Regarding the new I-129F

[LeeFisher3]

Another thing that might be considered is that the VO's are not supposed to question evidence that the USCIS has already seen and approved. (Based on the article by Marc Ellis)

 

If that's the case then it's possible the only change we would see in GZ would be the validation that any criminal record was presented to the beneficiary.

[david_dawei]

Another thing that might be considered is that the VO's are not supposed to question evidence that the USCIS has already seen and approved. (Based on the article by Marc Ellis)

 

If that's the case then it's possible the only change we would see in GZ would be the validation that any criminal record was presented to the beneficiary.

230483[/snapback]

Unless they have evidence (or dare I say suspicion) of an inconsistency... (I've seen this stated in 9FAM, and would think that this applies to most any part of the case). This can cause the direction of the case towards investigation quickly... SO, as Ron points out, consistency is a very good thing.

[NewDay2006]

Doesn't this affect primarliy K1's? I will be filing a CR1 and I met my wife 2 years ago on Asianeuro. should I anticipate and probelms with my case?

[LeeFisher3]

Doesn't this affect primarliy K1's?  I will be filing a CR1 and I met my wife 2 years ago on Asianeuro. should I anticipate and probelms with my case?

230500[/snapback]

At this point it does not appear that they have any intention of examining CR-1's, but the K-1's and K-3's are asked the question on the I-129F.

 

But remember, it's a government operation.

[Rickmt57]

Last night I sent a letter off to Senator Maria Cantwell's office explaining my story and asking for some guidence since she is one of the Senators who initiated the IMBRAact. I got the following response:

 

Dear Mr. Tooker,

 

 

 

Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding your fiancé’s visa application. In regards to your question of whether the dating website was a marriage broker, these things tend to be rather subjective and I would leave that classification to your best judgment. Based on the brief information that you provided, it does not appear to me that the website you and your fiancé used to meet was a marriage broker. You described it as a dating site, which could be used to meet potential dates, but since the site did not actually take any action to facilitate your engagement to your fiancé, it does not appear to be a marriage broker per se. If however the main aim of the site is to connect potential marriage partners and not simply set up dates, then it may be considered a marriage broker.

 

 

 

In response to your request for assistance, the Senator unfortunately is not able to intervene in these types of cases. There are many constituents in similar situations that have become subject to the new IMBRA law, and we regret the inconvenience that this has caused you and your fiancé. The Senator’s office is very concerned about the situations that this law has created, but is unable to circumvent for any constituent the regulations that are now required of all fiancé applications. If you are interested, there is a press release regarding IMBRA available from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website, available at the link below.

 

http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/publicaffair...RA_061306PN.pdf

 

 

 

Thank you again for contacting Senator Cantwell. I understand how frustrating it is to be subject to the additional requirements necessitated under the IMBRA law. We realize that it is very difficult to be waiting so long to be together with your fiancé, and hope that USCIS will be able to resolve your case promptly. If you encounter further difficulty or have any other questions, please feel free to call the office or email me. We hope that you and your fiancé are able to achieve a speedy and favorable resolution of your petition.

 

 

 

Jennifer Lee

 

U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell

915 Second Avenue, Suite 3206

Seattle, WA 98174

 

phone: 206-220-6400

fax: 206-220-6404

[warpedbored]

Frank, what is your opinnion of all of this?

[frank1538]

Frank, what is your opinnion of all of this?

230626[/snapback]

My opinion is that it sucks. Until there is clarifying guidance on the definition, each of us is left to having to interpret the law. Whether that interpretation will be consistent with the government's is anybody's guess.

 

Just to give you an idea of how the law might be interpreted, here is the broadest interpretation that I've seen.

 

The definition of an IMB is so broad that any site that allows people to post their profiles and contact information could be veiwed as "facilitating communication". The fact that the site doesn't charge a fee one level of membership but charges a fee for other levels of membership would not make a differerence since it does charge a fee in some instances.

 

Once a site meets the general definition, then one must see if one of the exceptions applies. For most CFLers that exception would be the "principal business/comparable rates" exception. A site would be excepted from the definition if it's principal service is not between USCs/LPRs and foreign nationals and it charges comparable rates. Some commentators have suggested that this exception imposes two requirements, both of which must be met for the exception to apply.

 

Again, under the broadest interpretation, if a site's principal service is between USCs/LPRs and foregin nationals but it charges comparable rates, it doesn't meet the exception because it failed the first requirement. Similarly, if a site's principal service is not between USCs/LPRs and foreign nationals but it doesn't charge comparable rates, it doesn't meet the exception because it failed the second requirement.

 

Will the government use this broad interpretation? Who knows? Until then, each of us is left with having to make a best guess.

 

Like I said, my opinion is that it sucks.

[Juette]

I second your opinion Frank!

Edited July 13, 2006 by Juette (see edit history)

[warpedbored]

Very well put Frank. The definition is so broad that any dating website could probably be considered an IMB or an exception depending on how you interpret it.

[Guest pushbrk]

Very well put Frank. The definition is so broad that any dating website could probably be considered an IMB or an exception depending on how you interpret it.

230669[/snapback]

Ultimately, the USCIS and even the VO will have some discretion in their own interpretation, no matter how the petitioner decides to answer the question.

 

I guess one's individual yes or no decision is fraught with risk, it will come down to their tolerance for risk. Those who file their taxes so as to avoid the possibility of an audit, will err on the side of caution. Those that file with the confidence they can win any audit will be far less cautious.

 

I win every time I'm audited, so make such judgements based on my own best judgment. It has served me well in many similar circumstances.

 

The mileage of others will vary widely.

[LeeFisher3]

Very well put Frank. The definition is so broad that any dating website could probably be considered an IMB or an exception depending on how you interpret it.

230669[/snapback]

Ultimately, the USCIS and even the VO will have some discretion in their own interpretation, no matter how the petitioner decides to answer the question.

 

I guess one's individual yes or no decision is fraught with risk, it will come down to their tolerance for risk. Those who file their taxes so as to avoid the possibility of an audit, will err on the side of caution. Those that file with the confidence they can win any audit will be far less cautious.

 

I win every time I'm audited, so make such judgements based on my own best judgment. It has served me well in many similar circumstances.

 

The mileage of others will vary widely.

230671[/snapback]

They are both governmental processes, but losing a battle with the USCIS or DOS is much more final and painful than the IRS and the consequences are a bit more than paying a penalty if you lose.

 

With the IRS you have rights, unfortunately that doesn't apply the same with immigration law.

[Rickmt57]

Well I have come to the conclusion based on my own feelings and the letters I received from Senator Maria Cantwells office and the letter from AFF that I will answer NO to the question regarding IMBRA.

[Rickmt57]

I would also like to add that even if I answered yes, what would the consequences be? Do you think they would find our marriage null and void? The whole intent of this law is to crack down on international marriage brokers, there is nothing in the law that says one cannot use an international marriage broker, its intent is to make sure the brokers are notifying the foriegn user of crimes we may have commited. Even though the next question ask us to divulge if we have a criminal record. So if I answered yes and said no they did not ask me any information about my criminal background then the government would try to go after the website. But of course they could hold up your petition while the matter was pending. So my wife and I have decided to answer No and take us to the interview the letter from Senator Maria Cantwells office stating that they believed this site does not fall under the term international marriage broker and also the letter from AFF stating the same and take our chance because we dont believe the site we met on was an international marriage broker either.

 

Just my opinion,

Rick

[Guest pushbrk]

I would also like to add that even if I answered yes, what would the consequences be? Do you think they would find our marriage null and void? The whole intent of this law is to crack down on international marriage brokers, there is nothing in the law that says one cannot use an international marriage broker, its intent is to make sure the brokers are notifying the foriegn user of crimes we may have commited. Even though the next question ask us to divulge if we have a criminal record. So if I answered yes and said no they did not ask me any information about my criminal background then the government would try to go after the website. But of course they could hold up your petition while the matter was pending. So my wife and I have decided to answer No and take us to the interview the letter from Senator Maria Cantwells office stating that they believed this site does not fall under the term international marriage broker and also the letter from AFF stating the same and take our chance because we dont believe the site we met on was an international marriage broker either.

 

Just my opinion,

Rick

230690[/snapback]

Good job, Rick. Your decision is based on your best judgment and backed by statements from the website and your Senator. Nobody in their right mind could construe your actions as lies, even if by some strange interpretation, it is determined that the correct answer was "yes".

 

It wasn't.

[Rickmt57]

I would also like to add that even if I answered yes, what would the consequences be? Do you think they would find our marriage null and void? The whole intent of this law is to crack down on international marriage brokers, there is nothing in the law that says one cannot use an international marriage broker, its intent is to make sure the brokers are notifying the foriegn user of crimes we may have commited. Even though the next question ask us to divulge if we have a criminal record. So if I answered yes and said no they did not ask me any information about my criminal background then the government would try to go after the website. But of course they could hold up your petition while the matter was pending. So my wife and I have decided to answer No and take us to the interview the letter from Senator Maria Cantwells office stating that they believed this site does not fall under the term international marriage broker and also the letter from AFF stating the same and take our chance because we dont believe the site we met on was an international marriage broker either.

 

Just my opinion,

Rick

230690[/snapback]

Good job, Rick. Your decision is based on your best judgment and backed by statements from the website and your Senator. Nobody in their right mind could construe your actions as lies, even if by some strange interpretation, it is determined that the correct answer was "yes".

 

It wasn't.

230693[/snapback]

Thanks Mike,

 

Yes it was never my intentions when I placed my add to meet a foriegn bride, fate took care of that.