Chinese Marriage/Visa Brokers

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

David, don't you think the answer to "Did you use an International Marriage Broker" can be independently answered by the USC independant of any added information from the foreign fiance or wife? Sure, I'm all for knowing the other end of the deal but the question is being asked of the Petitioner. Did "you" use an IMB?

 

I'm not David, but I play him on TV....lol....

 

at any rate, perhaps I'm missing something here. If anyone is seeking a partner using a website of questionable integrity, or low name recognition for the purpose of meeting a Chinese partner, then chances increase exponentially that the site you meet them might be considered a brokering agency. Brokering agencies do NOT affiliate themselves as a third party using authentic match-making services, like match.com.

[RLS]

All the sites I was a member of such as match.com, AFF, chlove, etc.

 

Byron, are you saying you joined "All" of the sites? You must have been a busy man.

[SinoTexas]

Thanks for the information so far. Would it be fair at the start of an on-line realtionship to ask the girl/guy if she or he is using a marriage/visa broker? Would it be fair to ask if they were paying for this service? Then one would know whether they are actually communicating with the person or the service.

From the perspective of filing a petition, you must know if it was an IMB or not. So you really need to know this one way or the other. You can certainly ask if they are paying, but you might not get a straight answer; I'd also be trying to figure it out myself by contacting the online service. But none of that is a guarantee of knowing who you are really talking to in communications; person or service or friend/helper/translator. Even writing to a person to their private email doesn't really ensure that either. But chances get better.

It might be helpful to have a listing of those services that are known NOT to be Marriage Brokers; while where you meet someone should not matter from a personal perspective, as David points out it does matter in how you complete the paperwork. For the record, services like Match.com and Yahoo personals charge a fee to register a username and set up an account. From there, it is the responsibility of the account holder to add personal information, photos, send and receive email, etc. I would venture to say that any website that offers additional "meeting" services, like translation, guarantees to meet, or other intercessory services, would be considered a brokering agency.

 

 

I'm not sure a list of matchmaking/marriage/visa broker sites that fit IMRA or not fit IMBRA could be drawn up by a lay person. My guess is that it will take several court rulings to flesh out what is or is not an IMBRA site. I certainly would not want to draw up the list and place it here because of my lay interpretation. I think if I did and some person used my list to check yes or no and it was challenged by USCIS, then I might be subject to litigation. I think as lay people, we are interpreting these sites as to whether IMBRA or not, to fit our comfort levels and justify it to ourselves. In the end, I believe it will take a court ruling to decide if Yahoo or Match.com and so on are IMBRA sites or not.

 

As aye,

 

Jim

[david_dawei]

My guess is that it will take several court rulings to flesh out what is or is not an IMBRA site.

...

In the end, I believe it will take a court ruling to decide if Yahoo or Match.com and so on are IMBRA sites or not.

That may be true... but for right now, USCIS is judge and jury.

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

I'm not sure a list of matchmaking/marriage/visa broker sites that fit IMRA or not fit IMBRA could be drawn up by a lay person. My guess is that it will take several court rulings to flesh out what is or is not an IMBRA site. I certainly would not want to draw up the list and place it here because of my lay interpretation. I think if I did and some person used my list to check yes or no and it was challenged by USCIS, then I might be subject to litigation. I think as lay people, we are interpreting these sites as to whether IMBRA or not, to fit our comfort levels and justify it to ourselves. In the end, I believe it will take a court ruling to decide if Yahoo or Match.com and so on are IMBRA sites or not.

 

As aye,

 

Jim

 

Jim, I don't believe the bells and alarms are happening in the same manner as the ill-advised IMBRA legislation intended. The intention of the bill was to keep men with a history of domestic and sexual violence from bringing foreign women to the US. There-in lies the spirit of the law. It sounds good, got the sponsors of the bill name recognition, and even got passed, as many legislators feared reprisal from womens activists if they were to make a down vote.

 

While there were delays after the bill became effective in March of 2006, none of those delays seems to have effected those getting visas. Additionally, while the bill was ill-advised and meddlesome, it also attempted to address the human trafficking market between sex shoppes and foreign women. These shady places get lots of help from the less-than-legit human brokers that pop up one day in China and are gone the next.

 

I think the rule-of-thumb is accurate for measuring who is a broker, and who is not by:

 

If the agency does not intercede in any manner, with the website member, either by telephone, translation, promise, or otherwise, but simply plays a hosting role to someone trying to meet another, it in NO way meets the definition of marriage broker as defined in other marriage broker documents and legislation....

[david_dawei]

Thanks for the information so far. Would it be fair at the start of an on-line realtionship to ask the girl/guy if she or he is using a marriage/visa broker? Would it be fair to ask if they were paying for this service? Then one would know whether they are actually communicating with the person or the service.

From the perspective of filing a petition, you must know if it was an IMB or not. So you really need to know this one way or the other. You can certainly ask if they are paying, but you might not get a straight answer; I'd also be trying to figure it out myself by contacting the online service. But none of that is a guarantee of knowing who you are really talking to in communications; person or service or friend/helper/translator. Even writing to a person to their private email doesn't really ensure that either. But chances get better.

 

David, don't you think the answer to "Did you use an International Marriage Broker" can be independently answered by the USC independant of any added information from the foreign fiance or wife? Sure, I'm all for knowing the other end of the deal but the question is being asked of the Petitioner. Did "you" use an IMB?

Yes... I think I answered that in the [now] bolded comment.

 

The question on the I-129F is if you 'meet' through the services of an IMB. To me, this is a bidirectional issue.. if she came to you through one, to me, that is how you meet. [Not sure anyone from china is giving a Nanning Service up as an IMB though... ]

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

Yes... I think I answered that in the [now] bolded comment.

 

The question on the I-129F is if you 'meet' through the services of an IMB. To me, this is a bidirectional issue.. if she came to you through one, to me, that is how you meet. [Not sure anyone from china is giving a Nanning Service up as an IMB though... ]

Any site that charges a Chinese national for anything other than hosting their profile is a marriage broker.

[Guest Byron]

All the sites I was a member of such as match.com, AFF, chlove, etc.

 

Byron, are you saying you joined "All" of the sites? You must have been a busy man.

 

Hi,

 

Yes, I joined all the sites and left one out Chineselovelinks.com which I also had to sign the IMBRA disclosure before I could write to a lady. Virtually all paid sites that their main business is to permit the U.S. person to contact the foreigner is considered a marriage broker according to the law. I spent a lot of money as you can see to find the right lady this time. It is to the best interest to the U.S. person to join as many sites as they can to find the right person. They are all different and all have some fraudulent listings. Most fraud in match.com, I called them on the phone and spoke to them. They had no problem removing the fraudulent listings after I showed them their canned emails and false listing information. I have many stories to tell if you have time to listen.

[SinoTexas]

Now this makes for interesting marketing of IMBRA

 

http://www.internationalmarriagebrokers.com/

 

And from another site: http://www.marriageservices.org/objections.shtml

 

 

Sec.652 (5)((ii) We object to the exception provided for large companies such as MSN personals, Yahoo Personals, and Match.com who provide International Matchmaking services as a substantial part of their dating/matchmaking offerings. These companies are responsible for advertising thousands of profiles of Foreign National Clients, almost certainly make up the lion's share of the International Matchmaking business, and yet are exempt from any responsibility under this legislation. The only rational explanation for exclusion of these companies is fear on the part of the sponsors that the opposition from MSN, Yahoo, and other similarly situated companies would bury their legislation. This section not only creates serious unfair competition concerns, it also prevents the foreign national clients from receiving any information concerning their immigration rights when utilizing these companies. We feel that all Matchmaking entities operating on a for-profit basis and advertising profiles of foreign national clients, as defined in Sec. 652 (B)(4), should be treated the same in regards to this legislation.

 

And to be fair to those who supported IMBRA: http://coolbeanscool.blogspot.com/2005/12/...er-act-and.html

 

Although I don't ever remember reading this on CFL or IMBRA:

 

Prevents abusive U.S. citizens from sponsoring multiple foreign fiances and/or spouses. DOS cannot issue a K visa (unless DHS grants a waiver or the domestic violence victim exception applies) if the U.S. citizen has previously filed two K visa petitions, and less than two years have passed since the date of filing of the most recent K visa petition. DHS can waive this bar, but not when the U.S. citizen has a history of committing domestic abuse or other violent crimes [section 832].

 

Government tracking of serial K visas. Creates government database to track serial K petitions filed by same U.S. citizen petitioner and to notify foreign fiance or spouse of prior K petitions. Notification requirement triggered after petitioner has filed three K petitions within the past 10 years [section 832].

 

Domestic abuse pamphlet to be distributed to all foreign fiances and spouses. DOS, DHS, and DOJ shall create pamphlet on domestic abuse laws and resources for immigrant victims in the U.S. The pamphlet must be sent to all foreign fiances and spouses. DHS shall also send results from any criminal background checks conducted in the course of adjudicating the K visa petition, along with the petitioner'¡¯s disclosure of any criminal history. U.S. consular officers shall orally inform foreign fiances/spouses of the petitioner's criminal history. DOS and DHS cannot disclose locational or personal information about prior victims of the U.S. citizen petitioner.

 

 

 

As aye,

 

Jim

Edited November 28, 2006 by SinoTexas (see edit history)

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

Virtually all paid sites that their main business is to permit the U.S. person to contact the foreigner is considered a marriage broker according to the law. I spent a lot of money as you can see to find the right lady this time. It is to the best interest to the U.S. person to join as many sites as they can to find the right person. They are all different and all have some fraudulent listings. Most fraud in match.com, I called them on the phone and spoke to them. They had no problem removing the fraudulent listings after I showed them their canned emails and false listing information. I have many stories to tell if you have time to listen.

 

Doesn't hold water....

 

see...

 

http://candleforlove.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=15144

[david_dawei]

Yes... I think I answered that in the [now] bolded comment.

 

The question on the I-129F is if you 'meet' through the services of an IMB. To me, this is a bidirectional issue.. if she came to you through one, to me, that is how you meet. [Not sure anyone from china is giving a Nanning Service up as an IMB though... ]

Any site that charges a Chinese national for anything other than hosting their profile is a marriage broker.

I wasn't debating definition; only likelihood of getting that company's name and information... After all, a chinese based broker might of put the information on another site.. and then once a hookup occurs, the broker continues to do services, etc. The USC might only be aware of the online presence and never learn (or learn later) about the chinese broker that's really been doing the services.

 

I'm sure there are cases of women using brokers and the USC just never really realized it [at first or ever]...

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

I wasn't debating definition; only likelihood of getting that company's name and information... After all, a chinese based broker might of put the information on another site.. and then once a hookup occurs, the broker continues to do services, etc. The USC might only be aware of the online presence and never learn (or learn later) about the chinese broker that's really been doing the services.

 

I'm sure there are cases of women using brokers and the USC just never really realized it [at first or ever]...

 

I'm just getting the message that you want to have a little of the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing? Let me put it another way; if either the US Citizen or the Chinese national uses third party, other than a web hosting service that provides only the connection, then it's a marriage broker. Apart from that, there then may be a communication mismatch. Perhaps the Chinese national does not speak English, or their English skills are weak and they are unable to communicate just how they managed to get their profile posted on a site that would under normal circumstances be considered a marriage brokering agency.

 

One Chinese national may go to one of these brokering agencies, that offers to intercede on their behalf and correspond directly with the American citizen. This may or may not occur with the USC knowledge. There are indeed legit agencies that in fact perform such services. Then,there are the bloodsuckers, that promise the moon and may even threaten to collect exorbitant fees from family members in the event of non-payment.

 

I guess I approach life differently than some, in that I believe that asking questions provides answers, even when those answers may not be welcome. What the US government doesn't know about how people meet, they don't need to know. 98% of what they learn is from the applicant. If you tell them you met online, they go with that. If you tell them a friend introduced you via telephone, and then began an online relationship....

[Guest Duke]

Yes... I think I answered that in the [now] bolded comment.

 

The question on the I-129F is if you 'meet' through the services of an IMB. To me, this is a bidirectional issue.. if she came to you through one, to me, that is how you meet. [Not sure anyone from china is giving a Nanning Service up as an IMB though... ]

Any site that charges a Chinese national for anything other than hosting their profile is a marriage broker.

I wasn't debating definition; only likelihood of getting that company's name and information... After all, a chinese based broker might of put the information on another site.. and then once a hookup occurs, the broker continues to do services, etc. The USC might only be aware of the online presence and never learn (or learn later) about the chinese broker that's really been doing the services.

 

I'm sure there are cases of women using brokers and the USC just never really realized it [at first or ever]...

 

 

Two things.

 

1. I don't think IMBRA limits the definition of IMB to companies with websites, even though they most commonly DO have websites.

 

2. There are many "service providers" that would not qualify as "International Marriage Brokers". You could pay a friend with a computer to put your profile on a dating site and another individual or company to receive and translate written correspondence.

 

My wife has an extended family member interested in meeting an American husband. If I put her picture and profile on a website and translate some emails, am I an IMB? What if somebody else does the email translation? What if we don't charge her any money?

 

Doesn't IMBRA define an IMB based on specific International "Marriage" related services offered and charged for. Computer and translation services are offered by people and business interests who are not IMBs.

[david_dawei]

Two things.

 

1. I don't think IMBRA limits the definition of IMB to companies with websites, even though they most commonly DO have websites.

 

2. There are many "service providers" that would not qualify as "International Marriage Brokers". You could pay a friend with a computer to put your profile on a dating site and another individual or company to receive and translate written correspondence.

 

My wife has an extended family member interested in meeting an American husband. If I put her picture and profile on a website and translate some emails, am I an IMB? What if somebody else does the email translation? What if we don't charge her any money?

 

Doesn't IMBRA define an IMB based on specific International "Marriage" related services offered and charged for. Computer and translation services are offered by people and business interests who are not IMBs.

I do think that the law raisings lots of thought provoking issues, but I prefer to avoid debating the definition.

 

website or not is irrelevant IMO:

"a corporation, partnership, business, individual, or other legal entity, whether or not organized under any law of the United States,... "

 

Because of all the "or" which follow in the definition, and then exceptions, I'm not interesting in dissecting it. I'll leave it to others.

[Guest Byron]

Joanna used chnlove.com -- she paid 5000 RMB to the local Guangzhu branch. I later also found her profile on blossoms.com. I think these agencies actually post several profiles to several sites to increase the odds in their favor. There was some kind of guarantee to meet a guy -- i.e. return of all monies within a certain period of time. They never asked for anything more from her. On my end they charged something on the order of $3.00 per letter. I was pretty happy with the whole deal. I cannot complain.

 

Most dating sites are riddled with fraud including chnlove, match, AFF, etc. chlove charges $5-$6 for each email, therefore to send and read a reply is $10-$12. If you pay them $1000 it might be $3.00 each. Chlove says the lady doesn't pay a penny. They "plant" non real ladies just to get emails going and get revenue. I communicated with someone there only to find her exact same picture with completely different profile and age on other sites. She refused to email on non chlove site, you figure. Match.com is the worst as it is the biggest in U.S. probably. Fraud there is easy to spot and I had Match.com delist several fraud ladies. In China many dating sites charge large fees to the ladies guaranteeing them "richer" contacts. 60,000 RMB owed by Thomas Promise wife seems reasonable to me since he said he wrote couple thousand letters or so. I believe organized crime runs many dating services or at least uses the sites to extort money from unsuspecting single men. I have many stories to tell so write me if you have questions. It is best to find English speaking lady and call her immediately to talk to her on the phone. Something is wrong if they don't want you to call even if they say they speak very little English. The dating sites like Match.com are in it for the money so they have no interest in preventing fraud as long as someone pays them. Only when someone complains like me will they delist the fraud listing. I can tell canned email response easily and match.com has no problem removing the listing that is obviously fraud. Not all are fraud however, but I found that at least 50% of match.com response was fraud, chlove 25% fraud, AFF 35% fraud.

 

Byron, with all due respect, you are painting a very negative and gloomy picture of all of these websites. There are many happy CFL'rs here who met the love of their lives through a dating website. Most, as far as I can determine, without any problems. As I stated before, I met mine on AsiaEuro. I paid $29 and wrote unlimited emails. My SO paid nothing.

 

 

 

 

 

I did the same with Yanlan. We both feel we did quite well. Through all the trouble we have been put through, a scammer would have left the scene long ago.

 

Does anyone know if they asked any questions concerning if the fiancee was sent IMBRA information at the interview? I also just read that a federal district court rulled the IMBRA as unconstitutional. It guess it will head for the supreme court now.

 

PROBLEM OF CONSULAR INTERVIEW: Another problematic issue for the foreign owner (or U.S. owner living overseas) is the Consular Interview for the visa. Under this law, the Officer is required to ask the lady if they met through an IMB (as broadly defined in that law to include a foreign-based IMB). IF the answer is YES, he MUST ask if the IMB provided the lady with all the background client information on the U.S. client and secured her signed written release before the couple communicated. If NOT, then the Officer presumably, as part of his wide discretion to issue the visa or not, MAY choose to DENY issuance of the visa or at least place the case into "ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW" because of the broker violation (even though it was a foreign-based company).

We know that many people find it difficult to believe, and may even be amazed to hear, that there is any possibility or risk that the lady's visa at the Embassy could actually be in jeopardy because of a broker violation. Some ask how can that be if she "qualifies" for the visa. Some ask would not the Consular Officer simply document the broker violation and create a list of broker violators for future investigation, without penalizing the lady's visa.

 

Certainly, the Consular Officer CAN choose this course. The issue is does he have to?

 

Our point is NOT that the Consular Officer could not or even would not issue the visa under this circumstance, only that the Consular Officer does not have to do so. In other words, the Consular Officer is never bound to or required to issue a visa anyway even under normal circumstances, but especially not if there is a legal violation in the record as part of the visa case. In short, there is a risk which exists, and it's better to know about that risk rather than to ignore it or pretend it does not exist.

 

Let me know what you folks think about the above. Thanks.