New I-129F

[Randy W]

I think that what the law amounts to is to GET CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS into the hands of the Chinese SO - that the "definition" of IMB will ultimately be meaningless.

 

The question in my mind is - is there, or will there be an American equivalent of the Chinese police report?

 

and I think those who are not yet in the queue may be aubject to blue slips for it.

Edited June 8, 2006 by Randy W (see edit history)

[frank1538]

BUt if they collect it from everyone, then the [ethical] dilemma that a person did not use an IMB.. but has a criminal past...  are they NOT required to disclose that to the beneficiary?  (Insane if they don't... would go to show that policy--letter of the law--is more important than spirit of the law--protecting women).

222619[/snapback]

Yep. I think the law contemplates that the VO will disclose the conviction information from the I-129F to the beneficiary during the interview. From the Act: http://usaimmigrationattorney.com/images/IMBRA2005.pdf

 

"...During an interview with an applicant for a K nonimmigrant visa,

a consular officers shall¡ª

(A) provide information, in the primary language of the visa applicant, on protection orders or criminal convictions collected under subsection (a)(5)(A)(iii)..."

[david_dawei]

BUt if they collect it from everyone, then the [ethical] dilemma that a person did not use an IMB.. but has a criminal past...   are they NOT required to disclose that to the beneficiary?   (Insane if they don't... would go to show that policy--letter of the law--is more important than spirit of the law--protecting women).

222619[/snapback]

Yep. I think the law contemplates that the VO will disclose the conviction information from the I-129F to the beneficiary during the interview. From the Act: http://usaimmigrationattorney.com/images/IMBRA2005.pdf

 

"...During an interview with an applicant for a K nonimmigrant visa,

a consular officers shall—

(A) provide information, in the primary language of the visa applicant, on protection orders or criminal convictions collected under subsection (a)(5)(A)(iii)..."

222629[/snapback]

I'm glad your answering my rhetorical questions.. since that is my thinking too...

 

I see that they are having so many people involved in some part (DHS, IMB, petition, Consular officers) that it seems redundant work [as I complained earlier]... but I really think they are covering ever possible base... I even read that at the AOS interview, the adjudicating officer is supposed to [again] disclose it... Just one more time to make sure...

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

What's misleading in the form is that the questions about criminal background are in section C.2 , and don't suggest (unless I'm missing it somewhere) that you only fill it out IF IF IF you used a IMB.. that's another question (19)...

222530[/snapback]

My read of the law is that criminal conviction information (Part C) and IMB information (question 19) are separate. It seems to me that EVERYBODY has to provide the criminal conviction information whether or not an international marriage broker was used.

 

But, as Lee says, we're dealing with a draft that may be revised before implementation.

222592[/snapback]

I agree. that's my read too...

 

This makes sense if their idea is to verify their own criminal name checks against the petitioner supplied info.. any discprency could be used to deny a form (?).. meaning you did not disclose sometime (?) Seems a backdoor way to stop some of those with criminal past.. but this is just my idea not suggesting they are doing this.

 

BUt if they collect it from everyone, then the [ethical] dilemma that a person did not use an IMB.. but has a criminal past... are they NOT required to disclose that to the beneficiary? (Insane if they don't... would go to show that policy--letter of the law--is more important than spirit of the law--protecting women).

222619[/snapback]

It is not the spirit of US law to engage in an "I gotcha" campaign disguised by requesting information from applicants and comparing it to their own record; then, if they find a discrepancy, view it as a deliberate withholding or obstruction. Speaking of violations, employing such a method would likely violate not only the spirit but the truths that Americans hold so sacred; those being the right to privacy, and of illegal search and seizure.

 

This issue is incredibly complex, and you can bet your bottom dollar that the best minds in constitutional law will make sure that the rights of US citizens are protected. Throughout US history there has been one attack after another, many well-intended, that if allowed to stand would have degraded our individual rights. Thankfully, we have great minds and spirits occupying the seats of the US supreme court that understand the complexities of such issues.

 

I do not believe that a US citizen can be compelled to disclose criminal information on this form. Rather, it's the responsibility of US law enforcement to keep their records, do a background check. If someone has convictions for domestic violence or sexual assault, the US will have records of this information. VAWA, the militant women's group supporting female victims of violence, is behind this effort. Make no mistake about it, while it seems like such activity would be a good thing on the surface, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that it will help women from becoming victims of violent or sexually perverted men.

[david_dawei]

I think that what the law amounts to is to GET CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS into the hands of the Chinese SO - that the "definition" of IMB will ultimately be meaningless.

 

The question in my mind is - is there, or will there be an American equivalent of the Chinese police report?

 

and I think those who are not yet in the queue may be aubject to blue slips for it.

222627[/snapback]

The instructs say, if you answer YES, to submit police and court papers.. The burden is truly on the petitioner, where I guess it should be if you have those convictions... but some will at some point qualify for the waiver and they have to prove that as well...

[Randy W]

I think that what the law amounts to is to GET CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS into the hands of the Chinese SO - that the "definition" of IMB will ultimately be meaningless.

 

The question in my mind is - is there, or will there be an American equivalent of the Chinese police report?

 

and I think those who are not yet in the queue may be aubject to blue slips for it.

222627[/snapback]

The instructs say, if you answer YES, to submit police and court papers.. The burden is truly on the petitioner, where I guess it should be if you have those convictions... but some will at some point qualify for the waiver and they have to prove that as well...

222634[/snapback]

 

 

There is a difference between police and court reports of actual known events, and a historical record of ALL events in a persons record. It seems to me that a clear record would need to be "proven" to some degree. It's too much to expect the VO to do a last minute check right before the interview. If the consulate does it between P3 and P4 - well, it seems like that would have to be done in the US.

[david_dawei]

Make no mistake about it, while it seems like such activity would be a good thing on the surface, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that it will help women from becoming victims of violent or sexually perverted men.

222633[/snapback]

I would agree with this based on one flaw I see:

 

The assumption that only IMBs should be targeted with getting this information into a potential woman's hands is very bad in my mind... as if only IMBs result in a marriage with a foreign person...

 

But the collection and possible disclosure by a VO at an interview does help make up for this flaw.

 

I don't think they should of targeted IMBs.. (I'm waiting to see if an IMB sues the US)...

 

they should decide: if they want to protect [all] women, then do it on the form, check the USC and disclose it to her... Ok.. I know...

[david_dawei]

I think that what the law amounts to is to GET CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS into the hands of the Chinese SO - that the "definition" of IMB will ultimately be meaningless.

 

The question in my mind is - is there, or will there be an American equivalent of the Chinese police report?

 

and I think those who are not yet in the queue may be aubject to blue slips for it.

222627[/snapback]

The instructs say, if you answer YES, to submit police and court papers.. The burden is truly on the petitioner, where I guess it should be if you have those convictions... but some will at some point qualify for the waiver and they have to prove that as well...

222634[/snapback]

 

 

There is a difference between police and court reports of actual known events, and a historical record of ALL events in a persons record. It seems to me that a clear record would need to be "proven" to some degree. It's too much to expect the VO to do a last minute check right before the interview. If the consulate does it between P3 and P4 - well, it seems like that would have to be done in the US.

222635[/snapback]

I assume the criminal name check will occur at USCIS.. who will disclose the info to DOS as needed... This would just be a part of the case that the VO gets... well see...

[Guest pushbrk]

Make no mistake about it, while it seems like such activity would be a good thing on the surface, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that it will help women from becoming victims of violent or sexually perverted men.

222633[/snapback]

I would agree with this based on one flaw I see:

 

The assumption that only IMBs should be targeted with getting this information into a potential woman's hands is very bad in my mind... as if only IMBs result in a marriage with a foreign person...

 

But the collection and possible disclosure by a VO at an interview does help make up for this flaw.

 

I don't think they should of targeted IMBs.. (I'm waiting to see if an IMB sues the US)...

 

they should decide: if they want to protect [all] women, then do it on the form, check the USC and disclose it to her... Ok.. I know...

222636[/snapback]

My current read is that it's at least a three pronged process.

 

1. When an IMB is involved, require that the background information is provided before the personal communication begins.

 

2. Disqualify petitioners that lie to USCIS about their criminal records.

 

3. In all cases, verify (at interview) that the background information has been provided to the foreign beneficiary.

Edited June 8, 2006 by pushbrk (see edit history)

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

One VERY important point that is being overlooked here....

 

It is the right of all US citizens to sponsor the immigration of a loved one, or spouse from a foreign country. This right cannot be revoked. No US citizen will ever be disqualified, regardless how peppered their past or criminal history.

 

edit...

 

There have been cases however where US immigration will hold a petition in perpetual abeyance so that they don't have to rule on it....

Edited June 8, 2006 by ShaQuaNew (see edit history)

[david_dawei]

One VERY important point that is being overlooked here....

 

It is the right of all US citizens to sponsor the immigration of a loved one, or spouse from a foreign country. This right cannot be revoked. No US citizen will ever be disqualified, regardless how peppered their past or criminal history.

 

edit...

 

There have been cases however where US immigration will hold a petition in perpetual abeyance so that they don't have to rule on it....

222640[/snapback]

What follows is not dealing with the revoking issue.. but

 

Once a VO discloses something at an interview.. and sees the shocked looked in a beneficiary's face... Don't you think that is his RED FLAG , or better, BLUE SLIP...

 

We've seen VOs pass out blue slips for much less... this may just put the burden on the couple to now 'overcome' this...

[frank1538]

One VERY important point that is being overlooked here....

 

It is the right of all US citizens to sponsor the immigration of a loved one, or spouse from a foreign country. This right cannot be revoked. No US citizen will ever be disqualified, regardless how peppered their past or criminal history.

 

edit...

 

There have been cases however where US immigration will hold a petition in perpetual abeyance so that they don't have to rule on it....

222640[/snapback]

I hate to disagree with you Jesse, but the right to sponsor an alien is a statutory right, not a constitutional right. Statutory rights are a matter of legislative grace and usually can be repealed with nothing more than the stroke of a pen.

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

One VERY important point that is being overlooked here....

 

It is the right of all US citizens to sponsor the immigration of a loved one, or spouse from a foreign country. This right cannot be revoked. No US citizen will ever be disqualified, regardless how peppered their past or criminal history.

 

edit...

 

There have been cases however where US immigration will hold a petition in perpetual abeyance so that they don't have to rule on it....

222640[/snapback]

What follows is not dealing with the revoking issue.. but

 

Once a VO discloses something at an interview.. and sees the shocked looked in a beneficiary's face... Don't you think that is his RED FLAG , or better, BLUE SLIP...

 

We've seen VOs pass out blue slips for much less... this may just put the burden on the couple to now 'overcome' this...

222641[/snapback]

There you go. That's what this is all about. They want to disclose the petitioner's criminal past and behaviors to the beneficiary. This is not a case of getting denied for being an asshole, because they will not deny a petition because the petitioner is a criminal, nor can they. All they can do is alert the beneficiary that the guy is a dork....

Edited June 8, 2006 by ShaQuaNew (see edit history)

[Randy W]

. . . and I think that under any of the scenarios, the beneficiary would have the option to ACCEPT the criminal background check and go with the jerk anyway (if the visa were awarded).

[LeeFisher3]

What's misleading in the form is that the questions about criminal background are in section C.2 , and don't suggest (unless I'm missing it somewhere) that you only fill it out IF IF IF you used a IMB.. that's another question (19)...

222530[/snapback]

My read of the law is that criminal conviction information (Part C) and IMB information (question 19) are separate. It seems to me that EVERYBODY has to provide the criminal conviction information whether or not an international marriage broker was used.

 

But, as Lee says, we're dealing with a draft that may be revised before implementation.

222592[/snapback]

I agree. that's my read too...

 

This makes sense if their idea is to verify their own criminal name checks against the petitioner supplied info.. any discprency could be used to deny a form (?).. meaning you did not disclose sometime (?) Seems a backdoor way to stop some of those with criminal past.. but this is just my idea not suggesting they are doing this.

 

BUt if they collect it from everyone, then the [ethical] dilemma that a person did not use an IMB.. but has a criminal past... are they NOT required to disclose that to the beneficiary? (Insane if they don't... would go to show that policy--letter of the law--is more important than spirit of the law--protecting women).

222619[/snapback]

It is not the spirit of US law to engage in an "I gotcha" campaign disguised by requesting information from applicants and comparing it to their own record; then, if they find a discrepancy, view it as a deliberate withholding or obstruction. Speaking of violations, employing such a method would likely violate not only the spirit but the truths that Americans hold so sacred; those being the right to privacy, and of illegal search and seizure.

 

This issue is incredibly complex, and you can bet your bottom dollar that the best minds in constitutional law will make sure that the rights of US citizens are protected. Throughout US history there has been one attack after another, many well-intended, that if allowed to stand would have degraded our individual rights. Thankfully, we have great minds and spirits occupying the seats of the US supreme court that understand the complexities of such issues.

 

I do not believe that a US citizen can be compelled to disclose criminal information on this form. Rather, it's the responsibility of US law enforcement to keep their records, do a background check. If someone has convictions for domestic violence or sexual assault, the US will have records of this information. VAWA, the militant women's group supporting female victims of violence, is behind this effort. Make no mistake about it, while it seems like such activity would be a good thing on the surface, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that it will help women from becoming victims of violent or sexually perverted men.

222633[/snapback]

While I understand your views, a convicted felon does not have the right to hide or mask their record. The individual actually surrenders rights by committing a crime against the laws of the land and while many feel there should be, there is no right to privacy specified or guaranteed in the US Constitution and criminal records are public records.

 

In the US, those identified as sexual predators are required by law to register their location, which is made available to the public. The purpose of this portion of the IMBRA is requiring this information and perhaps a bit more, be made available to those who would be potential victims of these people where they now choose to lure them from another country.

 

I suggest that those who consider this measure too harsh arrange a marriage to these people for their sister or daughter to demonstrate the conviction of their beliefs and let's see how that works out.

 

I see this as being another way to reduce the number of potential victims for those who have a history of violence against women or

children and the responsibility of our society.