首先老貓需要向您道歉，昨天上客之間匆匆忙忙回打您的帖子，老貓只想到終審權的問題並未仔細研究您的情況，所以給予您一個可能有錯誤的答覆，希望您能夠多多包容!
您的案件老貓找到一個相似的案例，在2003年加州 Xiao Ling LU, v.Victor TU, Respondent的案件中 (詳細的案情如下， 相當長)， 法官引用的理想是如果證據能證明對方的目的只是騙取綠卡根據加州的婚姻法，這個婚姻是無效的婚姻。
原文如下:
A marriage may be judged a nullity if "[t]he consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless the party whose consent was obtained by fraud afterwards, with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, freely cohabited with the other as hu*****and or wife." (Fam.Code, § 2210, subd. (d).) Immigration fraud like that alleged here will support an annulment.
(詳細的案情如下， 相當長，有興趣可以看看)
A United States citizen who resided in the Bay Area, testified that the parties were married in China on February 17, 2000, but never lived together thereafter. He said that the marriage was arranged by appellant's brother, Horace Lu. He went to China to meet appellant in response to an advertisement placed by Horace, who handled the documentation for the marriage. He said that he and appellant liked each other when they met, that he wanted to take on a wife, and that he expected to receive a dowry from the marriage. He returned to the United States after two weeks in China, and petitioned to have appellant enter the United States as his spouse, with the expectation that appellant would join him here within a year.
Respondent thought that appellant immigrated to the United States in 2001; he did not know the date because she went to live with Horace after she arrived. After appellant arrived in the United States, respondent discovered that she had married him only to obtain a "green card." He said that when he insisted that appellant come live with him, she and Horace offered to pay him $15,000. He said that he and appellant never had sexual relations, and that he would not have married her if he had known that she would not live with him as his wife. In June 2001, he wrote a letter to the Immigration and Naturalization Service reporting that his marriage to appellant was a sham, and charging appellant and Horace with fraud. These allegations were retracted in a November 2001 letter from respondent to the INS, but he said that appellant wrote this letter.
Appellant testified that she was introduced to respondent through Horace, that Horace described respondent as a friend, and that she never heard of any deal between Horace and respondent. She said that Horace picked her up at the airport when she arrived in the United States in January 2001, but that she went to live with respondent the next day. After a month she began auditing classes at San Jose State; during that time, she lived with Horace during the school week and returned to respondent's home on the weekends. After she stopped attending school around May 2001, she lived full-time with respondent until they separated in February 2002, after an incident of domestic violence when police were called to their residence. She said that she and respondent had sex; she described a scar on his back, and he admitted having the scar.
*2 After respondent testified that appellant had never been in his house or bedroom, appellant produced photographs of them in bed in pajamas. Respondent said that these photos were staged to bolster appellant's position with the INS. He had the same explanation for photos taken of them at tourist attractions, and at his nephew's high school graduation. He acknowledged going to Reno with appellant in November 2001 and staying with her in one room, but said that she had slept on the floor on that occasion. He admitted signing a police report for the February 2002 incident stating that he had grabbed appellant by the neck, but said he had not understood what he was signing. He admitted executing a post-marital agreement he had commissioned stating that "the parties entered into a legal marriage under the laws of the State of California on February 17, 2000." Appellant's counsel argued to the court that respondent's testimony was not credible.
The court entered its order finding the marriage a nullity on March 5, 2003.
您的案件老貓找到一個相似的案例，在2003年加州 Xiao Ling LU, v.Victor TU, Respondent的案件中 (詳細的案情如下， 相當長)， 法官引用的理想是如果證據能證明對方的目的只是騙取綠卡根據加州的婚姻法，這個婚姻是無效的婚姻。
原文如下:
A marriage may be judged a nullity if "[t]he consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless the party whose consent was obtained by fraud afterwards, with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, freely cohabited with the other as hu*****and or wife." (Fam.Code, § 2210, subd. (d).) Immigration fraud like that alleged here will support an annulment.
(詳細的案情如下， 相當長，有興趣可以看看)
A United States citizen who resided in the Bay Area, testified that the parties were married in China on February 17, 2000, but never lived together thereafter. He said that the marriage was arranged by appellant's brother, Horace Lu. He went to China to meet appellant in response to an advertisement placed by Horace, who handled the documentation for the marriage. He said that he and appellant liked each other when they met, that he wanted to take on a wife, and that he expected to receive a dowry from the marriage. He returned to the United States after two weeks in China, and petitioned to have appellant enter the United States as his spouse, with the expectation that appellant would join him here within a year.
Respondent thought that appellant immigrated to the United States in 2001; he did not know the date because she went to live with Horace after she arrived. After appellant arrived in the United States, respondent discovered that she had married him only to obtain a "green card." He said that when he insisted that appellant come live with him, she and Horace offered to pay him $15,000. He said that he and appellant never had sexual relations, and that he would not have married her if he had known that she would not live with him as his wife. In June 2001, he wrote a letter to the Immigration and Naturalization Service reporting that his marriage to appellant was a sham, and charging appellant and Horace with fraud. These allegations were retracted in a November 2001 letter from respondent to the INS, but he said that appellant wrote this letter.
Appellant testified that she was introduced to respondent through Horace, that Horace described respondent as a friend, and that she never heard of any deal between Horace and respondent. She said that Horace picked her up at the airport when she arrived in the United States in January 2001, but that she went to live with respondent the next day. After a month she began auditing classes at San Jose State; during that time, she lived with Horace during the school week and returned to respondent's home on the weekends. After she stopped attending school around May 2001, she lived full-time with respondent until they separated in February 2002, after an incident of domestic violence when police were called to their residence. She said that she and respondent had sex; she described a scar on his back, and he admitted having the scar.
*2 After respondent testified that appellant had never been in his house or bedroom, appellant produced photographs of them in bed in pajamas. Respondent said that these photos were staged to bolster appellant's position with the INS. He had the same explanation for photos taken of them at tourist attractions, and at his nephew's high school graduation. He acknowledged going to Reno with appellant in November 2001 and staying with her in one room, but said that she had slept on the floor on that occasion. He admitted signing a police report for the February 2002 incident stating that he had grabbed appellant by the neck, but said he had not understood what he was signing. He admitted executing a post-marital agreement he had commissioned stating that "the parties entered into a legal marriage under the laws of the State of California on February 17, 2000." Appellant's counsel argued to the court that respondent's testimony was not credible.
The court entered its order finding the marriage a nullity on March 5, 2003.
选择“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”
选择“don't run on pages on this domain”
