Too easy to fake: US needs stricter screening for marriage visas

This August, the Department of Justice unsealed an indictment describing a large-scale marriage fraud network that has operated for more than a decade.

The indictment charges 11 individuals with conspiring “to orchestrate more than 1,000 sham marriages to fraudulently obtain immigration status for foreign nationals, primarily citizens of the People’s Republic of China.” Clients allegedly paid up to $100,000 for services; the organization is believed to have collected tens of millions of dollars from these illegal activities.

Services allegedly include finding a willing U.S. citizen for the marriage. Citizens are used because the spouse of a citizen gets immediate relative status, and immigrant visas for immediate relatives are unlimited. The network coached clients on how to conceal the true nature of their relationship if they were interviewed, and manufactured wedding photographs, joint bank accounts and apartment leases to provide evidence that the spouses had bona fide marriages.

This is why convincing paperwork alone does not necessarily establish that a marriage is genuine.

A citizen filing a Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative for a spouse “ must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the marriage was legally valid and bona fide at its inception and not entered for the purpose of evading the immigration laws.”

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services may interview the spouses and request additional evidence to determine whether their relationship is genuine. If fraud is suspected, the petition may be referred to the agency’s Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate. The directorate may visit homes and workplaces and take other steps to determine whether the marriage is a sham, as well as obtain subpoenas for documents.

Congress enacted the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986 to deter such fraudulent unions. Among other things, it amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to make a grant of permanent resident status conditional if the marriage it is based on was entered into fewer than 24 months before resident status was granted.

The amendments also subject alien spouses to the risk of being put in removal proceedings if it is determined that their marriage is a sham, and prohibit the approval of future visa petitions for an alien who “has previously been accorded, or has sought to be accorded,” resident status on the basis of a marriage determined to have been “entered into for the purpose of evading the immigration law.”

In September 2022, the U.S. Government Accountability Office released a report that made recommendations for improving the anti-fraud program, including with respect to marriage fraud. According to the office’s recommendation tracker , which was updated in February 2026, four of the six recommendations were still open, meaning they had not been fully implemented. The four open recommendations advise U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to evaluate fraud risks regularly; evaluate and update anti-fraud activities regularly; develop a process for evaluating its anti-fraud strategy; and establish outcome-oriented performance measures.

In addition to civil immigration consequences, the sentences for a criminal marriage fraud are imprisonment for up to five years and a fine of up to $250,000, or both. The agency should increase the deterrent value of these sanctions by working with the Justice Department to publicize the sentences and fines actually imposed.

The agency has frequently waived in-person interviews in recent years, but it updated its policy manual last year on when an interview is needed, such as when evidence is missing, material inconsistencies are found, or there are other significant indications that the marriage is a sham.

Interviews can be very effective in determining marriage fraud, but they are more difficult when spouses have been coached on how they should answer questions. If initial processing raises suspicion that the marriage might be a sham, a Stokes interview should be conducted. A Stokes interview is more likely to identify a sham marriage than routine interviews because it puts the spouses in separate rooms, asks them the same 50 to 100 questions about things a married couple should know, and then compares their answers.

Before denying a petition on account of material discrepancies, the couple should be given a chance to explain material discrepancies and to offer additional evidence.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should complete the implementation of the Government Accountability Office’s recommendation as soon as possible, conduct Stokes interviews for cases with specific fraud indicators, and publicize the consequences of using a sham marriage to obtain lawful resident status.

Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an executive branch immigration law expert for three years. He subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years.