks of arrival, the service might well be interested in locating that person. If anything, the length of time they put into their 'marriage' and the 'evidence' they produced for the visa interview might well be just they evidence needed against them in such a scenario.

Edited January 3, 2008 by rebeccajo

[pushbrk 12,106]

There's something kinda bugging me about this I'd like to throw out there.

What difference does it make - and I'm not being a smarta$$ - if the marriage is past the two year point, or that it was blessed by a consular officer? If I have read this case correctly, the marriage was spent with the husband and wife mostly living apart in a long distance relationship. Correct me if I am wrong.

I remember googling (ages ago) about LDR's for greencards. I tried to find the article again and I apologize that I can't find it now. At any rate, I recall having read that the duration of a relationship is statistically moot when it comes to marriage fraud. The writer of that paper stated that the time spent on a relationship really meant nothing to a desperate fraudster. It takes time to cultivate and groom the innocent petitioner. To start over with someone else would mean a waste of time invested on the first person, and more time lost on finding someone else to bring them to the US. The expert in the piece I read claimed it made more sense to the intending immigrant to stick with the 'sucker' they already had on the hook.

As far as the CO's blessing of the marriage via the visa - I really don't believe that holds a lot of weight insofar as some sort of 'relationship validation'. CO's go on what is hand-carried to them by the beneficiary, who stands to benefit by producing whatever evidence will get them their visa. If the CO has the paperwork necessary to mark their file, and they aren't getting 'cultural vibes' to ding 'red flag' bells, they'll approve the visa. They aren't omnipotent and they can be duped - CR1, K3 or K1. I even recall seeing a thread here where members were queried as to how little evidence of the relationship they sent in with successful I-130 files. I think we can agree here that in many cases, the bar is fairly low for evidence of the bonafides.

Soooooooo.......it makes sense to me that if a beneficiary flees within a few weeks of arrival, the service might well be interested in locating that person. If anything, the length of time they put into their 'marriage' and the 'evidence' they produced for the visa interview might well be just they evidence needed against them in such a scenario.

The only significance I attach to the two year mark is that the result is an IR1 visa and non-conditional LPR status. I also don't doubt the service would be interested in locating this person if there were something far more significant to go on that what has been disclosed. I agree that time in the marriage COULD work against them IF some other significant evidence of marriage fraud were presented.

So far, it's nothing more than he said he thought the relationship suspect as soon as she arrived and she can say anything she wants, like, "After living with the man for two weeks, I decided we couldn't make it work." These things do happen, so without something else to go on, the woman has LRP rights and they have to drop it. They know this, so absent more evidence, they do nothing. That's the way I see THIS situation.

I'm aware of another couple where not only was the relationship suspect upon arrival but her emails to her USC sugar daddy boyfriend she was sneaking out to sleep with and take money from were presented to USCIS. The couple is now divorced, and this was only a two year LPR status but USCIS has done nothing. This is just one of many. Surely other members are aware of similar cases.