The new I-129f form is apparently official now

[RLS]

Here's something I posted on June 2nd. I actually wrote to AsiaEuro sometime around the first of May.

 

I posed this question to AsiaEuro which is the site I used. It appears that many of you used the same site. First is my question and then their response. Not much help here:

 

"My question was about the new International Marriage

Broker Law in the U.S. I have applied for a K1 visa for my fiance'. I

met her on your website. I want to know if that new law applies to me?

Are you considered a "Marriage Broker?" What is your enterpretation of

a marriage broker?"

 

 

"Thank you for your query.

 

Please be advised that we are unsure of the answers to your questions.

We think the best person to explain this to you would be someone from

the immigration department, someone who is processing your VISA

application.

 

We are not sure if they would consider us a marriage broker or not and

are not sure if this will have any effect on your visa application. "

 

AsianEuro

*

 

 

In reality Ron, YOU are more qualified to answer this question than they are. Until you see the actual wording of a question you have to answer, you cannot know for certain how to answer but if I were you, I would be thinking in terms of the answer being NO. Why? Because AsianEuro is not planning to comply as if they are an IMB. smile.gif

*

 

 

Mike, I got the feeling from the tone of their letter that they were not going to clasify their site as a "Marriage Broker." I believe their corporate headquarters is in Australia.

 

Another site called Chnlove answered their customers this way:

 

The new U.S. law named "International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005" (IMBRA) takes effect on Mar. 6, 2006. The law aims at offering protection for immigrant women by allowing them to review a potential gentleman suitor's background before starting a relationship, and thus eliminate the potential for abuse in cross-cultural marriages.

 

If you are a USA Client, do not worry, as Chnlove's operation complies with this new law. If you are a non-USA client, this law is not applicable for you, so it will not affect you.

Edited June 16, 2006 by RLS (see edit history)

[david_dawei]

I think the practical thing to do is ask the service you meet on.. do they consider themselves an IMB or not???It is much too late in the game for someone to not have already consider this and not put in place the necessary steps [if they are one]...?

 

Case on point is CHNLove.. they appear to consider themselves one and have already put in place what they need to continue their operations and assure members of the safety of using their site.. I think it would be in a sites best interested to have been on top of this quickly.. so why not ask them instead of relying on our opinions would be my suggestion...

224485[/snapback]

I certainly think that's one of the things to do. I would be pretty enclined to believe them if they say they are but want to satisfy myself by other means, if they say they aren't.

224487[/snapback]

why call them and ask them if your only willing to believe in one answer and not the other?

 

If they say they are not [iMB], I'd be more relieved than to hunt down a fact that proves them wrong...

 

224488[/snapback]

Oh, the answer to that is simple. There is no motivation for an organization to tell you they are an IMB if it isn't true. There is plenty of reason for an organization that IS an IMB, doesn't know or doesn't care, to lie to you and tell you they aren't.

 

I wouldn't go looking for ways to prove them wrong. I'd confirm by other means that they were telling the truth before relying on their answer.

 

If I asked USCIS, I would expect them to either be totally inept at their answer or simply err on the side of covering their ass. We're dealing with humans here, after all.

224490[/snapback]

So you would not trust the very [dating] service you used to meet your SO.. and you send off a petition to the very [visa] service whom will process you, but you don't trust their work or word... Just a little too negative/doubting/distrusting outlook on things for me...

 

There's plenty of visas which get processed without any problems..

[Randy W]

I think what it comes down to (what Mike is trying to say, or at least should be trying to say), is that anyone filling out an application or an RFE NOW should think long and hard before answering "Yes" to the Marriage Broker question.

 

Answering "Yes" can potentially open a very big can of worms

[RLS]

Here's something that crossed my mind: Are people, not necessarily on CFL, filling out these new I-129F's before they even hear from USCIS in the effort to get the jump on everyone else? I know how some people can't wait to get ahead of everyone else. These are the same kind of people who will go to the head of a waiting line and butt in. I don't want to fill it out until they request it. Am I wrong?

[david_dawei]

Here's something that crossed my mind:  Are people, not necessarily on CFL, filling out these new I-129F's before they even hear from USCIS in the effort to get the jump on everyone else?  I know how some people can't wait to get ahead of everyone else.  These are the same kind of people who will go to the head of a waiting line and butt in.  I don't want to fill it out until they request it.  Am I wrong?

224512[/snapback]

What do they need to hear from USCIS? IF they are using the new form, they can just fill it out.. I feel I am missing something in your thought...

 

I don't follow requesting a I-129F... A new person fills out the new form.. Those already submitted will get an RFE...

Edited June 16, 2006 by DavidZixuan (see edit history)

[RLS]

Here's something that crossed my mind:  Are people, not necessarily on CFL, filling out these new I-129F's before they even hear from USCIS in the effort to get the jump on everyone else?  I know how some people can't wait to get ahead of everyone else.  These are the same kind of people who will go to the head of a waiting line and butt in.  I don't want to fill it out until they request it.  Am I wrong?

224512[/snapback]

What do they need to hear from USCIS? IF they are using the new form, they can just fill it out.. I feel I am missing something in your thought...

 

I don't follow requesting a I-129F... A new person fills out the new form.. Those already submitted will get an RFE...

224516[/snapback]

David, that's what I meant. Sorry for the confusion. I wasn't referring to the new ones who are completing the I-129F for the first time. I was wondering if guys (who are in my position) were trying to jump the gun, even before they get an RFE. I mean, I could read all of these posts on CFL and there are several threads on this same topic, and decide, hey, I'm gonna get ahead of everyone and do another "new" I-129F and beat the crowd. I'm not doing that, but it would not surprise me if others did.

[david_dawei]

Here's something that crossed my mind:  Are people, not necessarily on CFL, filling out these new I-129F's before they even hear from USCIS in the effort to get the jump on everyone else?  I know how some people can't wait to get ahead of everyone else.  These are the same kind of people who will go to the head of a waiting line and butt in.  I don't want to fill it out until they request it.  Am I wrong?

224512[/snapback]

What do they need to hear from USCIS? IF they are using the new form, they can just fill it out.. I feel I am missing something in your thought...

 

I don't follow requesting a I-129F... A new person fills out the new form.. Those already submitted will get an RFE...

224516[/snapback]

David, that's what I meant. Sorry for the confusion. I wasn't referring to the new ones who are completing the I-129F for the first time. I was wondering if guys (who are in my position) were trying to jump the gun, even before they get an RFE. I mean, I could read all of these posts on CFL and there are several threads on this same topic, and decide, hey, I'm gonna get ahead of everyone and do another "new" I-129F and beat the crowd. I'm not doing that, but it would not surprise me if others did.

224530[/snapback]

ok.. thanks for clarifying...

 

This would be a bad move (IMO)... I mean, to have two concurrent I-129F petitions submitted. You'd get yourself cancelled on both accounts probably.. Then your limit of two petitions could flag you as not being able to do it again any time soon !! But I'm sure you see that one would want to stop the first one.. but I think this path would have it's own set of implications/difficulties/delays.

 

I personally think it's better to stay on course.. keep your current 'received date'... wait on the RFE... since we can see the new form, you can guess what they'll be asking and can probably start sorting out the responses..

[Guest pushbrk]

I think the practical thing to do is ask the service you meet on.. do they consider themselves an IMB or not???It is much too late in the game for someone to not have already consider this and not put in place the necessary steps [if they are one]...?

 

Case on point is CHNLove.. they appear to consider themselves one and have already put in place what they need to continue their operations and assure members of the safety of using their site.. I think it would be in a sites best interested to have been on top of this quickly.. so why not ask them instead of relying on our opinions would be my suggestion...

224485[/snapback]

I certainly think that's one of the things to do. I would be pretty enclined to believe them if they say they are but want to satisfy myself by other means, if they say they aren't.

224487[/snapback]

why call them and ask them if your only willing to believe in one answer and not the other?

 

If they say they are not [iMB], I'd be more relieved than to hunt down a fact that proves them wrong...

 

224488[/snapback]

Oh, the answer to that is simple. There is no motivation for an organization to tell you they are an IMB if it isn't true. There is plenty of reason for an organization that IS an IMB, doesn't know or doesn't care, to lie to you and tell you they aren't.

 

I wouldn't go looking for ways to prove them wrong. I'd confirm by other means that they were telling the truth before relying on their answer.

 

If I asked USCIS, I would expect them to either be totally inept at their answer or simply err on the side of covering their ass. We're dealing with humans here, after all.

224490[/snapback]

So you would not trust the very [dating] service you used to meet your SO.. and you send off a petition to the very [visa] service whom will process you, but you don't trust their work or word... Just a little too negative/doubting/distrusting outlook on things for me...

 

There's plenty of visas which get processed without any problems..

224501[/snapback]

"What we have here is a failure to communicate."

 

First, even if I were affected, I wouldn't have a trust issue with the website I used. I wouldn't bother to ask THEM, because I'm not the least bit confused about their answer. They are not an IMB. I was writing hypothetically, knowing that people are more likely to lie to make themselves look good than to make themselves look bad. They would all know "Yes we are an IMB." is not what the caller wants to hear. I wouldn't be willing to bet my future happiness solely on a "No we are not an IMB." without evaluating more objective information.

 

As for the USCIS, I trust the adjudicators that process the cases to be as competent as one could expect of government clerical workers. If I were to "ask the USCIS" about a dating website, I would be talking to a customer service representative that I would expect is not nearly well enough informed to evaluate facts instead of cover their butt with the safest possible answer that may or may not be accurate.

[david_dawei]

First, even if I were affected, I wouldn't have a trust issue with the website I used.  I wouldn't bother to ask THEM, because I'm not the least bit confused about their answer.  They are not an IMB.  I was writing hypothetically, knowing that people are more likely to lie to make themselves look good than to make themselves look bad.  They would all know "Yes we are an IMB." is not what the caller wants to hear.  I wouldn't be willing to bet my future happiness solely on a "No we are not an IMB." without evaluating more objective information.

224535[/snapback]

Ok.. let's take the hypothetical to the practical level...

 

so let's say that 'hypothetically' your site is an IMB.. but they tell you they are not an IMB...

 

You'll have to 'hypothetically' not believe or trust this hypothetical site of course..

 

 

what do you do next before you write on the form "No IMB used" ?

[Guest pushbrk]

First, even if I were affected, I wouldn't have a trust issue with the website I used.  I wouldn't bother to ask THEM, because I'm not the least bit confused about their answer.  They are not an IMB.  I was writing hypothetically, knowing that people are more likely to lie to make themselves look good than to make themselves look bad.  They would all know "Yes we are an IMB." is not what the caller wants to hear.  I wouldn't be willing to bet my future happiness solely on a "No we are not an IMB." without evaluating more objective information.

224535[/snapback]

Ok.. let's take the hypothetical to the practical level...

 

so let's say that 'hypothetically' your site is an IMB.. but they tell you they are not an IMB...

 

You'll have to 'hypothetically' not believe or trust this hypothetical site of course..

 

 

what do you do next before you write on the form "No IMB used" ?

224539[/snapback]

Assuming the site IS and IMB, if I hypothetically met my SO through the site, I would know that they allowed me to choose whom I wished to contact and then charged me a fee to be allowed to make my first and perhaps subsequent contacts with her and any other women I may have wished to contact. It would have been MY experience and ME that paid the fees. Since before filing the petition, I would have read the I-129F instructions that define IMB, I would choose to answer yes to question 19.

 

Here's how I see the process from the petitioner's point of view, David.

 

After proposing or deciding to propose...

 

1. I download the form and read the instructions.

2. I see there is an issue with IMBRA and IMB's so I read real carefully.

3. I conclude, wow, it sounds like I used an IMB, so this applies to me.

4. I think, well maybe I'll ask xxxlove IMB and see if they tell me otherwise.

5. They tell me they aren't an IMB.

6. I remember our business arrangement and transactions, and re-read the I'129F instructions.

7. I decide xxxlove IMB gave me incorrect information and I answer YES to question 19.

 

Let's do another hypothetical.

 

1. I download the form and read the instructions.

2. I see there is an issue with IMBRA and IMB's so I read real carefully.

3. I find CFL and start reading all these threads about IMBRA and IMB's

4. I think, well, I used a dating website and only paid for a membership. Maybe I don't have to answer yes.

5. I go back to the website and confirm that the only charges are membership fees and it doesn't matter whether I ever date anybody, write to anybody or where anybody might reside, it's ALL the same.

6. I think about it some more, maybe ask a few specific questions, then read the law and the instructions again.

7. I answer NO on question 19.

[david_dawei]

1. I download the form and read the instructions.

2. I see there is an issue with IMBRA and IMB's so I read real carefully.

3. I conclude, wow, it sounds like I used an IMB, so this applies to me.

4. I think, well maybe I'll ask xxxlove IMB and see if they tell me otherwise.

5. They tell me they aren't an IMB.

6. I remember our business arrangement and transactions, and re-read the I'129F instructions.

7. I decide xxxlove IMB gave me incorrect information and I answer YES to question 19.

224545[/snapback]

I personally think this way of thinking and approach could fall into some danger ground.. and I'd take a different perspective on how to approach it. While I usually like to understand the issues and make sound decisions, when it is a legal jungle of issues like IMBRA, I would opt to put the onus on the site.

 

Here are the problems I see with your 'self-interpretative' approach to IMBRA:

- You want to shoulder the responsibility for determining the site's operational status in regards to IMBRA

- Although you are reading the law, it does not necessarily mean you are interpreting it correctly.

- You would personally make a decision to go against what the site has told you.. and without legal counsel.

 

To me, this case example would violate one of my core principles in this process, to be 'consistent' with the case. (Not that my thoughts and approach are correct, but it points out the dilemma one can find themself in). Once the case got to the person with the most discretionary powers (ie: The VO), I believe the discrepancy would surface. The VO will have a form marked as "YES", and then proceed to ask the beneficiary if she received the required items from the IMB.. at which time she will say no, and a number of outcomes are possible;

 

But basically the VO must decide to either ignore this discrepancy and continue on with whether to present the criminal background or not (ie: must decide who is right without investigation; if site is correct, then no background is presented; if the VO believes the petitioner is correct, then present the background info... who would the VO believe is correct?)

 

If the VO decides this is not to be ignored, I see a few possible outcomes: The site did not present any papers and this is taken to imply they are not an IMB.. therefore, he holds a petition in his hand which was wrongly filled out and possibly approved based upon false information.. Administrative review is another possible outcome to sort out who is correct. Returning the petition to USCIS is possible, only if the background checks are done differently based on the answer.

 

[Of course, all my ideas could be wrong.. I'm only trying to think through what the VO will consider to do]

 

But my point is that by using self-interpretation to go against what the site said (ie: breaking consistency in the case) could lead to many problems down the road (or I could be wrong).

 

I would put the onus on the site to be responsible and oneself to document; My aim would be to stay consistent with the site, so they answer for it:

1) Talk to the site first... ask pertinent questions on if they publish their position, where is it... will they write a definitive comment. TO me, one litmus test is that the IMBs needed to be compliant by March 6 as well.. so they either have operational ability to do a search of US databases for criminal activity or they don't... (My own litmus test, not a legal one, but seems logical to me). Ask them if they are setup to do this.

DO this all in email so it is all documented.

2) If I had some strange feeling about it, I would still want side with staying consistent with the sites statement (I now have it documented).. I might next suggest calling USCIS to talk to a I-129F specialist.. Let them know I talked to a site and was told they are not an IMB (don't provide any oppositing findings as you could be documenting discrepancies).. but tell the specialist that you had planned to answer "NO" [as the site said] and is that the correct approach to take. At this point, you have verbal agreement with USCIS based on the site's statement. I would ask the specialist to document the discussion in the computer, reflecting the site statement that they are not an IMB and the specialist agreed to this [based on the site statement].

3) Lastly, if you still felt that something was just not right... I'd talk to a lawyer... and explain any implications you see if you truly go against what the site statement says...

 

To me, this law should not be requiring the average joe to self-interpret a black / white issue: That a site is either an IMB or not... but the determination is legally cumbersome and I would prefer to put the onus on the site, be consistent with the site's statement and document it...

 

(Again.. this is just my opinion.. and don't take it as legal advice or suggesting my interpretation of the law is correct... )

[Guest pushbrk]

1. I download the form and read the instructions.

2. I see there is an issue with IMBRA and IMB's so I read real carefully.

3. I conclude, wow, it sounds like I used an IMB, so this applies to me.

4. I think, well maybe I'll ask xxxlove IMB and see if they tell me otherwise.

5. They tell me they aren't an IMB.

6. I remember our business arrangement and transactions, and re-read the I'129F instructions.

7. I decide xxxlove IMB gave me incorrect information and I answer YES to question 19.

224545[/snapback]

I personally think this way of thinking and approach could fall into some danger ground.. and I'd take a different perspective on how to approach it. While I usually like to understand the issues and make sound decisions, when it is a legal jungle of issues like IMBRA, I would opt to put the onus on the site.

 

Here are the problems I see with your 'self-interpretative' approach to IMBRA:

- You want to shoulder the responsibility for determining the site's operational status in regards to IMBRA

- Although you are reading the law, it does not necessarily mean you are interpreting it correctly.

- You would personally make a decision to go against what the site has told you.. and without legal counsel.

 

To me, this case example would violate one of my core principles in this process, to be 'consistent' with the case. (Not that my thoughts and approach are correct, but it points out the dilemma one can find themself in). Once the case got to the person with the most discretionary powers (ie: The VO), I believe the discrepancy would surface. The VO will have a form marked as "YES", and then proceed to ask the beneficiary if she received the required items from the IMB.. at which time she will say no, and a number of outcomes are possible;

 

But basically the VO must decide to either ignore this discrepancy and continue on with whether to present the criminal background or not (ie: must decide who is right without investigation; if site is correct, then no background is presented; if the VO believes the petitioner is correct, then present the background info... who would the VO believe is correct?)

 

If the VO decides this is not to be ignored, I see a few possible outcomes: The site did not present any papers and this is taken to imply they are not an IMB.. therefore, he holds a petition in his hand which was wrongly filled out and possibly approved based upon false information.. Administrative review is another possible outcome to sort out who is correct. Returning the petition to USCIS is possible, only if the background checks are done differently based on the answer.

 

[Of course, all my ideas could be wrong.. I'm only trying to think through what the VO will consider to do]

 

But my point is that by using self-interpretation to go against what the site said (ie: breaking consistency in the case) could lead to many problems down the road (or I could be wrong).

 

I would put the onus on the site to be responsible and oneself to document; My aim would be to stay consistent with the site, so they answer for it:

1) Talk to the site first... ask pertinent questions on if they publish their position, where is it... will they write a definitive comment. TO me, one litmus test is that the IMBs needed to be compliant by March 6 as well.. so they either have operational ability to do a search of US databases for criminal activity or they don't... (My own litmus test, not a legal one, but seems logical to me). Ask them if they are setup to do this.

DO this all in email so it is all documented.

2) If I had some strange feeling about it, I would still want side with staying consistent with the sites statement (I now have it documented).. I might next suggest calling USCIS to talk to a I-129F specialist.. Let them know I talked to a site and was told they are not an IMB (don't provide any oppositing findings as you could be documenting discrepancies).. but tell the specialist that you had planned to answer "NO" [as the site said] and is that the correct approach to take. At this point, you have verbal agreement with USCIS based on the site's statement. I would ask the specialist to document the discussion in the computer, reflecting the site statement that they are not an IMB and the specialist agreed to this [based on the site statement].

3) Lastly, if you still felt that something was just not right... I'd talk to a lawyer... and explain any implications you see if you truly go against what the site statement says...

 

To me, this law should not be requiring the average joe to self-interpret a black / white issue: That a site is either an IMB or not... but the determination is legally cumbersome and I would prefer to put the onus on the site, be consistent with the site's statement and document it...

 

(Again.. this is just my opinion.. and don't take it as legal advice or suggesting my interpretation of the law is correct... )

224623[/snapback]

Ok, David now it's your turn to take on the other hypothetical. What happens if the IMB says it's not an IMB but it really is? Follow that one through. I see big problems there too. Don't you?

[david_dawei]

Ok, David now it's your turn to take on the other hypothetical.  What happens if the IMB says it's not an IMB but it really is?  Follow that one through.  I see big problems there too.  Don't you?

224635[/snapback]

I'm not sure if there is an assumption that I somehow know they are truly an IMB and they are not fooling anyone but themselves...

 

but my attempted approach outlined is what I would try to do in any situation... Put the responsibility to answer on the site and document it...

 

If I answered "NO".. and they are truly known to be a IMB by USCIS, i would get an RFE... but seeing that they are not a compliant site would probably cause some delays since they have to get setup to search US databases... (regardless of my answer).

 

If it was revealed they were an IMB by the time of the interview, the same outcomes are possible (regardless of my answers) since the site is not compliant and never issued anything.

 

I don't see where my changing an answer of the sites statement is going to help... if I can document it and show why I answered the way I did.

 

If I say "YES" and they say "NO".. and they never provide the potential foreign partner with any paperwork, they are the ones to answer for that... I'm consistent with what the site advertises and operates.

 

Yes, I see more problems if they are revealed as an IMB and they did not provide papers (regardless of my answer).. but I don't see where an answer of YES (to their NO) helps anything... I see where it causes problems.

 

I'm still holding to a consistency idea unless they are on a posted blacklist of sites..

[Guest pushbrk]

Ok, David now it's your turn to take on the other hypothetical.  What happens if the IMB says it's not an IMB but it really is?  Follow that one through.  I see big problems there too.  Don't you?

224635[/snapback]

I'm not sure if there is an assumption that I somehow know they are truly an IMB and they are not fooling anyone but themselves...

 

but my attempted approach outlined is what I would try to do in any situation... Put the responsibility to answer on the site and document it...

 

If I answered "NO".. and they are truly known to be a IMB by USCIS, i would get an RFE... but seeing that they are not a compliant site would probably cause some delays since they have to get setup to search US databases... (regardless of my answer).

 

If it was revealed they were an IMB by the time of the interview, the same outcomes are possible (regardless of my answers) since the site is not compliant and never issued anything.

 

I don't see where my changing an answer of the sites statement is going to help... if I can document it and show why I answered the way I did.

 

If I say "YES" and they say "NO".. and they never provide the potential foreign partner with any paperwork, they are the ones to answer for that... I'm consistent with what the site advertises and operates.

 

Yes, I see more problems if they are revealed as an IMB and they did not provide papers (regardless of my answer).. but I don't see where an answer of YES (to their NO) helps anything... I see where it causes problems.

 

I'm still holding to a consistency idea unless they are on a posted blacklist of sites..

224640[/snapback]

That's certainly a valid approach. Frankly, I see problems no matter what. No matter whether you used and IMB or how you answer the question if it turns out to be the wrong answer. We just don't know enough yet about what happens after you file a correctly completed petition.

 

That's why my focus is on giving the answer I truly believe is correct and truthful on the I-129 question 19 and then again for the specific question about convictions. If I've told the truth I know my butt is covered. Your approach seems to leave the butt covering to a business entity, third party. For me, it seems to boil down to personal preference. I don't see why either approach wouldn't be just as valid.

 

What happens after filing, is anybody's guess right now.

[david_dawei]

That's certainly a valid approach.  Frankly, I see problems no matter what.  No matter whether you used and IMB or how you answer the question if it turns out to be the wrong answer.  We just don't know enough yet about what happens after you file a correctly completed petition.

 

That's why my focus is on giving the answer I truly believe is correct and truthful on the I-129 question 19 and then again for the specific question about convictions.  If I've told the truth I know my butt is covered.  Your approach seems to leave the butt covering to a business entity, third party.  For me, it seems to boil down to personal preference.  I don't see why either approach wouldn't be just as valid.

 

What happens after filing, is anybody's guess right now.

224642[/snapback]

I wondered if you were going to play the 'truth' card

 

Since this is not a question about myself (biographic, relationship, etc) but about a legal definition of an entity (ie: IMB), I prefer the source of the answer to come from them. This is equally a truthful answer, the source only differs...

 

I personally would caution anyone to be very careful about self-interpreting the legal meaning of an IMB and to go against what the site states and is operating as.

 

I understand that some will.. and hopefully I can only offer some exchange of ideas.