Married couple traveling abroad, what proof exists When traveling abroad, how does a nation state know that a couple is married? What laws are in place regarding hospitalization and next of kin? What happens to a same-sex couple traveling to a nation that is not amicable to same-sex unions, say India?
When traveling abroad, how does a nation state know that a couple is married? Usually by accepting the couple's verbal statement. Some countries include a remark in a married person's passport with the name of the person's spouse, which is obviously more likely to be accepted in case of doubt, but not all countries do this. The usual formal proof of a foreign marriage is a certified copy of the foreign marriage certificate with an apostille or similar legalization whereby the foreign ministry of the country where the document was issued (or, in some federal contexts, of a constituent entity) attests to the legitimacy of the official who certified the copy and to the authenticity of the certification. This is a fairly burdensome process that is normally associated with proving family relationships in connection with establishing residence in a foreign country. Nobody is going to expect visitors to have such documents. For a casual or temporary purpose such as hospital visitation rights, the certified copy might be helpful even if it is not legalized. On the other hand, in a country where homosexuality is criminalized, the certificate could be used as evidence against the couple. What laws are in place regarding hospitalization and next of kin? This will be governed by national law. Human rights treaties probably have something to say about it, at least indirectly, but if your spouse is in the hospital that's not going to be of much use. Local law and the hospital's policy will control. What happens to a same-sex couple traveling to a nation that is not amicable to same-sex unions, say India? This is rather too broad, especially as it will depend on the sympathy of the people involved as well as on local law. The outcome could be anywhere from according full spousal visitation rights to the arrest of both spouses followed by conviction, imprisonment or possibly worse, deportation, and a ban on reentering the country.
Can I go to USA with my B1B2 visa and marry her within a week and come back to Canada, will this be legal ?? Yes. Or would it be an visa fraud that I misuse my entry to USA for marriage and will cause problems for my Future Green Card application ?? No. It is only visa fraud if you lie. Or would it be misuse of entry only if I marry to green card holder ( which she is not yet) and not come back to Canada and apply for visa status adjustment there in USA ? As long as you leave the US within the period of admission granted to you on entry and otherwise abide by the conditions of B-1 or B-2 status, there is no violation. If you attempt to enter in B visitor status with the intention of marrying and not leaving, but rather adjusting status, however, the immigration officer is entitled to refuse entry, and if you attempt to adjust status after entering in B visitor status, you may find yourself having to prove that you did not have the intention to do so when you entered. If Yes, What kind of marriage it would be ? A marriage between two non-immigrant or marriage between non-immigrant ( Visitor) and immigrant (Her) As noted in a comment, l don't think this matters. As she just got her work permit and SSN but not appeared for her asylum interview yet, Do I need to apply for any kind of k visa for marriage ? Or she needed to be green card holder first then I can apply for k visa. K visas are for the fiancé or spouse of US citizens (and their children). You don't need to worry about K visas. If I can marry her with my B1B2 visa as she is not green card holder or citizen yet. Should I also have to wait 90 days in USA before marriage so that USCIS not consider it as misuse of my entry in future when I apply for green card once she get her green card after completion of her asylum case. Gaming this is a recipe for trouble. Your best bet is to hire an immigration lawyer and follow your lawyer's advice. If you can't afford an immigration lawyer, you can get some generalized advice over at Expatriates. If in my l-94 Form I am just allowed to stay for 2 weeks in the USA but i stay 90 days then marry her and come back to Canada. Then what will be its consequences for my Future green card application. If you overstay a 2-week period of admission and then leave the US you will trigger a few adverse provisions of immigration law. If the US finds that you had intention to do this when you entered, for example, and lied about it, you could trigger permanent inadmissibility for misrepresentation. What would be the best possible solution for our case ? How should we proceed so that we don't have any kind of immigration problems for future. Find a good lawyer. Getting married in the US is fairly easy. Using your marriage to immigrate to the US requires a bit more care.
What should and shouldn't happen isn't going to do a damn thing about your passport situation. Your passport isn't being 'held', it's in processing at a place that is currently not operational due to an unprecedented virus outbreak. No one is acting like a criminal or treating you like one, you are just unlucky. If your situation is that dire, you have no choice but to get a temporary passport. I seriously doubt an Indian court is going to side with you on this one. Just because the passport office is legally allowed to operate, doesn't mean that they are actually able to. If, for example, COVID-19 hit enough of their workforce, they won't have enough people to operate properly and they'll have no choice but to close. And no, '2 or 3 people' is not enough to operate such a large scale, sensitive operation with high security requirements, even just to return passports .
I have never heard of anything like this. I guess when you say "registered in that place" you are referring to Russian resident registration. The US doesn't have such a system, so this sort of certificate wouldn't even make sense.
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 are certain requirements of Statehood according to the Montevideo Convention on Statehood of 1933, which is just a codification of international customary law: a permanent population; a defined territory; government; and capacity to enter into relations with the other states. Is it "legal" to buy a piece of land and claim it to be another country than before(either inventing a new one or migrating it to an already existing one)? According to international law, it is. Sure. But just because you say something is the case, doesn't mean it is. Always. Sometimes it is. But for present purposes, let's say that if you found an uninhabited island and said that you were a country, that wouldn't be the case - nor if you bought it from a man living on it. If you found some land that belonged to another country and decided to claim it as that of an existing country, then it would depend on the specific circumstances. That's exactly what happened to the Krim island in the Ukraine(now Russia maybe?), right? I don't think so. As far as I know, the annexation of territory isn't considered sale. In any case, the ownership of this land is still under dispute. So, if it's possible without the influence of these international institutions, trying this in an area with their influence would be easier, right? If trying this means declaring some land you have purchased to be a new sovereign state Nope. You probably still don't meet the requirements for statehood. If trying this means the acquisition of some land by an existing sovereign state Maybe. Probably not. The Montevideo Convention requires that statehood not be gained through force; while member states' interests may be greater where they are more invested, the requirements for acquisition of territory are the same no matter where you are. What would prevent me from creating my own nation? Money, defensibility, recognition, the fact that you probably don't own any land that you "buy" (depending on the jurisdiction and real estate system), the fact that you generally can't unilaterally declare yourself a sovereign state.
Legally speaking, very many nations grant asylum, and religious persecution is one of the most basic grounds for granting asylum, following the 1951 Refugee Convention. This newspaper article compares asylum statistics in Ireland versus other parts of Europe. The Irish immigration authorities spell out the details for an asylum application. Note that you must already be in Ireland, to apply for asylum in Ireland (you should apply when you enter the country). One could also apply to Norway (almost an English-speaking country), but again you have to be in Norway to do so. There is a generic solution to the "what if I'm not in country" problem via the UNHCR, which can propose resettlement into various countries. I need to add that getting a visitor's visa from certain countries can be extremely difficult. To take an example, Norway (which is fairly open to refugees) is pretty up-front on the chances of getting a visa, based on country. To take a random example, they are not very optimistic about visitor's visas from Iran, and they say "we consider how probable it is that you will return to your home country or the country you live in when the visit is over. We consider the situation in your country and your own situation", "If we believe that it is unlikely that you will return, your application will normally be rejected" and "If you plan to visit Norway as a tourist, you will normally not be granted a visa". This is the fundamental problem that refugees face, the problem of getting there. One country that allows visa-free admission from Iran is Turkey. This guide (which is in Farsi so I can't comment on) provides practical information on the UNHCR asylum process "the political asylum process for Iranians in Turkey": that may indicate that apostasy is a different matter. Other evidence suggests that this option is worse than staying put. Only for the sake of discussion, Svalbard is a theoretical possibility. Svalbard (next to the North Pole) is part of Norway, but Norway treats it as being somewhat outside of Norway. It is outside the Schengen visa area, and it is a visa-free zone, meaning that nobody requires a visa to visit or live there. This is due to the Svalbard Treaty whereby Norwegians and treaty nationals have equal rights to the islands, and while most nations are not treaty signatories, it has been policy to extend those rights to everybody. The Governor does have the power to expel anyone who is a burden on local society (e.g. unemployable). Normally one would have to get a Schengen area visa to get there, which would be an obstacle, but it is apparently possible to get a same-day visa-free transit at Oslo Airport, if travelling non-stop to Svalbard (I cannot find a definitive policy statement on this matter, but I also am not sure where exactly to look). There are some air routes from outside Schengen where the first Schengen stop is Oslo. The Governor's office gives appropriate warnings about local problems (ridiculous prices, housing shortage, work shortage, more polar bears than people, really cold).
I exclude Shari`a law because I don't know, but generally there would be no legal recourse that depends on the lie. A marriage is not legally viewed as a contract with enforceable obligations, so a woman could not be forced to bear a child against her will if she had earlier promised to do so, and she could not be penalized in any way. The man still has the ability to obtain a divorce. There is a difference between a fault-based divorce and a no-fault divorce, where a fault-based divorce may be quicker (dispenses with the requirement for months of separate living). In a jurisdiction that has fault-based divorce, the traditional grounds are cruelty, adultery, desertion, imprisonment, and physical inability to engage in sexual intercourse undisclosed before marriage. The latter does not include the inability to get pregnant. Division of marital assets is governed by law, where the principles of division are not punishment, they are equity (although states split into "community property" vs. "equitable distribution" based on the distinction "what is equitable" versus "50-50" – equitable distribution states do not sanction punishing a spouse for misconduct). There are also "marital torts" for certain kinds of wrongful acts, such assault, infecting a spouse with an STD, defamation etc. But as is the case with any tort, there has to be a legal duty between the parties, and that duty has to come from operation of law and not just agreement. There is no legal duty to always tell the truth or to bear children.