Ready to File I-129f ???

[Guest pushbrk]

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!

220969[/snapback]

I don't know what information USCIS or DHS can obtain on their own. I just know that a private background check won't satisfy the USCIS as to the answers to those questions.

 

As I've said before, I have very strong doubts this is the final draft of the form. It's just the best we have to go on at the moment.

 

It should be noted, however that if one seeks certain priviledges from the government, one must often provide information they have the right to keep private. I don't like the privacy elements of this law one bit. Perhaps it's unconstitutional. However, as it stands, it would appear that if one may be required to disclose private information in exchange for the priveledge of bringing a fiance from another country to the USA.

 

You have a right to privacy and the goverment may have the right to deny you a priviledge unless you disclose private information. For instance when being vetted for a security clearance, etc. They don't have to give you the clearance/job and you won't get it unless you do as they request.

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

Mike, yes, true, this new law is teetering all over the constitution. It's the right to privacy 101 that all lawyers are adament with their clients to NEVER, EVER tell the police, government, or other law enforcement official anything. No exeptions.

 

This is a bold blantant fishing expedition. Sure, they can ask, but you don't have to answer. Neither can you be denied if you don't answer. Anything you say can, and will be manipulated to be used against you in a court of law. Anyone having a hint of doubt on this needs to contact an attorney immediately.

 

Now, conversely, an employer can ask you the same question, and depending on the state, Florida for example, you can be denied a job or fired if you do not provide the information. The government cannot do this to a private citizen.

 

There are always quite a few people that are willing to surrender their rights thinking they have nothing to hide. That is not the point. The point is, they can ask, but you do not have to provide them a thing.

 

This reminds me of driving down to Key West two years ago when I was pulled over by the State Police. The officer said he thought I had drugs in the car and requested that I allow him to search my car. I told him no way. He said fine. We can wait here along side the road for 4-5 hours while I order out the dogs and get a warrant. I stiffened up, pissed as can be and told him to go the f-ahead, search the damn car. So, I waited, they found nothing of course. He then returned to me and said, I'm sorry about all this, but 90% of the time a single man is driving a car down this corridor that's loaded with suitcases they are carrying drugs. They watch cars from the air and pull them over.

 

If I'd had more time I would not have given in. I regret that day.

[Guest pushbrk]

Mike, yes, true, this new law is teetering all over the constitution. It's the right to privacy 101 that all lawyers are adament with their clients to NEVER, EVER tell the police, government, or other law enforcement official anything. No exeptions.

 

This is a bold blantant fishing expedition. Sure, they can ask, but you don't have to answer. Neither can you be denied if you don't answer. Anything you say can, and will be manipulated to be used against you in a court of law. Anyone having a hint of doubt on this needs to contact an attorney immediately.

 

Now, conversely, an employer can ask you the same question, and depending on the state, Florida for example, you can be denied a job or fired if you do not provide the information. The government cannot do this to a private citizen.

 

There are always quite a few people that are willing to surrender their rights thinking they have nothing to hide. That is not the point. The point is, they can ask, but you do not have to provide them a thing.

 

This reminds me of driving down to Key West two years ago when I was pulled over by the State Police. The officer said he thought I had drugs in the car and requested that I allow him to search my car. I told him no way. He said fine. We can wait here along side the road for 4-5 hours while I order out the dogs and get a warrant. I stiffened up, pissed as can be and told him to go the f-ahead, search the damn car. So, I waited, they found nothing of course. He then returned to me and said, I'm sorry about all this, but 90% of the time a single man is driving a car down this corridor that's loaded with suitcases they are carrying drugs. They watch cars from the air and pull them over.

 

If I'd had more time I would not have given in. I regret that day.

220976[/snapback]

It's an interesting subject to discuss. The I-129F draft is a little weird in that if your answer doesn't require a check in a box, you do nothing. You only disclose a record if you put an X in a box. I guess that by not marking the box, you are considered to have answered "NO" but this is fuzzy. There is not a "NO" box to check.

 

As I've already said, question two is deeply flawed to begin with.

 

I'm also pretty sure that K visa filers are going to have more hoops to jump through related to IMBRA than just a revised I-129F form.

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

[RLS]

Mike, yes, true, this new law is teetering all over the constitution. It's the right to privacy 101 that all lawyers are adament with their clients to NEVER, EVER tell the police, government, or other law enforcement official anything. No exeptions.

 

This is a bold blantant fishing expedition. Sure, they can ask, but you don't have to answer. Neither can you be denied if you don't answer. Anything you say can, and will be manipulated to be used against you in a court of law. Anyone having a hint of doubt on this needs to contact an attorney immediately.

 

Now, conversely, an employer can ask you the same question, and depending on the state, Florida for example, you can be denied a job or fired if you do not provide the information. The government cannot do this to a private citizen.

 

There are always quite a few people that are willing to surrender their rights thinking they have nothing to hide. That is not the point. The point is, they can ask, but you do not have to provide them a thing.

 

This reminds me of driving down to Key West two years ago when I was pulled over by the State Police. The officer said he thought I had drugs in the car and requested that I allow him to search my car. I told him no way. He said fine. We can wait here along side the road for 4-5 hours while I order out the dogs and get a warrant. I stiffened up, pissed as can be and told him to go the f-ahead, search the damn car. So, I waited, they found nothing of course. He then returned to me and said, I'm sorry about all this, but 90% of the time a single man is driving a car down this corridor that's loaded with suitcases they are carrying drugs. They watch cars from the air and pull them over.

 

If I'd had more time I would not have given in. I regret that day.

220976[/snapback]

So, with that in mind, you would recommend NOT answering any of the items that relate to the IMBRA? Would that not cause a huge delay and more RFE's? On a constitutional basis you might win out, but it could be hung up for a longgggggg time, just as you would have been in Florida had you chosen to wait the 4 or 5 hours. Would it be resolved in two different ways: 1. For those who have never been arrested or charged AND 2. For those who have a criminal arrest record/and or convictions?

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

[LeeFisher3]

So, with that in mind, you would recommend NOT answering any of the items that relate to the IMBRA?  Would that not cause a huge delay and more RFE's?  On a constitutional basis you might win out, but it could be hung up for a longgggggg time.  Would it be resolved in two different ways:  1. For those who have never been arrested or charged AND 2. For those who have a criminal arrest record/and or convictions?

220981[/snapback]

The sad part of the idea about what's right or wrong about the information requested is that a failure to respond within the specified time limit causes the petition to be canceled with an extemely difficult time to get the case reopened.

[Guest pushbrk]

Mike, yes, true, this new law is teetering all over the constitution. It's the right to privacy 101 that all lawyers are adament with their clients to NEVER, EVER tell the police, government, or other law enforcement official anything. No exeptions.

 

This is a bold blantant fishing expedition. Sure, they can ask, but you don't have to answer. Neither can you be denied if you don't answer. Anything you say can, and will be manipulated to be used against you in a court of law. Anyone having a hint of doubt on this needs to contact an attorney immediately.

 

Now, conversely, an employer can ask you the same question, and depending on the state, Florida for example, you can be denied a job or fired if you do not provide the information. The government cannot do this to a private citizen.

 

There are always quite a few people that are willing to surrender their rights thinking they have nothing to hide. That is not the point. The point is, they can ask, but you do not have to provide them a thing.

 

This reminds me of driving down to Key West two years ago when I was pulled over by the State Police. The officer said he thought I had drugs in the car and requested that I allow him to search my car. I told him no way. He said fine. We can wait here along side the road for 4-5 hours while I order out the dogs and get a warrant. I stiffened up, pissed as can be and told him to go the f-ahead, search the damn car. So, I waited, they found nothing of course. He then returned to me and said, I'm sorry about all this, but 90% of the time a single man is driving a car down this corridor that's loaded with suitcases they are carrying drugs. They watch cars from the air and pull them over.

 

If I'd had more time I would not have given in. I regret that day.

220976[/snapback]

So, with that in mind, you would recommend NOT answering any of the items that relate to the IMBRA? Would that not cause a huge delay and more RFE's? On a constitutional basis you might win out, but it could be hung up for a longgggggg time, just as you would have been in Florida had you chosen to wait the 4 or 5 hours. Would it be resolved in two different ways: 1. For those who have never been arrested or charged AND 2. For those who have a criminal arrest record/and or convictions?

220981[/snapback]

I think it's too soon to form a responsible or conclusive answer to your question, Ron. On the assumption you didn't use an IMB and don't have a record, the only thing we now know for sure you would do differently is to check a box that says you didn't use an IMB.

 

The I-129F draft doesn't require you to do anything else directly related to IMBRA.

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

So, with that in mind, you would recommend NOT answering any of the items that relate to the IMBRA?  Would that not cause a huge delay and more RFE's?  On a constitutional basis you might win out, but it could be hung up for a longgggggg time, just as you would have been in Florida had you chosen to wait the 4 or 5 hours.  Would it be resolved in two different ways:  1. For those who have never been arrested or charged AND 2. For those who have a criminal arrest record/and or convictions?

220981[/snapback]

This is a new law. No-one knows how they will attempt handling it. Everyone filing a K1 petition after March 6 will be affected.

 

Previously, as in before March 6, 2006, every single marriage based petition was subjected to a thorough background check. This background check looked for a variety of things, but most specifically is for:

 

1. US citizens with active warrants

2. Those on government watch lists

3. Those suspected of human trafficking and terrorism

 

Current law in most US states requires convicted sex offenders to report themselves and whereabouts to local authorities. This is nothing new for them. Those on this board that have such a conviction should be consulting with an attorney anyway.

 

Anyone that has a background that includes being charged with a crime of moral turpitude should be consulting with an experienced immigration attorney well-versed in constitutional law.

[coulter]

Another $.02. The draft I-129f (which I think most agree is not likely to be approved as written ... which I believe also means another 60 day delay for publication and comment on a second draft before implementation), appears to contain a typo. Specifically, Section C 2 reads, "Have you ever been by a court of law ..." I think it was intended to read, "Have you ever been convicted by a court of law ..." As it is currently written, it does not appear to make sense to me. (Later in C it specifically refers to convictions.)

[Guest pushbrk]

Another $.02. The draft I-129f (which I think most agree is not likely to be approved as written ... which I believe also means another 60 day delay for publication and comment on a second draft before implementation), appears to contain a typo. Specifically, Section C 2 reads, "Have you ever been by a court of law ..." I think it was intended to read, "Have you ever been convicted by a court of law ..." As it is currently written, it does not appear to make sense to me. (Later in C it specifically refers to convictions.)

220987[/snapback]

Yes, it does appear that they clearly are referring to "convictions" and that the word "convicted" has been left out of the actual question. They also leave out a question mark. Fixing those things and perhaps adding a box to answer "NO" might not require another waiting period to approve the form. Who knows?

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

[Randy W]

From David's usimmigrationattorney.com link:

 

While it is true that Section 833(d)(3)(A) focuses on regulating the IMB's release of the lady's contact data going to the U.S. gentleman customer, the definitions used in this law appear so broad that there is reason for pause and cause for troubling concern, in our view. For example, the definition of "IMB" is NOT only a correspondence company which releases personal contact information to a foreign national client lady, but any company "that charges fees for providing [any type of] dating, matrimonial, matchmaking services or social referrals" (Emphasis added for clarification purpose from our viewpoint).

Moreover, this definition of "IMB" goes on and includes a company that NOT ONLY releases a foreign client lady's personal contact information BUT IS ALSO "otherwise faciliating communication between individuals". Section 833(e)(4)(A). Even further, the definition of "personal contact information" is more than only the foreign lady's address, phone number or E-mail address, but also any "forum to obtain such information, that would permit individuals to contact each other..." Section 833(e)(6)(A). Thus, under all these definitions, this law seems to reach out and cover IMBs offering any type of reasonable platform for helping a U.S. client gentleman and foreign national lady to communicate and meet, for purpose of romance, love and marriage.

 

 

We may not find out exactly what the USCIS/DOS interpretation is until post-March 6 petitioners start having interviews.

 

My advice is be prepared, if possible!

[Guest pushbrk]

From David's usimmigrationattorney.com link:

 

While it is true that Section 833(d)(3)(A) focuses on regulating the IMB's release of the lady's contact data going to the U.S. gentleman customer, the definitions used in this law appear so broad that there is reason for pause and cause for troubling concern, in our view. For example, the definition of "IMB" is NOT only a correspondence company which releases personal contact information to a foreign national client lady, but any company "that charges fees for providing [any type of] dating, matrimonial, matchmaking services or social referrals" (Emphasis added for clarification purpose from our viewpoint).

Moreover, this definition of "IMB" goes on and includes a company that NOT ONLY releases a foreign client lady's personal contact information BUT IS ALSO "otherwise faciliating communication between individuals". Section 833(e)(4)(A). Even further, the definition of "personal contact information" is more than only the foreign lady's address, phone number or E-mail address, but also any "forum to obtain such information, that would permit individuals to contact each other..." Section 833(e)(6)(A). Thus, under all these definitions, this law seems to reach out and cover IMBs offering any type of reasonable platform for helping a U.S. client gentleman and foreign national lady to communicate and meet, for purpose of romance, love and marriage.

 

 

We may not find out exactly what the USCIS/DOS interpretation is until post-March 6 petitioners start having interviews.

 

My advice is be prepared, if possible!

220993[/snapback]

The portion you quoted does not include the "exceptions" clearly spelled out for "internet dating services" where "international" is incidental to their actual business and for non-profit organizations.

[RLS]

Another $.02. The draft I-129f (which I think most agree is not likely to be approved as written ... which I believe also means another 60 day delay for publication and comment on a second draft before implementation), appears to contain a typo. Specifically, Section C 2 reads, "Have you ever been by a court of law ..." I think it was intended to read, "Have you ever been convicted by a court of law ..." As it is currently written, it does not appear to make sense to me. (Later in C it specifically refers to convictions.)

220987[/snapback]

This is exactly why they posted the "Draft" so they can work the kinks out and make corrections in grammar, spellings, omitted items, etc. We can only hope that they don't have Draft 1, Draft 2, Draft 3 . . . well you get the draft, I mean drift.

[RLS]

I guess, the bottom line is, after all the postings on this issue --

no one knows squat. It's nice that everyone can speculate, but, wouldn't it be even nicer if we could get "some" information from USCIS? Just tell us what you need and we'll comply immediately.

[Uncle]

Now I am more "confused" ---which is good, I expected my original 4 options to expand to about 10, and yes, it is more important to get it in the mail, it will be on monday. I will write more on the relationship growth, add some more "proof"

 

I was looking at my papers from the beginning I wrote my now SO in march along with several others, but she did not contact me untill the end of may ---and at that time she was no longer a member of the site, one day in may I had a surprise invite to yahoo messenger!!!, I had made no mention of my yahoo messenger address --she found it somehow , after several days her parents came into the webcam picture, asked me some questions and then her mother gave us the blessing to continue

 

thanks for all the thoughts on the different angles, I think I will go and write the uncle story, get the creative thoughts flowing, and hope for a good dream that has all the answers tonight in my sleep

[LeeFisher3]

Uncle, welcome to the world of CFL and the uncertainty of dealing with the UCSIC. One thing I can guarantee you is there will seldom be a time when the answer to your questions which results in "I don't know".

 

If there was anyway to predict when the new form would be completed for use this would be a simple case of tossing a coin, unfortunately no one here can do anything but speculate on when that will be.

 

What is even worse, is that while we can all read and interpret the new law, we can only speculate on how the USCIS will implement it. There is no one who can tell you with any degree of certainty what this will look like in 12 months, they can only offer a guess.

 

The only thing we know for certain is that the service centers continue processing cases and are building a queue of people who will need to comply with whatever they come up with and there will be a backlog generated waiting for that information. When the RFE's come out there will be a race to see who gets out of the queue first.

 

I look forward to hearing about how you became uncle and guess we will see if your story is closer to Uncle Buck or Man from UNCLE. Perhaps your hospital story will end up with you surviving without the use of a kick start ear wax removal device.

 

Get the thing in the mail and then kick back and enjoy, one thing for certain is that it rarely gets boring around here.