Regarding the new I-129F

[LeeFisher3]

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.

230175[/snapback]

Mike, I know you have the best of intentions, but your help often ignores the critical issue, degrades the OP or is flat out wrong.

 

Perhaps David Z, I and a few extremely senior members are totally off the wall when we correct misinformation you have provided more than once, I'd say your batting somewhere around 400, which would be great in Baseball, but this is a bit more serious than a game.

 

The only fault I have with you is your propensity for incorrect information and constant requests for timelines "so we can help you". If you feel this is not correct maybe you should start a poll...

[Juette]

http://i1.tinypic.com/1zo85fk.jpg

 

Sorry guys, but I just could not resist.

 

I think the both of you have the best of intentions, but the problem we all have is that we just do not know how the language of this law will be interpreted. I tend to lean toward Lee's view, because the IMBRA language seems to be a "catch-all" for all websites, but that does not mean I am right or wrong.

 

I think we need to realize that we are all flying blind on this for now.

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

[decsolon]

I think the answer to the new question on the 129 F depends on if you think the USICS will ignore the part of the law that they left out of the instructions for answering the "Marriage Broker" question. They put the definition contained in the law but OMIT the exceptions that are written into the law.

[Randy W]

Furthermore, I pretty well doubt that they have an answer to that question, either. I think this will be an iterative process, with, unfortunately, everyone who applied after March 6 caught in it.

 

Yes, omitting the Exceptions from the instructions is a glaring change. Are you "lying" if you go by the law, rather than the I129F?

 

Hopefully, they will realize that until they provide the means to the IMBs, there is nothing they can expect differently from those who answer Yes vs. those who answer No to the IMB question. First off, They will have to determine specifically who really is an IMB.

[Kalli and Greg Oveson]

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.

230175[/snapback]

More and more I see people posting their opinions as if they were fact and, even worse, opinions based on other opinions and then posted here for the guidance of others. On this specific topic, IMBRA, it is my OPINION that nobody, but NOBODY can positively define a marriage broker as used in this context at this point in time.

To base any opinions or actions on documents or instructions promulgated by USCIS is probably one of the more dangerous things any of us could do. This is not an organization that presented a careful, conscientious response to the IMBRA, this is a group that threw something together at the last minute to meet the IMBRA legal requirements. The best example of the quality of their work is the new I-129F and that tells the whole story about the care USCIS has taken to comply with all the requirements of IMBRA.

Here is another OPINION: I believe that it is not USCIS that will decide what is or isn't a marriage broker, but it will be decided in our courts in the future. Whether the suits will be started by the group behind IMBRA who feel that the actions taken are not strong enough, or whether by someone identified as a marriage broker who feel wronged, or by a visa-seeking couple who believe the delay is a violation of their rights, this will get to court. Only when this judicial process is completed will we have a valid definition of a marriage broker. Between now and then, each of us gets to decide and then live with that decision. And relying on USCIS opinions at this point (remember, they don't know either) seems somewhere between naive and foolish. And advising anyone else it this area, other than referring them to existing documentation is even worse because NOBODY KNOWS what a marriage broker will be until the courts have finished.

 

My opinions, YMMV.

[Rickmt57]

Wow! I didnt realize I would stir up such a hornets nest but then maybe it was the USCIS because they have made this question rather gray. My wife saw an add that I had posted on a dating site called Asianfriendfinders the site does not give out any personal contact information, but it does allow you to contact one another. If after the contact you decide to share personal contact information it is of your own doing. So does this then mean they are or are not an international marriage broker. I should add that this site also allows contact of people in the U.S.A. and I was not using it to meet someone from China it just happened out that way. I am really not sure why they are asking this question unless they plan to use it against you, is it some kind of which hunt?

So now here I sit even more confused, because everytime I read the USCIS instructions I am not sure how to answer the question.

 

Thanks,

Rick

[Randy W]

The IMBRA law requires of an IMB:

 

(1) FIANCE?(E)S, SPOUSES AND THEIR DERIVATIVES.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);

( B ) provide a copy of the pamphlet developed under

subsection (a)(1) in English or another appropriate language

and provide an oral summary, in the primary language

of the visa applicant, of that pamphlet; and

?ask the applicant, in the primary language of the

applicant, whether an international marriage broker has

facilitated the relationship between the applicant and the

United States petitioner, and, if so, obtain the identity

of the international marriage broker from the applicant

and confirm that the international marriage broker provided

to the applicant the information and materials

required under subsection (d)(3)(A)(iii).

 

The IMB must also:

 

(i) SEARCH OF SEX OFFENDER PUBLIC REGISTRIES.?

Each international marriage broker shall search the

National Sex Offender Public Registry or State sex

offender public registry, as required under paragraph

(3)(A)(i).

(ii) COLLECTION OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION.?

Each international marriage broker shall also collect

the background information listed in subparagraph ( B )

about the United States client to whom the personal

contact information of a foreign national client would

be provided.

 

Did your IMB satisfy these regulations?

Edited July 11, 2006 by Randy W (see edit history)

[Rickmt57]

The IMBRA law requires of an IMB:

 

(1) FIANCE?(E)S, SPOUSES AND THEIR DERIVATIVES.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);

( B ) provide a copy of the pamphlet developed under

subsection (a)(1) in English or another appropriate language

and provide an oral summary, in the primary language

of the visa applicant, of that pamphlet; and

?ask the applicant, in the primary language of the

applicant, whether an international marriage broker has

facilitated the relationship between the applicant and the

United States petitioner, and, if so, obtain the identity

of the international marriage broker from the applicant

and confirm that the international marriage broker provided

to the applicant the information and materials

required under subsection (d)(3)(A)(iii).

 

The IMB must also:

 

(i) SEARCH OF SEX OFFENDER PUBLIC REGISTRIES.?

Each international marriage broker shall search the

National Sex Offender Public Registry or State sex

offender public registry, as required under paragraph

(3)(A)(i).

(ii) COLLECTION OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION.?

Each international marriage broker shall also collect

the background information listed in subparagraph ( B )

about the United States client to whom the personal

contact information of a foreign national client would

be provided.

 

Did your IMB satisfy these regulations?

230252[/snapback]

The dating site I posted my ad on was free for me and no information was asked, other then for an email address. That is why I dont believe they fall under the catagory of being a marriage broker they did nothing to arrange contact or give personal information. Infact they warn about giving out personal information. I know that there are sites that are set up just for marriage but this was not one of those sites.

[david_dawei]

And advising anyone else it this area, other than referring them to existing documentation is even worse because NOBODY KNOWS what a marriage broker will be until the courts have finished.

 

230244[/snapback]

I think you make a number of good points. I agree that any advising needs to point people in a direction, not directing/assuming/presuming an answer to them.

 

There's just too much room for dangerous advice; as Lee said, the one responsible for the answer is the one who has to ultimately live with it... so I feel quite hesitate to say too much, other than where to go for info... as Randy rightly quotes without adding opinion.

 

My approach is still to suggest taking the service's opinion into consideration (I might be inclined to listen more to them and the legal staff's decision than one based on a website forum)... but this is just directional advice, where to go to try and help you produce the answer you are responsible for.

 

I will say, to VJs credit, they have steered through this murky water without acting like there are categorical answers/advice like I sometimes hear here.. Where they are possibly too soft on their advice on this topic (taking the conservative approach), I suspect we are too strong with it here at times. But this is just my opinion...

[david_dawei]

The IMBRA law requires of an IMB:

 

(1) FIANCE?(E)S, SPOUSES AND THEIR DERIVATIVES.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);

( B ) provide a copy of the pamphlet developed under

subsection (a)(1) in English or another appropriate language

and provide an oral summary, in the primary language

of the visa applicant, of that pamphlet; and

?ask the applicant, in the primary language of the

applicant, whether an international marriage broker has

facilitated the relationship between the applicant and the

United States petitioner, and, if so, obtain the identity

of the international marriage broker from the applicant

and confirm that the international marriage broker provided

to the applicant the information and materials

required under subsection (d)(3)(A)(iii).

 

The IMB must also:

 

(i) SEARCH OF SEX OFFENDER PUBLIC REGISTRIES.?

Each international marriage broker shall search the

National Sex Offender Public Registry or State sex

offender public registry, as required under paragraph

(3)(A)(i).

(ii) COLLECTION OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION.?

Each international marriage broker shall also collect

the background information listed in subparagraph ( B )

about the United States client to whom the personal

contact information of a foreign national client would

be provided.

 

Did your IMB satisfy these regulations?

230252[/snapback]

The dating site I posted my ad on was free for me and no information was asked, other then for an email address. That is why I dont believe they fall under the catagory of being a marriage broker they did nothing to arrange contact or give personal information. Infact they warn about giving out personal information. I know that there are sites that are set up just for marriage but this was not one of those sites.

230268[/snapback]

Have you spoken to the site at all?

 

I really don't think it's a good idea coming to a forum to ask for an answer about a site without having even talked to them...

 

it would be another thing if a poster came here, said they talked to the site, gave us the storyline they are operating by... and stating where they have serious problems with the site's decision on if they are an IMB or not.

 

If one had no serious problem with their decision, then one wouldn't come here asking... I just don't get why people are not talking to the sites first...

 

 

 

DON'T DECIDE ON THE ANSWER BASED SOLEY ON WHAT INFORMATION YOU GET FROM A FORUM LIKE CFL...] -- This is my opinion.

[lostinblue]

I think everyone on this board most likely met before imbra went into law. So how can this (and confirm that the international marriage broker provided

to the applicant the information and materials

required under subsection (d)(3)(A)(iii).) Apply to anyone when it was not required at that time . I can see after Imbra was passed then you need to meet this . If it was not met then they will go after the so called marriage broker rather than the petitioner ?Maybe my line of thinking is a bit off. Here in NY State I could drink when I was 18 in any bar room . A few years later the age went to 21. No one was arrested because I was served at 18. Would not this be true with IMBRA now .

[david_dawei]

I think everyone on this board most likely met before imbra went into law.  So how can this  (and confirm that the international marriage broker provided

to the applicant the information and materials

required under subsection (d)(3)(A)(iii).) Apply to anyone when it was not required at that time . I can see after Imbra was passed then you need to meet this . If it was not met then they will go after the so called marriage broker  rather than the petitioner ?Maybe my line of thinking is a bit off.  Here in NY State I could drink when I was 18 in any bar room  . A few years later the age went to 21.  No  one was arrested  because I was served  at 18. Would not this be true with IMBRA now .

230276[/snapback]

I have read about this issue of "grandfathering" at a immigration lawyer sites. The bottom line is that no one truly ones, but one would think that such logic will apply...

 

Even if you meet prior to March 6, you must fill out the RFE... what happens after that is a black box to a certain extent; who is truly affected and how, etc...

 

For those who have meet after, and there's a handful on the site, the outcome is not known any better... will they take the RFEs word for it or check it against some [growing] list . Like, how can an IMB search a US database without the US having given that site some sort of permission? So don't they know about the IMB already? who knows...

[Guest pushbrk]

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.

230175[/snapback]

Mike, I know you have the best of intentions, but your help often ignores the critical issue, degrades the OP or is flat out wrong.

 

Perhaps David Z, I and a few extremely senior members are totally off the wall when we correct misinformation you have provided more than once, I'd say your batting somewhere around 400, which would be great in Baseball, but this is a bit more serious than a game.

 

The only fault I have with you is your propensity for incorrect information and constant requests for timelines "so we can help you". If you feel this is not correct maybe you should start a poll...

230227[/snapback]

By my reconing Lee, the last two times you "corrected" me, it was you who was dead wrong. Your 400 batting average is a made up statistic but you last two challenges adding up to a ZERO batting average is not made up.

 

If you have something to add or clarify, please feel free any time. It's a public forum. It is not a place for personal grudges to be aired. Please be more respectful.

 

Or if you are from Rio Linda, "Get the Hell off my back!".

[david_dawei]

So now here I sit even more confused, because everytime I read the USCIS instructions I am not sure how to answer the question.

 

Thanks,

Rick

230248[/snapback]

rick,

 

don't take my last comments [toward you] as just directed to you.. certainly, I want people to come here and post concerns and questions... I'm just surprised that it appears as though people are posting on CFL before they have talked to the site they meet their SO through.

 

Don't let my comments deter you from asking more questions.. I don't want you feel like you have to walk away confused... But certainly weight whatever comments you get here against the law and the site.

Edited July 12, 2006 by DavidZixuan (see edit history)

[michaln]

The IMBRA law requires of an IMB:

 

Rick I also met my wife on AFF and am in the same state of confusion I wrote to aff "s current feedback and legal questions dept. this was their replies

 

 

Dear Member,

Thank you for contacting us.

This site would not be considered a marriage broker by any agency.

Please contact us again with your questions and comments.

Steve E.

Customer Service

Asia FriendFinder

 

 

 

Mike,

 

 

We are not marriage brokers.

Edited July 12, 2006 by michaln (see edit history)