If there was a marriage for the purposes of immigration, is it collusive or a sham marriage?

The distinction between the two cases, which resulted in the different holdings, is that while they both could be said to be collusive marriages, or “sham marriages,” in the Meikle v. Gill case the marriage was not accompanied by the parties’ intention to divorce and, therefore, it was not held to be a collusive divorce. As a result, even if on the facts in the case at issue before you there was a marriage for the purposes of immigration, the divorce would not be barred for reason that it was collusive because, on the basis of the rest of the facts, the parties did not intend to divorce until after the marriage when they found that they were not compatible.