Regarding the new I-129F

[lostinblue]

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.

230700[/snapback]

I just recieved my notice of action from vermont Dated July 11 ,2006 supplement to I-129f. I have a I-797C receipt date of April 7 2006 petition for fiance . On June 27, 2006 I recieved a notice of action I797-C to reopen the case This is a blue letter with a bar code. The bar code has April/07/2006 and my EAC number. I must send back before October 6,2006. Anything after will not be accepted .There was a bit of confusion on my part on the definition of a marriage broker is. They have narrowed this down greatly for the petitioner. Any business or individual that "charges fees for providing dateing,matrimonial,matchmaking services or social referrals between US citizens and foreign nationals. by providing personal contact information or otherwise facilitating communication between individuals ." ect.ect. I used Match com. From talking to an immigration lawyer on the phone. (No fees involved )He asked if I paid any money to belong to Match. I said yes ,Then he said that it was under the context of a marriage broker as on the supplement to 129-F as I paid a fee to belong . It seems that if you go to other websites and look at the entire law you had room to debate this about what is a marriage broker . I think they have narrowed this down greatly on this blue form. But it is up to everyone to make their own mind on the matter or talk to a lawyer. I was willing to talk to him in his office and he cleared this up on the phone. Maybe it is wise to do the same. .

[RLS]

hey have narrowed this down greatly for the petitioner.

 

How do you figure they have "narrowed this down?" It looks the same to me.

[wbrettleo]

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]

Hi. I am very new here but I have a question that is perplexing me as well. I am getting ready to file my petition and I have the new I-129F form. I met my SO through ChineseLoveLinks. I originally paid a small monthly fee as my membership. My Chinese SO did not pay any fees or membership dues. So under the new rules, is CLL considered an IMB? I believe if both of us paid no fees it would not be but I am confused since I paid a fee and she did not. Any opinions are greatly appreciated.

[david_dawei]

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]

Hi. I am very new here but I have a question that is perplexing me as well. I am getting ready to file my petition and I have the new I-129F form. I met my SO through ChineseLoveLinks. I originally paid a small monthly fee as my membership. My Chinese SO did not pay any fees or membership dues. So under the new rules, is CLL considered an IMB? I believe if both of us paid no fees it would not be but I am confused since I paid a fee and she did not. Any opinions are greatly appreciated.

231120[/snapback]

I would start by talking to the site to see what they are considering their operating status, as an IMB or not... They cannot simply say , "you decide" since if they are an IMB they must have the ability to search US databases; they are either operationally able to do this or not (or contract to someone to do it).

 

You don't want to make a decision without understanding the site's point of view; there's no telling if USCIS has a list they are going by...

[lostinblue]

hey have narrowed this down greatly for the petitioner.

 

How do you figure they have "narrowed this down?" It looks the same to me.

231119[/snapback]

There are, under Section 833(e)(4)(, TWO IMPORTANT EXCEPTIONS, : 1) "The Non-Profit": a traditional matchmaking organization of a cultural or religious nature which offers its services on a non-profit basis under law, tyically a state-registered corporation, and 2) "The Non-Primary Business with Comparable Rates": a domestic dating service or other primary service whose principal business is NOT international dating and which charges comparable rates for comparable services to all individuals, men and women, domestic and foreign. This is not mentioned at all on this 129-f supplement so I believe that they have streamlined their context as to what an IBM is . Maybe I am wrong I feel that the wording on that letter and the manner it is written is what I need to satisify their requirement.I feel that this will be settled in the courts as to what is an IBM as most everything in this country ends up getting settled .But until then the words on that blue supplement defines what an IBM is as per USCIS and the two inportant exceptions as posted above does not seem to be included in their books.

[david_dawei]

so I believe that they have  streamlined their  context as to what an IBM is .

231139[/snapback]

right or wrong, interesting point...

 

The omission is not so much oversight on their part, but meant to only define the IMB (not define the exceptions; ergo, what is not an IMB)...

 

I do think that looking at only that section (narrowing the text) gives the possibility for too broad an interpretation (as frank first suggested) !

[Rickmt57]

hey have narrowed this down greatly for the petitioner.

 

How do you figure they have "narrowed this down?" It looks the same to me.

231119[/snapback]

There are, under Section 833(e)(4)(, TWO IMPORTANT EXCEPTIONS, : 1) "The Non-Profit": a traditional matchmaking organization of a cultural or religious nature which offers its services on a non-profit basis under law, tyically a state-registered corporation, and 2) "The Non-Primary Business with Comparable Rates": a domestic dating service or other primary service whose principal business is NOT international dating and which charges comparable rates for comparable services to all individuals, men and women, domestic and foreign. This is not mentioned at all on this 129-f supplement so I believe that they have streamlined their context as to what an IBM is . Maybe I am wrong I feel that the wording on that letter and the manner it is written is what I need to satisify their requirement.I feel that this will be settled in the courts as to what is an IBM as most everything in this country ends up getting settled .But until then the words on that blue supplement defines what an IBM is as per USCIS and the two inportant exceptions as posted above does not seem to be included in their books.

231139[/snapback]

That is why you will find that most dating sites do not fall into the catergory of marriage broker. I even wrote a letter to Senator Maria Caldwells office she is the one who intiated IMBRA. The response I got from her office was just that dating site such as match.com yahoo.com and Aff would not be considered a marriage broker, this is why I have decided to check "NO", but you all are welcome to your opinion since this is all we can have on here is opinions. The dating sites majority client list is from americans looking to date other americans, their not in the business of facilitating marriages or is the majority of their clients based in foriegn countries.

I also believe even if you answer yes the only thing they are concerned about is that if you chose to use a marriage broker did they follow the IMBRA rules. So even if you give them the name it will be up to the government to go after the arriage broker to fine them, of course your visa could wait in nomans land while they are deciding what to do.

I dont think you will see the government going after match.com, yahoo, americansingles, or AFF because they know they will end up in court if they do.

Again just my opinion.

[lostinblue]

hey have narrowed this down greatly for the petitioner.

 

How do you figure they have "narrowed this down?" It looks the same to me.

231119[/snapback]

There are, under Section 833(e)(4)(, TWO IMPORTANT EXCEPTIONS, : 1) "The Non-Profit": a traditional matchmaking organization of a cultural or religious nature which offers its services on a non-profit basis under law, tyically a state-registered corporation, and 2) "The Non-Primary Business with Comparable Rates": a domestic dating service or other primary service whose principal business is NOT international dating and which charges comparable rates for comparable services to all individuals, men and women, domestic and foreign. This is not mentioned at all on this 129-f supplement so I believe that they have streamlined their context as to what an IBM is . Maybe I am wrong I feel that the wording on that letter and the manner it is written is what I need to satisify their requirement.I feel that this will be settled in the courts as to what is an IBM as most everything in this country ends up getting settled .But until then the words on that blue supplement defines what an IBM is as per USCIS and the two inportant exceptions as posted above does not seem to be included in their books.

231139[/snapback]

That is why you will find that most dating sites do not fall into the catergory of marriage broker. I even wrote a letter to Senator Maria Caldwells office she is the one who intiated IMBRA. The response I got from her office was just that dating site such as match.com yahoo.com and Aff would not be considered a marriage broker, this is why I have decided to check "NO", but you all are welcome to your opinion since this is all we can have on here is opinions. The dating sites majority client list is from americans looking to date other americans, their not in the business of facilitating marriages or is the majority of their clients based in foriegn countries.

I also believe even if you answer yes the only thing they are concerned about is that if you chose to use a marriage broker did they follow the IMBRA rules. So even if you give them the name it will be up to the government to go after the arriage broker to fine them, of course your visa could wait in nomans land while they are deciding what to do.

I dont think you will see the government going after match.com, yahoo, americansingles, or AFF because they know they will end up in court if they do.

Again just my opinion.

231147[/snapback]

I used Match.com in 2004 long before IMBRA was on the books . I am not a member now . What laws were broken . Common sense has to be part of this situation.

[MikeandRong]

I used Match.com in 2004 long before IMBRA was on the books . I am not a member now . What laws were broken . Common sense has to be part of this situation.

 

Asianeuro, 2004. Same boat as you.

[Rickmt57]

The only thing I hope is that this isnt used some how to slow down the process of bringing our SO here. It seems to me if you dont answer yes to any of the question regarding prior conviction then it shouldnt matter anyway. But who ever said the government had comon sense.

[Rickmt57]

I just wonder if they will now bring this question up to people who filled before Imbra went into and have not recieved their visa? Will they ask this question at the interview?

[Guest pushbrk]

I just wonder if they will now bring this question up to people who filled before Imbra went into and have not recieved their visa? Will they ask this question at the interview?

231221[/snapback]

You and me both, Brother. I'm preparing my wife to answer the question, in case it comes up.

[SheLikesME?]

Hmm, we used the old form, however, I wrote a ltter explaining how we met on a web site when I turned in the I-130 and the I-129. I clearly understood the diference between a broker and just a web site. I had a discussion with a broker and looked at several. No way was I going to pay 2-3K for them to find me some ladies to write, for the express purpose of marriage. IMB is a lot more personal contact. I did not necisarrily have the intent to find a bride on ChineseLoveLinks.com. Heck there are people there who simply want to practice Chinese or English.

 

Anyway we had to answer this question to the US Embassy in Beijing when I got certified as single the day before we married. The fact that I said we met on line, when asked, got an imediate "no" from the officer. I objected and began to talk a bunch of stuff about her character, etc. She cut me off, had me sit down, and called my SO up there where she learned I listed myself on the internet site as well. THAT made a huge diference. Legally she had no right to deny my certificate of single status and I would have taken what ever means legal to get my single cert. We followed all the rules and I believe that it was merly a tactic to test us, or make me walk out of there and not marry her. I could go back to TX and have it done easily. I knew they could not deny us and told my SO to obsolutly tell the truth. We did and all worked out fine so far.

[lostinblue]

Hmm, we used the old form, however, I wrote a ltter explaining how we met on a web site when I turned in the I-130 and the I-129.  I clearly understood the diference between a broker and just a web site.  I had a discussion with a broker and looked at several.  No way was I going to pay 2-3K for them to find me some ladies to write, for the express purpose of marriage.  IMB is a lot more personal contact.  I did not necisarrily have the intent to find a bride on ChineseLoveLinks.com.  Heck there are people there who simply want to practice Chinese or English.

 

Anyway we had to answer this question to the US Embassy in Beijing when I got certified as single the day before we married.  The fact that I said we met on line, when asked, got an imediate "no" from the officer.  I objected and began to talk a bunch of stuff about her character, etc.  She cut me off, had me sit down, and called my SO up there where she learned I listed myself on the internet site as well.  THAT made a huge diference.  Legally she had no right to deny my certificate of single status and I would have taken what ever means legal to get my single cert.  We followed all the rules and I believe that it was merly a tactic to test us, or make me walk out of there and not marry her.  I could go back to TX and have it done easily.  I knew they could not deny us and told my SO to obsolutly tell the truth.  We did and all worked out fine so far.

231263[/snapback]

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=20130 This is from visa journey on this subject

[Rickmt57]

I have been going back and reading the IMBRA act and under the exemptions it clearly states the following:

 

(ii) the provision of an opportunity for an in-person meeting.

 

So if the site you used has a provision of an opportunity for an in-person meeting then they are probably an international mariage broker. Since most dating sites do not have a provision for an in-person meeting they would be exempt.

 

Again my opinion.