Marriage of Salehi and Sakhizada CA3

Filed 12/22/20 Marriage of Salehi and Sakhizada CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

In re the Marriage of SAMREEN SALEHI and C087959 SHOEIB SAKHIZADA.

SAMREEN SALEHI, (Super. Ct. No. STAFLNWOC20170004761) Respondent,

v.

SHOEIB SAKHIZADA,

Appellant.

M. Shoeib Sakhizada (appellant) appeals from a judgment annulling his marriage to Samreen Salehi (respondent) on the ground that respondent’s consent to the marriage was obtained by his fraud (Fam. Code, § 2210, subd. (d)). Appellant contends on appeal the judgment is not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree and affirm. I. BACKGROUND In August 2016, following their families’ agreement, appellant and respondent met at a Starbucks and began getting to know each other. Appellant was from London; he told respondent he was in the United States on a work visa, but the job he came to do did

1

not work out. Respondent had a “stable job” here in the United States; she wanted to get married and settle down. Appellant indicated that he too wanted to marry and settle down. With their families’ consent, appellant and respondent became engaged. Shortly after their agreement to become engaged, appellant told respondent his visa was expiring. He and his family said a civil ceremony would have to take place immediately so that appellant could remain in the country. Respondent felt rushed, she wished appellant had told her about his visa situation when they first met. Nevertheless, appellant and his family had agreed to a religious wedding, so she acquiesced to the civil ceremony, and, in September 2016, the parties were married in the San Joaquin County courthouse. Following the civil ceremony, appellant’s uncle took appellant and respondent to his friend, a lawyer in Oakland, who advised the parties to prepare for their immigration interview. He told appellant and respondent they needed to live together and share a bank account. Respondent told the lawyer they were unable to live together because they had not been “religiously married.” This was news to the lawyer. Respondent did, however, open a joint bank account for herself and appellant. Along with their families, the parties continued to talk about the religious/cultural wedding. They agreed they would plan the wedding after appellant got his green card, which he applied for after the civil ceremony. Consistent with their traditions, on November 26, 2016, respondent’s family hosted the parties’ “cultural engagement party.” In February 2017, appellant and respondent had their immigration interview. They were told to bring pictures, so they brought in pictures from their engagement party and led the interviewer to believe it was their wedding. After the interview, respondent’s family continued to press appellant’s family on a date for the religious ceremony, but appellant now wanted to wait until he had a job. In March 2017, appellant got a job at Macy’s, and later, his green card, and the families continued to discuss the religious ceremony. Appellant and his family, however,