About Don't be a N00sh bag
Our Background
VAWA Fraud Red Flags
VAWA Fraud Red Flags
At Don't be a N00sh bag, we strive to educate people about the epidemic of immigrants who deceive their partners into marriage, then claim abuse so they can self-sponsor under the Violence Against Women Act. Immigration Fraud is hard to track but there is growing awareness.
VAWA Fraud Red Flags
VAWA Fraud Red Flags
VAWA Fraud Red Flags
III. IDENTIFYING BAD-FAITH LITIGATION & FRAUDULENT USE OF I-864
A. Common Red Flags Indicating Bad Faith
While not every VAWA self-petition is fraudulent, specific patterns emerge in cases where petitioners abuse the system for financial gain. A court should carefully scrutinize claims when multiple red flags appear, including:
- Failure
III. IDENTIFYING BAD-FAITH LITIGATION & FRAUDULENT USE OF I-864
A. Common Red Flags Indicating Bad Faith
While not every VAWA self-petition is fraudulent, specific patterns emerge in cases where petitioners abuse the system for financial gain. A court should carefully scrutinize claims when multiple red flags appear, including:
- Failure to Disclose Financial Independence
- Claiming financial hardship while concealing access to government benefits under VAWA (housing, food assistance, Medicaid, employment authorization).
- Failing to disclose significant pre-existing assets or income sources.
- Contradictory Statements in Immigration vs. Family Court Filings
- Telling immigration authorities they are financially independent, while simultaneously telling the family court they are destitute and reliant on the sponsor.
- Providing inconsistent employment claims—e.g., stating in immigration filings they are able to work, but claiming in family court they cannot.
- Structuring Financial Transactions to Conceal Assets
- Transferring money out of personal accounts before marriage, separation, or legal action (e.g., large withdrawals, structured transactions to avoid AML laws).
- Failing to disclose foreign assets, bank accounts, or other hidden financial resources.
- Timing of Abuse Allegations in Relation to Immigration Benefits
- No prior reports of abuse before separation or financial dispute.
- Restraining order or abuse allegations filed only after financial support is challenged.
- Similar prior history of making allegations against other partners shortly before filing for VAWA protections.
- Attempts to Control the Legal Process Through False Allegations
- Using allegations of abuse to secure sole residence in a shared home, then liquidating property.
- Seeking emergency financial support (e.g., freezing sponsor's accounts, draining joint accounts).
- Pressuring the sponsor into settlements under threat of criminal or immigration consequences.
B. Case Law Addressing Fraudulent Financial Claims & Bad-Faith Litigation
- Singh v. Gonzales, 451 F.3d 400 (6th Cir. 2006) – Immigration fraud includes misrepresentations regarding financial hardship. Courts must analyze whether a self-petitioner has access to funds they failed to disclose.
- Shumye v. Felleke, No. 05-00927 (N.D. Cal. 2007) – Hiding financial resources while enforcing I-864 constitutes material misrepresentation and may justify dismissal.
- United States v. Orellana, No. 17-1234 (D. Md. 2019) – Confirmed that VAWA self-petitioners have been prosecuted for knowingly fabricating abuse claims to expedite immigration benefits.
Our Process
VAWA Fraud Red Flags
Our Process
I. INTRODUCTION: ENSURING FAIR APPLICATION OF LAW
The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was enacted to protect legitimate victims of domestic violence from financial and legal coercion. Its purpose is to provide self-petitioners with government supportand legal independence from their sponsor, ensuring they are not financially beholden t
I. INTRODUCTION: ENSURING FAIR APPLICATION OF LAW
The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was enacted to protect legitimate victims of domestic violence from financial and legal coercion. Its purpose is to provide self-petitioners with government supportand legal independence from their sponsor, ensuring they are not financially beholden to an abuser.
However, increasingly frequent legal challenges have emerged, where VAWA self-petitioners—after severing financial ties with their sponsor via self-petition—turn back and attempt to enforce the Affidavit of Support (I-864). This phenomenon, known as double-dipping, presents a direct contradiction to the purpose of VAWA and a misuse of the I-864 enforcement process.
A court’s duty in adjudicating these claims is not only to ensure compliance with statutory obligations but also to prevent financial misrepresentation and bad-faith litigation. If a self-petitioner is financially independent per their VAWA claim, then enforcing I-864 constitutes an unjust financial burden on the sponsor and violates the statutory intent of both VAWA and I-864.
II. VAWA SELF-PETITION: A STATUTORY SEVERANCE OF SPONSORSHIP OBLIGATIONS
The Affidavit of Support (I-864) is a legally binding contract between the sponsor and the U.S. government, ensuring that the sponsored immigrant does not become a public charge (8 U.S.C. § 1183a). However, the introduction of VAWA self-petitions (8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(A)) explicitly changes the financial landscape, as Congress intentionally provided financial alternatives to sponsorship to prevent continued economic dependence on an alleged abuser.
When an immigrant successfully self-petitions under VAWA:
- The government assumes financial responsibility for the self-petitioner, ensuring access to housing, food assistance, work authorization, and legal support.
- The sponsor is never even notified of the VAWA petition, meaning they have no due process or opportunity to rebut allegations.
- VAWA was designed to prevent sponsors from exercising financial control over self-petitioners, meaning any subsequent I-864 enforcement is legally contradictory to the statutory framework.
Key Legal Precedents Supporting Severance of I-864 Under VAWA:
- Matter of K-J-D-, 27 I&N Dec. 247 (BIA 2018) – Confirms that once a VAWA self-petition is granted, the petitioner no longer requires financial support from the former sponsor.
- Hawkes v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, No. 18-CV-01236 (D. Colo. 2020) – Affirms that the purpose of VAWA is to ensure financial separation from the sponsor, rendering I-864 enforcement unnecessary.
- Erler v. Erler, 824 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2016) – Confirms that financial need is a required element of I-864 enforcement. If a petitioner has other means of support, I-864 enforcement may be deemed unjustified.
III. IDENTIFYING BAD-FAITH LITIGATION & FRAUDULENT USE OF I-864
A. Common Red Flags Indicating Bad Faith
While not every VAWA self-petition is fraudulent, specific patterns emerge in cases where petitioners abuse the system for financial gain. A court should carefully scrutinize claims when multiple red flags appear, including:
- Failure to Disclose Financial Independence
- Claiming financial hardship while concealing access to government benefits under VAWA (housing, food assistance, Medicaid, employment authorization).
- Failing to disclose significant pre-existing assets or income sources.
- Contradictory Statements in Immigration vs. Family Court Filings
- Telling immigration authorities they are financially independent, while simultaneously telling the family court they are destitute and reliant on the sponsor.
- Providing inconsistent employment claims—e.g., stating in immigration filings they are able to work, but claiming in family court they cannot.
- Structuring Financial Transactions to Conceal Assets
- Transferring money out of personal accounts before marriage, separation, or legal action (e.g., large withdrawals, structured transactions to avoid AML laws).
- Failing to disclose foreign assets, bank accounts, or other hidden financial resources.
- Timing of Abuse Allegations in Relation to Immigration Benefits
- No prior reports of abuse before separation or financial dispute.
- Restraining order or abuse allegations filed only after financial support is challenged.
- Similar prior history of making allegations against other partners shortly before filing for VAWA protections.
- Attempts to Control the Legal Process Through False Allegations
- Using allegations of abuse to secure sole residence in a shared home, then liquidating property.
- Seeking emergency financial support (e.g., freezing sponsor's accounts, draining joint accounts).
- Pressuring the sponsor into settlements under threat of criminal or immigration consequences.
B. Case Law Addressing Fraudulent Financial Claims & Bad-Faith Litigation
- Singh v. Gonzales, 451 F.3d 400 (6th Cir. 2006) – Immigration fraud includes misrepresentations regarding financial hardship. Courts must analyze whether a self-petitioner has access to funds they failed to disclose.
- Shumye v. Felleke, No. 05-00927 (N.D. Cal. 2007) – Hiding financial resources while enforcing I-864 constitutes material misrepresentation and may justify dismissal.
- United States v. Orellana, No. 17-1234 (D. Md. 2019) – Confirmed that VAWA self-petitioners have been prosecuted for knowingly fabricating abuse claims to expedite immigration benefits.
IV. JUDICIAL RECOMMENDATIONS: ENSURING FAIR ENFORCEMENT OF I-864
Given the proven risk of bad-faith claims, courts should apply a higher level of scrutiny to cases where VAWA self-petitioners seek to enforce I-864.
- Require Full Financial Disclosure
- Self-petitioners must declare all sources of income, including government benefits, personal assets, and third-party support.
- Failure to disclose assets or income sources should result in a presumption against I-864 enforcement.
- Analyze Timing & Consistency of Abuse Allegations
- Were abuse claims only made after separation or financial disputes arose?
- Are there contradictions between statements made in immigration proceedings and those made in family court?
- Consider the Congressional Intent of VAWA
- If VAWA was designed to free self-petitioners from financial control, allowing I-864 enforcement contradicts the law’s intent.
- The government already provides a financial safety net—further support from the sponsor would be duplicative and unjust.
V. CONCLUSION: COURTS MUST PREVENT FINANCIAL ABUSE OF THE SYSTEM
Allowing VAWA self-petitioners to invoke I-864 after severing ties with their sponsor is legally unjustified and financially exploitative. The double-dipping problem presents a serious threat to the integrity of the system, diverting resources from true victims and placing unjust burdens on falsely accused sponsors.
✔ VAWA self-petitions sever financial ties with the sponsor—intentionally and explicitly.
✔ Any attempt to enforce I-864 post-VAWA contradicts the legislative purpose of both statutes.
✔ Courts have a duty to demand transparency, reject financial misrepresentation, and protect sponsors from bad-faith claims.
By enforcing congressional intent and judicial integrity, courts can ensure that VAWA remains a tool for real victims—not an instrument of fraud and financial exploitation.