Posted on 09/17/2021 6:34:02 AM PDT by Behind Liberal Lines
Appellate justices in Albany on Thursday unanimously reversed a lower court ruling that annulled a marriage based on a man’s claim that his wife married him just to become a U.S. citizen.
The Appellate Division of state Supreme Court’s Third Department determined that the husband, a Cortland County man identified as Travis A., lacked evidence to show that his Filipino wife, identified as Vilma B., fraudulently used him to become a citizen.
The couple met online in February 2018 and became engaged four months later on the first of the man’s two visits to the Philippines, the decision explained.
In April 2019, the woman entered the U.S. on a fiancee visa and moved in with her fiance. They were married that June but, according to the ruling, the marriage quickly deteriorated. The wife moved out less than two weeks after the wedding.
In July 2019, the husband sought a legal annulment. He argued his wife married him “with the sole purpose of becoming a U.S. citizen.” The wife, who denied any fraud, said her husband engaged in domestic violence and that she left for her safety.
In January 2020, following a nonjury trial in Cortland County, acting Supreme Court Justice Julie Campbell annulled the marriage.
The wife appealed, sending the matter before the Third Department, where it was argued last month.
The husband represented himself.
“I was used as a vessel,” the husband told the justices. “Had I known of this prior to the marriage, I never would have been married.”
Presiding Justice Elizabeth Garry, who listened to the arguments with justices Christine Clark, John Egan, Stanley Pritzker and John Colangelo, told the husband the legal standard to get an annulment is significantly higher than that for a divorce.
Jonathan D. Lamberti, who represented the wife, said Campbell’s ruling was unsupported and erroneous. He said the husband was potentially setting a dangerous precedent in which any immigrant spouse who did not leave the country could be accused of immigrant fraud.
In a 5-0 ruling Thursday, justices reversed the lower court decision.
To obtain an annulment, the ruling said, one spouse must prove the other spouse “knowingly made a material false representation” with the intent to induce the other person into marriage.
“The husband’s case of fraud in the inducement was premised upon his claim that the wife induced him to marry through false representations of love and affection for the sole purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit,” Clark said in the decision.
Clark said the husband “ultimately failed to demonstrate that the marital break was due to any cause other than the general discontent and incompatibility of the parties.”
Clark said Campbell erred by, among other things, taking a negative inference against the wife for purportedly exploring relief under the Violence Against Women Act.
By the husband’s own account, his wife had threatened — during their spats — to leave the marriage and return to the Philippines, Clark said. That the woman remained in the country after moving out, she said, is “insufficient to demonstrate that, prior to the marriage, the wife had the intent to induce the husband to marry with the sole objective of obtaining an immigration benefit.”
Upstate bump
Men talk.
Men react.
“Where have all the good men gone?”
I am all for marrying someone from outside of the country, but you need to be careful.
For me, I believe all Christians must marry fellow Christians, and seeing behavior and finding out the past with such people should be transparent for both, leading to a marriage built on trust.
This man had to attest to fully supporting the woman he brought into the country.
I have little sympathy for him. He has to pay his contracted duties.
Weeellllll..... at least he didn’t marry his brother.
They won't do that because you will just get hysterical.
She was a honey trap and he fell in D*%k first I’m sure.. On a side note fillipinos can be quite mean and physical if they get mad...I know one who stabbed a steel door trying to get at her ex who did her wrong... P.S. an annulment sends her home a divorce lets her stay... she USED the big dummie...
i.e. you've got to get an admission on tape.
LOL! :)
My nephew, the son of my wife’s older brother (who is now deceased), was raised Jewish and has a Jewish first name because my BIL was a nominal Catholic and his wife reformed Jewish but Jewish all the same. So the boy was raised in the synagogue, learned Hebrew and all that stuff.
But the home life wasn’t all that great and the boys parents went their separate ways when he was about 6 years old. Of course the boy lived with his mom in a Jewish environment and basically heard nothing positive about Christians in general, catholics in particular.
Once the kid hits 18, mom decides to liberate herself from him so he moves in with his dad. But dad isn’t grounded in any faith so is unable to offer any kind of role model spiritual wise.
So a pissed off Jewish boy living with a basically unchurched dad, long story short the kid converts to Islam. He ends up teaching in a Moslem grade school and marries a girl for for the same reason as the OP, to allow this lady to get into the USA and start to be a citizen. He met her at the wedding and hasn’t seen her since, this was about 5 years ago.
We are not in communications with them and really don’t want to know about it but it is easy to see that someday or maybe even now my nephews wife starts pumping out the kiddos with another man and my nephew is on the hook for monies and support. Hard to understand what some people will do.
two weeks...
I married a woman from the Philippines six years ago and I know something about the law in this area. The visa she would have received was for 90 days which would be converted to a two-year visa if they got married, on the the condition they stay married. However there is a way to not stay together and for the woman to legally stay in the USA. And that is domestic violence. That is the law here. And to nail that point home, that lady would not have been allowed to leave The Philippines without attending some domestic violence seminar. The Philippines government require their citizens on these types of visas going abroad to learn of their rights in their country of destination.
Long story short, if the man threatened her with violence or hit her she can bail and stay in the USA. And she and every other woman from The Philippines knows it.
If he did it he’s a dumb A$$. If not, he’s an unfortunate sucker.
Is the court setting an impossible burden of proof here? Unless the man has some video or written evidence of her wanting to become a citizen prior to the marriage, I do not see how it would be even possible to meet this evidence requirement.
Further, If the husband did know that was her intent prior to the marriage, wouldn’t he also be at risk for immigration fraud charges?
” However there is a way to not stay together and for the woman to legally stay in the USA. And that is domestic violence. “
I had a neighbor that was married to a Korean woman. Shortly after arriving in the States, she would hit him then call the police when he defended himself.
Luckly for him, the neighbors witness the attacks and were able to testify on his behalf in court. She tried claiming domestic violence but lost. She was deported back to Korea.
If you bring a woman into the USA, the man must sign an affidavit of support that is for 10 years.
The support is a contract an individual signs agreeing to use their financial resources to support the intending immigrant named on the affidavit.
Of course all she has to do is claim that he hit her. Even if he didn’t. He is guilty unless he can prove himself innocent.
The “Move to America, claim domestic violence, get saved by the VAWA” is a tried and true scam for staying in the country. Anyone who reads VisaJourney.com could tell you about it, as it’s quite popular.
the “support for 10 years” is a popular trope that’s not quite true.
What you sign is a form saying that if your foreign fiance/spouse receives “means adjusted” support from the government. (AKA welfare), that you’ll reimburse the government for it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.