ForumTitleContentMemberSexCountryDate/Time
IMBRA Special TopicsMail Order Bride Newspaper Article /Star Telegram
Ooh, good point.
CaladanMaleCanada2006-06-15 10:40:00
IMBRA Special TopicsMail Order Bride Newspaper Article /Star Telegram
A template to use:

Dear Editor,

The article "Mail-order brides on hold waiting for new forms" gives the mistaken and prejudiced impression that the processing delays caused by Homeland Security's non-compliance with IMBRA only affect men seeking to bring over so-called mail-order brides.

While IMBRA itself seeks to protect foreign fiancées from potentially abusive American spouses, the K-1 visa class currently delayed applies to a much larger group of engaged couples: men and women who met on vacation, or during college, or through friends, continued their relationships, which now culminate, like many relationships, in marriage. American women may sponsor foreign men; this is not a visa class simply for those who wish to secure timid brides from Eastern Europe. [Good place for your own personal example.]

To dismiss, as your headline does, all of these couples as 'mail-order brides' and to imply, as your headline does, that the delays therefore are necessary and appropriate does a disservice to both your readers and to the thousands of real couples pursuing marriage and immigration by legal means. In a time when immigration dominates American political discourse, I am disappointed that the Star-Telegram does not care to disseminate accurate information.


Sincerely,
[Your name here.]

I won't be writing as I have not yet filed a K-1, and I think it's stronger coming from someone who has. Fire away!
CaladanMaleCanada2006-06-15 09:53:00
IMBRA Special TopicsAre Personals Web Sites considered Marriage Brokers?
I don't think so, and here is why:

If you look at 4(A)(ii) it indicates that *dating* isn't what makes the site a marriage broker, nor simply paying fees, but *asymmetry* of fees and contact information dependent on the person's country of origin & gender. So a dating site where both couples pay $50 and can meet anyone from any country would not be a marriage broker; one where the woman pays nothing and the American man pays $50 to meet her or others like her and is focused on matching people up with Americans (or Americans with a specific ethnic group) does.

Like all laws, there's a sense in which it doesn't mean anything until it goes through a courtroom and there's judicial precedent, but I would be very surprised if the law decided that World of Warcraft counted as a dating service. (Not a lawyer, for what it's worth.)

Addendum: Except in cases where, of course, there's an overriding cultural reason to use a matchmaker; these ones are exempt, but according to the I-129F, seem to need to meet strict criteria.

An overriding cultural reason isn't, of course, according to 4(A)(i), just 'I think Asian girls are teh hott!!11!', but something like 'I'm from Xwhere and we used the traditional matchmaker in our town to find me someone because in our culture couples don't date before marriage.'
CaladanMaleCanada2006-09-11 09:01:00
IMBRA Special TopicsI HAVE A DOMESTIC CONVICTION
Consult with a lawyer, but my sense of it is that it has to be declared even if the record is sealed. Section 9A of the I-129F instructions says you must declare it "..even if your records were sealed..." I'm reading that literally.

To conceal it, you'd have to lie on the I-129F. Not advisable.

As far as I understand, it's not grounds to deny the visa, but they will inform your fiancée at the interview of your previous conviction.

It would seem prudent to tell her now. Which sounds better?

"Miss [X]. your fiancé has a domestic violence conviction from 2002 which I am required to inform you under section 833(a)(5)(A)(iii) of IMBRA 2005. Here are papers on VAWA and information on where to seek assistance should it become necessary."
"Oh, that. We talked about that. He had a fight with his sister that escalated, but he was let go with a fine and he told me about it."

"Gee, I had no idea..."
CaladanMaleCanada2006-11-14 18:15:00
IMBRA Special TopicsIMBRA O.K. Under U.S. Constitution

The challenge by European Connections wasn't just about the foreign agencies not complying with IMBRA. It was also about American introduction services not being held to the same standards. If foreign women (remember this is a part of VAWA) are to be informed about prior convictions of abuse, sexual assault, etc. why then shouldn't the American introduction services have to uphold the same standards? Do we think that the American woman is so asute that she will not be taken in by an abuser online?

When we hear about all of the children that are drawn into elaborate scandals online, it really makes you wonder why the introduction services are not also being more closely screened.

That was one of European Connections case points, but apparently the judge didn't feel that was worth extending the law towards those online services.



For one, an American woman speaks the language, likely has friends and family in the area to help her if the marriage sours, knows her rights under the law, and also is able to meet the man in person without marrying him, in his own town to get a better sense of his personality. She may not; there are certainly a lot of liars out there, but she's not in a position where she *can't* get that information.

A foreign bride has none of those abilities, so she's more at risk. Plus, before VAWA, it would be very easy for some chopf*ck to bring her over here and refuse to file her green card to keep her dependent on him. How much abuse do you think gets reported if she's being told that she'll be deported if she speaks up because he hasn't filed her paperwork?

Not to mention that federal law doesn't generally address marriages, so there'd be no way to enforce an IMBRA-like law on a domestic company.

And the law doesn't prevent you from marrying your bride. You can marry her and live in her country. Or (as we've seen), IMBRA doesn't prevent someone from bringing her here to the U.S. And everyone is required to be compliant with it; had I a criminal record, I'd have to have it disclosed to C. though there isn't exactly a mail-order husband service.

It just means that an abuser can't use the fact that his fiancé is desperate to get out of a poor country to hide his past. Most people who use marriage brokers are fine men for whom the traditional dating scene doesn't work out; some are chopf*cks who want someone who is a slave they can dominate and abuse with little repercussion. It won't hurt the upstanding men; it keeps the chopf*cks from taking out their problems on some poor foreign girl.
CaladanMaleCanada2007-04-17 00:24:00
IMBRA Special Topicswhat if some one fiancee was pregnant
What section of IMBRA would prevent the American from sending in a petition?
CaladanMaleCanada2007-04-14 13:36:00
IMBRA Special TopicsIMBRA limitation filing on K nonimmigrant
Either way. They're not asking you to demonstrate extreme hardship. They're asking to give them a good reason why you need another petition approved. That's a much lower bar. The approved IMBRA waivers (there's a thread of them around here somewhere) have been along the lines of 'my earlier relationship didn't work out tho legit' or 'we withdrew our earlier petition but we've reconciled' not a claim like 'I have a medical condition for which I need the beneficiary's assistance and I can't leave the U.S.'

They just want to have a reason to deny you if you're running a sex ring or a scam to get girls green cards or are playing the 'let's bring over a sampler tray of women and dump them on the tax payer' game.

What you linked to are waivers in the cases where the beneficiary has a previous visa violation, like an overstay, or a criminal record, such that the beneficiary is *ineligible* for a visa. Different animal.
CaladanMaleCanada2007-07-02 23:24:00
IMBRA Special TopicsIMBRA limitation filing on K nonimmigrant
The IMBRA waiver isn't a hardship waiver, is it? On the I-129F, it just say the petitioner can ask for a waiver of the restriction, and doesn't restrict the reasons the petitioner could use to those demonstrating extreme hardship.
CaladanMaleCanada2007-07-02 22:22:00
IMBRA Special TopicsK-1 was approved, then I cancelld it, we reconciled now
Surely a situation where you're petitioning the same person should be easily waived, no? I know we don't have a whole lot of data on this yet, but haven't most of the waiver stories here been successes?
CaladanMaleCanada2007-07-02 17:59:00
IMBRA Special TopicsI-129f Part 3 Line 2
QUOTE (Jesse G @ Jan 26 2008, 05:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (foothills lover @ Jan 26 2008, 02:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I am completely new to this and just starting from scratch. I have recently met an absolutely wonderful lady from Russia. I was just starting to fill in the I-129F form when I came across this "Three or more convictions for crimes relating to a controlled substance or alcohol not arising from a single act." Can anyone give me any feedback on this. In my younger and wilder days I did have 3 Drunk Driving convictions the most current was 19 years ago and the first was 26 years ago. I spent no time in jail, but is this a concern? Everything else looks straight forward, and I have held a very good job job for the last 20 years with absolutely no problems. I know this whole process takes alot of time, and I wonder if this will create any problems helpsmilie.gif


I'm not quite sure why this was moved to the IMBRA thread. I'm not speaking from experience (or expertise), but I don't think this will be a cause for denial. You may be asked to file a waiver (can someone more familiar chime in?). Just be sure to answer questions honestly and thoroughly.


Because he's the USC and he has convictions, so the only concern for him is IMBRA-related (not, say, a potential I-601 if it were the foreigner who had the conviction.)

OP: The point of IMBRA is to ensure that the foreign partner is aware of the USCs criminal history, if any, so the foreign partner can make an informed decision and knows his or her options. From what we've seen since it's been implemented, IMBRA-related convictions are not a reason to deny the petition or the visa.

Beyond that, read through the threads here, and the guides generally, for guidance. Lots of people have had to deal with IMBRA. Be honest and follow the instructions. smile.gif
CaladanMaleCanada2008-01-27 12:35:00
IMBRA Special Topicsk-3 after two k-1 visas used up ??
QUOTE (pushbrk @ Apr 22 2008, 10:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (wifetobe @ Apr 22 2008, 03:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (Seattle2Cebu @ Apr 22 2008, 04:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I had an phony scammer burn up my second k-1 petition.. If at some point in the future, I married overseas, and then brought my wife on a k-3 does any of this imbra stuff apply?

I believe you would need to apply for a waiver along with your petition but I'm sure others will intervene and guide you!


The limitations don't apply to K3 but you would have to answer the same IMBRA related questions on the I-129F.

A CR1 path with no I-129F would seem a better choice but the only one I've seen do that took a very long time to get through USCIS to NOA2. I haven't really been following it, so I don't know how much longer than a year but at least a year in a black hole.


Anecdotally around here, people have found that they've needed a waiver for the K-3; at least, it's not clear that USCIS is interpreting the law as written. It's supposed to apply only to K-1s.

But as written, he'd just have to answer the IMBRA questions like anyone else. In practice, he might have to write a waiver (but they seem to be pretty easy to secure.)

I wouldn't recommend marrying *just* to avoid IMBRA, because simply being married doesn't make the relationship automatically more valid.
CaladanMaleCanada2008-05-02 08:54:00
IMBRA Special TopicsDo I tell the truth or not?
It's probably worthwhile to point out that the place can insist left, right, up and down that they're not a marriage broker and it won't matter a damn as far as IMBRA goes. It's IMBRA's definition that matters, not what the site wants to think it is.
CaladanMaleCanada2007-04-11 16:50:00
IMBRA Special TopicsDo I tell the truth or not?
turboguy, IMBRA doesn't presume you're an abuser any more than the requirement of a medical exam presumes my fiancé has AIDS. *Everyone* has to demonstrate IMBRA compliance by checking a box on a form, and the marriage broker has to demonstrate compliance by following whatever their rules are. It's not really an imposition on your liberty to make the marriage broker follow some rules.

Ya if I was supposed to check the IMBRA box, I will check but the petition is already gone, first NOA in hand, now what? Plus, frankly I am still unsure if I am supposed to, I cant tell if i was a paid member at the time we met. B ut I woudlnt mind on erroring on the side of caution and saying yes, but...do i call them and ask?


Calling and asking isn't likely to help, as whoever answers the phone probably won't have any more clue than you do.

So, read up on the law. There's a wealth of information here. But keep in mind that not every dating site with a fee is marriage broker. Turbo's post is a good start, but there are posts here with the text of the law and good discussions of it.
CaladanMaleCanada2007-04-10 08:11:00
IMBRA Special TopicsDo I tell the truth or not?
One might argue that being the victim of abuse in a foreign country where you don't speak the language and are too scared to report it because someone is holding your green card over your head probably depresses the numbers somewhat, and one might further argue that it's more serious when a foreigner with no support network is abused as her (or his) options for escape are limited -- no friends and family or established career. And that the potential for being taken advantage of is a lot greater when the relationship is mostly over the Internet with a barely shared language. (Yes, yes, everyone has no secrets, which is why there are all the posts saying 'should I tell my fiancé about my past?' prompted by the worry that IMBRA will reveal it.)

Check out the 'effects of major changes' forum... seems to be a number of cases just there.

But the purpose of the law is to bring the marriage brokers into compliance and to inform the foreign fiancée that her American lover has a history of domestic violence or drinking... it doesn't mean that she's denied a visa, just that she knows what she's getting into.
CaladanMaleCanada2007-04-09 08:56:00
IMBRA Special TopicsDo I tell the truth or not?
Read up on IMBRA; from what you've posted it isn't clear whether your dating site would be classified as a marriage broker or not. ("Free" is suggesting to me "not a marriage broker", since one of the criteria seems to be "asymmetrical payment", but you'll have to read it yourself.)

But even if you did use a marriage broker, IMBRA doesn't mean you're automatically denied. (Check out the IMBRA forum; there's more than one person in a similar situation.) It's just an extra step, and they're more interested in scrutinizing the broker than anything else. Lots of people use dating sites.

Lying, however, could get you both in a lot of trouble. So, um, don't do that.
CaladanMaleCanada2007-04-08 22:13:00
IMBRA Special TopicsAdam Walsh filers
QUOTE (TBoneTX @ Dec 31 2008, 01:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (rebeccajo @ Dec 31 2008, 05:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I don't agree with 'legislate in haste' as regards to the passage of this law.
The OP's congresswoman indicated otherwise, at least in the sense that "immigration was quick to adopt it" and the rest of the statement.
QUOTE
I applaud the US government for taking steps this time around to protect the alien from the unknown.
It would be of interest to see the citation that gives our government the ability/authority under the U.S. Constitution to make USCs accountable to non-USCs. Also, if our government protects foreigners, why doesn't it do identically for already-USCs... who (if they're of legal age in their state) can marry anyone they want to, without "your papers, Comrade"? Not arguing; just asking.



The issue isn't getting married. The issue is immigration, and there's an obvious reason why USC's shouldn't have to immigrate to the U.S. And the USC isn't accountable to the foreigner, just to the U.S. government.

This isn't the disclosure issue -- that's IMBRA -- but there are good reasons for the disclosure. Because of the unique status of a spousal visa, where eligibility for permanent residency is based on a bona fide, ongoing relationship and the financial ties required, this puts the immigrant in a potentially very bad situation. A new immigrant often has no family ties here, can't work, can't drive, might not even speak the language, and runs the risk of having nowhere to turn. This happens with USCs in abusive relationships, too, but at least they don't have to worry about being deported.

Moreover, the foreigner is likely dependent just on the USCs disclosure for everything she or he knows about him. It's a lot easier to hide a rape conviction when you see the person online and once or twice in person.

And because of the immigration issue, this means it's immediately a legal/diplomatic problem that will cost the taxpayers money. The government isn't worried about whether someone has an abusive marriage or a happy marriage. They're certainly not in the business of providing marriage counseling. But they are concerned about people being here without legal status, or the diplomatic problems that result when some other country's citizen is harmed. And I think in the case of Adam Walsh, the intent of the law is to help crack down on sexual slavery.
CaladanMaleCanada2009-01-01 10:25:00
IMBRA Special TopicsIMBRA should be applied to all male-female interactions
Help, help, I just discovered that there are immigration laws and I don't want to tell my fiancee about my past. Let me now make stupid analogies so I can prove I'm a n00b.

You can marry whoever the hell will have you. Immigration, however, is the responsibility of the federal government and requiring that the foreign fiance(e) be informed of specific items of the criminal past of the petitioner is no more unconstitutional than requiring meeting in person or sponsorship.
CaladanMaleCanada2009-06-26 20:36:00
IMBRA Special TopicsThird K1 Visa
QUOTE (Brad and Vika @ Feb 18 2009, 09:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (MsZ @ Feb 18 2009, 02:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Anyway, age-gaps can be OK. I'm not against them totally. They're situational. But teens with 40-somethings, I'm never going to be for that. As Anne said earlier, I know myself as a woman that while females tend to be more mature than males at that age, they are still nowhere near mature enough for many, many things. And a man who finds a person of limited experience attractive raises red flags anyway. She's doing the daddy thing and who the hell knows what he is doing! But they are no where near being on equal footing.


Absolutely. If May/December relationships never worked there wouldn't be so many movies made about the subject.


If we're going by what's true in the movies, then we'll also have to believe lots of things, like how crimes are solved by the witnesses confessing on the stand and twenty-year-olds have thirty-year-old parents and all bombs being defused in the last seconds.

Historically, age of marriage has varied a lot, and the biggest factor is the economy. I have a friend whose research involves marriage records in 16th century England, and it's not uncommon to see marriages cluster at harvest (when the men got paid) and the age of marriage depends mostly on how well the area was doing. If a young man could make it on his own at 20, he probably got married then. If it took him until he was 30 to be financially stable, he waited. The age that women got married goes up and down, too, though to a lesser extent. There's no idyllic time of people getting married at 14; it's varied through a lot of history. May-December relationships are mostly second marriages after a wife died in childbirth.

None of it matters all that much; one lives in the times in which one lives. It's not going to be much of an argument to say that 500 years ago someone could have married a 13-year-old when you're living in 2009 America.

CaladanMaleCanada2009-02-25 08:53:00
IMBRA Special TopicsThird K1 Visa
QUOTE (charles! @ Jan 12 2009, 01:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (tmma @ Jan 12 2009, 11:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Oh I love these " I'm shopping for a foreign wife because American/Western women are........." threads! There's bad apples in every basket-not just the American one!

If you have to rationalize your choice of bride by deriding women from America, the problem is more with YOU than American women.

it just goes to show that he shoulda gotten the extended warranty!


Or kept his receipt.

Seriously. I don't know about everyone else, but I have plenty of female friends who are happily married to American men, and they're slim and attractive, and interested in family....

They're not interested in guys who hate American women, of course, but that's not a problem with *them*. whistling.gif
CaladanMaleCanada2009-01-20 18:24:00
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?
CaladanMaleCanada2006-10-17 22:15:00
IMBRA Special TopicsIMBRA Article in NY Times



Because anyone who reads this in the NYT who isn't going through this process will think 'Gee, why should I worry about IMBRA, it's only creeps who hate American women who bother to look overseas anyway.'


Unfortunately no one who reads about IMBRA, in any context or situation is going to care if it doesn't affect them.



There would be ways to make it more sympathetic... you know, unfortunate Texan-Mexican couple who grew up only 10 miles apart but have to wait a year to marry legally... because they're being legal.... I can hear the violins... and you could spin it as 'being tough on immigration means not punishing those who do it legally'... but they spun it like it was some sort of catalog thing where you could match your foreign spouse with your wardrobe. ('Latina girls match my shoes!') Very frustrating.
CaladanMaleCanada2006-10-17 20:38:00
IMBRA Special TopicsIMBRA Article in NY Times
That's a hard call. Is the rise in cases because women are lying, or because there was no well-publicized option for an abused woman who didn't speak English well who believed she'd be deported if she left? I'm inclined towards the latter for no terribly good reason except that every other damn thing in this process has to be documented, so it seems that unlikely that someone could claim abuse without something like a police report.

Either way, I'm glad IMBRA was passed, and I don't mind the extra question on the form, but it was implemented horribly. To get the implementation fixed is going to require negative public attention, but that's not going to happen if it's perceived as just a problem for mail order bride seekers.

And what got me, is that if my mom reads the article in the paper, even knowing a bit about my process, she won't realize that such a hang-up applies to me because the article didn't profile anyone who wasn't about the needforeignbride.com thingy.
CaladanMaleCanada2006-10-17 14:20:00
IMBRA Special TopicsIMBRA Article in NY Times
To be clear, not calling Mr. Weaver a whiner or a loser, just that the article doesn't come off flattering to visa petitioners or reflecting reality.

Because anyone who reads this in the NYT who isn't going through this process will think 'Gee, why should I worry about IMBRA, it's only creeps who hate American women who bother to look overseas anyway.'
CaladanMaleCanada2006-10-17 09:00:00
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.
CaladanMaleCanada2006-10-17 08:56:00
USCIS Service CentersAn Idea To Ensure Those Waiting Longer Have Their Petition Adjudicated First
Two things:

1) Lawyers are fond of saying "hard cases make bad law." That is, it's bad to take a really rare case or crazy exception and use it as a justification to revamp a law.

The same thing goes for procedures. IMBRA messed up a lot. There were petitions recalled, thousands of RFEs sent out, a new form & procedures to learn, etc.

So I would say that changing things based on IMBRA is probably not ideal.

2) They do adjudicate cases roughly by NOA1 date: look at the data TomandYu (?) has compiled on how fast cases move through. Most of the earlier cases process faster than the later ones. This indicates to me that the process is mostly chronological, but with some differences.

What could those differences be? Here's what I might guess:

There is probably more than one adjudicator. So it probably makes sense to divide up the petitions by specialty & region. Say Steven and I are adjudicators, and he has a lot of experience with divorce-related petitions, and I'm new. Or I am adept at spotting fraud from high-risk countries. So while we both work within our specialty areas chronologically, he might finish his divorce cases before I finish my fraud cases, which could mean that the NOA2 date gets out of order. Add to that a couple of RFEs and now it looks like there's no system at all.

Some cases are more complicated than others. A petition that needs more work might take longer, and again, assuming more than one adjudicator, while Steven works away on X's petition, I polish off A, B, C, and D. D has a much later NOA1 than X. Are we being unfair, or just efficient?


My point is, it's easy to look at the data and conclude they toss them in a pile or down the stairs and process them in whatever order they want. But the process isn't very transparent, so none of us are really sure what's going on.

So I'd like to know what the whole process looks like, first.
CaladanMaleCanada2006-09-19 17:16:00
USCIS Service CentersImmigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986
Yeah, sorry. I don't think it does anyone any good to pretend there isn't fraud or abuse. Would you rather the K-1 have restrictions, or would you rather everyone assuming that your fiancée is only with you to get out of a third-world country because 'everyone knows' it's so easy to get a green card by fraudulently marrying an American?
CaladanMaleCanada2007-03-18 00:56:00
USCIS Service CentersConfusion re service centres
I think it's EAC for Vermont. Or at least, it was last September when I filed.
CaladanMaleCanada2007-08-02 08:30:00
USCIS Service CentersDo the employees have to be so terrible?
I have been fortunate enough not to experience a rude USCIS person either time I've called, and the CBP officer at the border was very helpful and polite even though I was being a bit of a pitbull about the work authorization. And C. only had good things to say about Hartford when he made an Infopass appointment.

While I'm sure we've been lucky, I wouldn't tar them all with the same brush. And I'd report the guy who called your husband illegal. That's uncalled for.
CaladanMaleCanada2007-07-31 17:39:00
Waivers (I-601 and I-212) and Administrative Processes (221g)I 601 question
It depends partially on the maximum possible length of sentencing, too, counted in the aggregate, which I'm taking to mean 'add up all the maximum sentences for the crimes independently.' (i.e., time served concurrently needs to be broken down into parts.)
CaladanMaleCanada2006-11-05 17:23:00
Waivers (I-601 and I-212) and Administrative Processes (221g)ugh 221g

Its not difficult to comply with. i already have the list.
im submitting the info for it tomorrow.

my questions are related to WHY they asked for this.
my suspicion of it being a stalling tactic
is this representative of a bigger problem.......possibly leading to more troubles.
They gave me no timeline of when i will hear from them.
so i have no goal date of when the step will be completed.

i was hoping to find people that had similar happen to them so i would know if this is something serious or just minor. i really dont know what to make of it

sam


My guess, and you should take this with a huge grain of salt, is that they're using the size of the wedding as a proxy to determine whether the relationship is real, or for immigration purposes.

One of my close friends here immigrated from India when he was small, and he's said in the past, when discussing weddings, that in India, weddings are huge. 450 guests to him is an average wedding, because weddings are completely reciprocal, and the sort of thing you invite the whole neighborhood to.

The officer's reasoning might be this: If this is legitimate marriage, then they will have had the gigantic celebration common to wedding around here. If they haven't had a large celebration, then maybe the relationship is fraudulent, because who would want the whole community to come to a marriage that wasn't for anything except getting to the U.S.?

That's what went through my mind when I read your original post, that they were trying to use the wedding as a way to gauge the family's support of and the legitimacy of the relationship.
CaladanMaleCanada2007-01-15 22:51:00
Waivers (I-601 and I-212) and Administrative Processes (221g)charged but no conviction?
You probably should talk to a lawyer familiar with the consulate he will go through. "Something that often happens in this country" doesn't necessarily mean "admissible without a waiver." Best of luck.
CaladanMaleCanada2007-01-20 22:21:00
Waivers (I-601 and I-212) and Administrative Processes (221g)charged but no conviction?
The beneficiary's police record isn't requested until the interview. When you get the packet from the embassy one of the forms (don't recall which one) has one question that asks you to check if you were arrested or convicted of any crime.

If your husband isn't going to be tried and/or sentenced for three years, sending off the forms next week is probably premature. A consultation with a lawyer familiar with your embassy is probably very wise.

What is the accusation?
CaladanMaleCanada2007-01-20 10:32:00
Waivers (I-601 and I-212) and Administrative Processes (221g)need advice!!!
Hang in there. And best of luck and thanks for reporting back.
CaladanMaleCanada2007-01-22 23:54:00
Waivers (I-601 and I-212) and Administrative Processes (221g)need advice!!!

Thanks everyone! The fiance is heading to the Commissionaires first thing tomorrow morning :)


Excellent. Let us know what turns up!
CaladanMaleCanada2007-01-22 00:09:00
Waivers (I-601 and I-212) and Administrative Processes (221g)need advice!!!

That sounds about the same as the wait in Ontario for RCMP fingerprint results. Are digital prints available in his area? Those are supposed to process in 72 hours if you can find an RCMP location with the equipment that is actually functioning. Just a thought.


Did not know about the digital prints unless .. do you mean at the Commissaires? We had looked into that originally, but had been told that the difference in processing time was not that drastic .... we will definitely check into it more.


That would be what I would do. Here's the site with more information. There's a location in Vancouver, too. You might not be able to get the prints done by the time he has his interview, but it should be faster.
CaladanMaleCanada2007-01-21 14:03:00
Waivers (I-601 and I-212) and Administrative Processes (221g)Had my interview and got a 221(g)
I don't know anything about this, but it sounds as if they're just curious as to why after having been issued a visa you'd be denied entry. Standard checking upon a denial at a POE, maybe? My fiancé just visited me while the K-1 is processing. He didn't need a K-1 to enter just because I am here, because his intent was just a tourist visit, not to stay.

Check with your lawyer, of course, but if it were me.... if you've often travelled to chess tournaments overseas, if you have documentation from those, combined with the chess tournament information you were going to in the U.S., it could show that your tourist intent (i.e., going to visit and return) was the sort of thing you'd normally do in pursuit of your chess hobby. So you'd be in the position to say 'I can see why the PoE was skeptical and denied my entry, but they didn't know that I've travelled to XYZ before for chess tournaments and always returned.'
CaladanMaleCanada2007-01-09 17:27:00
Waivers (I-601 and I-212) and Administrative Processes (221g)Filed Waiver in Montreal

Call me silly, but we went through the Fiancee visa process in 2004. Delays were really lenghty back then (at least for Canadians) and we were finally approved in April 2005 (after 6 months). Word at that time for the delays and falling in behind everyone else (especially Britain)...Canada did not support the Iraq war, therefore, are not friends of Bush...therefore, on the lower rungs of the ladder in terms of priority. It seems to me that looking at a lot of the Canadian visas, waivers, etc.. :whistle: still going through...Canada is still at the back of the bus in terms of timing..Food for thought. Just my two cents worth...


Or there's the more plausible explanation of volume at an overworked service center. Canada didn't support the Iraq war, but so didn't a lot of other countries who have no problems getting I-601 approved.


Caladan, you are correct. Vermont does handle a lot of petitions but so do all the other service centers. However the Canadian waivers are sent to a specific department for adjudication. And when someone has been waiting a long time to get their paperwork approved (or denied), as in some of our cases, the excuse of the service have a large volume of petitons doesn't always cut it.

Also, if you research back through some of the waiver threads you'll see that Canadians waiting for waiver approval have the longest wait of all. Someone got approved in London after 18 weeks, where as we have one person here who has been waiting for 10 months. Unless one is in the situation of waiting for an approaval of a waiver, our wait times mean nothing. There are a lot of people here on VJ who moan and groan about how long it's taking to process a regular petition, now add to that a waiver...... It makes one question why it takes a Canadian waiver to get processed so long. I don't think it has anything to do with the war, but US/ Canada relations have never been the best. And that could be an answer, who really knows. The only distressing thing is having to wait over 6 months for an answer.


Oh trust me, I know it's distressing, and I know it's a long wait, and I know there seems to be no reason for it. I just thought the conspiracy theory was a bit much. 10 months is ridiculous; if it's for an overstay, for crying out loud, it's practically faster to wait out the ban.

Have you called your Congressmen?
CaladanMaleCanada2007-01-31 09:49:00
Waivers (I-601 and I-212) and Administrative Processes (221g)Filed Waiver in Montreal

Call me silly, but we went through the Fiancee visa process in 2004. Delays were really lenghty back then (at least for Canadians) and we were finally approved in April 2005 (after 6 months). Word at that time for the delays and falling in behind everyone else (especially Britain)...Canada did not support the Iraq war, therefore, are not friends of Bush...therefore, on the lower rungs of the ladder in terms of priority. It seems to me that looking at a lot of the Canadian visas, waivers, etc.. :whistle: still going through...Canada is still at the back of the bus in terms of timing..Food for thought. Just my two cents worth...


Or there's the more plausible explanation of volume at an overworked service center. Canada didn't support the Iraq war, but so didn't a lot of other countries who have no problems getting I-601 approved.
CaladanMaleCanada2007-01-30 11:17:00
Waivers (I-601 and I-212) and Administrative Processes (221g)601: criminal waivers

If it's not on his police report, how is the US gov't going to know?


On one of the forms, you're required to declare if you've been arrested for any crime or offense. In C.'s case, we had to check 'yes' for that, as he had been arrested for a traffic-related offense, even though he had no police record (they just arrested him to get him to pay an outstanding fine.), formal RCMP record or local record or otherwise.

The consular officer chuckled that he had been so honest as to declare it, but we're pretty sure we did the right thing.
CaladanMaleCanada2007-03-30 09:54:00
Waivers (I-601 and I-212) and Administrative Processes (221g)News from Vermont
So sorry to hear of this. It's been such a long wait for you three. Best of luck with him relocating to Canada, if that's what you decide.
CaladanMaleCanada2007-04-03 16:35:00