I-129F -- DRAFT

[david_dawei]

mike posted this in another thread.. but deserves it's own attention:

 

I also checked the USCIS web site, and found the new I-129F ammended draft. Revision draft date of 5/23/06. It does include all the new information about the IMBRA & back ground check/criminal records area for the petitioner (section C)(and instructions).

 

 

http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/formsfee/for...-129f-draft.pdf

220760[/snapback]

[Randy W]

It'll be interesting to find out what happens when someone tells them Yes - they met through an International Marriage Broker.

[Guest pushbrk]

It'll be interesting to find out what happens when someone tells them Yes - they met through an International Marriage Broker.

220784[/snapback]

The USCIS is then obligated to verify that the International Marriage Broker provided your criminal background information to beneficiary.

[Guest pushbrk]

mike posted this in another thread.. but deserves it's own attention:

 

I also checked the USCIS web site, and found the new I-129F ammended draft. Revision draft date of 5/23/06. It does include all the new information about the IMBRA & back ground check/criminal records area for the petitioner (section C)(and instructions).

 

 

http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/formsfee/for...-129f-draft.pdf

220760[/snapback]

220777[/snapback]

If this becomes the final draft, then it would appear that even a K3 Petitioner must answer the criminal record questions in Part C. Skipping it is not mentioned in the K3 section of the instructions.

[MikeandRong]

This should be interesting.

Meet online by one of the usual dating sites. But the original meet was before the law came about, so it should not apply to you. But you still have to check that you did meet per IMBRA rules, because you paid to join the site, and because you filed after the law date. But because you met before the law, there was never any background check given to the SO ahead of time.

Now, if you are K1 with an NOA1 and you have to fill out another I-129F, your SO now has an A#, and you really did file a petition for her before. I see much confusion coming.

[Guest pushbrk]

This should be interesting.

Meet online by one of the usual dating sites. But the original meet was before the law came about, so it should not apply to you. But you still have to check that you did meet per IMBRA rules, because you paid to join the site, and because you filed after the law date. But because you met before the law, there was never any background check given to the SO ahead of time.

Now, if you are K1 with an NOA1 and you have to fill out another I-129F, your SO now has an A#, and you really did file a petition for her before. I see much confusion coming.

220795[/snapback]

Oh, another problem with the draft is that the definition of International Marriage Broker is absent the disclaimer that indicates Websites that charge everybody the same whether they hook up with a foreigner or not, do not qualify as International Marriage Brokers.

 

If you don't know the law, you'll answer the question wrong. I'm not aware of ANYBODY on CFL who used an International Marriage Broker as defined by IMBRA.

 

If you can answer no to question 19, or are already married, I don't understand why you need to fill out Part C at all. I think they still have some work to do.

Edited June 2, 2006 by pushbrk (see edit history)

[frank1538]

If this becomes the final draft, then it would appear that even a K3 Petitioner must answer the criminal record questions in Part C.  Skipping it is not mentioned in the K3 section of the instructions.

220790[/snapback]

If you can answer no to question 19, or are already married, I don't understand why you need to fill out Part C at all.  I think they still have some work to do.

220798[/snapback]

 

It appears that the new law requires information on convictions as it relates BOTH to the K-1 and K-3 visas.

 

From section 214 of the INA as amended by IMBRA:

 

"...d)(1) A visa shall not be issued under the provisions of section 101(a)(15)(K)(i) [This is the K-1 visa] until the consular officer has received a petition filed in the United States by the fiancée or fianc?of the applying alien and approved by the Secretary of Homeland Security. The petition shall be in such form and contain such information as the Secretary of Homeland Security shall, by regulation, prescribe. Such information shall include information on any criminal convictions of the petitioner for any specified crime."

...

"...(r )(1) A visa shall not be issued under the provisions of section 101(a)(15)(K)(ii) [This is the K-3 visa] until the consular officer has received a petition filed in the United States by the spouse of the applying alien and approved by the Attorney General. The petition shall be in such form and contain such information as the Attorney General shall, by regulation, prescribe. Such information shall include information on any criminal convictions of the petitioner for any specified crime."

Edited June 4, 2006 by frank1538 (see edit history)

[Guest pushbrk]

If this becomes the final draft, then it would appear that even a K3 Petitioner must answer the criminal record questions in Part C.  Skipping it is not mentioned in the K3 section of the instructions.

220790[/snapback]

If you can answer no to question 19, or are already married, I don't understand why you need to fill out Part C at all.  I think they still have some work to do.

220798[/snapback]

 

It appears that the new law requires information on convitions as it relates BOTH to the K-1 and K-3 visas.

 

From section 214 of the INA as amended by IMBRA:

 

"...d)(1) A visa shall not be issued under the provisions of section 101(a)(15)(K)(i) [This is the K-1 visa] until the consular officer has received a petition filed in the United States by the fiancée or fianc?of the applying alien and approved by the 1bc/ Secretary of Homeland Security. The petition shall be in such form and contain such information as the Secretary of Homeland Security shall, by regulation, prescribe. Such information shall include information on any criminal convictions of the petitioner for any specified crime."

...

"...(r )(1) A visa shall not be issued under the provisions of section 101(a)(15)(K)(ii) [This is the K-3 visa] until the consular officer has received a petition filed in the United States by the spouse of the applying alien and approved by the Attorney General. The petition shall be in such form and contain such information as the Attorney General shall, by regulation, prescribe. Such information shall include information on any criminal convictions of the petitioner for any specified crime."

221425[/snapback]

Interesting. This begs the question, "Why are the K3 petitions filed after the deadline not being returned by post?" I suppose they could have determined none of THEM slipped through already.

 

The weird thing with the draft is that there's no way to answer "NO" to the question about the criminal record.

[LeeFisher3]

If this becomes the final draft, then it would appear that even a K3 Petitioner must answer the criminal record questions in Part C.  Skipping it is not mentioned in the K3 section of the instructions.

220790[/snapback]

If you can answer no to question 19, or are already married, I don't understand why you need to fill out Part C at all.  I think they still have some work to do.

220798[/snapback]

 

It appears that the new law requires information on convitions as it relates BOTH to the K-1 and K-3 visas.

 

From section 214 of the INA as amended by IMBRA:

 

"...d)(1) A visa shall not be issued under the provisions of section 101(a)(15)(K)(i) [This is the K-1 visa] until the consular officer has received a petition filed in the United States by the fiancée or fianc?of the applying alien and approved by the 1bc/ Secretary of Homeland Security. The petition shall be in such form and contain such information as the Secretary of Homeland Security shall, by regulation, prescribe. Such information shall include information on any criminal convictions of the petitioner for any specified crime."

...

"...(r )(1) A visa shall not be issued under the provisions of section 101(a)(15)(K)(ii) [This is the K-3 visa] until the consular officer has received a petition filed in the United States by the spouse of the applying alien and approved by the Attorney General. The petition shall be in such form and contain such information as the Attorney General shall, by regulation, prescribe. Such information shall include information on any criminal convictions of the petitioner for any specified crime."

221425[/snapback]

Interesting. This begs the question, "Why are the K3 petitions filed after the deadline not being returned by post?" I suppose they could have determined none of THEM slipped through already.

 

The weird thing with the draft is that there's no way to answer "NO" to the question about the criminal record.

221428[/snapback]

Sure there is, you don't check the box and don't supply supporting documentation. But if it makes you feel any better you could make a note stating that a check mark means yes and an X means no.

[Guest pushbrk]

If this becomes the final draft, then it would appear that even a K3 Petitioner must answer the criminal record questions in Part C.  Skipping it is not mentioned in the K3 section of the instructions.

220790[/snapback]

If you can answer no to question 19, or are already married, I don't understand why you need to fill out Part C at all.  I think they still have some work to do.

220798[/snapback]

 

It appears that the new law requires information on convitions as it relates BOTH to the K-1 and K-3 visas.

 

From section 214 of the INA as amended by IMBRA:

 

"...d)(1) A visa shall not be issued under the provisions of section 101(a)(15)(K)(i) [This is the K-1 visa] until the consular officer has received a petition filed in the United States by the fiancée or fianc?of the applying alien and approved by the 1bc/ Secretary of Homeland Security. The petition shall be in such form and contain such information as the Secretary of Homeland Security shall, by regulation, prescribe. Such information shall include information on any criminal convictions of the petitioner for any specified crime."

...

"...(r )(1) A visa shall not be issued under the provisions of section 101(a)(15)(K)(ii) [This is the K-3 visa] until the consular officer has received a petition filed in the United States by the spouse of the applying alien and approved by the Attorney General. The petition shall be in such form and contain such information as the Attorney General shall, by regulation, prescribe. Such information shall include information on any criminal convictions of the petitioner for any specified crime."

221425[/snapback]

Interesting. This begs the question, "Why are the K3 petitions filed after the deadline not being returned by post?" I suppose they could have determined none of THEM slipped through already.

 

The weird thing with the draft is that there's no way to answer "NO" to the question about the criminal record.

221428[/snapback]

Sure there is, you don't check the box and don't supply supporting documentation. But if it makes you feel any better you could make a note stating that a check mark means yes and an X means no.

221438[/snapback]

I understand that if this becomes the final form and the answer is no, you would not check a box or send records. However, other yes or no questions on the form have boxes for yes or no followed by "if yes..."

[LeeFisher3]

Why spend so much time and energy worrying about the draft form and stuff, when the final form comes out we will follow the instructions and do what they say.

 

It's not like they asked for our opinion.

[esun41]

Not to be off topic on this but most of us responding to this thread have already filled out and passed the phase of the I-129f.

 

By the way... I sifted through the links on marriagebroker.com and one of the ad models is a well known asian porn star named Lani.

 

Maybe there is a reason to have certain laws. Not everything you read and see is honest and good.

[Randy W]

Not to be off topic on this but most of us responding to this thread have already filled out and passed the phase of the I-129f.

 

By the way... I sifted through the links on marriagebroker.com and one of the ad models is a well known asian porn star named Lani.

 

Maybe there is a reason to have certain laws. Not everything you read and see is honest and good.

221452[/snapback]

 

 

Anyone who has filed a 129-F since March 6 is affected - some petitions have already been recalled, others are on hold and will most likely be RFE'd once USCIS figures out what they're doing, and could face difficulties at interview time, if the Marriage Broker issue is not sorted out.

 

The intent of this law is to get background information into the hands of the foreign SO. They are only now beginning to sort out the interpretation and implementation of this law. This process along (with its resulting confusion) will have a major impact on anyone who filed after March 6.

 

Lani, and any other misleading information posted on these sites, is not covered by the law.

Edited June 4, 2006 by Randy W (see edit history)

[Kalli and Greg Oveson]

Why spend so much time and energy worrying about the draft form and stuff, when the final form comes out we will follow the instructions and do what they say.

 

It's not like they asked for our opinion.

221446[/snapback]

I agree completely, but looking closely at this draft form does provide unique insight into the USCIS way of doing things. It is not a well thought out and organized form with clear and unequival instructions, analysed and amended by psychologists who are experts in the preparation of surveys, forms and questionnaires. Instead, it looks like a slap-dash cut-and-paste kind of thing. The kind of thing you get when you tell someone to just fix a problem and have it on your desk by close of business that day.

[Guest pushbrk]

Why spend so much time and energy worrying about the draft form and stuff, when the final form comes out we will follow the instructions and do what they say.

 

It's not like they asked for our opinion.

221446[/snapback]

Good question, Lee. I won't presume your reasons but these are mine.

 

First, it's a matter of setting expectations for our affected members. We can't be sure how long the delay will be but it clearly is not appropriate to expect that THIS draft will be the final one, so it is inappropriate to expect the solution is quicky forthcoming.

 

Second, although most of the posting participation in this thread is from members who have passed this point and are not affected, those affected are undoubtedly among the thread's viewers. As with other subjects, posts are written for the reader more than for the writer.

 

The purpose is to help other people.