The new I-129f form is apparently official now

[Guest pushbrk]

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. 

 

224649[/snapback]

The catch 22 is what the site states and what it is operating as MAY be opposite. This is the place where one is faced with deciding whether or not to self interpret. Even noticing the discrepancy requires that one has already interpreted the the legal meaning.

 

The practicalities of the matter are that one first reads the instructions and makes an initial judgement whether they used and IMB or not. THEN they may or may not check it out further.

 

What I fear is that far too many will misinterpret the definintion and say yes when the answer is really no. If one is not careful to follow the complex context, they are likely to assume any dating website that isn't completely free of charge, is an IMB.

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

[Randy W]

An answer of "Yes" to the IMB question on the I-129F opens the door for the VO to ask for the background information that was given to your SO by the IMB. They are supposed to check criminal databases and provide personal information from the applicant to the SO. If the IMB did not perform this duty, well, we won't know until this occurs. CHNLOVE claims that your visa may be denied.

 

CHNLOVE gathers information from the client, but I didn't see anything there to indicate that they would check any criminal databases.

 

It seems to me that "No" is the only reasonable answer anyone can give to the IMB question, if your SO does not have ALL information required from an IMB, especially if there is any reason to think that it may NOT be an IMB.

[Guest pushbrk]

An answer of "Yes" to the IMB question on the I-129F opens the door for the VO to ask for the background information that was given to your SO by the IMB. They are supposed to check criminal databases and provide personal information from the applicant to the SO. If the IMB did not perform this duty, well, we won't know until this occurs. CHNLOVE claims that your visa may be denied.

 

CHNLOVE gathers information from the client, but I didn't see anything there to indicate that they would check any criminal databases.

 

It seems to me that "No" is the only reasonable answer anyone can give to the IMB question, if your SO does not have ALL information required from an IMB, especially if there is any reason to think that it may NOT be an IMB.

224678[/snapback]

It is not clear to me whether CHNLove will be checking actual criminal databases beyond supplying the US Client's disclosure form to the lady. It's also not clear to me this is required.

 

What is clear to me are three things.

 

1. CHNLove is an IMB

2. Lying on immigration forms is a very bad idea.

3. CHNLove misleads their clients when they say...

 

"If you are a US Client and you had already obtained the lady's personal contact information before the effective date of this law, you shall not be affected by this new law."

 

What might be true is that CHNLove is not required to do anything with regard to you and the law. As we know, the information exchange date is not what determines whether a petitioner is affected. It is the petition filing date that determines that.

 

I don't mean to pick on this particular IMB, except that it is both a commonly used one for CFL members AND clearly a perfect example of what IS and IMB.

[david_dawei]

An answer of "Yes" to the IMB question on the I-129F opens the door for the VO to ask for the background information that was given to your SO by the IMB. They are supposed to check criminal databases and provide personal information from the applicant to the SO. If the IMB did not perform this duty, well, we won't know until this occurs. CHNLOVE claims that your visa may be denied.

 

CHNLOVE gathers information from the client, but I didn't see anything there to indicate that they would check any criminal databases.

 

It seems to me that "No" is the only reasonable answer anyone can give to the IMB question, if your SO does not have ALL information required from an IMB, especially if there is any reason to think that it may NOT be an IMB.

224678[/snapback]

It is not clear to me whether CHNLove will be checking actual criminal databases beyond supplying the US Client's disclosure form to the lady. It's also not clear to me this is required.

 

What is clear to me are three things.

 

1. CHNLove is an IMB

2. Lying on immigration forms is a very bad idea.

3. CHNLove misleads their clients when they say...

 

"If you are a US Client and you had already obtained the lady's personal contact information before the effective date of this law, you shall not be affected by this new law."

 

What might be true is that CHNLove is not required to do anything with regard to you and the law. As we know, the information exchange date is not what determines whether a petitioner is affected. It is the petition filing date that determines that.

 

I don't mean to pick on this particular IMB, except that it is both a commonly used one for CFL members AND clearly a perfect example of what IS and IMB.

224683[/snapback]

Whether CHNLove is doing criminal checks directly or hiring a service to do it... it is required... this information is all over the internet, look at immigration attorney sites. CHNLove appears to be presenting a consistent message I've seen on a few immigration lawyer sites.

 

And logic would seem to dictate that a 'grandfathering' effect would take place somehow... if a couple already meet prior to March 6 (but filed after), when an IMB was not legally bound to perform searches and pass off information... then there should be minimal effect in regards to the need of having passed off information.

 

But the collection of one's background appears to occur for everyone...

 

We'll see what happens when a VO encounters a couple having meet prior to the enactment but filed after...

[MikeandRong]

We'll see what happens when a VO encounters a couple having meet prior to the enactment but filed after...

 

Thanks David , We met online Nov. 2004, met in person January 2006, filed April 2006.

[Guest pushbrk]

We'll see what happens when a VO encounters a couple having meet prior to the enactment but filed after...

 

Thanks David , We met online Nov. 2004, met in person January 2006, filed April 2006.

224699[/snapback]

Through which website? Or if you'd rather not say, then through an IMB or NOT?

[MikeandRong]

Asianeuro, and I feel it is not an IMB web site (it is free to use by both male and female, pay is only for upgraded service if you choose).

[ameriken]

Asianeuro, and I feel it is not an IMB web site (it is free to use by both male and female, pay is only for upgraded service if you choose).

224719[/snapback]

True, it is free......and unless its changed in the 14 months since I have been there and its sister site "chineselovelinks.com", women can contact men for free. However, men cannot email or respond to emails for free...they must become paid members.

 

I wonder if that changes anything?

[MikeandRong]

Asianeuro, and I feel it is not an IMB web site (it is free to use by both male and female, pay is only for upgraded service if you choose).

224719[/snapback]

True, it is free......and unless its changed in the 14 months since I have been there and its sister site "chineselovelinks.com", women can contact men for free. However, men cannot email or respond to emails for free...they must become paid members.

 

I wonder if that changes anything?

224722[/snapback]

I don't know.

 

But I do know we met over a year before the law was on the books. Also she was smart enough to have her email hidden in her profile, so no pay was involved.

[Guest pushbrk]

Asianeuro, and I feel it is not an IMB web site (it is free to use by both male and female, pay is only for upgraded service if you choose).

224719[/snapback]

True, it is free......and unless its changed in the 14 months since I have been there and its sister site "chineselovelinks.com", women can contact men for free. However, men cannot email or respond to emails for free...they must become paid members.

 

I wonder if that changes anything?

224722[/snapback]

I don't know.

 

But I do know we met over a year before the law was on the books. Also she was smart enough to have her email hidden in her profile, so no pay was involved.

224724[/snapback]

If all you pay for is membership, I don't think it qualifies as an IMB. Members may never communicate with anybody at all or in another country. In Mike and Rong's case, they can just tell the truth including the email address in the profile and they clearly did not use an IMB.

 

Something like "I found her profile on an internet dating site and was able to contact her without joining or paying any fees..."

[RLS]

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.

224649[/snapback]

It looks like you're screwed either way you answer it.

[RLS]

AsiaEuro posts this on their purpose of intent: "The purpose of this site is to assist people to find an Asian partner for friendship, language practice, romance or possible marriage." And . . . "IS IT REALLY FREE?

 

Yes, you get Standard Membership for free:- free registration, free add placement, free photo submission, free searching of members profiles and free receipt of messages. However, if you want to contact the female members you will need to take out paid membership."

 

I do not see this as a "Marriage Broker." They do not "arrange" marriages.

[MikeandRong]

Our answer is no, we did not meet through an IMB site.

 

But I do wonder how other people would answer this same scenario. Meeting on a site, IMB or not, but before the law was on the books. But also filing after the deadline of March 6.

 

Would they then have to go back and join the site again just to have the background check given to the person in order to comply with the law?

 

How would a person retroactivly go back in time to comply with the new law?

 

One would think that any meeting that takes place before the law was on the books would not be required to comply with the background requirements imposed by the new law/I-129F petition.

 

But then that is commom sense thinking, not goverment law thinking.

 

There are just to many unanswered questions that can apply to too many other people in so many different scenarios and situations.

[lostinblue]

Our answer is no, we did not meet through an IMB site.

 

But I do wonder how other people would answer this same scenario. Meeting on a site, IMB or not, but before the law was on the books. But also filing after the deadline of March 6.

 

Would they then have to go back and join the site again just to have the background check given to the person in order to comply with the law?

 

How would a person retroactivly go back in time to comply with the new law?

 

One would think that any meeting that takes place before the law was on the books would not be required to comply with the background requirements imposed by the new law/I-129F petition.

 

But then that is commom sense thinking, not goverment law thinking.

 

There are just to many unanswered questions that can apply to too many other people in so many different scenarios and situations.

224744[/snapback]

Government legal thinking in my mind means more work for lawyers. Another way to shut down the do it your self petitioners.I belonged to match.com . I put down in a letter to question 18 ,129f that I was a member and we met through that site .At the time there was an international section that I could not use as more money was needed for that.My so was not a member of Match but we were able to comunicate even though match tried to keep us from doing so. My e-mail address would be sent (changed) to her with a match.com e-mail address as so she needed to be a member to correspond with me.I also have a letter from her (1st communication) saying she was not a member. . If I was to walk into 10 different lawyer's office in the near future will I get 2 different answers. One wonders. 6 months from now after a legal showdown in a court room we will have the answer. But I do not desire to be that test case. If you answer Yes (just to cover your butt) to that question will it mean more background checks and you enter the black hole.In my case NVC told me I was undergoing additional backgroung checks and it would then be sent to GUZ . a week later it was sent back to Vermont. So who knows where I stand at this point.

[david_dawei]

Our answer is no, we did not meet through an IMB site.

 

But I do wonder how other people would answer this same scenario. Meeting on a site, IMB or not, but before the law was on the books. But also filing after the deadline of March 6.

 

Would they then have to go back and join the site again just to have the background check given to the person in order to comply with the law?

 

How would a person retroactivly go back in time to comply with the new law?

 

One would think that any meeting that takes place before the law was on the books would not be required to comply with the background requirements imposed by the new law/I-129F petition.

 

But then that is commom sense thinking, not goverment law thinking.

 

There are just to many unanswered questions that can apply to too many other people in so many different scenarios and situations.

224744[/snapback]

retroactive compliance seems a dangerous enforcement in terms of legal implications...

 

I would agree that you should answer NO...

 

The key thing is that our SO is consistent in her answers at the interview. Seems the 'most common questions' section of the FAQ will probably change ...

 

Hopefully some logic and common sense is applied.. again, we'll see...

Edited June 17, 2006 by DavidZixuan (see edit history)