How does bigamy affect a UK Spouse Visa? I am a British citizen. I sponsored my 'husband' for a spouse visa but found out he's already married in the USA. His legal wife notified Home Office. I knew he was in a relationship but not that he was married. I married him in the Bahamas last year and quickly applied for settlement visa. He submitted an application for entry clearance on the basis of our marriage. That application is pending. His wife notified the Home Office that he is already married and wasn't free to marry anyone else. Could he be banned for deception? Can he be charged with a crime? He lives and is currently in the USA. Can I be charged with facilitation? It's been 4 months with no response from Home Office. Submitted documents have been returned.
If the purported husband (PH) has not attempted to enter the UK under false pretenses, and has not submitted documents containing false statements to the UK government, it is hard to see how he might be charged with a crime by the UK in connection with the invalid marriage. But since the PH is now said to have submitted an application for entry clearance based on the bigamous marriage, a marriage that it appears that he knew or should have known was invalid, he has submitted an official document based on a false statement. That is presumably an offense under UK law, and may well affect the PH's future immigration treatment. If the deceived wife has not knowingly made false statements to the UK government, it is hard to see how she would be charged in the UK. She would be wise to promptly inform the UK government that the marriage was invalid, to withdraw any statements or applications based on its validity, and to take legal steps to correct the record so that the marriage does not show as valid. This might be by annulment or some other procedure, probably depending on the law in the Bahamas where the purported marriage took place. (Under chapter 125, section 21(b) a prior marriage is valid grounds for an annulment or decree of nullity.) She might also want to notify the US authorities. The purported husband might have been guilty of bigamy in the Bahamas, depending on just how their law is written. Whether the authorities there will seek to extradite and prosecute him one cannot say.
After you are married, your husband will have to petition the US government for you to immigrate to the US. He can also petition for your children to accompany you because they are younger than 21 years. See https://my.uscis.gov/exploremyoptions/petition_for_spouse for more information: A U.S. citizen can file a petition for his or her foreign-born spouse and, under certain situations, the children of the spouse. The U.S. citizen will have to establish the family relationship with the spouse by filing a Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative. The U.S. citizen may also file a separate Form I-130 for a child of his or her foreign-born spouse if the child is unmarried and under 21 years old. When the petition is submitted, the U.S. citizen petitioner is required to provide evidence to prove his/her relationship to the foreign-born relative. If the petitions are approved, you and your sons will then be able to apply for immigrant visas (if you are outside the US) or for adjustment of status (if you are in the US).
In the USA, at least, it has never, to the best of my information, been legally mandated to add a name on marriage, or even for husband and wife have the same last name. It has long been customary in the US for a woman on marriage, to adopt her husband's surname. This is no not nearly as common as it once was -- it was once almost invariable, but some women did not do so, or kept a pre-marrige name for professional purposes, even many generations ago. When a woman married, in some social sub-groups it was common to simply drop her former surname and replace it with her new husband's surname. In others, the new surname was added to her existing name, potentially leading to the kind of long series of names mentions in the question. In the 1990s Judith Martin, writing as &quot;Miss Manners&quot;, wrote that the first of these was the more &quot;traditional&quot; but both were not uncommon. When I was married, the clerk asked my wife and I what name each of us would be known by after the marriage, and that constituted a legal change of name. But we were free to make any choice we wanted. I think this has been the usual procedure in the US for a long time now. On divorce, a woman in the US (and the UK and Canada) traditionally kept her former husband's last name, although some returned to a pre-marriage surname. On remarriage, some added a new husband's surname, others replaced the former husband's name. Some said that keeping the former husband's name was a statement that the woman had been without fault in the divorce, or want to remain associated in some way with her former husband's family. There were, of course, also women who remarried after a former husband's death, rather than a divorce. In any case, I do not think any of this was legally required, but custom can sometimes be as strong as law. Other cultures had and have different customs on marriage and divorce. But in most places these are not a matter of law. I do not know of any country that legally mandates a change or modification of name on marriage, but some may.
I'm very sorry to hear about your situation. Unfortunately, this is too important to trust advice from strangers over the Internet. You should talk to an attorney familiar with Bulgarian immigration law. @jwh20 is correct; entering another country is not a human right. If they are not allowing you to return to your home country despite your following all laws, that is likely a human rights issue. This does not necessarily mean you won't be able to get into Bulgaria; if one person is preventing you from entering, an attorney may be able to get that person's decision overturned.
The law does not criminalize "having more than 1 legal spouse", it criminalizes specific behavior. The polygamy statute is here. It says Every one who (a) practises or enters into or in any manner agrees or consents to practise or enter into (i) any form of polygamy, or (ii) any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time, whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage, or (b) celebrates, assists or is a party to a rite, ceremony, contract or consent that purports to sanction a relationship mentioned in subparagraph (a)(i) or (ii), is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. That is, if you behave like you're married to multiple women, you've committed a crime.
As someone with ties to the "foreign" community in the United States, I see these "marriages of convenience" from time to time. In their most "legitimate" form, the couple will move to the same address and "technically" live together, but without consummating the marriage so that it can later be legally annulled. American immigration authorities counter this by asking each spouse about the other's underwear (literally!). Some "marriages of convenience" are legal, insofar as they technically conform to the marriage documents, e.g. regarding "co habitation," even while violating the spirit of the law. Others don't. Your best chance of attacking such "marriages" is not regarding the marriage itself (basically only the couple can decide what constitutes a valid marriage), but rather "compliance" with the marriage documents. That's something any law enforcement officer can understand.
A sham marriage or civil partnership is one where the relationship is not genuine but one party hopes to gain an immigration advantage from it. There is no subsisting relationship, dependency, or intent to live as husband and wife or civil partners. Under sections 24 and 24A of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, as amended by section 55 of the Immigration Act 2014, a sham marriage or civil partnership is one in which: One or both of the parties is not a British citizen or an EEA or Swiss national There is no genuine relationship between the parties Either or both of the parties enter into the marriage or civil partnership for the purposeof circumventing (avoiding) UK immigration Controls, including under the Immigration Rules or the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006 Entering into a sham marriage does not entitle migrants any right to remain or reside in the UK. Sham marriages typically occur when a non-European Economic Area (non-EEA) national marries someone as a means of attempting to gain long term residency and the right to work. It is a criminal activity under UK immigration law, and if you got caught, you will end up behind the bars, unless you can prove yourself innocent. For more details about outcomes read this document carefully. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/488521/Sham_Marriages_v1.0_EXT_clean.pdf Read it carefully, just try to stay away from troubles.
The consequences for the US are perhaps better addressed at Politics; if you're really interested in those consequences, you can re-post this question there. For the police officer shooting a diplomat, the officer may be charged under state law, whatever is normal for an incident of this type; it doesn't matter whether the person is a US citizen or a diplomat or any other kind of alien, regardless of immigration status or lack thereof. If the person is a diplomat, however, the officer is also liable to be prosecuted under federal law, namely 18 USC 1116, which makes it a crime to kill, among others, a "foreign official"; the definition of that term includes any person of a foreign nationality who is duly notified to the United States as an officer or employee of a foreign government or international organization, and who is in the United States on official business, and any member of his family whose presence in the United States is in connection with the presence of such officer or employee. The characterization of the response "just been revoked" as "clearly legal" is inaccurate; a police officer has no power to revoke diplomatic immunity. In fact, only the diplomat's own country can waive this immunity. The United States cannot do so; it can only expel the diplomat.