Must we show our prenup agreement to the immigration office/officer? If two person want to get marry together, but also like to have a prenup agreement as well, and one of the guys is on a non-immigrant student(F-1) visa, should they also provide their prenup agreement to the immigration office/officer during their marriage/green card application? Or is it possible to office/officer to see their agreement in some website, etc(I mean would it be recorded in somewhere?). I definitely like to have it but a user in one of my other questions mentioned that if an officer sees such a thing he/she may get more believe this is a sham/fake marriage. Is that true? Will the immigration office/officer ask about such an agreement our will find it out in someway? Or maybe we must to provide/submit it via our application?
General Answer I have not found any law or regulation that specifically says that an immigration applicant or the applicant's sponsor (spouse) must disclose a prenuptial agreement if one exists. But immigration officials have broad discretion in interviews, and might well ask about such agreements. If asked, it is very unwise to lie or evade the question. There is no law forbidding a prenuptial agreement in such a case, or making a would-be immigrant who has signed such an agreement ineligible. However, if the immigration officers believe that the marriage is a &quot;sham&quot; designed largely to evade immigration laws, they might declare the marriage invalid for immigration purposes. This is likely to significantly hinder the application, if not end it. If the agreement makes it appear that the parties contemplate that the marriage will be short-lived, and that an end to the marriage will occur in the near future, that makes it look like a sham marriage. If it appears that the prime reason for the marriage was financial, and particularly if the US party has apparently been paid or subsidized for entering into the marriage, that also makes the marriage look like a sham. If the terms of the agreement support either of these assumptions, that may cause a problem. It will be helpful if the agreement is carefully drafted to make it clear that the marriage is one of affection or love, and is intended to be lasting, with the agreement only present to help deal with issues in the possible case of the marriage not lasting. Affirmation of Support (I-864) Also, it is often requires that the sponsor/spouse sign an Affirmation of Support (I-864). This is an agreement by which the sponsor promises to support the applicant at at least 125% of the US Federal poverty level. The sponsor also shows resources sufficient to provide such support. The obligation under this agreement last6s until the applicant has become a US citizen, or has been credited with 40 quarters (10 years) of Social Security earnings credit. Under federal law and case law, a prenup cannot waive or reduce the obligations under an I-864 agreement. A prenup that purports to do so would probably be a significant negative indication for an immigration official. Parties must Understand a Prenup Also if it appears that the non-US spouse (the applicant) does not understand the nature and effect of a prenup, that might also be a negative indication. This is one reason why it is often a good idea that each party should be represented by a separate lawyer in the drafting of a prenup. Such a lawyer should be able to draft the prenup agreement in such a way as not to raise suspicions with an immigration officer. Disclosing a Prenup We here at Law.SE cannot advise whether an applicant should disclose the existence of a prenup at an immigration interview. Such agreements are not normally registered with any government agency, nor are they normally searchable on any web site. But an applicant should probably assume that a question about such an agreement might be asked at an interview, and be prepared with an answer. Sources and Quotes The page &quot;Can a nuptial (prenup) agreement waive rights under the Form I-864?&quot; states: [F]ederal courts have squarely held that a pre- or post-nuptial agreement cannot waive rights under the Form I-864. Even if a sponsored immigrant has signed a document saying that she forfeits all rights under the I-864, that agreement is meaningless in federal court. It is very common for sponsored immigrants to sign a nuptial agreement. Often this happens before the person completes the immigration process. For example, someone might come to the U.S. on a K-1 visa, then be forced to sign a prenuptial agreement before getting married. Usually these nuptial agreements will contain broad language that the immigrant waives all right to “alimony” or spousal maintenance. But sometimes the agreements will also specifically cross-reference the Form I-864. Federal courts see two main problems with nuptial waivers. First, these agreements undermine the purpose of the I-864. Or at least they try to. Congress created the Form I-864 so that immigrants would be guaranteed basic financial support of they need it. More specifically, the I-864 ensures that a sponsor rather than American taxpayers provides the immigrant with support. If nuptial agreements could waive support, it basically leads to the following situation: the sponsor promises the U.S. government that it will provide support, then turns around and creates a document with the immigrant that says, “but I’m not actually going to provide the support.” It would be a bit crazy if a federal statute could be undermined in that way. Here is how one court in the District of Utah put it: To permit a sponsor to unilaterally terminate the Form I-864’s financial support obligation through a separate agreement with the immigrant would ignore the interests of the U.S. Government and the benefits of taxpayers and charitable donors. It would also defeat the Form I-864’s purpose of preventing admission of an immigrant that is likely to become a public charge at any time. Therefore, nuptial agreements will not terminate a Form I-864’s financial support obligation. The second reason that courts disregard nuptial agreements is the text of the I-864 itself. The I-864 contract lists five “terminating events” that ends a sponsor’s support obligation. These include the immigrant becoming a citizen or being credited 40 quarters of work. (You could count the sponsor’s death as a sixth terminating event). But those terminating events are the only thing that ends a sponsor’s obligation. Signing a private nuptial agreement isn’t on the list of terminating events, so that simply isn’t a thing that can end a sponsor’s obligation. The page &quot;Can a prenup protect me when marrying a non citizen?&quot; from Joleena Louis Law reads: One of the most obvious concerns for people marrying non-citizens is how having a prenup will look to immigration officials. You don’t want to give the impression that the marriage is happening for financial reasons and it does help to show co-mingling of assets. However, legitimate marriages have prenups, and a well-drafted agreement that is fair to both parties and makes sense for the situation won’t necessarily give a bad impression. Another thing to keep in mind is that you may need to sign an Affirmation of Support for your spouse, which in which you are acknowledging that you have the means to financially support your spouse at a minimum level of 125% of the federal poverty threshold and accept legal responsibility for their financial support. A prenup cannot absolve you of this obligation and you are not released from this obligation until your spouse becomes a United States citizen, permanently departs the country, or is credited with forty quarters of coverage via the Social Security Act. The page &quot;Do Prenuptial Agreements Affect Spousal Immigration? from Family Law San Diego reads: Federal immigration law provides for a U.S. citizen to sponsor the immigration of their foreign spouse. The married couple must apply for a family-based immigrant visa allowing a spouse from a foreign country to enter the United States and obtain Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) status—also known as a “green card” holder. Among the various immigration forms that are required to obtain a visa for an immigrant spouse is an Affidavit of Support (Form I-864). By signing and submitting an Affidavit of Support, the U.S. citizen spouse enters into a contractual agreement with the United States acknowledging that they have the means to financially support their spouse at a minimum level of 125% of the federal poverty threshold and accepting legal responsibility for their financial support until their spouse becomes a U.S. citizen or earns credit for 40 [quarters] of work. Importantly, getting a divorce does not relieve the citizen spouse of their obligation to provide the required amount of spousal support to their spouse. Furthermore, the affiant [sponsor] is responsible for reimbursing government agencies for the cost of any “means-tested public benefits” that the immigrant spouse receives. Spouses who have been married for less than two (2) years will receive what is known as “conditional permanent resident” status. This means that the couple must prove that they did not get married for the purpose of avoiding federal immigration laws. If USCIS concludes that a couple entered into the marriage to evade federal immigration laws, their marriage will be deemed invalid for immigration purposes. As a result, the spouse seeking to immigrant to the United States will be denied entry or removed from the United States. The citizen spouse may also be subject to civil or criminal penalties. A prenuptial agreement is a contract into which prospective newlyweds enter, governing their rights and responsibilities as married spouses concerning matters such as spousal support and the distribution of marital assets at the end of their marriage, whether due to divorce or death. The provisions of a prenuptial agreement go into effect when the couple gets married. Although there are few legal requirements to form a valid premarital agreement, the judicial enforcement of its provisions may be questionable depending on the circumstances of each case. Generally, a prenuptial agreement is not enforceable if it was not the product of mutual voluntary assent to its terms. As a result, circumstances that suggest that party did not understand the contract, or would not have reasonably agreed to its terms if they had a meaningful choice, call the enforceability of the agreement into question. Spouses with conditional permanent resident status should be careful about the potential effect of a prenuptial agreement. Evidence indicating that a party did not understand the terms of a contract may endanger the enforcement prospects of its provisions, especially if English is not their first language. Additionally, terms that reduce the immigrant spouse’s property rights may suggest that the couple had a deal to have the citizen spouse sponsor the foreign spouse’s immigration into the U.S. Importantly, provisions purporting to govern the couple’s rights and responsibilities regarding spousal support are effectively superseded by the terms of an Affidavit of Support. This is because a prenuptial agreement is a contract between the spouses, whereas an Affidavit of Support is a contract between the citizen spouse and the U.S. government. The Page &quot;Why Should You Get a Prenuptial Agreement with a Foreign National?&quot; from DiPietro Law Group reads: If your new spouse does not intend to work in the United States, you may need to sign an Affidavit of Support. This contract requires you to maintain a standard of living for your new spouse exceeding 125 percent of the poverty level. You are not released from this obligation until your spouse becomes a United States citizen, permanently departs the country, or is credited with forty quarters of coverage via the Social Security Act. Your prenuptial contract does not automatically absolve you of this support. In a notable 2014 case, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland indicated that prenuptial contracts could not waive Affidavits of Support. Prenuptial contracts can occasionally backfire in green card cases. Immigration officials look for signs that a marriage occurred for financial or citizenship reasons, and not for love. Officers often seek evidence of commingled assets, which may not be available among couples with prenuptial agreements. The pager &quot;How do Prenuptial Agreements Affect Immigration?&quot; by Jared Leung from JCL Immigration Attorneys, reads: A prenuptial agreement is a legal contract that outlines how assets will be divided in the event a marriage ends in divorce. These agreements also discuss the obligations of a spouse to provide financial support for the other party in the event of a divorce. In general, both parties must fully understand all of the terms of a prenuptial agreement in order for the contract to be binding. If a court finds that one party was unaware of what he or she was signing, or if the agreement is so one-sided as to be deemed unfair, the provisions held within can be invalidated. How do prenuptial agreements impact immigration? When a United States citizen sponsors the immigration application of a foreign spouse, the couple needs to file for a family-based immigrant visa, often called a “green card.” Part of this process involves filing an Affidavit of Support, a document that demonstrates that the citizen has the ability to support the other party at a level at least above 125% of the poverty threshold until the applicant becomes a United States citizen. This obligation remains in place in the event of divorce. The provisions of a prenuptial agreement should not give the appearance of a “deal” between parties for the purpose of circumnavigating immigration rules. There can also be challenges if the foreign spouse does not speak English well enough to understand the details of the agreement. However, having a prenuptial agreement does not necessarily casts doubt to the truthfulness of the marriage. Individuals with decent net worth or prior debt may use prenuptial agreements to protect oneself and/or the spouse-to-be. The existence of a prenuptial agreement should be considered with other factors in the marriage to determine whether it would cause problems in an immigration application Case Citations Cases in which Federal courts have held that a prenup does not void an I-864 agreement: [Erler v. Erler 824 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2016). Golipour v. Moghaddam No. 4:19-cv-00035-DN-PK (D. Utah Feb. 7, 2020) (granting and denying in part cross-motions for summary judgment). Anderson v. United States, No. C17-0891RSL (W.D. Wash. Apr. 17, 2019) (dicta). Toure-Davis v. Davis, No. WGC-13-916 (D. Md. March 28, 2014) (memo. op.). Shah v. Shah, 4:12-cv-4648, (RBK/KMW), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4596 (D.N.J. Jan. 14, 2014) (memo. op.) Cyrousi v. Kashyap, 386 F. Supp. 3d 1278 (C.D. Cal. 2019) (holding that waiver is not an affirmative defense available to sponsors) Liu v. Kell, 299 F. Supp. 3d 1128 (W.D. Wash. 2017) (same).
The problem with Solution 2 is that government officials in the United States enjoy qualified immunity with respect to actions that they did while acting under color of law. It's not total immunity, but if they do things by the book, they cannot be prosecuted even if something goes wrong (even when doing things by the book, Police deal in very volatile situations and things can still go wrong because of an X factor to specific for the training manual to cover.). In other cases, it may be because multiple officers are working the scene and Office A lied to Officer B about the situation. Consider Officer A pulls over a suspect and realizes it was someone who was suspected of a crime, but couldn't prove it. He calls for back up and Officer B arrives. Upon arriving on scene, Officer A tells B to search the trunk of the car despite the fact that A had not received consent from the suspect nor has a warrant, nor cause to make a search of a trunk of a vehicle. B makes the search and finds [the bloody knife/the stash of drugs/the smoking gun/the match to a child's shoe that was missing from the kidnapping scene/ insert other incriminating evidence]. Under system (2), since it was Officer B who made the illegal search, B would be liable for it, even though Officer A lied about having legal reason for a search of the trunk space. But what's more... if the evidence is gonna be used anyway, what's to stop the cops doing it again? After all, there is very little recourse for those who are illegally searched to contest this in court (If I'm illegally searched and don't have anything on me, I have to take this to civil court, which is a different animal than Criminal Court and exposes me to broader Discovery... aka gives the cops free reign to search my property for a hell of a lot more illegal things.) or just sit back and count my 4th amendment rights (the section of the constitution protecting against unwarranted search and seizures) as worth less than the paper they're printed on. Oh, and by the way... that second word seizure... that means that they will be taking my property (or myself if they arrest me) and will not be giving it back for some time while they process it... if it's a legal to hold item (like my laptop that I do work on) that's going to make it harder for me to do my job which injures me further in lost business and income. In other cases, it could be they have a warrant for a large item (a stolen big screen tv) and while searching for it, open my sugar bowel and find evidence of a crime unrelated to theft of the television (i.e. opening a baggie of weed). This is actually an illegal search because, unless I am a wizard, a Time Lord, or Mary Poppins, there is no reason why a container smaller than a big screen TV should ever be searched when looking for a Big Screen TV and the cops should logically see this as out of bounds of the search warrant. The nature of this is damaging before the legality of the search can be determined, and because the search may have been out of scope of the warrant that was otherwise justified, the rule of making the evidence of a crime inadmissible was held in order to prevent LEOs from doing this because they could. This rule also started to take formation prior to the Revolutionary War. British Law had ruled against compelled confessions being inadmissible as evidence in 1769, a full six years before the Revolutionary war started (1775) and seven years before the publication of the Declaration of Independence (1776). Now there are some exceptions that can get the evidence brought back in, such as plain view (&quot;The suspect's vehicle is a pick up truck with an open bed, the murder weapon was lying in the bed covered in blood&quot;), inevitable discovery (&quot;We have developed evidence by other means that would have lead us to this evidence legally&quot;) and Exigent Circumstances (&quot;We believed someone inside the property was in grave danger if we did not enter the property immediately and that's when we found a cache of stolen Big Screen TVs!) and Good Faith (the Warrant was authorized for the wrong street address of the target but we found the evidence of an unrelated crime in a place the warrant authorized us to search. Everything but the goofed up address was done by the book.).
An officer is allowed to pull you over for speeding and then decline to give you a ticket for speeding. So the lack of a ticket has nothing to do with it (unless you actually weren't speeding, not even 1 MPH over.) Simply having past felonies, however, is not a reason for an officer to be able to search the car. Without a warrant, he'd need probable cause, consent, or some other exception to the warrant requirement. It's impossible for me to say what happened here. Maybe your husband had an outstanding arrest warrant? Maybe the officer saw the gun from outside the car? Maybe one of you said "OK" when he asked to search the car? Or maybe the search was illegal after all?
Exact wording might matter here, so I looked up the law. It says "a permanent resident complies with the residency obligation with respect to a five-year period if, on each of a total of at least 730 days in that five-year period, they are physically present in Canada". Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, 28(2)(a). If you visit the Canadian side of the park, you're "physically present in Canada". It would therefore appear that this would meet the requirement. I am by no means an expert in Canadian immigration law, though.
Every state requires at least two witnesses to a will unless it is entirely written in your own handwriting. A lawyer as a witness is fine. A spouse as a witness is not ideal as she would be an interested party if there was a dispute over whether it was executed. It may not be prohibited, but I would never do that in my practice ever. I discontinued a will signing just last week because we only had a lawyer and a spouse and not other witnesses. I would be somewhat concerned.
When a country makes criminal laws, these laws usually apply to anyone present in the country, and acting in the country. But the country is free to declare that some law might apply to its own citizens in a foreign country, or even foreign citizens in a foreign country. Assuming the laws about using marijuana say nothing about the country, that most likely means it only applies to using marjuana in the country itself. But if the US government decided that taking marijuana in Canada is illegal for US citizens, then nobody can stop them. In this case, Canada would not extradite you (unless Canadian law says that it is criminal for Canadians to use marijuana in another country), and Canadian police would likely not collect evidence. So even if illegal, it would be hard to convict you. PS. The "polygamy" case would be interesting, I think you would have to read the exact wording of the laws in every country. Some countries will say that you can't get married twice, and the attempt to get married a second time while already married is bigamy. In that kind of country you wouldn't have committed a crime within that country. Also, you would only be married to the first wife.
There is a relevant rule, the "posting rule", according to which an acceptance is effective once posted (this is a quirk of acceptances). This would be as soon after 7 May 2016 as Bobby sent his letter, presumably well before the deadline. So yes, a professional lawyer would be needed. If Bobby is in Australia, it might be more complicated; if Bobby is in Norway, it's simpler because they don't have the posting rule.
The idea is that, by default, we should assume the payment is a gift, unless we have specific evidence to suggest that it is offered in exchange for something. In the first case, the father-in-law has given no indication as to why he is giving her the money. It could be that he is indifferent to whether she remarries or not, and simply wants her to have a steady income in either case. He may be presuming that, if she remarries, her new husband will be able to provide for her, but until such time, he (the father-in-law) will pay her way. We certainly do not have evidence to show that he actually wants her to stay unmarried and is paying her for that purpose. In the second case, the father-in-law has given us more evidence. His words make it explicit that he does want her not to remarry, and that he is paying her in order to get her not to. Since he is clearly paying money with the intention of getting another party to do something (or in this case, to refrain from doing something), we understand it as a contract.