ForumTitleContentMemberSexCountryDate/Time
IMBRA Special TopicsAre Personals Web Sites considered Marriage Brokers?


What Rebeccajo said above. Pay particular attention to the "exceptions." I used AsiaEuro. They do not consider their site as a marriage broker. A marriage broker is some company or someone who charges you money (quite a lot) to hook you up with a potential spouse. Most dating/personal sites do not do that. Usually you pay a fee, but you are free to choose or write to whomever you wish. ;)



I really appreciate all the feedback. The precise definition was particularly welcome.

I don't consider a Personals web site, including one where one has the option of not paying, a "Marriage Broker". However, I can imagine someone out on a crusade taking a different view.

Again, thanks to all for the information and informative discussion.

Tom


The best course of action is to say YES if you are not sure, as USCIS can't even decide who and who is not an IMB. If you say NO and they decide it was an IMB, then they could say you lied.

Yes, some of them ARE on a crusade (i.e. Maria Cantwell).
garya505Not TellingPhilippines2006-09-11 11:24:00
IMBRA Special TopicsWill it hurt to say "yes" to marraige broker?

garya,

It has nothing to do with IMBRA - all answers provided by the USCIS NCSC depend on the same two things, hence the nickname 'Misinformation Line'.

I agree, however, it will take some time to sort out the definitions. (Note that it took USCIS 9 years to issue its final ruling on implementation of the law that created I-864.)

Ambiguity is not unusual in matters of law, keeps the courts busy.

Yodrak

If you want to have a laugh, call USCIS and ask them if a particular introduction service (Cherry Blossoms for example) is an IMB. Apparently the answer depends on who takes the call and the phase of the moon.

That's the problem with IMBRA, the definitions are difficult to apply. ....




I'm not sure what you mean "it has nothing to do with IMBRA". The IMBRA definition of International Marriage Broker is convoluted, which probably adds to the confusion and misinformation at USCIS. For example, a service is exempt if "its principal business is not to provide international dating services". What does that mean exactly, 99%, 90% or 51% of its business, or what?

I'm still curious why the people at Cherry Blossoms are saying they are not an IMB when it's clear when they are one under the IMBRA definition. The CB people seem to be thumbing their noises at the law, and AFAIK they are not doing anything in court, so #######?

BTW, I'm convinced that they used the name "International Marriage Broker" instead of the more accurate "International Dating Service" because they wanted to convey the negative connotation that "International Marriage Broker" provides, even though there is no brokering involved at all with most (maybe all) of the dating sites affected. A marriage broker would be an entity that arranges marriages for a fee.
garya505Not TellingPhilippines2006-09-20 11:40:00
IMBRA Special TopicsWill it hurt to say "yes" to marraige broker?
What I really think is funny is that IMBRA defines a lot of internet introduction sites as "marriage brokers", when all they do is provide contact info (or just a ID on their site!) and we do the rest.

By that definition if your sister gives you the phone number of a friend she thinks you should meet, then she's a marriage broker too. :lol:

In my case, we chatted for about 2 minutes on Cherry Blossoms then started using Yahoo IM where we exchanged all of our contact info.

I think what really bugs Maria Cantwell and her buddies is that a guy with a few bucks can sign up for a site where he can meet women from disadvantaged countries who are looking for a nice husband and a better life. I think there's just something about that they don't like.
garya505Not TellingPhilippines2006-08-23 20:17:00
IMBRA Special TopicsWill it hurt to say "yes" to marraige broker?

Very interesting. I met my Honey on hotornot.com. I was one of the first to receive and return the IMBRA RFE and did not know enough about the letter of the law when it came to marriage brokers. I did not then and still don't interpret the hotornot.com website as a marriage broker. Needless to write that I answered NO and I am APPROVED. It will be interesting to discover if USCIS attempts to redefine or further define the definition of "marriage broker." I feel like this is all a formality gone really bad resulting in a lot of wasted time for many petitioners.


Ya, good legislation gone horribly bad. :wacko:
garya505Not TellingPhilippines2006-08-23 17:35:00
IMBRA Special TopicsWill it hurt to say "yes" to marraige broker?
If you want to have a laugh, call USCIS and ask them if a particular introduction service (Cherry Blossoms for example) is an IMB. Apparently the answer depends on who takes the call and the phase of the moon. :wacko:

That's the problem with IMBRA, the definitions are difficult to apply. They tried to target web sites that cater to international customers. Sites such as Match and Yahoo are exempt, though they may actually serve MORE international customers in number.
garya505Not TellingPhilippines2006-08-23 13:40:00
IMBRA Special TopicsWill it hurt to say "yes" to marraige broker?



I agree with that. Just wanted to make sure everyone understood that just because they did not meet through a service that "brokered" their marriage doesn't mean that they didn't meet through an IMB according to the law.


The problem is that neither you nor I met our partners on any website that even has the capabilities to broker a marriage, so how can they be marriage brokers without that capability? If a company's business does not sell nor deal in refridgerators then how can it be deemed a Refridgerator Sales Company? I do understand and accept your notion that according to the law some of these sites may be considered IMBs. However, I also believe that the law's exceptions clearly make most of these sites exempt from being called an IMB, especially those where personal information is not given out by the website itself but instead is freely given to you by the person you are talking with.


Well, IMBRA is the law now so the definition of an International Marriage Broker under IMBRA is what matters, not what you or I think makes sense. Most of IMBRA is good, but this part of the legislation is a little weird. :wacko:
garya505Not TellingPhilippines2006-08-22 22:37:00
IMBRA Special TopicsMail-order brides in an Internet age

This article pissed me off. If she only knew about the time money and effort it takes to order a so called mail order bride, her opinions will change. Imagine spending money on the I129 F, visa plane tickets etc and waiting for months.


And the shipping charges! Sheesh, I tried to find the lightest one I could find but it still cost me a fortune to ship her here! :lol:
garya505Not TellingPhilippines2006-11-07 15:10:00
IMBRA Special TopicsMail-order brides in an Internet age

I don’t think you have any reason to challenge my right to do so.

Last time I checked, an immigration benefit is a privilege and not a right. Therefore, taking it to its logical extreme, you cannot have a right to marry if that means your right to marry will abridge US sovereignty in terms of letting someone in that the US government feels should not be here. Similarily a corporation does not have the right to sponsor any immigrant worker it needs. (Corporations are deemed persons under the 5th and 14th Amendments).
We can argue day and night about how we will determine who is eligible to come and who is not. That is not the issue. But once that determination is made, your right to marry cannot trump US sovereignty. Thus, if one of the criteria for not letting someone in is done for the benefit of the foreigner, i.e. to make sure they don't enter a relationship with a US citizens who has "abused" the immigration "privileges" with too many K visas or has a criminal background, then so be it. Not happy with that, you can vote your congressmen out of office.
Thus the US government must distinguish between your rights as USC and immigration benefits which is purely under congressional discretion. In case you wanted to challenge the law on equal protection grounds it will be looked under a rational basis which the government easily passed with IMBRA. Immigrants are not a suspect class or insular / distinct minorities. And by disconnecting your rights from the immigrant's rights you have no fundamental right to marry claim. Because technically the government isn't telling you, you can't marry this foreigner. It simply says "that this type of foreigner" cannot enter the US.

Famous Quote on this issue:
"Whatever the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is the due process as far as the alien denied entry is concerned.”
Shaughnessy v. United States Ex Rel. Mezei (1953).


Actually IMBRA was not easily passed. It failed at least once to pass on it's own merits, and only passed because they attached it to the VAWA legislation which was guaranteed to pass.
garya505Not TellingPhilippines2006-11-03 14:14:00
IMBRA Special TopicsMail-order brides in an Internet age

I figured since I was one of the "men portrayed" in the article she is quoting, I'd send her a thank you email. It's WAY too long to print here but here's an excerpt:

The last time I checked, this is a free country. I should be able to date and meet any woman I choose, from anywhere in the world. There is a system of background checks to exclude terrorists and wildly inappropriate relationships from going forward. I love Yesenia with all my heart and intend to do my very best for her. I don’t think you have any reason to challenge my right to do so. Can you honestly tell me that if you met an intelligent, handsome man from say Italy, or even Colombia and fell in love, you’d be ok if our government said you didn’t have the right to do so, or is it just men you feel should be punished and regulated? Also, in your choice to quote the statistics about abuse, did you do your own research or is the New York Times the authority on that? Trust me; they couldn’t even quote a simple guy like me correctly. Did you happen to notice that the rise in reported cases matched the rise in visas being issued so they are actually the same ratio? I’ll admit the ratio is high and I don’t like it. I don’t think women should ever be abused. I can’t speak for those men. I can only speak for myself. That being said, I don’t need you or the New York Times to do it for me.

Hope you are all doing well!

AW


:thumbs:
garya505Not TellingPhilippines2006-10-20 20:18:00
IMBRA Special TopicsMail-order brides in an Internet age
The journalistic equivalent of pond scum?

Edited by garya505, 20 October 2006 - 12:53 PM.

garya505Not TellingPhilippines2006-10-20 12:53:00
IMBRA Special TopicsMail-order brides in an Internet age
She's just another ignorant, prejudiced, and misguided male-basher using distorted facts and invalid assumptions to sell newspapers.
garya505Not TellingPhilippines2006-10-19 20:19:00
IMBRA Special TopicsIMB Issues At The Visa Interview
Nothing yet?

**BUMP** :lol:
garya505Not TellingPhilippines2006-09-21 13:41:00
IMBRA Special TopicsPost IMBRA Interview Questions

Hi friends,

There has been little feedback on interview questions since the IMBRA date of March 6, 2006. It will be interesting to know:

1. If USC had answered YES to the marriage broker question on the I-129F petition, does the VO invariably ask the beneficiary if she had received background information on the USC from the marriage broker?

2. What happens if the broker did not supply the background information?

3. Does the VO contact the marriage broker to see if the broker had supplied background information to the beneficiary?

4. Does VO discuss the USC's background information with the beneficiary?

If anybody who has gone for interview and has some answers, it will be good for everyone to know. Thanks.


We've heard remarkably little about anything new at interviews since IMBRA, so I suspect this is a non-issue.
garya505Not TellingPhilippines2007-02-01 22:10:00
IMBRA Special TopicsIMBRA forum closure? Feedback

Captain Ewok,

I think the forum should remain. The unique issues of answering the relevant questions and, when required, requesting a waiver with the I-129f will be ongoing, as will the issue of disclosure to the alien fiance(e) either before or at the visa interview.

Yodrak

It was always the plan to close this forum once the IMBRA issue had calmed down some. Can everyone tell me if they think that time has come?


This issue will come up again I'm sure.
garya505Not TellingPhilippines2007-01-08 14:34:00
IMBRA Special TopicsIMBRA forum closure? Feedback

It was always the plan to close this forum once the IMBRA issue had calmed down some. Can everyone tell me if they think that time has come?


What's IMBRA? :lol:
garya505Not TellingPhilippines2007-01-05 04:09:00
IMBRA Special TopicsTo those of you griping about IMBRA



This is directed at no one:

My wife is from Ukraine and she told me many horror stories of women being abused by foreign men.
Many women end up in another country with their passport stolen and forced to work in prostitution.
I think the IMBRA, indirectly, s a good thing. It at least gives the woman or man... an idea about what they are getting in to.
But, I do not think it is not anyones business how my wife and I met.. but she should know if I have a criminal backgound and its only fair because she was required to have a background check to get her visa!

The language problems alone can cause a women from Ukraine and i'm sure other countries to not get a "feel" for her new found fiance so IMBRA will at least give a heads up on his past.

Also, I think it was a major screw up on USCISs part to recall the petitions and send RFEs for petitions in process. But like us, they are victims of the burocrats and probably had no choice but to do things against their better judgement.

Ok, enough rambling for me... your turn :))
P.S.
Beer helps K-3 blues.
and to follow my story...
http://www.khersonlove.com


Hmmm, most of the cases of abuse and women forced into prostitution are in countries other than the US. The IMBRA rules for web sites only affect US web sites. Some of the IMBRA rules for websites will discourage US men (abusive AND non-abusive both) from seeking foreign women, making it more likely that she will end up with a husband in one of those other countries. This could actually increase, not decrease, the overall number of abuses. Just something to think about.


You do nothing but argue in circles. Much like what would have happend had the fact that enough people believe contrary to what you are talking about so IMBRA and VAWA did pass. How does your opinion oversahdow the majority? Enough statistics show that the abuse that does occur is a serious issue and needs to be addressed. It is alarming to me that you really don't care.


Actually I do care a great deal, and I think the rules on WHO can qualify to bring a fiance into the US should be even MORE restrictive then under IMBRA. On the other hand, the IMBRA rules for web sites may not accomplish anything at all, or worse yet have the opposite affect as what was intended by the legislators. You assume that because I criticize the passing of compromised legislation I oppose ALL of the intent of the legislation. Not true.
garya505Not TellingPhilippines2006-08-14 18:24:00
IMBRA Special TopicsTo those of you griping about IMBRA

This is directed at no one:

My wife is from Ukraine and she told me many horror stories of women being abused by foreign men.
Many women end up in another country with their passport stolen and forced to work in prostitution.
I think the IMBRA, indirectly, s a good thing. It at least gives the woman or man... an idea about what they are getting in to.
But, I do not think it is not anyones business how my wife and I met.. but she should know if I have a criminal backgound and its only fair because she was required to have a background check to get her visa!

The language problems alone can cause a women from Ukraine and i'm sure other countries to not get a "feel" for her new found fiance so IMBRA will at least give a heads up on his past.

Also, I think it was a major screw up on USCISs part to recall the petitions and send RFEs for petitions in process. But like us, they are victims of the burocrats and probably had no choice but to do things against their better judgement.

Ok, enough rambling for me... your turn :))
P.S.
Beer helps K-3 blues.
and to follow my story...
http://www.khersonlove.com


Hmmm, most of the cases of abuse and women forced into prostitution are in countries other than the US. The IMBRA rules for web sites only affect US web sites. Some of the IMBRA rules for websites will discourage US men (abusive AND non-abusive both) from seeking foreign women, making it more likely that she will end up with a husband in one of those other countries. This could actually increase, not decrease, the overall number of abuses. Just something to think about.
garya505Not TellingPhilippines2006-08-14 15:37:00
IMBRA Special TopicsTo those of you griping about IMBRA





i'm going to be bluntly honest about the original poster.

Too bad.

you have demonstrated one malicious individual who abuses a system, that individual has not been punished.

tens of thousands of honest people who try to do it the right way are being punished because of one bad apple.

That is what we have fallen to as a society but it's not acceptable, you cannot punish everyone for the acts of an individual and you cannot punish everyone to try to protect one or two random people from doing something stupid. That last part is a direct reference to the high profile case that inspired this law.

The change is immoral, the way this country sometimes over reacts with far reaching consequences to honest citizens trying to make their way in the world and do things the right way is also totally wrong.

bad things sometimes happen to good people for no reason and the government has no business trying to legislate their protection.


Wow, what an incredibly short-sighted viewpoint. I suppose since Murder only occurs to 1 out of 15000 people each year, that the government should just get rid of the laws prohibiting that too? How about Drunk Driving? Robbery? The list goes on and on. If there is one isolated event...no law is needed...I agree. But you have to look at the scale of the number of events, and the impact those events has on people's lives. The circumstances the OP listed are not isolated events...but rather a single sampling in a large number of documented abuses of the prior system. The girls that the "business associate" used got off lucky...many of them wind up physically abused before being kicked to the curb. Being sent back to their home country, often without a pot to piss in, is considered a fantastic outcome compared to how many of them wound up. I'm sorry that adding a measure of "complete disclosure" in order to protect foreign nationals who are literally putting their lives into the hands of these USC's upsets you. But the way I see it...if it's good enough for the Real Estate industry, then it should be good enough for immigration.

It sucks that the USCIS has dropped the ball on implementing the program (DHS failing at something? Surprise Surprise)....but the rationale behind the legislation is both sound and over-due.


It's not just the implementation that was flawed but the law itself. Some parts are good, like the petitioner background checks and the limitations on number of petitions allowed. But the rules for the so-called International Marriage Brokers are just silly and don't accomplish the intended effect. It would have been easier and more effective to just prohibit petitions by all felons (any crime), but felons can hire lawyers and disadvantaged foreign women can't.



I gladly dissagree with you. This law does not have silly IMB laws, silly IMB regulations already existed. This is just a patch to those IMB laws to add buffers and prophylactics to the IMB regulations so that technologies like the internet cannot be abused by making the line of what makes an IMB, and what has to follow IMB rules, a little less blurry than before.

The easy way is not always the right way. Taking away someones freedoms like that because they made one or more of any mistake is absolutely wrong. This law avoids that possibility and leave the decision up to the benneficiary.

Unless you are one of those people who somehow think any incoming foreign national is less intellegent than you are and can't make a sound choice, allowing the benneficiary to make the final choice is adding freedom and libery to both parties.

The only thing that is flawed in this law is it didn't use more simple words for everyone to be able to understand clearly. So the trolls, drive by media, lawyers, and the rest of that scum, are taking parts of it and interperating it on behalf of the more impressionables amongst us and causing an unneed furor that is for nothing more than their own ego boost, or guilty conscience at best.

The real issue, for those of us who respect law and follow it, is the implementation. The real issue, for those of us who may have had a shady past and are trying to make an effort to become better, is also the implementation. The real issue, for those who still live and desire to live a shady life, is IMBRA.


In this post, I agree with almost everything you say, except the media rant, they are an essential part of our democracy, well maybe not TV media :) I think that the beneficiary should be informed of her potential suitors past, and I certainly believe that most of the women coming here will be able to make an informed decision and if they can't, short of stopping the whole K1 process, the government has done its best. I know that we have hashed this over, but I am troubled by the inference of the law. As far as I know no evidence exists that a foreign bride is any more likely to be abused then a native born bride, and if that is true then the law should apply to all marriages, otherwise we all get tainted with guilt by association to a problem that statistically does not appear out of the norm. I must admit I am troubled by your seeming to judge the worths of one's opinion by the length of time they are a member of the board.

My final thought is for the guy who wants to ban all felons. What an odious idea, this country has been and I hope always remains about second chances, Abe Lincoln was once considered a political failure, now if you are talking violent felons that is a different story.

jay


Jay, You have hit on an important point. Some of the people behind IMBRA just don't like the idea that an American man can meet and marry a women from a disadvantaged country and bring her to the US. The percentage of foreign brides who are abused is probably smaller than for native-born brides, but the people behind this are not really intertested in the facts, only their agenda. Of course I don't mean to dismiss the seriousness of the well-publicized cases of abuse and murder, but the reason these cases were so sensationalized in the news is because of the bias and attitudes of people against Amercan men marrying foreign women. Some people still think there is such a thing as a "mail order bride" that you can "buy" one on the internet, LOL. Also, keep in mind that one of the main backers of IMBRA was Maria Cantwell, who also supports partial-birth abortion. IMBRA never would have passed on it's own so it was attached to VAWA legislation which was guaranteed to pass. They tired to pass IMBRA earlier by itself and it failed because of its many flaws. It's just politics.
garya505Not TellingPhilippines2006-08-14 14:18:00
IMBRA Special TopicsTo those of you griping about IMBRA
[quote name='zethris' post='375056' date='Aug 12 2006, 06:40 PM'][quote name='garya505' post='374814' date='Aug 12 2006, 05:13 PM']
[quote name='zethris' post='374030' date='Aug 12 2006, 12:58 AM']
[quote name='garya505' post='373414' date='Aug 11 2006, 06:59 PM']
[quote name='zethris' post='373326' date='Aug 11 2006, 04:09 PM']
[quote name='garya505' post='373301' date='Aug 11 2006, 05:56 PM']
[quote name='zethris' post='371936' date='Aug 11 2006, 06:39 AM']
[quote name='garya505' post='371565' date='Aug 11 2006, 12:21 AM']
[quote name='gcox457' post='368286' date='Aug 9 2006, 02:13 PM']
[quote name='lost in the woods' post='368161' date='Aug 9 2006, 02:29 PM']
i'm going to be bluntly honest about the original poster.

Too bad.

you have demonstrated one malicious individual who abuses a system, that individual has not been punished.

tens of thousands of honest people who try to do it the right way are being punished because of one bad apple.

That is what we have fallen to as a society but it's not acceptable, you cannot punish everyone for the acts of an individual and you cannot punish everyone to try to protect one or two random people from doing something stupid. That last part is a direct reference to the high profile case that inspired this law.

The change is immoral, the way this country sometimes over reacts with far reaching consequences to honest citizens trying to make their way in the world and do things the right way is also totally wrong.

bad things sometimes happen to good people for no reason and the government has no business trying to legislate their protection.[/quote]

Wow, what an incredibly short-sighted viewpoint. I suppose since Murder only occurs to 1 out of 15000 people each year, that the government should just get rid of the laws prohibiting that too? How about Drunk Driving? Robbery? The list goes on and on. If there is one isolated event...no law is needed...I agree. But you have to look at the scale of the number of events, and the impact those events has on people's lives. The circumstances the OP listed are not isolated events...but rather a single sampling in a large number of documented abuses of the prior system. The girls that the "business associate" used got off lucky...many of them wind up physically abused before being kicked to the curb. Being sent back to their home country, often without a pot to piss in, is considered a fantastic outcome compared to how many of them wound up. I'm sorry that adding a measure of "complete disclosure" in order to protect foreign nationals who are literally putting their lives into the hands of these USC's upsets you. But the way I see it...if it's good enough for the Real Estate industry, then it should be good enough for immigration.

It sucks that the USCIS has dropped the ball on implementing the program (DHS failing at something? Surprise Surprise)....but the rationale behind the legislation is both sound and over-due.
[/quote]

It's not just the implementation that was flawed but the law itself. Some parts are good, like the petitioner background checks and the limitations on number of petitions allowed. But the rules for the so-called International Marriage Brokers are just silly and don't accomplish the intended effect. It would have been easier and more effective to just prohibit petitions by all felons (any crime), but felons can hire lawyers and disadvantaged foreign women can't.
[/quote]


I gladly dissagree with you. This law does not have silly IMB laws, silly IMB regulations already existed. This is just a patch to those IMB laws to add buffers and prophylactics to the IMB regulations so that technologies like the internet cannot be abused by making the line of what makes an IMB, and what has to follow IMB rules, a little less blurry than before.

The easy way is not always the right way. Taking away someones freedoms like that because they made one or more of any mistake is absolutely wrong. This law avoids that possibility and leave the decision up to the benneficiary.

Unless you are one of those people who somehow think any incoming foreign national is less intellegent than you are and can't make a sound choice, allowing the benneficiary to make the final choice is adding freedom and libery to both parties.

The only thing that is flawed in this law is it didn't use more simple words for everyone to be able to understand clearly. So the trolls, drive by media, lawyers, and the rest of that scum, are taking parts of it and interperating it on behalf of the more impressionables amongst us and causing an unneed furor that is for nothing more than their own ego boost, or guilty conscience at best.

The real issue, for those of us who respect law and follow it, is the implementation. The real issue, for those of us who may have had a shady past and are trying to make an effort to become better, is also the implementation. The real issue, for those who still live and desire to live a shady life, is IMBRA.
[/quote]

Like I said, it would have been easier and more effective to just prohibit petitions by all felons (any crime), but felons can hire lawyers and disadvantaged foreign women can't.

Presenting a pettioner's criminal record to a beneficiary in a foreign country who may or may not be fluent in English, and certainly isn't familiar with the laws in all 50 states, won't accomplish anything. Your speech about freedom and liberty brings tears to me eyes (really), but it's just idealisitic to think that will work. No, she can't make a sound choice because she is at a disadvantage from the start.

Maybe you would like wait until the interview to tell her how many petitions he has gotten approved before and let her decide if she wants to go with him then? :lol:
[/quote]


Well you are "One of those guys" then. Obviously if you somehow think people outside of yourself in the good 'ol USA cannot make a conscious descision on their own (yes even with interperators which they can provide), then you ahve a superiority complex and not a real concern for the benneficiarys safety.
[/quote]

Sure I'm "One of those guys" then. I'm one of those guys who is favor of legislation that works, as opposed to "feel good" laws that don't work. Do you really think women in countries where domestic violence is tolerated can understand US laws, even with an interpreter?

No, I'll say it again, all felons should be prohibited from getting K1 or K3 VISAs. I don't have a problem with laws that take away freedoms from people who commit felonies.
[/quote]

Thanks for being a good example of why we have IMBRA. Good luck to YOUR fiancee. I sure hope you don't treat her like an inferior animal like you seem to want to do.
[/quote]

I see you are one of THOSE guys who just resorts to personal insults when you can't win your argument by other means. But since you brought it up, actually I treat my fiance with the love and respect she deserves. I disclosed my criminal record (which consists of a single misdemeanor charge in 1974 which was dropped) to her long before I even submitted my K1 petition.

I'll say it again, all felons should be prohibited from getting K1 or K3 VISAs. I don't have a problem with laws that take away freedoms from people who commit felonies.
[/quote]


You are wasting my time. You are done.
[/quote]

I'm so happy you finally decided to agree with me. :dance:
garya505Not TellingPhilippines2006-08-12 20:46:00
IMBRA Special TopicsTo those of you griping about IMBRA








i'm going to be bluntly honest about the original poster.

Too bad.

you have demonstrated one malicious individual who abuses a system, that individual has not been punished.

tens of thousands of honest people who try to do it the right way are being punished because of one bad apple.

That is what we have fallen to as a society but it's not acceptable, you cannot punish everyone for the acts of an individual and you cannot punish everyone to try to protect one or two random people from doing something stupid. That last part is a direct reference to the high profile case that inspired this law.

The change is immoral, the way this country sometimes over reacts with far reaching consequences to honest citizens trying to make their way in the world and do things the right way is also totally wrong.

bad things sometimes happen to good people for no reason and the government has no business trying to legislate their protection.


Wow, what an incredibly short-sighted viewpoint. I suppose since Murder only occurs to 1 out of 15000 people each year, that the government should just get rid of the laws prohibiting that too? How about Drunk Driving? Robbery? The list goes on and on. If there is one isolated event...no law is needed...I agree. But you have to look at the scale of the number of events, and the impact those events has on people's lives. The circumstances the OP listed are not isolated events...but rather a single sampling in a large number of documented abuses of the prior system. The girls that the "business associate" used got off lucky...many of them wind up physically abused before being kicked to the curb. Being sent back to their home country, often without a pot to piss in, is considered a fantastic outcome compared to how many of them wound up. I'm sorry that adding a measure of "complete disclosure" in order to protect foreign nationals who are literally putting their lives into the hands of these USC's upsets you. But the way I see it...if it's good enough for the Real Estate industry, then it should be good enough for immigration.

It sucks that the USCIS has dropped the ball on implementing the program (DHS failing at something? Surprise Surprise)....but the rationale behind the legislation is both sound and over-due.


It's not just the implementation that was flawed but the law itself. Some parts are good, like the petitioner background checks and the limitations on number of petitions allowed. But the rules for the so-called International Marriage Brokers are just silly and don't accomplish the intended effect. It would have been easier and more effective to just prohibit petitions by all felons (any crime), but felons can hire lawyers and disadvantaged foreign women can't.



I gladly dissagree with you. This law does not have silly IMB laws, silly IMB regulations already existed. This is just a patch to those IMB laws to add buffers and prophylactics to the IMB regulations so that technologies like the internet cannot be abused by making the line of what makes an IMB, and what has to follow IMB rules, a little less blurry than before.

The easy way is not always the right way. Taking away someones freedoms like that because they made one or more of any mistake is absolutely wrong. This law avoids that possibility and leave the decision up to the benneficiary.

Unless you are one of those people who somehow think any incoming foreign national is less intellegent than you are and can't make a sound choice, allowing the benneficiary to make the final choice is adding freedom and libery to both parties.

The only thing that is flawed in this law is it didn't use more simple words for everyone to be able to understand clearly. So the trolls, drive by media, lawyers, and the rest of that scum, are taking parts of it and interperating it on behalf of the more impressionables amongst us and causing an unneed furor that is for nothing more than their own ego boost, or guilty conscience at best.

The real issue, for those of us who respect law and follow it, is the implementation. The real issue, for those of us who may have had a shady past and are trying to make an effort to become better, is also the implementation. The real issue, for those who still live and desire to live a shady life, is IMBRA.


Like I said, it would have been easier and more effective to just prohibit petitions by all felons (any crime), but felons can hire lawyers and disadvantaged foreign women can't.

Presenting a pettioner's criminal record to a beneficiary in a foreign country who may or may not be fluent in English, and certainly isn't familiar with the laws in all 50 states, won't accomplish anything. Your speech about freedom and liberty brings tears to me eyes (really), but it's just idealisitic to think that will work. No, she can't make a sound choice because she is at a disadvantage from the start.

Maybe you would like wait until the interview to tell her how many petitions he has gotten approved before and let her decide if she wants to go with him then? :lol:



Well you are "One of those guys" then. Obviously if you somehow think people outside of yourself in the good 'ol USA cannot make a conscious descision on their own (yes even with interperators which they can provide), then you ahve a superiority complex and not a real concern for the benneficiarys safety.


Sure I'm "One of those guys" then. I'm one of those guys who is favor of legislation that works, as opposed to "feel good" laws that don't work. Do you really think women in countries where domestic violence is tolerated can understand US laws, even with an interpreter?

No, I'll say it again, all felons should be prohibited from getting K1 or K3 VISAs. I don't have a problem with laws that take away freedoms from people who commit felonies.


Thanks for being a good example of why we have IMBRA. Good luck to YOUR fiancee. I sure hope you don't treat her like an inferior animal like you seem to want to do.


I see you are one of THOSE guys who just resorts to personal insults when you can't win your argument by other means. But since you brought it up, actually I treat my fiance with the love and respect she deserves. I disclosed my criminal record (which consists of a single misdemeanor charge in 1974 which was dropped) to her long before I even submitted my K1 petition.

I'll say it again, all felons should be prohibited from getting K1 or K3 VISAs. I don't have a problem with laws that take away freedoms from people who commit felonies.
garya505Not TellingPhilippines2006-08-12 16:13:00
IMBRA Special TopicsTo those of you griping about IMBRA






i'm going to be bluntly honest about the original poster.

Too bad.

you have demonstrated one malicious individual who abuses a system, that individual has not been punished.

tens of thousands of honest people who try to do it the right way are being punished because of one bad apple.

That is what we have fallen to as a society but it's not acceptable, you cannot punish everyone for the acts of an individual and you cannot punish everyone to try to protect one or two random people from doing something stupid. That last part is a direct reference to the high profile case that inspired this law.

The change is immoral, the way this country sometimes over reacts with far reaching consequences to honest citizens trying to make their way in the world and do things the right way is also totally wrong.

bad things sometimes happen to good people for no reason and the government has no business trying to legislate their protection.


Wow, what an incredibly short-sighted viewpoint. I suppose since Murder only occurs to 1 out of 15000 people each year, that the government should just get rid of the laws prohibiting that too? How about Drunk Driving? Robbery? The list goes on and on. If there is one isolated event...no law is needed...I agree. But you have to look at the scale of the number of events, and the impact those events has on people's lives. The circumstances the OP listed are not isolated events...but rather a single sampling in a large number of documented abuses of the prior system. The girls that the "business associate" used got off lucky...many of them wind up physically abused before being kicked to the curb. Being sent back to their home country, often without a pot to piss in, is considered a fantastic outcome compared to how many of them wound up. I'm sorry that adding a measure of "complete disclosure" in order to protect foreign nationals who are literally putting their lives into the hands of these USC's upsets you. But the way I see it...if it's good enough for the Real Estate industry, then it should be good enough for immigration.

It sucks that the USCIS has dropped the ball on implementing the program (DHS failing at something? Surprise Surprise)....but the rationale behind the legislation is both sound and over-due.


It's not just the implementation that was flawed but the law itself. Some parts are good, like the petitioner background checks and the limitations on number of petitions allowed. But the rules for the so-called International Marriage Brokers are just silly and don't accomplish the intended effect. It would have been easier and more effective to just prohibit petitions by all felons (any crime), but felons can hire lawyers and disadvantaged foreign women can't.



I gladly dissagree with you. This law does not have silly IMB laws, silly IMB regulations already existed. This is just a patch to those IMB laws to add buffers and prophylactics to the IMB regulations so that technologies like the internet cannot be abused by making the line of what makes an IMB, and what has to follow IMB rules, a little less blurry than before.

The easy way is not always the right way. Taking away someones freedoms like that because they made one or more of any mistake is absolutely wrong. This law avoids that possibility and leave the decision up to the benneficiary.

Unless you are one of those people who somehow think any incoming foreign national is less intellegent than you are and can't make a sound choice, allowing the benneficiary to make the final choice is adding freedom and libery to both parties.

The only thing that is flawed in this law is it didn't use more simple words for everyone to be able to understand clearly. So the trolls, drive by media, lawyers, and the rest of that scum, are taking parts of it and interperating it on behalf of the more impressionables amongst us and causing an unneed furor that is for nothing more than their own ego boost, or guilty conscience at best.

The real issue, for those of us who respect law and follow it, is the implementation. The real issue, for those of us who may have had a shady past and are trying to make an effort to become better, is also the implementation. The real issue, for those who still live and desire to live a shady life, is IMBRA.


Like I said, it would have been easier and more effective to just prohibit petitions by all felons (any crime), but felons can hire lawyers and disadvantaged foreign women can't.

Presenting a pettioner's criminal record to a beneficiary in a foreign country who may or may not be fluent in English, and certainly isn't familiar with the laws in all 50 states, won't accomplish anything. Your speech about freedom and liberty brings tears to me eyes (really), but it's just idealisitic to think that will work. No, she can't make a sound choice because she is at a disadvantage from the start.

Maybe you would like wait until the interview to tell her how many petitions he has gotten approved before and let her decide if she wants to go with him then? :lol:



Well you are "One of those guys" then. Obviously if you somehow think people outside of yourself in the good 'ol USA cannot make a conscious descision on their own (yes even with interperators which they can provide), then you ahve a superiority complex and not a real concern for the benneficiarys safety.


Sure I'm "One of those guys" then. I'm one of those guys who is favor of legislation that works, as opposed to "feel good" laws that don't work. Do you really think women in countries where domestic violence is tolerated can understand US laws, even with an interpreter?

No, I'll say it again, all felons should be prohibited from getting K1 or K3 VISAs. I don't have a problem with laws that take away freedoms from people who commit felonies.
garya505Not TellingPhilippines2006-08-11 17:59:00
IMBRA Special TopicsTo those of you griping about IMBRA




i'm going to be bluntly honest about the original poster.

Too bad.

you have demonstrated one malicious individual who abuses a system, that individual has not been punished.

tens of thousands of honest people who try to do it the right way are being punished because of one bad apple.

That is what we have fallen to as a society but it's not acceptable, you cannot punish everyone for the acts of an individual and you cannot punish everyone to try to protect one or two random people from doing something stupid. That last part is a direct reference to the high profile case that inspired this law.

The change is immoral, the way this country sometimes over reacts with far reaching consequences to honest citizens trying to make their way in the world and do things the right way is also totally wrong.

bad things sometimes happen to good people for no reason and the government has no business trying to legislate their protection.


Wow, what an incredibly short-sighted viewpoint. I suppose since Murder only occurs to 1 out of 15000 people each year, that the government should just get rid of the laws prohibiting that too? How about Drunk Driving? Robbery? The list goes on and on. If there is one isolated event...no law is needed...I agree. But you have to look at the scale of the number of events, and the impact those events has on people's lives. The circumstances the OP listed are not isolated events...but rather a single sampling in a large number of documented abuses of the prior system. The girls that the "business associate" used got off lucky...many of them wind up physically abused before being kicked to the curb. Being sent back to their home country, often without a pot to piss in, is considered a fantastic outcome compared to how many of them wound up. I'm sorry that adding a measure of "complete disclosure" in order to protect foreign nationals who are literally putting their lives into the hands of these USC's upsets you. But the way I see it...if it's good enough for the Real Estate industry, then it should be good enough for immigration.

It sucks that the USCIS has dropped the ball on implementing the program (DHS failing at something? Surprise Surprise)....but the rationale behind the legislation is both sound and over-due.


It's not just the implementation that was flawed but the law itself. Some parts are good, like the petitioner background checks and the limitations on number of petitions allowed. But the rules for the so-called International Marriage Brokers are just silly and don't accomplish the intended effect. It would have been easier and more effective to just prohibit petitions by all felons (any crime), but felons can hire lawyers and disadvantaged foreign women can't.



I gladly dissagree with you. This law does not have silly IMB laws, silly IMB regulations already existed. This is just a patch to those IMB laws to add buffers and prophylactics to the IMB regulations so that technologies like the internet cannot be abused by making the line of what makes an IMB, and what has to follow IMB rules, a little less blurry than before.

The easy way is not always the right way. Taking away someones freedoms like that because they made one or more of any mistake is absolutely wrong. This law avoids that possibility and leave the decision up to the benneficiary.

Unless you are one of those people who somehow think any incoming foreign national is less intellegent than you are and can't make a sound choice, allowing the benneficiary to make the final choice is adding freedom and libery to both parties.

The only thing that is flawed in this law is it didn't use more simple words for everyone to be able to understand clearly. So the trolls, drive by media, lawyers, and the rest of that scum, are taking parts of it and interperating it on behalf of the more impressionables amongst us and causing an unneed furor that is for nothing more than their own ego boost, or guilty conscience at best.

The real issue, for those of us who respect law and follow it, is the implementation. The real issue, for those of us who may have had a shady past and are trying to make an effort to become better, is also the implementation. The real issue, for those who still live and desire to live a shady life, is IMBRA.


Like I said, it would have been easier and more effective to just prohibit petitions by all felons (any crime), but felons can hire lawyers and disadvantaged foreign women can't.

Presenting a pettioner's criminal record to a beneficiary in a foreign country who may or may not be fluent in English, and certainly isn't familiar with the laws in all 50 states, won't accomplish anything. Your speech about freedom and liberty brings tears to me eyes (really), but it's just idealisitic to think that will work. No, she can't make a sound choice because she is at a disadvantage from the start.

Maybe you would like wait until the interview to tell her how many petitions he has gotten approved before and let her decide if she wants to go with him then? :lol:
garya505Not TellingPhilippines2006-08-11 16:56:00
IMBRA Special TopicsTo those of you griping about IMBRA


i'm going to be bluntly honest about the original poster.

Too bad.

you have demonstrated one malicious individual who abuses a system, that individual has not been punished.

tens of thousands of honest people who try to do it the right way are being punished because of one bad apple.

That is what we have fallen to as a society but it's not acceptable, you cannot punish everyone for the acts of an individual and you cannot punish everyone to try to protect one or two random people from doing something stupid. That last part is a direct reference to the high profile case that inspired this law.

The change is immoral, the way this country sometimes over reacts with far reaching consequences to honest citizens trying to make their way in the world and do things the right way is also totally wrong.

bad things sometimes happen to good people for no reason and the government has no business trying to legislate their protection.


Wow, what an incredibly short-sighted viewpoint. I suppose since Murder only occurs to 1 out of 15000 people each year, that the government should just get rid of the laws prohibiting that too? How about Drunk Driving? Robbery? The list goes on and on. If there is one isolated event...no law is needed...I agree. But you have to look at the scale of the number of events, and the impact those events has on people's lives. The circumstances the OP listed are not isolated events...but rather a single sampling in a large number of documented abuses of the prior system. The girls that the "business associate" used got off lucky...many of them wind up physically abused before being kicked to the curb. Being sent back to their home country, often without a pot to piss in, is considered a fantastic outcome compared to how many of them wound up. I'm sorry that adding a measure of "complete disclosure" in order to protect foreign nationals who are literally putting their lives into the hands of these USC's upsets you. But the way I see it...if it's good enough for the Real Estate industry, then it should be good enough for immigration.

It sucks that the USCIS has dropped the ball on implementing the program (DHS failing at something? Surprise Surprise)....but the rationale behind the legislation is both sound and over-due.


It's not just the implementation that was flawed but the law itself. Some parts are good, like the petitioner background checks and the limitations on number of petitions allowed. But the rules for the so-called International Marriage Brokers are just silly and don't accomplish the intended effect. It would have been easier and more effective to just prohibit petitions by all felons (any crime), but felons can hire lawyers and disadvantaged foreign women can't.
garya505Not TellingPhilippines2006-08-10 23:21:00
IMBRA Special TopicsWrite IMBRA yes or no ??? Pls Help !!

HI All ,
Just here today to ask something specific as MAYA informed me that IMBRA is seriouslly an issue .Me and my fiance met at Indiamatch.com , where I am an Indian :). ow just wanted to ask whether we shd mention that we met at Indiamatch and put a right on IMBRA section at I-29F. Or shd we totally forget that fact and say we met at yahoo messenger chat ?? As I saw here some people said that I-29F lengthens the process a lot . Pls advice

I wd be waiting for your reply ............


Don't lie to USCIS.

I think any delays you have heard about as being due to IMBRA have nothing to do with the place of meeting (IMB or not).
garya505Not TellingPhilippines2007-08-07 12:04:00
IMBRA Special TopicsClock start ticking
QUOTE (evansfan @ Feb 17 2008, 07:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
When does the clock start ticking on the 2 year IMBRA requirement does it start when the NOA 1 is granted or when the actual K1 visa is granted

thanks
Jay


Why are you asking about IMBRA? Are you already planning for your second K-1 application? helpsmilie.gif
garya505Not TellingPhilippines2008-02-18 13:58:00
IMBRA Special TopicsINTERNATIONAL MARRIAGE BROKER?

You're reading things into then definition that are not there. The IMBRA definition says nothing about intentions.


Sheesh...excuse me for not quoting exactly, however if the INTENTION of the company is to facilitate these types of services between the two, then it is one (refer to the scanned defenition after your last post).

By the way, I chose to be honest and not try to skimp by hoping to get a bye because of the complicated definition. I claimed an International Marriage broker and it never was an issue throughout the entire process! Visa received this week!


No mention of intention there. This is a legal definition, and in legal definitions exact words matter.
garya505Not TellingPhilippines2007-02-01 16:12:00
IMBRA Special TopicsINTERNATIONAL MARRIAGE BROKER?

So I am in a similar situation. Met her on arablounge.ocm. I paid for the service and she did not. She could have and she chose to be a free member where she can flirt and just reply to messages very similar to match.com and the like. arablounge members are mixed from the US and abroad. It does not cater specifically for Americans meeting people outside the country. I am struggling with the IMBRA question but do feel like i fall under exception B above.

I call USCIS and they advised me to as an IO via infopass...

any thoughts?

also, what are the disadvantages of checking the imbra box?

thanks



There really is no disadvantage of checking the box and providing the website information. On the other hand, if you say you didn't meet via an IMB and they think you did, well there is a potential for a problem.
garya505Not TellingPhilippines2007-02-01 03:45:00
IMBRA Special TopicsINTERNATIONAL MARRIAGE BROKER?

I hope you have a good trip and that it turns out the way you hope. I have been to Ukraine myself perhaps 12-15 times. It is a great country and I really enjoy it there.

I was in about the same situation that you are. I met my fiancee through Elena's models which is similar to the service you used. I answered yes on my petition and gave the name and address for Elena's. The odds are that it will never come up in the interview or create any problems for you.



It IS an International Marriage broker if the user pays a fee to a company to be able to contact an international potential spouse with the intention of a relationship and possible marriage. The company who receives the payment must be one whose primiary objective is to introduce a non-american to an american for relationship and/or marriage intentions.

Dont risk trying to say it is not one if it actually is...simply because you dont want to have to claim you met this way. Be proud of the option you chose, tell the Government about it and move on. They dont frown on it, they just want to know so they can regulate and monitor.


You're reading things into then definition that are not there. The IMBRA definition says nothing about intentions.
garya505Not TellingPhilippines2007-01-27 16:10:00
IMBRA Special TopicsINTERNATIONAL MARRIAGE BROKER?

I want to know how the USCIS defines as a "INTERNATIONAL MARRIAGE BROKER" in I-129F? I met my fiance on a personals website, RussianEuro.com. I do not know if this site is deemed as a "International Marriage Broker" service as defined by the USCIS. I paid for a year-long membership with unlimited membership contact. They do not monitor or censor letters, instant messenging, etc. She contacted me first with a positive message through this website. We immediately moved to using Yahoo Instant Messenging because I can log our chat sessions. But I did not know this would come in handy later on as our relationship had progressed to love and the discussion of marriage.
If anyone has a detailed description from USCIS that defines an "INTERNATIONAL MARRIAGE BROKER", I would greatly appreciate it! Thanks for your time! ;-)


The only definition of INTERNATIONAL MARRIAGE BROKER that matters is the one in IMBRA.
USCIS does not define it, IMBRA does. USCIS is just following the law (sort of).

RussianEuro probably fits the definition, so just say YES and give the website URL, the address and phone of RussianEuro. That's the safe course of action.
garya505Not TellingPhilippines2007-01-26 10:27:00
IMBRA Special TopicsIMBRA Article in NY Times

Very well said. This thought hit me this morning, it's true that there may be some men who seek a forign bride with aspirations of having a woman to cook, clean and listen to them. Not all men are nice, not women are either. So, IMBRA is written to protect those relatively few women who fall victim to that kind of man.

It's also true that some executives (Senators or Representatives as well) might hire a young female personal assistant or administrator to handle their paper work. SOME of these men will seduce or sexually harrass these girls, they might have affairs which would destroy families. There isn't a law that requires these men to provide background checks to these women before they hire them in order to protect them... To me, IMBRA could lead to pretty much all men having to provide background checks to all kinds of women...


There are a lot of cases of foreign women who victimize men, so maybe there should a law to require background checks on the women? :lol:



... the story didn't come out the way it was meant to be.

For the record, I apologize to anyone who has experienced any stress as a result of this story. I had hoped for something completely different. In fact, if you go to the audio/multimedia link, you can hear an interview with her and I over the phone, we don't sound like the story reads at all.

ALSO, the quote attributed to Sam Smith is taken out of context. I spoke to him today and he was flabbergasted!

I forgot to mention one other point, I NEVER went on any "romance" tour, used a translator, etc.. The ONLY thing the ILoveLatins.com agecncy did for me was to give me Yesenia's email address. That's it. Nothing more. I contacted her on my own, got to know her on my own, and went to meet her, eventually get engaged, and plan for our future on my own. This is not any kind of arranged "mail order bride" situation where I'm spending thousands of dollars on some company to provide me with a service and eventually a wife!@#$%. I got her email address, that's it. The rest we did as any other couple might if they met on Match.com, eharmony, or any other site...

Adam


Hi Adam,

No need at all to apologize as your intentions were totally reasonable. We are getting mistreated through an ill-conceived new government requirement that is based on an unfair stereotype. The rate of abuse of foreign spouses is NOT increasing and there were no attempts to see if it is in any way different than the rate for the general population. There's no question the rate of happy marriages with foreign spouses is also dramatically increasing!

The article could have explained more about the completely botched execution of the law. The delay in releasing the proper form, much longer wait times, random processing of individual petitions - some fast, others incredibly slow, and the total lack of information or access to the processing centers. IMBRA was a new requirement but it was terribly wrong to have the law take effect before the USCIS was ready to handle it.

I'm glad you set the record straight here about your own situation because I could see that the article was pushing the "mail order bride" stereotype rather than trying to see if things have changed simply because of the much easier ability today to meet someone a long distance away and maintain a close, daily relationship through live chatting. If you ask me, this is the real story of foreign spouses.

Well good luck to you and Yesenia. We wish you a very happy life together!!


Very well said. :thumbs:
garya505Not TellingPhilippines2006-10-19 15:42:00
IMBRA Special TopicsIMBRA Article in NY Times

I met my fiancé online, too, and I agree it's just another medium. But I didn't read Martin & Amie as being offensive, just frustrated that as far as the media are concerned, marrying a foreigner is JUST like 'Green Card', or that it's something only rich geekish men do. They couldn't profile a single female USC?


Of course they could have profiled a single female USC petitioner, but male-bashing is more popular these days.
garya505Not TellingPhilippines2006-10-17 22:24:00
IMBRA Special TopicsIMBRA Article in NY Times




"“It all started with women’s lib,” said Sam Smith, a former salesman of insurance and mutual funds, who founded I Love Latins in Houston six years ago. “Guys are sick and tired of the North American me, me, me attitude.’ ”"

You know, just once, I wish they'd profile a couple that met while studying abroad or on Yahoo, because quite frankly, no one cares if some white, middle-aged bitter divorcée gets his woman whom the translator assures loves him here on time. He's not a sympathetic character, and frankly, the article reads like anyone upset about IMBRA is some loser whiner who wants a foreign bride because if she leaves him, she won't be able to get his money.



I totally agree with you. That article completely rubbed me the wrong way. We had to wait 5 months for our NOA2 because of the IMBRA backlog! and for what? I have nothing to do with marriage brokers or internet dating, in fact I'm a woman applying for a man. I don't think people who actually met their significant other in real life should be categorized with men who troll for women on the internet. I wish they would have profiled someone whose visa was innocently held up because of it.


Hmmm, sounds like ignorant bias and prejudice to me. I met my fiance on the internet and I take offense to your attitude.

I thought same. I met my now hubby on the internet and he (USC) certainly didn't troll on the internet for me. Real life :unsure: I thought mine was :cry: The internet is just another medium, broadening the pool.


I agree. The question is not how we met, but whether we have real relationships.
garya505Not TellingPhilippines2006-10-17 22:10:00
IMBRA Special TopicsIMBRA Article in NY Times


"“It all started with women’s lib,” said Sam Smith, a former salesman of insurance and mutual funds, who founded I Love Latins in Houston six years ago. “Guys are sick and tired of the North American me, me, me attitude.’ ”"

You know, just once, I wish they'd profile a couple that met while studying abroad or on Yahoo, because quite frankly, no one cares if some white, middle-aged bitter divorcée gets his woman whom the translator assures loves him here on time. He's not a sympathetic character, and frankly, the article reads like anyone upset about IMBRA is some loser whiner who wants a foreign bride because if she leaves him, she won't be able to get his money.



I totally agree with you. That article completely rubbed me the wrong way. We had to wait 5 months for our NOA2 because of the IMBRA backlog! and for what? I have nothing to do with marriage brokers or internet dating, in fact I'm a woman applying for a man. I don't think people who actually met their significant other in real life should be categorized with men who troll for women on the internet. I wish they would have profiled someone whose visa was innocently held up because of it.


Hmmm, sounds like ignorant bias and prejudice to me. I met my fiance on the internet and I take offense to your attitude.
garya505Not TellingPhilippines2006-10-17 21:54:00
USCIS Service CentersMy Fiance has plan to go in laguna niguel USCIS!

Anyone here who have done this? I am worried if they would no entertain him. It would just be a waste of money, effort and time. :cry:


:help:
garya505Not TellingPhilippines2006-08-29 23:27:00
USCIS Service CentersMy Fiance has plan to go in laguna niguel USCIS!
:help:
garya505Not TellingPhilippines2006-08-29 23:04:00
USCIS Service CentersCSC vs VSC (and TSC/NSC)

I just thought it was interesting.

Petitions handled by each SC

Table from USCIS showing entries on K1 in 2005 (among other visas). They even have data sorted by state.


I would like to see the number of petitions processed by CSC and VSC. Since this would be for last year, NSC and TSC would need to be included too.
garya505Not TellingPhilippines2006-09-01 16:02:00
USCIS Service CentersAn Idea To Ensure Those Waiting Longer Have Their Petition Adjudicated First
Actually I had an idea somewhat like that but mine would be web-based. Your petition would be given a "queue number". You could login any time to the USCIS web site and see you position in the queue and what the current processing status is. Making it web-based would not require a lot of phone people.

This builds on what some people here have done with spreadsheets and such.
garya505Not TellingPhilippines2006-09-19 13:27:00
Waivers (I-601 and I-212) and Administrative Processes (221g)After 2 and 1/2 months of AP, snookums got his K1!

Hello fellow VJers,
My visa journey for a K1 visa has spanned the length of 2006 but today is the magical day that I can finally say that my fiance's AP for more information regarding his fingerprints came back without any flags and on Tuesday (19th) we were called to the Naples consulate and issued the K1!

Our Christmas presents came early this year!! Keep the faith alive! You'll get past it too!


snookums? :lol:
garya505Not TellingPhilippines2006-12-21 15:06:00
Waivers (I-601 and I-212) and Administrative Processes (221g)Second chance in your life
Anette, I just want to say, whatever I'm doing or whatever is happening in my life, I always like reading your posts and you make me smile. :D
garya505Not TellingPhilippines2007-01-07 19:29:00
Waivers (I-601 and I-212) and Administrative Processes (221g)Second chance in your life

Sweeties, I really can tell how much love you have for each other. Life is really amazing & full of surprises.. We really never know when the right man will come in our life.. Like you, I am very happy to have finally find the man that completes me, the other half that makes me whole.. Sometimes people can go a bit corny with love but who cares, it is just so wonderful to love someone so much & be loved in return like you always dream of... :thumbs:

Godspeed!


Marie

I am so glad for you response.
This right man just came into my life so suddenly
He could be anyone
And when he did he was so many miles away from me.
And now we have this problem to be together
Anette


Anette, your story brought tears to my eyes. (F)
garya505Not TellingPhilippines2006-12-30 10:15:00