Ready to File I-129f ???

[Uncle]

Hello Everyone, I had thought I was ready to send in my petition, I have it all assembled, but now I do not know if I am ready after reading the latest posts about the IMBRA, looking at the new I-129f form drafts ---now I do not know what to do.

I met my SO on the site Asian Promise ,over 1 year ago, I did not pay anything to contact her (her email address was on the profile), but I know that she paid to be listed on the site, I just looked at the site again (but did not look at the woman --no need, have the best one)and it says it is non profit, does not seem to fit as marrige broker.

 

For question 18 I have---We met on the computer, after 9 months I flew to China and met Linan and her family. I stayed 12 days in China with Linan. ---short, simple and it fit in the box.

 

For the "Letter of Intent" I used the simple form like on the sample form site ( I have had some help from my brother with the forms, he filed K1 5 years ago, his wife is from Panama ,but the papers are much different now).

 

I have 18 good pictures showing us together with friends and family ---I think 1/2 the people in Fuzhou got to take our picture, of all the people she stopped to take our pictures only 1 or 2 refused.

 

I am asking for some input on what to do--

 

1- leave it as is

2- I started to rewrite the letter of intent to show where we met, a timeline of the developing relationship, our decision to marry

3-??? add the new draft page?? of the I-129

4-other

 

I want this in the mail soon, but know some days now could save months later, so far my questions could be answered by looking at past posts.

 

Thanks to all in advance, when I have it in the mail I will open my bag of cheetos and write you a story about my night in the hospital,and how I became "uncle"

[LeeFisher3]

Welcome to CFL, however it appears you have been hanging around for a while and understand Cheeto's and many of the important things involved in the wait.

 

In some ways it's a coin toss as to what you should do, but let me offer my thoughts. Being you are from Jersey you will be submitting through Vermont Service Center, which has traditionally been the fastest in processing, see there's being from Jersey is actually worth something good this time.

 

One thing you might consider trying is to write up a letter to put with your I-129F listing the questions that you see on the Draft form, question 19 and questions 1 & 2 of Section C. Do it as distinct questions and not in a paragraph. You might title this IMBRA and Criminal Record Information. Sign it and have it notarized. Do NOT submit their DRAFT form, because it is not official and they can not accept it. They may or may not accept you answering the questions on something other than their official questionnaire, but it's worth a shot.

 

Leave everything else as it and send it in to get in the queue, this way you will begin moving toward the approval process. The odds are you will be receiving an RFE for the IMBRA information, but there is no way to predict how this will affect you at this time.

 

For the moment none of us can tell you how the USCIS will handle this processing, we can only go on best guess. My best hope is that attaching the IMBRA questions and answers is that they will identify your file as not needing to apply and you will move through the process unscathed, passing those who applied before you as they get their questions together(probably too much to hope for).

 

Either way, you need to get through the approval process and waiting will only get you in the queue later.

 

Also, be sure to keep your SO informed that things are changing and you are watching it very carefully to see if this affects you.

 

Good luck and welcome to the insane asylum.

[frank1538]

Welcome aboard. I'm looking forward to reading your "uncle" story.

 

As it relates to IMBRA changes, it seems to me that you have two choices. You can wait until the new I-129F is released, use it, and be done with it. Maybe others have a better handle on this, but it may be a while before the new form is released. It could be in a few days or a few weeks, so I don't know how much of a delay it would actually cause you if you waited. In the alternative, you can file off the existing form and expect a follow up questionnaire from USCIS. Again, I don't know how much of a delay in processing this will cause, but some increase in processing time is likely. I'm not sure I see much benefit in trying to anticipate the new form and supplying the information now. My sense is that you'd get a questionnaire anyhow despite the fact that you may have already supplied the information.

 

On the other items, I'll share my experience. I used a short a sweet statement on how we met - similar to yours, and our "letter of intent" was actually one of the letters that I had written Jingwen about our plans for marriage. I supplied only a handful of pictures showing us together in China (some just us, some with family).

[coulter]

In addition to the good suggestions above regarding IMBRA, it is my opinion that the answer to Question 18 should be very detailed and cover not just how you met, but also a lengthy history of communications and the like, supported by more (rather than less) supporting documents, including but not limited to photos, letters, emails, IM chats, etc. I would also include in my answer an honest, accurate statement as to both the petitioner's and SO's ability to speak the other's language and how you communicate with each other.

 

The USCIS/NVC approval of the petition is "prima facie evidence that the requirements for classification - which are examined in the petition process - have been met" and the CO can only recommend denial due to "fraud, changes in circumstances or clear error on the part of DHS in approving the petition." (See the link and quotes below.) "The consular officer''s

role in the petition process is to determine if there is substantial evidence relevant to petition validity not previously considered by DHS, and not to merely readjudicate the petition." So if the I-129F includes lots of detailed facts and evidence, it is my opinion that it is harder for the VO (CO) to find "substantial evidence not previously considered by DHS." In other words, the more evidence that is furnished with the I-129F, the less evidence that will be available for the CO to find that was "not previously considered by DHS."

 

It is my opinion that sometimes VO's disagree with the DHS approval and attempt to adjudicate the merits on their own. This can result in a request for additional evidence or administrative review. But I think in the end, administrative review will approve the visa unless there is substantial evidence of "fraud, changed circumstances or clear error."

 

http://travel.state.gov/visa/laws/telegram...grams_1388.html

 

6. In adjudicating visa cases involving petitions, posts should

bear in mind three important factors: A. the consular officer''s

role in the petition process is to determine if there is

substantial evidence relevant to petition validity not

previously considered by DHS, and not to merely readjudicate the

petition; B. the memo supporting the petition return must

clearly show the factual and concrete reasons for recommending

revocation (observations made by the consular officer cannot be

conclusive, speculative, equivocal or irrelevant) and; C.

consular officers must provide to the applicant in writing as

full an explanation as possible of the legal and factual basis

for the visa denial and petition return. Post must maintain a

copy of the returned petition, other evidence relevant to the

case, and a copy of the written notification of the denial.

 

No readjudication of petitions

 

7. In general, an approved petition will be considered by

consular officers as prima facie evidence that the requirements

for classification - which are examined in the petition process

- have been met. Where Congress has placed responsibility and

authority with DHS to determine whether the requirements for

status which are examined in the petition process have been met,

consular officers do not have the authority to question the

approval of petitions without specific evidence, generally

unavailable to DHS at the time of petition approval, that the

beneficiary may not be entitled to status (see 9 FAM 41.53, Note

2, 41.54 Note 3.2-2, 41.55 Note 8, 41.56 Note 10, 41.57 Note 6,

and 42.43 Note 2) due to fraud, changes in circumstances or

clear error on the part of DHS in approving the petition.

Conoffs should not assume that a petition should be revoked

simply because they would have reached a different decision if

adjudicating the petition.

[Redsunset52]

Sounds like you are ready , in regards to the "how you met" letter I would put something in the letter that says a little about what you know about each other. This will help somewhat when the Consulate looks at your file that you and your SO communitcate since both of you know something about each other and must communicate. It does not have to be long and lengthly for example : My SO is Budhist and I am Catholic , yet we share many things in common

[Guest pushbrk]

Hello Everyone, I had thought I was ready to send in my petition, I have it all assembled, but now I do not know if I am ready after reading the latest posts about the IMBRA, looking at the new I-129f form drafts  ---now I do not know what to do.

I met my SO on the site Asian Promise ,over 1 year ago, I did not pay anything to contact her (her email address was on the profile), but I know that she paid to be listed on the site, I just looked at the site again (but did not look at the woman --no need, have the best one)and it says it is non profit, does not seem to fit as marrige broker.

 

For question 18 I have---We met on the computer, after 9 months I flew to China and met Linan and her family. I stayed 12 days in China with Linan.  ---short, simple and it fit in the box.

 

For the "Letter of Intent" I used the simple form like on the sample form site ( I have had some help from my brother with the forms, he filed K1 5 years ago, his wife is from Panama ,but the papers are much different now).

 

I have 18 good pictures showing us together with friends and family ---I think 1/2 the people in Fuzhou got to take our picture, of all the people she stopped to take our pictures only 1 or 2 refused.

 

I am asking for some input on what to do--

 

1- leave it as is

2- I started to rewrite the letter of intent to show where we met, a timeline of the developing relationship, our decision to marry

3-??? add the new draft page?? of the I-129

4-other

 

I want this in the mail soon, but know some days now could save months later, so far my questions could be answered by looking at past posts.

 

    Thanks to all in advance, when I have it in the mail I will open my bag of cheetos and write you a story about my night in the hospital,and how I became "uncle"

220909[/snapback]

My answer would be similar to Lee's.

 

However, I would suggest for question 18 that your make it very clear not just that you met on the computer but that you met through an "internet dating site". Specifically indicate that you did NOT meet through and International Marriage Broker. If you need extra space, you can refer to an attached page.

 

I would NOT use the draft form except for reference. I'll bet a fingernail it gets changed. The instructions are very bad and question 2 in Part C is severely flawed. (Have you ever been WHAT by a court...?)

 

Here's what I would write in a separate DATED document with its own signature and notarization. Only if true, of course.

 

State whether you are in the military and if so, when you plan to return to the US. (unless that's already in the current I-129)

 

I have never been charged or convicted by a court of law or court martialed by a military tribunal for any of the following crimes.

 

(Then list all the crimes listed in three sections)

====================================================

 

The goal is for USCIS to find your petition, as submitted, in conformance with IMBRA and skip sending you an RFE to bring it into conformance. It MIGHT work and I don't see how it could hurt.

[Randy W]

The IMBRA law is all in the interpretation and execution. The only thing that has meant so far is that any petition submitted after March 6 was recalled from the consulates. And this is only to make a revision to the I-129F form.

 

Which specific web-sites are actually IMB's under the law is open to interpretation.

 

I'm going to toss this up to see what others think - why not be pro-active and order a criminal background check on yourself to be sent to your SO? It seems like that in itself might stave off an RFE or a blue slip. Let the USCIS worry about which web-sites are marriage brokers under the law. The intent is to get a criminal background check into your SO's hands. You can do this youself.

 

One of David's links (usimmigrationattorney.com) said this:

 

There are also background check service companies which can assist the U.S. client is securing his background information and having it translated to the lady's native language, if assistance is needed (For example: IMB Service Agency, LLC E-Mail:imbserviceagency@yahoo.com)

 

Is this reasonable?

Edited June 2, 2006 by Randy W (see edit history)

[Guest pushbrk]

The IMBRA law is all in the interpretation and execution. The only thing that has meant so far is that any petition submitted after March 6 was recalled from the consulates. And this is only to make a revision to the I-129F form.

 

Which specific web-sites are actually IMB's under the law is open to interpretation.

 

I'm going to toss this up to see what others think - why not be pro-active and order a criminal background check on yourself to be sent to your SO? It seems like that in itself might stave off an RFE or a blue slip. Let the USCIS worry about which web-sites are marriage brokers under the law. The intent is to get a criminal background check into your SO's hands. You can do this youself.

 

One of David's links (usimmigrationattorney.com) said this:

 

There are also background check service companies which can assist the U.S. client is securing his background information and having it translated to the lady's native language, if assistance is needed (For example: IMB Service Agency, LLC E-Mail:imbserviceagency@yahoo.com)

 

Is this reasonable?

220950[/snapback]

It sounds both expensive and unnecessary unless you actually have criminal record. Then it's even more expensive. I doubt USCIS will accept anything done by a method other than the one they eventually prescribe.

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

I'm going to toss this up to see what others think - why not be pro-active and order a criminal background check on yourself to be sent to your SO? It seems like that in itself might stave off an RFE or a blue slip. Let the USCIS worry about which web-sites are marriage brokers under the law. The intent is to get a criminal background check into your SO's hands. You can do this youself.

 

Is this reasonable?

220950[/snapback]

Randy, because there are a few variables, it would not be good to paint this with a broad brush. FBI files contain a good deal more information about each one of us than a third-party background check. Additionally, there might be those who have been charged and acquitted, and had files expunged. The FBI does not expunge, but third-party and local agencies must.

 

The well-intentioned but backward IMBRA law wants to alert would-be spouses of:

 

1. Previous sex crime convictions

2. Domestic violence convictions

 

Those that have these sorts of convictions on their record would do themselves a favor by having an open hearted talk with themselves, their therapist, the police, and their partner.

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

[Randy W]

I'm going to toss this up to see what others think - why not be pro-active and order a criminal background check on yourself to be sent to your SO? It seems like that in itself might stave off an RFE or a blue slip. Let the USCIS worry about which web-sites are marriage brokers under the law. The intent is to get a criminal background check into your SO's hands. You can do this youself.

 

Is this reasonable?

220950[/snapback]

Randy, because there are a few variables, it would not be good to paint this with a broad brush. FBI files contain a good deal more information about each one of us than a third-party background check. Additionally, there might be those who have been charged and acquitted, and had files expunged. The FBI does not expunge, but third-party and local agencies must.

 

The well-intentioned but backward IMBRA law wants to alert would-be spouses of:

 

1. Previous sex crime convictions

2. Domestic violence convictions

 

Those that have these sorts of convictions on their record would do themselves a favor by having an open hearted talk with themselves, their therapist, the police, and their partner.

220954[/snapback]

 

 

But what I'm getting at is this - would it be reasonable (or possible) to order NOW the same check that might be imposed on an IMB under the law?

 

What I'm afraid of is that Joe Blow, who met his SO through AsianEuro and applied after March 6, might find that the VO says, "Oh, we just declared them a Marriage Broker last week" and blue slip them for the background check. If were able to order one NOW, that would minimize the delay.

 

There are a LOT of details to work out w/this act.

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

I'm going to toss this up to see what others think - why not be pro-active and order a criminal background check on yourself to be sent to your SO? It seems like that in itself might stave off an RFE or a blue slip. Let the USCIS worry about which web-sites are marriage brokers under the law. The intent is to get a criminal background check into your SO's hands. You can do this youself.

 

Is this reasonable?

220950[/snapback]

Randy, because there are a few variables, it would not be good to paint this with a broad brush. FBI files contain a good deal more information about each one of us than a third-party background check. Additionally, there might be those who have been charged and acquitted, and had files expunged. The FBI does not expunge, but third-party and local agencies must.

 

The well-intentioned but backward IMBRA law wants to alert would-be spouses of:

 

1. Previous sex crime convictions

2. Domestic violence convictions

 

Those that have these sorts of convictions on their record would do themselves a favor by having an open hearted talk with themselves, their therapist, the police, and their partner.

220954[/snapback]

 

 

But what I'm getting at is this - would it be reasonable (or possible) to order NOW the same check that might be imposed on an IMB under the law?

 

What I'm afraid of is that Joe Blow, who met his SO through AsianEuro and applied after March 6, might find that the VO says, "Oh, we just declared them a Marriage Broker last week" and blue slip them for the background check. If were able to order one NOW, that would minimize the delay.

 

There are a LOT of details to work out w/this act.

220956[/snapback]

I don't know Randy. This is a real tough one. The minutia is what's going to make or break this thing. This is sort of like the illegal immigrants that are now here in the US that many lawmakers want to give amnesty. Each of these illegals will present forged documentation as to how long they've been here. Likewise, how with US immigration police and investigate who is giving accurate information? How will they know who actually met using marriage broker, and who did not? They can't. There is no way they can know.

 

So, what they will do is toss all petitions back into a big background checking seive, with the intent of finding anomalys. Problem is that everyone will be delayed, and affected by this witch hunt. You've got a small percentage of sickos out there, with the US government intent upon finding them?

 

I think as this pans it's way out in the coming weeks and months, that many congressman, senators, and media will be alerted to this unfair but well-intentioned legislation. I think it would be prudent for anyone that is currently affected by this new law to WAIT. Do nothing, at least for now. Wait and see what they start asking for. My guess is that until the new I-129F is developed, and any other associated documentation, that it would be best to not give the government anything. Of course, I'm a strong proponent of giving them only what they ask for. Never more, and never unless requested.

[Kalli and Greg Oveson]

I'm going to toss this up to see what others think - why not be pro-active and order a criminal background check on yourself to be sent to your SO? It seems like that in itself might stave off an RFE or a blue slip. Let the USCIS worry about which web-sites are marriage brokers under the law. The intent is to get a criminal background check into your SO's hands. You can do this youself.

 

Is this reasonable?

220950[/snapback]

Randy, because there are a few variables, it would not be good to paint this with a broad brush. FBI files contain a good deal more information about each one of us than a third-party background check. Additionally, there might be those who have been charged and acquitted, and had files expunged. The FBI does not expunge, but third-party and local agencies must.

 

The well-intentioned but backward IMBRA law wants to alert would-be spouses of:

 

1. Previous sex crime convictions

2. Domestic violence convictions

 

Those that have these sorts of convictions on their record would do themselves a favor by having an open hearted talk with themselves, their therapist, the police, and their partner.

220954[/snapback]

 

 

But what I'm getting at is this - would it be reasonable (or possible) to order NOW the same check that might be imposed on an IMB under the law?

 

What I'm afraid of is that Joe Blow, who met his SO through AsianEuro and applied after March 6, might find that the VO says, "Oh, we just declared them a Marriage Broker last week" and blue slip them for the background check. If were able to order one NOW, that would minimize the delay.

 

There are a LOT of details to work out w/this act.

220956[/snapback]

I don't know Randy. This is a real tough one. The minutia is what's going to make or break this thing. This is sort of like the illegal immigrants that are now here in the US that many lawmakers want to give amnesty. Each of these illegals will present forged documentation as to how long they've been here. Likewise, how with US immigration police and investigate who is giving accurate information? How will they know who actually met using marriage broker, and who did not? They can't. There is no way they can know.

 

So, what they will do is toss all petitions back into a big background checking seive, with the intent of finding anomalys. Problem is that everyone will be delayed, and affected by this witch hunt. You've got a small percentage of sickos out there, with the US government intent upon finding them?

 

I think as this pans it's way out in the coming weeks and months, that many congressman, senators, and media will be alerted to this unfair but well-intentioned legislation. I think it would be prudent for anyone that is currently affected by this new law to WAIT. Do nothing, at least for now. Wait and see what they start asking for. My guess is that until the new I-129F is developed, and any other associated documentation, that it would be best to not give the government anything. Of course, I'm a strong proponent of giving them only what they ask for. Never more, and never unless requested.

220958[/snapback]

Since no one, not even USCIS, knows what to do, at best we can only make educated guesses. Here's mine: I would submit the I-129F, either with or without the information suggested by others, as soon as possible. If you look at the bottom of their new draft, it looks to me like they plan to keep track of the original submission dates. If that is true, and they use them to establish the petitioner's place in line, I would want the earliest date I could get and worry about RFEs later.

[LeeFisher3]

I'm going to toss this up to see what others think - why not be pro-active and order a criminal background check on yourself to be sent to your SO? It seems like that in itself might stave off an RFE or a blue slip. Let the USCIS worry about which web-sites are marriage brokers under the law. The intent is to get a criminal background check into your SO's hands. You can do this youself.

 

Is this reasonable?

220950[/snapback]

Randy, because there are a few variables, it would not be good to paint this with a broad brush. FBI files contain a good deal more information about each one of us than a third-party background check. Additionally, there might be those who have been charged and acquitted, and had files expunged. The FBI does not expunge, but third-party and local agencies must.

 

The well-intentioned but backward IMBRA law wants to alert would-be spouses of:

 

1. Previous sex crime convictions

2. Domestic violence convictions

 

Those that have these sorts of convictions on their record would do themselves a favor by having an open hearted talk with themselves, their therapist, the police, and their partner.

220954[/snapback]

 

 

But what I'm getting at is this - would it be reasonable (or possible) to order NOW the same check that might be imposed on an IMB under the law?

 

What I'm afraid of is that Joe Blow, who met his SO through AsianEuro and applied after March 6, might find that the VO says, "Oh, we just declared them a Marriage Broker last week" and blue slip them for the background check. If were able to order one NOW, that would minimize the delay.

 

There are a LOT of details to work out w/this act.

220956[/snapback]

Sites like AsianEuro do not even come close to the definition of a Marriage Broker and have been specifically excluded by definition, many would call the Marriage Brokers a mail order catalog where you go to the foreign country and test drive all models you are interested in purchasing or marrying.

 

If someone has a police record they should first make sure their SO is aware of this and then wait for USCIS to present their final requirements that will be needed in the file. And instructions on what is needed to be provided directly to their SO.

 

My understanding is that the VO will verify that the SO is aware of any criminal record at the interview or perhaps with P3.

[Guest pushbrk]

I'm going to toss this up to see what others think - why not be pro-active and order a criminal background check on yourself to be sent to your SO? It seems like that in itself might stave off an RFE or a blue slip. Let the USCIS worry about which web-sites are marriage brokers under the law. The intent is to get a criminal background check into your SO's hands. You can do this youself.

 

Is this reasonable?

220950[/snapback]

Randy, because there are a few variables, it would not be good to paint this with a broad brush. FBI files contain a good deal more information about each one of us than a third-party background check. Additionally, there might be those who have been charged and acquitted, and had files expunged. The FBI does not expunge, but third-party and local agencies must.

 

The well-intentioned but backward IMBRA law wants to alert would-be spouses of:

 

1. Previous sex crime convictions

2. Domestic violence convictions

 

Those that have these sorts of convictions on their record would do themselves a favor by having an open hearted talk with themselves, their therapist, the police, and their partner.

220954[/snapback]

 

 

But what I'm getting at is this - would it be reasonable (or possible) to order NOW the same check that might be imposed on an IMB under the law?

 

What I'm afraid of is that Joe Blow, who met his SO through AsianEuro and applied after March 6, might find that the VO says, "Oh, we just declared them a Marriage Broker last week" and blue slip them for the background check. If were able to order one NOW, that would minimize the delay.

 

There are a LOT of details to work out w/this act.

220956[/snapback]

Read the questions in Part C of the draft carefully. You are asked to disclose court actions EVEN IF NOT CONVICTED or if cases were dismissed. A private background check won't do the trick.

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

Read the questions in Part C of the draft carefully.  You are asked to disclose court actions EVEN IF NOT CONVICTED or if cases were dismissed.  A private background check won't do the trick.

220967[/snapback]

Don't anyone do that. It's their job to know. If they don't know, they have no business of anyone giving it to them. This is like saying, "We want to come in your home, your bank, your life and search, but we know we cannot because the US constitution states we must have a warrant or your permission.

 

NEVER EVER surrender your rights!