New Rules?

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

USCIS Memo dated May 3, 2006.

 

http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/lawsregs/han...CrHst050306.pdf

214398[/snapback]

Outstanding link. Though they've used a lot of mumbo jumbo, coupled with legalese, it looks like they can only divulge information for those that have been convicted of a sex crime, or crime of violence. That can be a very good thing in some cases.

[MikeandRong]

USCIS Memo dated May 3, 2006.

 

http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/lawsregs/han...CrHst050306.pdf

214398[/snapback]

Outstanding link. Though they've used a lot of mumbo jumbo, coupled with legalese, it looks like they can only divulge information for those that have been convicted of a sex crime, or crime of violence. That can be a very good thing in some cases.

214402[/snapback]

I wish I could find where the additional sub.1 memo is, as it makes reference to the I-129F specifically. It says under seperate cover, so I guess we wait and see.

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

USCIS Memo dated May 3, 2006.

 

http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/lawsregs/han...CrHst050306.pdf

214398[/snapback]

Outstanding link. Though they've used a lot of mumbo jumbo, coupled with legalese, it looks like they can only divulge information for those that have been convicted of a sex crime, or crime of violence. That can be a very good thing in some cases.

214402[/snapback]

I wish I could find where the additional sub.1 memo is, as it makes reference to the I-129F specifically. It says under seperate cover, so I guess we wait and see.

214404[/snapback]

Yeah, was just noticing that part too. The more I look at this, the more I don't like it though. While no one would deny that it sounds like a good thing, it makes you wonder just what in the hell it's going to take to implement this massive plan. American immigration is already understaffed across the board, and they in no way have the manpower to dole out this information appropriately, and fairly.

 

In short, this may well be the beginning of very massive delays, of the nature Mick eluded in his post. I hope not, but I cannot see how this can be done without putting on the brakes of everything that is currently in process.

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

http://usaimmigrationattorney.com/images/IMBRA2005.pdf

[david_dawei]

some past posts on CFL about this:

 

http://candleforlove.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13142

 

http://candleforlove.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=15144

[Guest pushbrk]

USCIS Memo dated May 3, 2006.

 

http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/lawsregs/han...CrHst050306.pdf

214398[/snapback]

This is an interesing memo but it only addresses privacy issues to protect the petitioner under the privacy act.

 

My read is that if the foreign fiance is not bringing a child to the US, there is insufficient compelling reason to disclose that the US petitioner is a pedophile.

[jemmyell]

I see ambiguity on the 'approval date' recall order? Is this the NOA1 or NOA2 date?

 

Does anybody have any info on this? The VJ postings DO NOT look good at all.

 

-James

[Linbar]

Some info which may clarify or add more confusion

 

 

Sections 832, 833 and 834 are designed to prevent further abuse by

instituting measures to distribute information that can help the K visa

recipients learn about domestic violence protections available to them

in the United States. These sections also provide them with specific

information about their U.S. citizen petitioners' criminal conviction

history. Additionally, this section limits the ability of abusive U.S.

citizens to repeatedly petition for K visas for aliens outside the U.S.

A consular officer may not approve a fiancee visa petition without

verifying that the petitioner has not previously petitioned for two or

more aliens applying for spousal or fiancee K visas. If the petitioner

has had such a petition previously approved, the consular officer must

verify that two years have elapsed since the filing of the previous

petition. The Secretary of Homeland Security may grant waivers of the

two-year waiting period or the limit on filing more. than two

petitions. The waivers included here were designed to give DHS the

discretion to waive both the time and number limitations when K fiance

visa applications are filed by nonabusive U.S. citizens. Such waivers

may be appropriate, for example, for non-abusive U.S. citizens who live

abroad or were raised abroad and may be more likely to marry foreign

spouses, or in cases of unusual circumstances, such as the sudden death

of an alien approved for a prior K visa. Section 832(a) includes a

domestic violence victim waiver modeled after the waiver created for

immigrant victims of domestic violence by VAWA 2000 (INA Section

237(a)(7)). Waivers shall be granted when tbe U.S. citizen petitioner

demonstrates that they have been' subjected to battering or extreme

cruelty, that there was a connection between the criminal conviction

and the abuse. including efforts to escape the abuse and that they were

not the primary perpetrator of abuse in the relationship.

Section 832(a)(2) of VAWA 2005 requires that U.S. citizen petitioners

filing K visa applications for spouses they married abroad provide

under oath the same criminal information required for K fiance visa

petitioners. This section also creates a database to track serial K

applications. Upon approval of a second K visa for a spouse or fiance

the U.S. citizen petitioner will be entered into the multiple visa

tracking database and will be notified that this petition and all

future petitions will be entered into the database maintained by the

Department of Homeland Security. Once two espousal or fiance K visas

have been approved, for each subsequent petition filed, DHS will notify

both tbe citizen petitioner and foreign-born spouse about the number of

previously filed petitions in the database for a 10-year period. All

future K applications will trigger similar notice. The domestic

violence pamphlet developed under Section 833 of this Act will be sent

to the K beneficiary immigrant spouse along with the multiple filing

data base information.

 

I added the bold.

 

Also can read [url=http://thomas.loc.gov/

edited as I didn't know the link expires. sorry

 

In search of Library of Congress it is HR 3402.enr and select search by " bill number"

and note 833(B) (1) (A), (B) and ©

 

Ooh, when I did that I got smilies. 833,b,1 A,B and C

Edited May 12, 2006 by Linbar (see edit history)

[RLS]

Thanks for posting Dean.

 

Looks like the operative point here is whether or not an "international marriage broker" was used.

 

Brokers are firms that charge one or both parties a fee for introduction. Websites, like yahoo, match, etc., are NOT considered marriage brokers.

214321[/snapback]

What about a website where you pay to join the site? There is no marriage broker. You are free to write to anyone you choose.

[Guest pushbrk]

Thanks for posting Dean.

 

Looks like the operative point here is whether or not an "international marriage broker" was used.

 

Brokers are firms that charge one or both parties a fee for introduction. Websites, like yahoo, match, etc., are NOT considered marriage brokers.

214321[/snapback]

What about a website where you pay to join the site? There is no marriage broker. You are free to write to anyone you choose.

214444[/snapback]

If the membership fee is the same for everyone regardless of nationality and you are free to write to anybody on the site, they are not International Marriage Brokers.

[longstrangetrip]

I posed a question to GUZ in the ask GUZ. I would be willing to take suggestions about it. Tried to state it as clearly and simply as possible.

[Juette]

This is a really frightening development. I can not see how this will not cause substantial delays...

[MikeandRong]

Maybe they were already gearing up for this.

 

USCIS establishes the National Security and Records Verification Directorate, April 10, 2006.

 

http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/publicaffair...t_10Apr06PR.pdf

[RLS]

I have some new information. I was curious, so I wrote a letter to one of the "so-called" marriage brokers. I wanted to find out how they are dealing with this new law. Here is the response I received:

 

As you may be aware that the U.S. law(IMBRA 2005) effective on Mar.6

mandates that international dating sites shall collect background

information from U.S clients who wish to use their services. In compliance

with this law, Chnlove has made changes on both sides of our U.S. clients

and our ladies. You may read more about this at:

http://www.chnlove.com/help/imbra.php

 

We have made smooth adjustment for both U.S. clients and our ladies.

You will need to fill in your personal disclosure form only once, and

when you contact your favourite lady either through our EMF service or

viewing her address directly, your disclosure form will be delivered to

her. After the lady agree and sign to approve, you may start

communication with her.

 

Many U.S. clients filled in the disclosure form and their communication

with their favourite ladies go as smooth as before. So you may kindly

set your heart at rest.

 

In terms of the visa application, we have been told that, if the US

client finds a life partner and applies for a fiancee visa to bring her

into the US, the consular official will be required to ask for specific

details as to how the two met. If they met via an introduction service

they will be asked whether the service complied with the law. If they

meet via non-compliant services, their visa applications will be

rejected.

 

So you see, Chnlove's compliance with this law is not only for our

business operation, more importantly, is for the smooth visa application of

our sincere clients.

 

We sincerely hope that we could still be honored to provide you the

best service. Please kindly let us know if you have additional question or

concern. We'll be most pleased to help you.

 

Kind regards,

xxxx xxxx

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

We sincerely hope that we could still be honored to provide you the

best service. Please kindly let us know if you have additional question or

concern. We'll be most pleased to help you. 

 

Kind regards,

xxxx xxxx[/color]

215024[/snapback]

The Marriage Brokers are in "damage control" right now, as they are the ones with whom this new law is directed.

 

Here is the reply from GUZ:

 

http://candleforlove.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=17879