biggish data

Thinking through it logically, maybe the first e-mail was the one I was supposed to get weeks ago when the case was first sent from Manila to the NVC/DOS, not the other way around like it sounds. (ex not VSC -> NVC) Then they hurredly sent this other one to inform me of it now being at the VSC for RFE processing.

elementary my dear watson!

So I can have it added, and without opening a can of worms, was there ever a general consensus agreed upon as to if meeting online was an IMB?

If yes, put yes Mew, otherwise put no.

Edited by zethris, 27 July 2006 - 03:48 PM.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-07-27 15:57:00

This just came in right now:

Application Type: I129F , PETITION FOR FIANCE(E)

Current Status:

On July 27, 2006, this case was reopened on a USCIS motion, and the case is now in
process. We will mail you a decision as soon as processing is complete. You can
use our processing dates to estimate when this case will be done. Follow the the
link below for current processing dates.

If you have questions or concerns about your application or the case status results
listed above, or if you have not received a decision or advice from USCIS within the
projected processing time frame*, please contact the National Customer Service
Center.

National Customer Service Center (800) 375-5283.

*The projected processing time frame can be found on the receipt notice that you
received from the USCIS.
*** Please do not respond to this e-mail message.

Sincerely,

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)

zethris

Not Telling

2006-07-27 15:43:00

Well calling the VSC and even the NVC before really didn't yeild much information before. I suspect that since it was just sent to the DOS (thats the NVC, right?) just today they probably don't know about it quite yet. So should I be on the phone right now? and with whom? or should I wait until next week, like Wednesday?

zethris

Not Telling

2006-07-27 14:48:00

What was the wording you got?

Maybe they were like, holy ####### this guy's case is about to expire! Or something.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-07-27 14:02:00

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :dance:

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Application Type: I129F, PETITION FOR FIANCE(E)

Current Status:

On July 27, 2006, this approved or re-affirmed case was shipped to the Department of State for visa processing. If you have any additional questions, please contact the Department of State.

Got an e-mail, and a USCIS status update just a few minutes ago!

Now... what does that mean though? the DOS is going to send the RFE? or did they decide not to ask for one?

-----------------

Man, I just feel like a passed a kidney stone...

zethris

Not Telling

2006-07-27 13:36:00

I got a hold of someone in the NVC as per cig's recommendations and I got new information about my case finally. I mentioned about the mail I got from the embassy back on the 14th, but haven't heard anything outside of that of my being effected by the IMBRA, also all other e-mails have gone un-answered, and I have multiple investigation reference numbers at the VSC to no avail. ALl I wanted to know is where my case is. She looked for a minute and saw that it was sent on the 19th and recieved on the 21st (they use certified mail) by the VSC. So it is somewhere in there.

You should really do the same. This is new information since last week when I called the DOS/NVC before.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-07-26 21:40:00

yeah, I really am getting tired of all this. Whats to say that it doesn't take until December before some or most of us get the RFE"s and they pass yet another law that beauracracy takes months to implement, and finally when it does, they do another recall?

This could be a nearly never ending loop with how fast America is becoming more and more xenophobix.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-07-14 15:03:00

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.

Edited by zethris, 14 August 2006 - 06:07 PM.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-08-14 18:06:00

[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.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-08-12 19:40:00

I think that the poor guy that is lost in the woods is so defensive because he is probably one of those few ppl who are going to be affected by the law and thus his processing will be delayed.

Maybe he has a history of domestic violence or a convicted stalker...who knows, but it would be obvious that he would not want this to be disclosed.

For those who simply have to check two more boxes on the petition that you havnt committed thos kind of crimes will not experience any further delays...this would be my non-expert opinion.

For the most part, that is probably what is going on. And thus their abusive nature which stands unchanged comes through via the board trolling that goes on. Frankly I am just tired of it.

We have a lot of things already to deal with to even be tollerant of that kind of ignorance.

I really wish Invision board systems, or someone, would create a message board mod that allows us as a community to bury a forum post by a voting system positive or negative. Get past a ceartain threshold, it's removed. Have too many removed posts, you are no longer allowed to post. We'd self moderate in that way because here, the majority of us are mature adults who actually care about what we are doing and not looking for some cheap thrill or fantasy like some of these other guys who come in are doing with their unfortunate benneficiaries.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-08-12 12:11:00

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?

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.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-08-12 01:58:00

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?

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.

Edited by zethris, 11 August 2006 - 05:12 PM.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-08-11 17:09:00

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.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-08-11 07:39:00

"Frankly my friend, if you have a problem with IMBRA, you have a problem with the vast majority of us here, and you are welcome to leave at any time.?

I find that statement self righteous, and the quintessential example of the "tyranny of the majority." IMBRA has had an enormous impact on all of us and a healthy raucous debate helps this community get a handle on the issues involved and the philosophy behind the law. The linchpin of a free society is free speech and we must tolerate excesses (look at talk radio for gods sake , and in our case trolls, but a self appointed arbiter of what crosses the line is the height of hubris. I will encourage us to tolerate all voices and only condemn those who cross the line with vicious personal attacks.

On the topic in question, my biggest concern is the two year waiting period, it
seems excessive. I will try, and most likely fail , to explain my position. In the digital age relationships that were unfathomable a generation ago our now commonplace; we can find our partner in virtually any portion of the globe. Many of these relationships are nurtured in a world that is even defined as unreal ?virtual?. The emotions and commitment are no doubt genuine, but eventually that virtual world must give way to the real word, and the reality of everyday life versus brief jet delivered 2 week encounters can be jarring, my mind flashes to a poor farm girl from a homogenous culture encountering the multi plural cultural reality that is an American city. That is why I love that 90 day window, both parties can get a taste of the path that lies before them, and in most cases the commitment grows stronger, but when it frays they have a chance to step back and re-evaluate. If the strain is too great and one party returns home why should the USC have to wait two more years, especially if a pattern of abuse does not exist, granted the USC will probably not have a foreign fiancée again, but why should that window be closed. One year seems reasonable to me.

In my personal case, I lived in Guangzhou for a year, what an awful place. My GF is at her core Chinese; she wouldn?t even let me kiss her for six months. She has spent her entire adult life in large cities, she is in foreign trade and speaks English fluently, and I have exhausted many hours trying to prepare her, but in my heart I know she will be utterly confused by the her initial American experience

Jay

Not exactly sure how, or why you would find that self rightous when it is true. You haven't been here long enough then to know that this issue has been talked about over and over and over again. And that generally those who have a problem with the IMBRA law outside of the way it was implemented are usually those who IMBRA will primarily effect to help protect the incoming foreign national. Also usually, these people become the trolls.

Now about this 2 year thing. Getting a waiver, and even submitting it along with your application is not a big deal. The reviewer will not summarily deny your application. This is a system check to prevent those who are obviously scammers, and also raise well needed flags for those who have applied over and over again with different bennificiaries. This myth that people are trying to generate that you can only apply once every 2 years is totall bunk.

So yes, at this point, if you have a problem with IMBRA you have a problem with the vast majority as we all support the law. Especially knowing what it WILL and WILL NOT do. But we all have issue with how it was implemented.

Edited by zethris, 10 August 2006 - 07:24 AM.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-08-10 07:24:00

That is a terrible thing to do to anybody. He must be an idiot. There are plenty of women in this country with their legs wide open, why bother petitioning and temporarily destroying someones life?
oh that's a nice thing to say about american women........

It wasn't meant to be a specific "bash" towards American women. Prostitutes exist, baby mama's exist, www.adultfriendfinder.com exists...

Sorry if you took it that way, though.

That is a terrible thing to do to anybody. He must be an idiot. There are plenty of women in this country with their legs wide open, why bother petitioning and temporarily destroying someones life?

this must be you

So very reported.

you slandered all AMERICAN WOMAN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
you think you can say things and its ok. its not!

Uh, not this person did not. They used the word PLENTY. Not ALL. I think you are being way to overly emotional about this.

there is only one thing you are right about, there is obviously no discussion or debate here.

your post is quite good at personal attacks on me, quite weak on points to make.

we'll see in a year or two if i'm right or you are.

i still hold that this law will not protect anyone, it is 'feel good politics' at it's finest.

i'm selfish because i think this is an utterly stupid law, poorly conceived, poorly writen and poorly implimented?

ok i'm selfish.

damn my selfishness, i'm so evil that i have the audacity to demand solutions that actually work without punishing the innocent.

how ignorant of me.

EDIT:

it's almost comical to me that if your time line is accurate you received no delay from this law

And you are also an arrogant sophmoric troll who should probably stop wasting time and move-on.org (your favorite website)
One last point, I am not on time. I would have had an Aug23rd interview date, but now it will be probably in November. How un-astute of you.

Edited by zethris, 09 August 2006 - 10:58 PM.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-08-09 22:55:00

That is a terrible thing to do to anybody. He must be an idiot. There are plenty of women in this country with their legs wide open, why bother petitioning and temporarily destroying someones life?
oh that's a nice thing to say about american women........

It wasn't meant to be a specific "bash" towards American women. Prostitutes exist, baby mama's exist, www.adultfriendfinder.com exists...

Sorry if you took it that way, though.

in the future you might find it to be a good idea to be more specific when you write something like that.

That is a terrible thing to do to anybody. He must be an idiot. There are plenty of women in this country with their legs wide open, why bother petitioning and temporarily destroying someones life?

this must be you

So very reported.

i'm sure you got reported for slandering american women too

Thus exactly why I am not marrying an American Woman. Too hyper emotionaly attached to words like that. Big deal. Deal with the truth. While the choice of words used may have seemed harsh, the fact still remains. Ther ARE enough women who have their morals comprimized enough to be "open" to any walking guy. This is how things are for a lot of women unfortunatly. You can't take umbrige to the truth. No matter how it was said.

If you can't admit that there is a problem here with that, just like just about everywhere else in the world then you are in denial.

The point that was being made in context was in reference to finding such women, but in different countries (where they too exist) so that they don't have to be accountable when they come back, or send the girl back.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-08-09 22:42:00

Now I read job vacancies for all the service centers???

i stand by my comments.

the person who compaired it to making murder legal has made my point for me.

they did not make it a crime to abuse the system.

the appropriate response is to create a law where it is a crime to do what the man in the original example did, it is somewhat akin to fraud.

this was not done, instead it is an attempt to prevent the situation from happening.

a noble enough idea, but it cannot work, you cannot protect people by passing a law, it has never worked.

all you can do is create a crime and punish people, in so doing you can also discourage such abuses.

there is no law that can be passed that will ever prevent someone from doing something wrong.

if that was possible then there would be no murders, murder is illegal and it happens all the time.

all we can do is punish the offenders, or in this case punish the honest because we reacted as a nation and were too short sighted to realize the limits of our ability and athority.

the man in the example has not been punished, if he does it again there is no crime he has committed and no jail sentence for him.

at the same times tens of thousands of honest people who do the right thing, the right way for the right reasons pay the price.

what has been accomplished here is that the innocent have been punished for no good reason, the entire process is discouraged.

i would say that the number of people who do not understand what i am saying and think i'm being short sighted is a very large part of what is wrong with society in general and the system in america in total.

Alright, here comes the pain.

Listen carefuly:

Taking aspirin for the headache a tumor is causing in the brain does not fix the tumor.

The same goes for this situation. You cannot cure a problem by simply removing the symptoms. It may make things seem like it's better (thus, why I am not an "out of sight out of mind" liberal in terms of US political alignments), but the problem still very much exists, we just don't hear about it as much once the placibo effect wears off.

The fact of the mater is, the bennificiary now can be made aware of who this person really is, without effecting a persons ability to attempt to make themselves better, even if they had a criminal history, by making a real life for themselves. Rather than having big government say you can or cannot get married because of a crime you commited 7 years ago, or instert example here, you have the freedom to try.

For centuries spouses from abroad has had a bad reputation because of all the numerous abuses that come from the lack of legislation and protection for the incoming foreign national, and the lack of restraint a petitioner has to have to find these people, use, and abuse them.

The term "Mail Order Bride" holds a sore spot with us. To us, it's derrogatory, but used each time someone with less than our happiness in mind hears we are marrying someone from another country. How did that happen? Because of the abuses of the past. Because of the track record of it. Because there was no prophylactic there to prevent these abuses. Now, maybe, mail order bride and it's meaning can change to a much more positive light because it makes it much harder for those with malicious intent to abuse the system.

Frankly my friend, if you have a problem with IMBRA, you have a problem with the vast majority of us here, and you are welcome to leave at any time.

Hi all,

I agree we have to protect the woman/men who are brought into the USA, BUT...

The processes of IMBRA was badly planned. USCIS can do a background check on the petioner without exposing criminal records of US citizens to the world. If someone have had been abusive in the past, DENY HIS/HER VISA!

Then, do not treat men who wants to bring their loved ones into the US like sex offenders, because IMBRA does exactly that!

Restricting who we choose to marry is rediculous. It is like something from the cold war :-) If we are trying to "protect" what are we doing on the homefront to prevent the same abuse of hapening? Nothing!

Anyway, the intent of IMBRA has merit, but how USCIS and JOD implemented it, was horrable!... and still is.

It is Un-American, Un-constitutional... it is simply bad and wrong!

Find a better way of doing it!

Personally, I can't quite fathom the reason for all of the objections after implementing IMBRA. So it adds a couple of weeks, or possibly months to the process! Is that so critical? I know that waiting is difficult, but it's just a consequence of trying to ensure safe immigration for all, as a result of the acts of others. I look at this extra step as somewhat similar to attempts to stamp out drunk driving or enforce seat-belt use. We're all affacted, even if we are not the offenders. Sure, it takes a couple more seconds every time anyone gets in his/her vehicle before they can pull away, and it limts the number of drinks everyone should have before calling it a night, but it's for everyone's safety, when all is said and done.

The law will not add any extra time to the process once it's caught back up and business as usuall. It just did for those of us effected by it's cockamamie implamentation and recall.

And by the way, it's been 4 months.

the compairison to seat belt laws is accurate.

those are also intrusive, an attempt to protect someone from their own action or choice.

the problem with this law, and it's situation is that it will not protect these women, it will not be effective.

we'll see in a year, but i will bet that the fraud rings will continue, the abuses will continue.

I do not think there is any chance the law will work because it does not address the problem, this law was enacted as a bad solution to a real and serious problem.

but the one high profile case was not part of a fraud ring and many people have drawn conclusions from it, incorrect conclusions.

EDIT:

this law is similar to requiring every car in the country to be retrofitted with a breath testing machine to see if you've been drinking.

if that is a good idea in your mind then ok, you're for this law and that's ok

i'm for writing laws that make sense, accomplish something but do not intrude on liberty, freedom and the right to make choices for ones self.

i am against seat belt laws, but i have used one every time i am in a car since long before there were seat belt laws.

i don't care if someone makes a bad choice, they should be allowed to choose.

creating a law and system to agressively stamp out fraud is a good idea, that is not the purpose of this law.

this law has one purpose, to discourage legal immigration.

You have a completly skewed and slanted understanding of the IMBRA law entirely, or you never really read it before. I don't know which it is. But something isn't right here.

In any case, this law DOES fix the problem. Others may arise or come to light. But the main problem is solved. The benneficiary now has the ability to learn the truth before deciding on if to follow through or not. It is their FREEDOM, LIBERTY, CHOICE, (as you like to throw around) to decide not to follow through, or to follow through with the visa process.

If you are being selfish enough to say that it takes away the freedom of the person who has been breaking the law, then you are more far gone than is even worth while debating this issue with.

I recall reading that USCIS is being investigated for allowing visas for a good number of people who shouldn't have been given visas. Seems like they need to get their act together in the basic immigration process before they add more layers of complexity to the system. Refine what you've got before you add on more cr*p...

So true!

There really wasn't much there to begin with, other than laws of how to prolong the process as long as possible with useless red tape and bloated overly execessive processes just because someone wanted to make a job for themselves at our expense. This particular law adds in a feature that should have been in there long ago. Our bennificiaries have to do a background check, why shouldn't we?

Simple. But as we all know the implementation of that was atrocious.

So maybe what needs to be refined is the beauraucracy of why it takes 6 months to implement a law on average, and then it takes the full 2 months deadline actually given to implement IBMRA even to realize it existed and holy ####### it was supposed to be implemented by last month today! Do a system wide recall quick!. -They say as they create another 5 months of employment demand for themselves.

diadromous mermaid

The comparison of "seconds" for putting on your seatbelt and waiting for "months" is a very significant difference. Being one of the recalled petitons has made it very obvious to me that the agencies involved in implementing IMBRA were totally unprepared.

That being said, I agree with the philosophy behind the law, I just disagree with how it was rolled out initially. As for the rest of the details behind the law, I don't care at this point, I just want to get the K1 process done. If someone is trying to abuse the system, hopefully the new law will make it harder for them, maybe not. It's been debated continuosly.

Do you realise just how short-sighted that statement appears? 'Seconds' everytime you buckle up, that could be several times a day, 365 days a year, for as many years as you continue driving...as compared to a month, once in a lifetime. Any law newly implemented will cause some ripple effect, it's nature. We don't have the ability to 'stop the clock, cease all activity, to put it into action, before we resume'. In business, this happens daily, and we all take it in stride. I think if those involved with IMBRA (and that means all petitioners and beneficiaries of K visas) were to begin to really contemplate how it is ensuring their own safety, you;d have less to gripe about. I'm not sure of your background (i.e. are you the petitioner or the beneficiary) and I haven't looked at your sig to confirm, but if you're the petitioner and have not commited any act that could give rise to any scrutiny by USCIS, think, if you will about your beneficiary. Someone you love dearly, correct? Had he or she not met you, it's quite conceivable that at some point in time he/she could be party to a petition by someone who does give USCIS cause to scrutinise. Woudl you wish that on your loved one?

And the paranoia choo choo comes to get us...tin foil! tin foil!

I for one have no problem buckling my seatbelt at or about the same time I am preparing to safely drive my car. It, after probably the 10th time I ever put a seatbelt on my whole life, became quite easy and quick to do without any extra time wasted doing it as I have been able to adapt and make the time used dissapear by doing other things at the same time. I have two hands. I have the ability to learn better and faster ways to do things.

I don't do one thing at once. If I did, I wouldn't be able to type and read the monitor at the same time. I would have to type then read what I said and individually fix typos after the fact. Thats very innefficient.

IMBRA is just a way to officialy be able to disclose it to the bennificiary in all fairness to him or her so they know your criminal history if you have any. All of this extra ####### you people are putting with it is non-existant.

So, your point is lost.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-08-09 22:37:00

USCIS Service Centers

yeah it's actually pretty comical after all we've been through. Kind of an under pressure burst of nervouse laughter funny.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-08-28 20:32:00

Russia, Ukraine and Belarus

petition is returned back to NVC

It seems like IMBRA is affecting all who filed after March 6th too.
I think the restriaining order only covers the part affecting the marriage broker operations and it is only valid in the Georgia district. Another suit has been file in Ohio by another agency.

So far from what I have been able to read and understand it does not involve RFEs and there is a new 129-F coming but the old one was posted on the website as of yesterday. There is a link to the proposed new one but the new form has been taken offline.

I think the procudure seems to be that the visa aps at the Embassy level have been returned to NVC where they will do a criminal background check and return them to the Embassy to reschedule the interviews. The visas that have been approved but not mailed have been cancelled/recalled for futher processing.

I read one report of an interview at Kiev that sounds more like an interrogatiion of a war criminal than a visa interview. The guy involved had one minor criminal problem for which he had been sentanced to doing a few hours of sweeping the city sidewalks or something like that. There are now posters on the walls of the Kiev Embassy saying that a green card takes two years but if they file domestic abuse charges that will be waived so they are encoraging false domestic abuse charges. They are also passing out a handout explaining the domestic abuse charges and how to do it. They also discuss any background issues with the fiancee and ask things like how many trips to the country and how many were to meet her so if you made some trips to meet other gals you never told her about you could be in trouble.

I sure would like to see a class action suit against the visa part of IMBRA and would be happy to kick a grand in to anyone with a serious effort even if it did not affect me. This is the worst law in ages but since it affects so few people I think we are going to be stuck with it. It is supposed to help women from being abused and murdered but it is going to keep women in countries where domestic abuse is common and accepted. It is supposed to help the immigration situation and insted encourages green card fraud.

yes indeed, and I am talking with a lawyer about this right now actually. I am going to tear them a new one after this. I have HAD IT!

zethris

Not Telling

2006-06-04 22:39:00

eh? Where did all the posts go?

Is this some sort of like pre-spring cleaning?

I guess so. too bad nothing is searchable now. Does that mean all questions asked are considered new now?

zethris

Not Telling

2006-01-28 20:18:00

Best option apartment, or hotel for 1-2 months?

Between traveling back and forth and the fees for the exams and final filing, and also because of religious obligation, my fiance really needs to be in manila for a month or two, or however long it might take after the final interview to recieve the visa and be ready to leave the country.

My question is, should we rent a furnished apartment, or a hotel room? It has to be in a nice area so she isn't too scared. She is willing to do it without a problem, but coming from bohol, manila is a big place.

Anyone know of any good places? max rent we can pay is $350/mo

zethris

Not Telling

2006-01-28 20:18:00

I forget: what parts of the K1 visa process can be done in Cebu Philippines?

I know the seminar, but can medical also be done? I hear that medical is now good for 1 year. Is that also true?
DOes medical exam need to wait until after the k1 was approved and she gets the packet in the mail?

How long is the seminar attendance valid for?

zethris

Not Telling

2006-02-22 08:22:00

Philippines Coup Attempt

yes I did, and I am just as worried, because aparently it has escalated a bit more overnight. I just hope no martial law gets placed. With how scardy cat USA is acting these days, it will only take just a little more before Phils is closed.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-02-24 20:50:00

MANILA EMBASSY ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW THREAD

Someone needs to call in on this, or all of us because I may be in the similar situation with my fiancee. Her last name was misspelled on her birth certificate and we didn't know until we got it, so she had to go through a 5 month long process of correcting it.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-11-24 18:05:00

How recent must the paystubs be for I-134?

Well it may be too late for that unfortunatly:

http://www.visajourn...showtopic=12983

I may find out about lay off's today.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-05-09 08:28:00

How recent must the paystubs be for I-134?

Well most recent would be the once I send with the package I send her on Monday. Are you saying that I need to send more later?

zethris

Not Telling

2006-05-09 08:09:00

How recent must the paystubs be for I-134?

I am about to send off the completed original package to my baby ko, along with the affidavit of support and proof of income. My question is though, if we don't have interview date until July or August, is sending Paystubs from the most recent pay periods from April and May ok?

I will be getting a co-sponsor anyways. So it might not matter. But I would like to do it myself if possible. We also want to both have everything done and ready for the inteview day when it comes right now and not later.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-05-09 08:01:00

Possible lay-offs happening where I work!

zethris,

Which is it - layoff or quit? In most (all?) states it does make a difference. If you are laid off (released involuntarily) you should be eligible for state unemployment compensation.

Yodrak

...

I have difficult news that I might be getting laid off at work, meaning I will be forced to quit, and I wont be able to collect any unemployment or anything of the sort until I find a new job.

...

Many companies lay you off as apposed to termination of employment so that they do not have to pay un-employment insurance, and then benefits. It also gives them an ability to force you to quit by having Non-Compete contracts over your head, while also not paying you while you are in lay off status. So you are forced to quit, and you do not get unemployment for that unless the company officially terminates your employment which happens less and less these days.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-05-09 15:06:00

Possible lay-offs happening where I work!

I wanted to wait until my fiance went to bed before I posted this because didn't want to worry her. She is about to leave early in the morning for cebu to get her passport finalized, and do the seminar for fiance visa too.

I have difficult news that I might be getting laid off at work, meaning I will be forced to quit, and I wont be able to collect any unemployment or anything of the sort until I find a new job.

Am I going to have to now face the facts that I am completely S.O.L now and my dreams of being with my best friend sooner than later, all but shattered?

I am seriously worried about this. It is why i wanted to send everything over there now and hope that the pay stubs could still be valid in August so that they don't ask questions.

If I had a co-sponsor, would that be ok?

I can get a job again, no problem. But this is falling in exactly the wrong time as we may be having our final interview date as soon as July or August.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-05-09 08:24:00

Is this pdf file accurate and helpfull?- Manila Embasy interview dates

I am not sure how often it is updated, and how old the cases might be. But I was sent this link below and it doesn't list our number quite yet, but I suspect it will soon. Anyone know about this?

http://manila.usemba...ov/wwwfvisa.pdf

Also, how might I find out if the consulate there has even recieved our petition properly?

Edited by zethris, 08 May 2006 - 09:44 PM.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-05-08 21:42:00

Any guesses when Dec appts will be made for Manila?

The times iv'e called they said maybe at the end of the month. But hasn't the trend been mid month?

I really hope i'm on the list. We have been waiting really long, and everyone has case numbers way higher than I do. It's kind of getting silly, really.

The nice lady at the extention we all use even said it's based on the case number, I tried to kind
of call attention to mine, if that was the case. But it's not like she can say, oh! you are 3 months late
let me schedule you right away.

Unfortunatly with the luck I have had with all this, I wouldn't doubt if I get postponed and pushed until next year, and with the new law being passed (yes epseically with the power grab that is going on) once again another recall may happen, and once again we have to wait a whole other year.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-10-10 17:58:00

Things speeding up in the Philippines?

Let me tell you the story of how I just found out.

I was dead asleep. It's now 12:30am. But usually I go to bed at 10pm to be rested for work in the morning.

Well I was having a very vivid dream. It seemed real. It was like flash forwards or flash backs of the agony it's been waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting. Bits and pieces of checking the website over and over again. Not sure when it was going to happen or how. Then all of the sudden the dream changed and in my dream I checked the website and while I can't remember the date it said all I could remember is the elation I felt at finally having the interview date. This means so many things. I was overcome by glee so much so that it actually woke me up.

Like a kid realizing it was Christmas I scrambled out of bed and all the while was saying to myself out loud "No way, it can't be. No way" Loaded up the website, put in my case number and BINGO! it was right there in front of me. I almost had a heart attack.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-10-17 23:27:00

Things speeding up in the Philippines?

And what was your appointment date set for?

zethris

Not Telling

2006-10-17 07:50:00

Well now that the USCIS "officialy" knows, they can act upon it, and i am sure they want to immediatly train all staff on the changes and what this law means immediatly. Especially how the troublesooters plan to attack the flood of us coming in from both newly filed applications, and those of us who have had our already approved visa's revoked because of this.

Your visa was revoked?

Surely you mean your PETITION for the visa was sent back.

once you have NOA2, it's an approval. Those that have had it approved are in revokation status. However, it's a special consession that is being made to run an RFE on the Visa's that had been approved past the march 6th deadline. Some, actually are finding their final interviews canceled until further notice. Others even finished everything and were waiting for the visa in the mail, but had it canceled. Meanwhile they had quit their job in preparation to move, which is about as bad as it can get.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-06-05 15:18:00

zethris,

What rights or civil liberties are being taken away from us? The petition and subsequent visa application are to provide a benefit to non-US citizens - a privilege this country offers to them, not a right or civil liberty that we owe to them.

As for us US citizens, we do not have any right of civil liberty to unilaterally bring anyone we want into this country just because we want to do so. We have an obligation to consider the rights and civil liberties of our fellow citizens and how they may be affected by our actions.

Yodrak

....

At the very least, if the findings we come up with say that it's not possible to sue, that could be a signifigant statement to some of how untouchable they are trying to make things, and how much more of our rights and civil liberties are being taken away from us. As a conservative, thats a big thing for me to say.

The will be for the lawyers to figure out and for the courts to decide, not the armchair logic of two individuals who want to keep pretending everything is all hunky dory in the USA. I am not a blind liberal, and I am definatly not a blind conservative. There are many things going on that violates our rights and liberties.

Here, our rights, in my opinion, are being violated by the fact that we are not being grandfathered in for those of us who have already applied and been approved. We should be, no matter the deadline. The deadline should be only for new applications from the date of notice, which happened to be 2 months later than the planned deadline, so the deadline should immediatly be changed to when the notification happend at the very least. Ultimatly what should have happened is time to be allowed for all of the check and balances like any other law would have that affords time for the government to provide a way to apply properly and follow the law. They have taken our ability to follow the law away. They have not given us the ability, even going on 3 months to be able to apply with proper documentation. For those who don't know about this change even yet, they will be greatly delayed with an eventuall RFE for months upon months now while they process those of us who have already applied and are waiting for our RFE's already for 2-3 months while they get everything implemented. Overall, neglegence. But this will not reflect the findings of the lawfirm I am in talks with.

I do hope you two wake up a bit and lay off the kool-aid.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-06-05 15:12:00

Hang on.
Who is responsible for writing the new I129F form that is now out as a draft?
Is that USCIS?

I know OMB is the one to approve it, but who designed the new form to meet the new IMBRA request?

I contacted my Congressman's Office last week and faxed them my situation with regards to my visa application being pulled from the foreign consulate mid-May. I just contacted them today to see if they had any additional information. They informed me that they had contacted VSC and were notified that they are in conferences all week. Anybody else get a similar type of response?

Conferences? Conferences regarding ... ??

I don't know what kind of conferences. They just said conferences, which I thought was odd that the whole office (or at least people who could answer questions) would not be available.

Well now that the USCIS "officialy" knows, they can act upon it, and i am sure they want to immediatly train all staff on the changes and what this law means immediatly. Especially how the troublesooters plan to attack the flood of us coming in from both newly filed applications, and those of us who have had our already approved visa's revoked because of this. Contrary to what some might think, the USCIS is much more "civilian" in it's ability to work with us, even given the heavy bureaucracy involved that they have to work around on a daily basis. If government agencies could ever be considered close to be our "friends" in this the USCIS would be the closest we can get. So they are acting fast.

Edited by zethris, 05 June 2006 - 03:02 PM.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-06-05 15:00:00

Ah, I see.

Well, in that case, I'm not exactly sure what you're going to sue for; that is, what kind of damages you're going to claim and how you'd collect them. But I don't think you can sue the government simply because you're angry/annoyed/frustrated. Well, you probably can, but I don't know how much chance of success you'll have.

In a civil suit, as far as I know in my non-lawyerly ways, a plaintiff has to prove that the actions on the part of a defendant were either willful or sufficiently negligent, and that the damages caused are specific and quantifiable.

yep, but that will be revealed if it's plausible to persue this after careful consideration and investigation has been made. A class action of this type is a bit different than just a regular civil suit. It's aproach will be different too should it be persued.

At the very least, if the findings we come up with say that it's not possible to sue, that could be a signifigant statement to some of how untouchable they are trying to make things, and how much more of our rights and civil liberties are being taken away from us. As a conservative, thats a big thing for me to say.

Thus why the USCIS hasn't had even a draft of the new I-129F form until very recently.

That is the current findings from what they could gather while I was there.

Because the front line people at USCIS didn't know about it, you project that "no one" at USCIS or even DHS knew about it?

They can not officaly confirm or deny what at first is speculation until proper documentation is de-classified. The Powers That Be at the DHS who does the declassification may have known more details, that that doesn't mean they knew everything or that anything gets done. But once it was declassified and sent to the DHS workers and officials to assimilate, they divulged the information after further Bureaucractic Corporation of America Inc. "due process" that took an entire month to get to the USCIS. Without prior "official" instruction the USCIS could not know "officialy" to be able to act upon it or prepare for it. This is how stupid and blind bureaucracy can be. Especially when urgency is improperly placed on such a big change in the application process not allowing for the time that it would take for the right hand to talk to the left so the left hand can direct the traffic (the applicants).

Edited by zethris, 05 June 2006 - 02:58 PM.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-06-05 14:55:00

What, exactly, are y'all planning to sue for? Just out of curiosity.

I am not at liberty to divulge that information due to possible pending litigation. But it wont be meant to delay things, or get rid of the new law. I wouldn't be persuing this if that was a possible outcome.

Edited by zethris, 05 June 2006 - 01:27 PM.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-06-05 13:25:00

Well, that makes a bit more sense. Poor planning and even worse execution I can believe; total ignorance I can't.

Definitely, one of the first things they told me was that a law of this magnitude is almost NEVER implemented so quickly like this after it's passed without generally at least a 6 month to 1 year grace period from it's effect, to avoid this exact type of thing. 2 months is no where near long enough due to the fact that it takes so long for the right hand to talk to the left with all of the standardized procedure, formal division of responsibility, hierarchy, and impersonal relationships that come from the way the system works.

I have come to find out through this entire journey I have been on even before submiting the I-129F, that a good 2 - 3 months average wait time throughout the visa process is not because of volume, but because of the inefficient bureaucracy that is involved. I liken the DMV example for it's intended purpose of the silly situation we are in to implement a law in such a short period of time, and not even inform those who would be doing the checking that there is checking now to be done to even get the forms ready.

I am ceartain that the USCIS, if they had known in a reasonable ammount of time, would have told us to put a hold on our applications, and to "go here for an updated application form" when one was ready. Now they are in the weed's and I'd say in a similar boat to ours trying to swallow this beast.

Well, that makes a bit more sense. Poor planning and even worse execution I can believe; total ignorance I can't.

Please correct me if I´m wrong.
Even though it was their mistake, even if they didn´t pay attention to the new law, they still need to meet a deadline, right?

As it was posted in this thread a few days ago, an article of an immigration lawyer called Gary something said their deadline to release a new whatever would be close to June 6th.

Is that still up for you guys too?

I think that was either speculation as to what "should" have happened, what hopefully will happen, or it's the deadline for the USCIS to have a new I-129F form ready. There is so much talk and noise going on right now it's hard to know the truth of it and what is fact, and what is just speculation, or hopefull plans to clean up this mess legaly by say; an extention to June 6th. I will leave that up to the professionals, should they decide to persue this, to decide after careful investigation.

Edited by zethris, 05 June 2006 - 12:50 PM.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-06-05 12:49:00