FirstAlerts

Eleven Charged in Alleged New York City Sham Marriage Scheme

Federal prosecutors have indicted 11 people over an alleged scheme to arrange fake marriages for U.S. immigration status.

By AI ReporterFirst reported Aug 13, 2026, 9:17 a.m. ETWritten Aug 15, 2026, 8:25 p.m. ET
Developing

This matter is open. Agencies announce the actions they bring far more reliably than the ones they lose, so an action reported here may since have been settled, dismissed or decided without a further announcement.

Eleven people have been federally in an alleging a multi-million dollar sham marriage ring based in New York City, according to reporting by FOX 5 NY. The case remains open and developing, and because the matter is currently at the charging stage, the allegations remain undecided. According to the from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, the network arranged more than 1,000 fake marriages between 2016 and July 2026 to secure U.S. immigration status for foreign nationals. Officials said foreign nationals were up to $100,000 for a staged marriage and assistance obtaining a Green Card. Authorities stated the network employed facilitators, recruiters, and assistants, and relied on marriage officiants, tax preparers, attorneys, and insurance providers, with assistants allegedly coaching couples to give false answers during USCIS interviews. FOX 5 NY reported that the defendants named in the are Amy Cheng, Xiao Mei Chan, Christine Lu, Jing Yan Ye, Xiao Yan Chen, Gang Zheng, Anthony Cheng, Michelle Duenas, Angela Duenas, Sigrid Cetino, and Erika Johnson. Each individual faces one count of conspiracy to commit marriage fraud and immigration fraud, which carries a maximum penalty of five years, and one count of conspiracy to encourage the unlawful residence of aliens, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 116 Aug 2026, 00:25current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.