Regarding the new I-129F

[Rickmt57]

Hello Everyone,

 

I assume that since I met my wife through an Internet site that we will now have to list that site on the new I-129F form, is that right?

 

Thanks,

Rick

[Guest pushbrk]

Hello Everyone,

 

I assume that since I met my wife through an Internet site that we will now have to list that site on the new I-129F form, is that right?

 

Thanks,

Rick

230066[/snapback]

The new form asks if you met your wife through an IMB. If the answer is "no" then whether you mention the name of a website is purely optional. I wouldn't do it.

[LeeFisher3]

I would read their definition on the I-129F carefully and evaluate the site you met on to see if YOU feel it falls into that category before accepting someone else's opinion of giving a Yes/No answer to the question. They will not be the one taking the risk or facing a flat out denial based on your answer. A key phrase to consider when reading Section 3 of the instructions appears to be:

by providing personal contact information or otherwise facilitating communication between individuals.

 

Remember the question will probably come up at the interview and if you give different answers it could cause you some difficulty.

 

Also, if you didn't meet on the internet you need to be prepared to answer exactly how you met and be willing to provide evidence to prove it at the interview.

 

The golden rule in dealing with the USCIS and DOS concerning a visa is Never, ever tell them a lie!!!!!!

[LeeFisher3]

Hello Everyone,

 

I assume that since I met my wife through an Internet site that we will now have to list that site on the new I-129F form, is that right?

 

Thanks,

Rick

230066[/snapback]

The new form asks if you met your wife through an IMB. If the answer is "no" then whether you mention the name of a website is purely optional. I wouldn't do it.

230069[/snapback]

Based on the information provided your response is completely irresponsible and could cause someone an extreme amount of grief, which I know is not your intention, but the results could be devastating to someone blindly accepting your advice.

 

Unless you are willing and able to represent them as their immigration attorney of record you need to quit posting responses of this type concerning this specific question.

[Guest pushbrk]

Hello Everyone,

 

I assume that since I met my wife through an Internet site that we will now have to list that site on the new I-129F form, is that right?

 

Thanks,

Rick

230066[/snapback]

The new form asks if you met your wife through an IMB. If the answer is "no" then whether you mention the name of a website is purely optional. I wouldn't do it.

230069[/snapback]

Based on the information provided your response is completely irresponsible and could cause someone an extreme amount of grief, which I know is not your intention, but the results could be devastating to someone blindly accepting your advice.

 

Unless you are willing and able to represent them as their immigration attorney of record you need to quit posting responses of this type concerning this specific question.

230099[/snapback]

I don't understand your objection. I didn't meet my wife through an IMB, so I don't see any need to tell them the name of any website unless they specifically ask.

 

I told the OP that to do so was optional. It is. I wouldn't. Period. If Rick has further questions, I'm sure he'll ask them. In the meantime, I would prefer you offer me only advice I ask for.

[Randy W]

He's right Lee. The question on the I129F is "If you answered Yes, please provide the name of the International Marriage Broker . . ."

[LeeFisher3]

Hello Everyone,

 

I assume that since I met my wife through an Internet site that we will now have to list that site on the new I-129F form, is that right?

 

Thanks,

Rick

230066[/snapback]

The new form asks if you met your wife through an IMB. If the answer is "no" then whether you mention the name of a website is purely optional. I wouldn't do it.

230069[/snapback]

Based on the information provided your response is completely irresponsible and could cause someone an extreme amount of grief, which I know is not your intention, but the results could be devastating to someone blindly accepting your advice.

 

Unless you are willing and able to represent them as their immigration attorney of record you need to quit posting responses of this type concerning this specific question.

230099[/snapback]

I don't understand your objection. I didn't meet my wife through an IMB, so I don't see any need to tell them the name of any website unless they specifically ask.

 

I told the OP that to do so was optional. It is. I wouldn't. Period. If Rick has further questions, I'm sure he'll ask them. In the meantime, I would prefer you offer me only advice I ask for.

230101[/snapback]

You inferred the answer would be no, but that is your style of writing. Each person needs to carefully examine the definition before answering Yes or No. That is the critical issue here and it's a land mine of an issue.

 

As for your preference for someone offering you advice, requested or not, it's the internet. Get over it.

[Peckerwood]

I met my wife online, it was purely coincidental. No marriage broker was ever involved. I was not looking for a wife, I was just lucky enough to meet her.

 

I had actually been on a couple of sites, about a year earlier. Apparently the only American women that thought I was good enough for them to reply were at about 280Lbs, and old and ugly. Hell, I've turned down better looking women at a Cock fight.

[LeeFisher3]

He's right Lee. The question on the I129F is "If you answered Yes, please provide the name of the International Marriage Broker . . ."

230102[/snapback]

That does not make providing a web site name optional, it is only required IF you answer YES.

[Peckerwood]

Hello Everyone,

 

I assume that since I met my wife through an Internet site that we will now have to list that site on the new I-129F form, is that right?

 

Thanks,

Rick

230066[/snapback]

You might need to define more clearly what you are referring to an INTERNET site at this point. It seems to be causing some confusion.

 

Point being, did we meet are So's through an agency at this time, or maybe did you meet on AOL chat room, or Yahoo chat room,,there is a difference between Brokers, dating sites, and just plain old meeting in a chat room. I guess

[Guest pushbrk]

He's right Lee. The question on the I129F is "If you answered Yes, please provide the name of the International Marriage Broker . . ."

230102[/snapback]

That does not make providing a web site name optional, it is only required IF you answer YES.

230106[/snapback]

Please read what I wrote. I said if the answer is no, then naming a website is optional. There is another question that asks how you met. Since Rick is married, this question doesn't need the kind of detailed answer you K1 folks are required. My own approved K3 petition answers how we met with "N/A married".

 

If the answer is "no" to IMB question then I would not give the name of the website where I first made contact with my wife.

 

This is a K3 case.

[Rickmt57]

He's right Lee. The question on the I129F is "If you answered Yes, please provide the name of the International Marriage Broker . . ."

230102[/snapback]

That does not make providing a web site name optional, it is only required IF you answer YES.

230106[/snapback]

Please read what I wrote. I said if the answer is no, then naming a website is optional. There is another question that asks how you met. Since Rick is married, this question doesn't need the kind of detailed answer you K1 folks are required. My own approved K3 petition answers how we met with "N/A married".

 

If the answer is "no" to IMB question then I would not give the name of the website where I first made contact with my wife.

 

This is a K3 case.

230109[/snapback]

My wife actually answered an ad I had on a dating site, and reading the 129F instruction it says marriage broker/ dating site so to be safe I guess I should just put the name of the site. Should one go ahead and plan on sending a copy of a police report like our SO will have to do?

 

Thanks,

Rick

[Guest pushbrk]

He's right Lee. The question on the I129F is "If you answered Yes, please provide the name of the International Marriage Broker . . ."

230102[/snapback]

That does not make providing a web site name optional, it is only required IF you answer YES.

230106[/snapback]

Please read what I wrote. I said if the answer is no, then naming a website is optional. There is another question that asks how you met. Since Rick is married, this question doesn't need the kind of detailed answer you K1 folks are required. My own approved K3 petition answers how we met with "N/A married".

 

If the answer is "no" to IMB question then I would not give the name of the website where I first made contact with my wife.

 

This is a K3 case.

230109[/snapback]

My wife actually answered an ad I had on a dating site, and reading the 129F instruction it says marriage broker/ dating site so to be safe I guess I should just put the name of the site. Should one go ahead and plan on sending a copy of a police report like our SO will have to do?

 

Thanks,

Rick

230120[/snapback]

Not all dating sites are IMB's. In fact most are not. The definition on the new form leaves out the exceptions that go with the paragraph shown. First, you must determine how you are going to answer the IMB question. Is it yes or no? If yes, what follows is different than if the answer is no. From our phone conversations, I seem to recall that you used a regular dating site with nothing but "membership fees".

 

Your statement that your wife contacted you first would seem to back that up. You might want to take a look at some of the threads that discuss IMBRA to get a better idea. If the website's primary business in NOT arranging international marriages and charges the same fee whether there is domestic or international contact then it is not likely to be an IMB. Perhaps you used one of the sites we've already discussed.

 

Start here:

 

http://candleforlove.com/forums/index.php?...336&mode=linear

 

and here..

 

http://candleforlove.com/forums/index.php?...ndpost&p=229172

Edited July 11, 2006 by pushbrk (see edit history)

[Rickmt57]

He's right Lee. The question on the I129F is "If you answered Yes, please provide the name of the International Marriage Broker . . ."

230102[/snapback]

That does not make providing a web site name optional, it is only required IF you answer YES.

230106[/snapback]

Please read what I wrote. I said if the answer is no, then naming a website is optional. There is another question that asks how you met. Since Rick is married, this question doesn't need the kind of detailed answer you K1 folks are required. My own approved K3 petition answers how we met with "N/A married".

 

If the answer is "no" to IMB question then I would not give the name of the website where I first made contact with my wife.

 

This is a K3 case.

230109[/snapback]

My wife actually answered an ad I had on a dating site, and reading the 129F instruction it says marriage broker/ dating site so to be safe I guess I should just put the name of the site. Should one go ahead and plan on sending a copy of a police report like our SO will have to do?

 

Thanks,

Rick

230120[/snapback]

Not all dating sites are IMB's. In fact most are not. The definition on the new form leaves out the exceptions that go with the paragraph shown. First, you must determine how you are going to answer the IMB question. Is it yes or no? If yes, what follows is different than if the answer is no. From our phone conversations, I seem to recall that you used a regular dating site with nothing but "membership fees".

 

Your statement that your wife contacted you first would seem to back that up. You might want to take a look at some of the threads that discuss IMBRA to get a better idea. If the website's primary business in NOT arranging international marriages and charges the same fee whether there is domestic or international contact then it is not likely to be an IMB. Perhaps you used one of the sites we've already discussed.

 

Start here:

 

http://candleforlove.com/forums/index.php?...336&mode=linear

 

and here..

 

http://candleforlove.com/forums/index.php?...ndpost&p=229172

230124[/snapback]

Hi Mike,

 

Thanks, after reading that and again going back and reading the 129F instructions the site we met on is not an international marriage broker, because they do not pass on any personal information. So My answer will be no.

 

Thanks, Rick

[Guest pushbrk]

Hello Everyone,

 

I assume that since I met my wife through an Internet site that we will now have to list that site on the new I-129F form, is that right?

 

Thanks,

Rick

230066[/snapback]

The new form asks if you met your wife through an IMB. If the answer is "no" then whether you mention the name of a website is purely optional. I wouldn't do it.

230069[/snapback]

Based on the information provided your response is completely irresponsible and could cause someone an extreme amount of grief, which I know is not your intention, but the results could be devastating to someone blindly accepting your advice.

 

Unless you are willing and able to represent them as their immigration attorney of record you need to quit posting responses of this type concerning this specific question.

230099[/snapback]

I don't understand your objection. I didn't meet my wife through an IMB, so I don't see any need to tell them the name of any website unless they specifically ask.

 

I told the OP that to do so was optional. It is. I wouldn't. Period. If Rick has further questions, I'm sure he'll ask them. In the meantime, I would prefer you offer me only advice I ask for.

230101[/snapback]

You inferred the answer would be no, but that is your style of writing. Each person needs to carefully examine the definition before answering Yes or No. That is the critical issue here and it's a land mine of an issue.

 

As for your preference for someone offering you advice, requested or not, it's the internet. Get over it.

230103[/snapback]

No Lee, I am the writer. Only the reader can infer. Rick said he "assumed". I gave him an example of where his assumption would be incorrect. I can't help your errant inferences. I didn't "imply" anything. I made a factual statement and told Rick what...I...wouldn't do if those circumstances existed.

 

I'm trying to help people here. Your constant efforts to find fault and take personal jabs are both intrusive and counter-productive. Please knock it off.