biggish data

The secret meaning of IMBRA...

IMBRA is simply one more stupid thing you can thank the feminists for.

LOL! Do you even know what feminist means? I doubt it. I think you meant government. Feminism is about equality not female superiority. The last time I looked under my hairy armpits, I found out that there are a lot of women (as well as men) inconvienced by IMBRA.

I hope your wife meets a few "feminists" when she gets here. Or do you plan to just knock her up and chain her to the stove like all good southern boys?

...."all good southern boys" was an example of your gross generalizations. Not the way I really feel. Offensive, eh?

hey hey hey, what a way to ruin a good humored thread. Ok to get back on track to the zany just a quick response. Many feminists take it too far and seek out to be superior to men as some form of payback for all the years of "supression and opression". Another example is the minority movement, or the so-called ACLU always going overboard with things. Both of those are constantly trying to take more and more and more. I can't get money for school because I am white, yet my incoming fiance can get grants, scholarships, loans, you name it right off the plane. Where is the equality when it's limited to one type of person of "color" or sex? While the original intention of feminism was extremely noble, just like many other "causes" there are those who want more and more and more. That is just how it is with activists of all kinds. People actually trying to find a true equal balance are few and far between.

Now, back to the funny... :yes:

Edited by zethris, 22 June 2006 - 08:13 AM.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-06-22 08:10:00

I sent out my Infoe to Vermont today. I got home and nothiced an email from my Congressmans office..... Bad news. The said that Vermont still does not have my Petition. Meaning all of the other emails claiming they did where lies?
I gotta get some space from this now.
It's getting to be too much

Call the NVC and explain the situation and find out when it was sent to the VSC. Min was just barely sent on the 19th. It could be that they haven't matched your case with the A# yet, like mine, and so they don't "officialy" have it yet. The moment they physically have it in one of the agents hands, the first thing they do is match it with your A# again, and that generates a "touch" notice.

The VSC themselves seems to not give any information. I have 5 active investigations supposedly with reference numbers over there, and have heard back from none of them.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-07-26 21:33:00

I will try that. I have typed the letter out, i'll print it and mail it tomorrow after work. I just hope the operator wasn't just talking to get you off the phone though. The seem to to that sometimes without need for worry to getting caught at giving bad information as it seems no calls are monitored and they can just sit down and take the occasional disgruntled call and collect the paycheck after they hang up on the furious caller.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-07-25 20:03:00

I am in Dublin PA, just outside of Doylestown, about 1hr north of Philly.

I have speant hours on the phone, and I wont let it jeopardize my job. But I am just getting no where with anyone.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-07-24 22:19:00

I called again, was a little more edgy and didn't accept a simple case assignment and tollerated being told another scripted response. I requested to speak with a supervisor and explained the situation as forceful and to the point as I possibly could. In the car, all the while on the way driving to Rick Santorum's office to hopefully see him in person and plead for his help, without accepting to see anyone else, armed with all the documents I could bring and print outs of the threads on this board.

In any case, after I got no where again with the VSC, I arrived at the office.

Well the weasel is out making his free money by sitting somewhere and voting favors to keep himself in office as most politicians do.

I come back to hear the chat and that the directo of USCIS is absolutely clueless. The news media doesn't really care, and I can't really sue because the DHS and USCIS is practically untouchable.

What the hell am I supposed to do next? I have waited and waited, the lack of communication since April is disheartening at best. Especially when I try to offer a line of communication, they don't give me any information!

When will this end? This is really starting to take it's toll on my ability to be me.

Can anyone help?! Is there anyone out there who can do something?! ( I yell out as loud as I can while typing this)

Edited by zethris, 24 July 2006 - 04:55 PM.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-07-24 16:54:00

Million Fiance/Spouse March on Washington

[quote name='Madison Man' date='Jul 20 2006, 10:56 PM' post='322439']
[quote name='zethris' date='Jul 20 2006, 07:52 PM' post='322093']

I might be able to get the ear of Glenn Beck.

I enjoy Beck. I grew up listening to him when he worked for WELI/ KC101. His wife wasa neighbor of a good friend of mine. I emailed Glenn and Stu and got no response. So hopefully your connections are better than mine lol
[/quote]

We'll see. I have a few things working. But it depends on what their schedule is too, i am sure. By the time they may be able to make a segment, most of this all could be passed. (Although, I doubt it)

zethris

Not Telling

2006-07-20 22:09:00

Million Fiance/Spouse March on Washington

Especially because we are legal petitioners

Not only that, but on the coat tails of that insanity, we could get more media attention by presenting it as the "legal" side of imagration protesting. The other side (light side for you star wars fans) of this whole immagration thing.

Normaly, us as law abiding citizens, even through immagration, we are silent. But if we aren't this time, now is the time to get a furor going.

I might be able to get the ear of Glenn Beck. We have some social connections that could get my foot in the door to speak with their producers to do something eventually (not exactly for this protest) about how much worse the legal immagration process is than most people even think because of terrorism and illegal aliens. How the honest are being punished for being honest, etc.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-07-20 18:52:00

Service Centers are making headway on processing times

I am hoping that I can finally get my first RFE for this thing by the end of this week or next week. the I-797 form supposedly expires on the 13th of Aug, and i'd rather that can of worms not be opened at this point.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-07-26 18:13:00

Special envelopes for IMBRA RFEs?

The "special envelope" should actually just be any envelope with the words "Request For Evidence: IMBRA Response" or something like that written somewhere on it. Thats what I plan to do if and when I get my RFE.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-07-27 13:38:00

All K-1 Visas on hold till further notice

When was this posted?

Because things are actually starting to move along again, it probably isn't worth the extra 6 months or more wait time now for the I-130 to go through. I would recommend not doing that.

P.S.

Cyrus is the lawyer I was working with before.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-08-02 10:51:00

Haven't had better sleep in weeks

Since I don't have to worry about my case being lost and tha the RFE is finally on the way, my body just
shut down and I slept for 14 hours straight!

I didn't realize how much of a relief that was to hear that news!

Thinking about it now, it pierces my heart with how greatful I am to you guys for your support and just how much harder this all would have been if you weren't here.

I know I am not out of the woods yet, anything can happen as we now all know, but I have definatly been litteraly growing gray hairs (and i'm 26!) over this.

I almost grew gray hairs from the realization i'm growing gray hairs!

zethris

Not Telling

2006-08-02 08:38:00

Do you guys have an investigation number at the VSC yet? (the one they say call back in 30 days if they don't call you) If it's been 2 weeks, they will take a call for status on that investigation number.

But just for record sake, I wanted to post what i got today:

Application Type: I129F , PETITION FOR FIANCE(E)

Current Status:

On July 31, 2006, we mailed a notice requesting additional evidence or information
in this case. The notice explains in detail what additional material is needed. If
you have questions about the notice, what is required, or if 30 days have passed and
you have not received the notice. Please contact the service center where you
submitted your application during business hours.

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.

:dance:

zethris

Not Telling

2006-07-31 17:02:00

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :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?

zethris

Not Telling

2006-07-27 13:29:00

I think it's high time that we (by my count 11 of us) whose recalled petitions have been lost by either the UK, Russia, Thailand or Phillipines embassies start sharing information between ourselves in a new post, since there seems to be so little available. I for one have absolutely no idea where my k1 petition is. VSC don't got it, NVC don't got it, and the Embassy was supposed to send it like 2 months ago. My wedding party is 2 days away from postponed, as are my fiance plans to resume university in the fall. Luckily my fiance works for the US consulate and has been promised action on her behalf this week by someone-of-power at the Embassy to find out what happened to our petition. And I will post the findings here.
As far as the rest of you go, and I'm only talking about those of you like me who have NOT gotten their case re-opened, please share any and all information and thoughts you can.

Cigarovich, I know you've now seen action so I think I'm the only active one on this board who has not heard or learned anything new for 90 days. Since the others may not have visited to update the list, is there anyone else like me who's case has not been touched and has not heard anything since the cancelled interview? My calls, letters, expedite requests, etc. have yielded nothing.

I would suggest calling now, but the NVC at 603-334-0700 as they just barely got the information to be able to tell me this week as last week they didn't have it to tell me anything either.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-07-26 19:32:00

I feel bad for you

Thanks, well feel less bad then before though. At least now I know it's not lost. It just may take until next Wednesday to actually finally hear the official word, even though it's 8 weeks late. I hope that it wont take 8 weeks to finally get an RFE though.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-07-26 18:21:00

Sorry to be hogging my own post but I got some really good news today that my case was re-opened yesterday. That means they are finally working on the MIA cases. If the 10 of you left need to vent or get more info or whatever, I will keep the post going until we ALL are re-opened!!!

I finally, after 6 tries, got through to the NVC and was told it was sent on the 19th to the VSC. In what way did you find out your case was re-opened? Was it via e-mail? or post? or did you call the VSC?

Maybe, just maybe, things might actually be moving for us now.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-07-26 18:08:00

Sorry to be hogging my own post but I got some really good news today that my case was re-opened yesterday. That means they are finally working on the MIA cases. If the 10 of you left need to vent or get more info or whatever, I will keep the post going until we ALL are re-opened!!!

Cig, You guys look like a great couple!

Anyways, I am going to call today to see what can be done about this. I am not sure I am using the right number though. The one I found doesn't start with a 603. I'll cite the e-mail I got from the Embassy and try to get to the bottom of it.

I found it. I will call right now.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-07-26 13:24:00

Sorry to be hogging my own post but I got some really good news today that my case was re-opened yesterday. That means they are finally working on the MIA cases. If the 10 of you left need to vent or get more info or whatever, I will keep the post going until we ALL are re-opened!!!

Cig, You guys look like a great couple!

Anyways, I am going to call today to see what can be done about this. I am not sure I am using the right number though. The one I found doesn't start with a 603. I'll cite the e-mail I got from the Embassy and try to get to the bottom of it.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-07-26 13:14:00

So I stayed up til 2:40 am Moscow time because the NVC operating system told me to call back after 6pm EST to get a non-busy operator when I called before. Well now I'm getting the same message and NVC hasn't responded to my last 2 email inquiries. Another waste of time and money.

YEAH BOOOOOOOOOOOOY! I finally got thru to NVC today on the phone. They fowarded the petition back to VSC on July 18. Next call VSC baby! And it only took them 8 weeks to send it on!!! lol
Lost no more!

PS I uploaded a pic in celebration to my photos file of my oogly self with my sexy baby, who I am taking to Crimea on Sunday for a week to relax from all the USCIStress. There better be a RFE when I get back!!

What was the contact number and method you used to get a hold of the NVC? How did you ask the question to get this answer from them, if you recall? I find that they only answer what is asked, and sometimes try to give you less than satisfactory answers wherever possible. :help:

Also, I don't see pics? :whistle:

Edited by zethris, 25 July 2006 - 08:57 PM.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-07-25 20:57:00

K-1's Treated as Criminals While Illegals Live and Love

[quote name='jbeabout' post='253286' date='Jun 15 2006, 03:51 PM']
[quote name='irishgirl73' post='253278' date='Jun 15 2006, 03:47 PM']
:yes:

ILLEGAL IS ILLEGAL. It really annoys me that ILLEGALS can get jobs-but because my man is coming here legally(as galwayman said) he can't work for 3 months. When he CAN work there may not be jobs because ILLEGALS will do the work for 1/2 the rate.

I am sorry but that really aggrivates the sh*t out of me
[/quote]

I've yet to meet anyone who couldn't get a skilled labor job because an illegal took it. I doubt that your man would want to slaughter cattle or pull weeds in a field. As "W" has said, they do jobs that americans won't do.
[/quote]

Well meet me. I am a chef who has been replaced more than I care to say by these individuals for exactly the above reason. Guess what we do? We butcher cattle (as do many legal American's in the slaughter process). We use produce from farms that are run by legal Americans (of all races) all over the country. Sometimes they use cheap labor, but it's not because "they do jobs that American's won't do". That line of thinking is a disaster.
Total and utter bull #######.

[quote name='evansfan' post='253638' date='Jun 15 2006, 06:15 PM']
[quote name='zethris' post='253584' date='Jun 15 2006, 05:50 PM']
[quote name='Pete' post='253087' date='Jun 15 2006, 02:35 PM']
[quote name='john_and_marlene' post='253023' date='Jun 15 2006, 11:19 AM'] What part of this do you consider being treated like a criminal?
[/quote] With the passage of IMBRA, K-1 applicants are now selectively singled out as presumptively guilty as abusers until declared and proven innocent by even more background checks.

Got a multiple name match? Welcome to AR.

That is being treated like a criminal in the name of social engineering.

The point of the thread however is that we are a drop in the bucket compared to the tsunami of illegal immigrants. To subject us to unending (and increasing) scrutiny, when viewed in the context of the big picture, must make a reasonable person shake their head in disbelief.
[/quote]

here here!

[quote name='jbeabout' post='253148' date='Jun 15 2006, 02:50 PM']
[quote name='galwayman' post='252957' date='Jun 15 2006, 02:04 PM']
That pisses me off with this country.Why are people who legally come over treated like shite while illegals get what they want. How would these politicans like it if they were forced to live on one wage for 6 months, their whole lives been scrutinsed. Mr bush has alot to answer for but does he care.Hell no as long as the iraqi war is going on.Well bring on 2008 when we will hopefully see a new U.S.A
[/quote]

I wouldn't expect things to get BETTER from your perspective with a democrat in the White House...quite the contrary my friend!
[/quote]

also here here!

While I am not democrat or republican. I know the Democrat agenda, especialy the liberal agenda, does not include "rights" for pending immigrants, nor their petitioners. Frankly, the republican agenda, because there isn't really one other than to find cheap labor (obviously because of it's current actions with 13 million cheap labor workers as apposed to a few hundred thousand incoming legaly this year) is a bit more friendly to incoming aliens who are to be naturalized, while the democratic party is concerned more with internal "civil rights" and such.
[/quote]

and civil rights became a bad thing when
[/quote]

When it's nothing more than selfishness and lazyness in the disguise of such rights.

[quote name='elizaxyz' post='253293' date='Jun 15 2006, 03:55 PM']
[quote name='irishgirl73' post='253278' date='Jun 15 2006, 03:47 PM']
When he CAN work there may not be jobs because ILLEGALS will do the work for 1/2 the rate.

I am sorry but that really aggrivates the sh*t out of me
[/quote]

It aggravates the sh*t out of me too-- but I'm aggravated at the dirtbag employers willing to exploit illegal workers for their own profit, not at the workers. One such employer was very open about that in the NY Times a few weeks ago. He said he preferred to employ illegals because they worked harder for less money and didn't complain about the lack of benefits lest he call and have them deported.
[/quote]

Yep, and it's because of the general consensus of the attitude toward their bottom line that is being exploited by these illegal's at the expense of many legal citizens ability to gain entry level, labor intensive work at a living wage.

[quote name='irishgirl73' post='253321' date='Jun 15 2006, 04:04 PM']
[quote name='elizaxyz' post='253293' date='Jun 15 2006, 03:55 PM']
[quote name='irishgirl73' post='253278' date='Jun 15 2006, 03:47 PM']
When he CAN work there may not be jobs because ILLEGALS will do the work for 1/2 the rate.

I am sorry but that really aggrivates the sh*t out of me
[/quote]

It aggravates the sh*t out of me too-- but I'm aggravated at the dirtbag employers willing to exploit illegal workers for their own profit, not at the workers. One such employer was very open about that in the NY Times a few weeks ago. He said he preferred to employ illegals because they worked harder for less money and didn't complain about the lack of benefits lest he call and have them deported.
[/quote]

I place much of the blame on our gov't and those employers-believe me :yes:

as for the work thing-it isn't just jobs like that..................it is now construction jobs, landscaping-my brother is a union plumber & he says that people are willing to work for next to nothing. Great if that is what they need to do-but what about the guys that need to feed their families-but can't because they are now out of work?

again-it isn't only the illegals. there are a lot of people to blame
[/quote]

Yes and I feel like they are chasing me too. They are getting into the IT industry as more and more are able to speak english and/or are able to handle the 13 million possible customers on a spanish speaking line. They are getting more and more into the culinary industry beyond the stereotypical dish washer. They are eating up entry level jobs left and right, and even for those out of college with a degree (myself in both Computer Science and Culinary Arts) we can barely find a job because the business would rather hire the cheaper labor.

[quote name='Caladan' post='253533' date='Jun 15 2006, 05:28 PM']
You know, it's frustrating. But I, as an American, and my soon-to-be fiancé, have never had to cross a desert to try to be together, and we have to wait, what, about as long as it takes to plan a church wedding?

It sucks, but this smacks of middle school, and being mad because the bad kid got a cookie and you got a cookie, too, and you did your homework and being pissed at the world that no one gave them a cookie. There is no option for 99.9% of illegal immigrants; their choices are stay in Mexico in poverty, or migrate illegally. Illegal immigration is a huge problem, but let's face it, someone making $3 a day doesn't have a better life than me and my boyfriend.

If there were no K-1 option and our options were be apart forever or sneak across a border, I dare say we'd sneak, too. It's unfair, but so's life.
[/quote]

Your stereotype is atypical of the majority unfortunatly. These people aren't making $3/day. That hasn't been the case for years. No, they wont work for so little and have banded together to ensure that is the case. Many work for minimum wage or just under, but hourly. While others work for $3-4 less per hour than the job normaly pays and the business takes them on. Far be it for me to bid that much less than the job normaly pays, because then that must mean there is something wrong with me. But if a mexcian does it, well those guys will do great to the bottom line nothing could be wrong with them "thats normal".

zethris

Not Telling

2006-06-15 17:27:00

K-1's Treated as Criminals While Illegals Live and Love

Anyone who thinks that the majority illegals are living the life of Reilley while legal immigrants suffer is living in la-la land, frankly.

And despite the fact that I'm currently in IMBRA limbo, I'd still rather be in the position I'm in right now than to be in the US illegally struggling to support a family, living with the fear of deportation. Most people are illegals out of economic desperation, and to complain that they have it so good while we who are 'doing it right' suffer is very shortsighted. The whole system is screwed up, and if by some miracle Congress manages to come up with a workable system to issue guest worker visas, I'll be happy for those people rather than complain that they haven't fixed my problem first. All immigrants are in this mess together.

There is a reason why I had to move to the east coast away from the mexican boarder. It is because most are making a true MINT off of having multiple people in a household working and undercutting applicants for regular paying jobs by bidding 43-$5/hr lower than the job should pay to ensure getting the job. Their apearance is because of the work they do, and the lifestyle they are used to. However, get 4 or 5 in one apartment or house working at $5-$8/hr and combine income, you have a household making almost $70,000/yr.

I ran into this all over California and Las Vegas. I am chef, and had been through over 12 jobs in 1 year due to being let go for someone who was willing to work for much less like that. I alone cannot do that. I need to be paid what the job is worth $13-15, not $7-9. Living expenses are too high on the west side to support oneself on that. Prior to that I did other manual labor and listened to how they do. How they have enough money to live like they want to, and even send some home.

So yes the system is screwed up. But the lifestyle they choose to live is not because of lack of money due to low pay or fear of deportation (if that was the case, then so many wouldn't have been so bold as to do multiple potests, besides they know then can come right back if that happened because now they have the money to do it over and over again) it is because this is what they know, and this is their comfort level.

So my friend, unfortunatly here the short sightedness also happens to pertain to your view as it does go a bit further than what you have been lead to believe. Yes, years ago back in the 70's when undocumented workers became more of an industry than a once in a while occurance, they were poor. They worked individualy for pennies. They didn't have enough experience yet to know that they can work together in groups to live very well (as they see living well is).

zethris

Not Telling

2006-06-15 17:06:00

K-1's Treated as Criminals While Illegals Live and Love

What part of this do you consider being treated like a criminal?
With the passage of IMBRA, K-1 applicants are now selectively singled out as presumptively guilty as abusers until declared and proven innocent by even more background checks.

Got a multiple name match? Welcome to AR.

That is being treated like a criminal in the name of social engineering.

The point of the thread however is that we are a drop in the bucket compared to the tsunami of illegal immigrants. To subject us to unending (and increasing) scrutiny, when viewed in the context of the big picture, must make a reasonable person shake their head in disbelief.

here here!

That pisses me off with this country.Why are people who legally come over treated like shite while illegals get what they want. How would these politicans like it if they were forced to live on one wage for 6 months, their whole lives been scrutinsed. Mr bush has alot to answer for but does he care.Hell no as long as the iraqi war is going on.Well bring on 2008 when we will hopefully see a new U.S.A

I wouldn't expect things to get BETTER from your perspective with a democrat in the White House...quite the contrary my friend!

also here here!

While I am not democrat or republican. I know the Democrat agenda, especialy the liberal agenda, does not include "rights" for pending immigrants, nor their petitioners. Frankly, the republican agenda, because there isn't really one other than to find cheap labor (obviously because of it's current actions with 13 million cheap labor workers as apposed to a few hundred thousand incoming legaly this year) is a bit more friendly to incoming aliens who are to be naturalized, while the democratic party is concerned more with internal "civil rights" and such.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-06-15 16:50:00

In Regards to IMBRA, lets define what a mariage broker is

a good thread that goes further into this discussion about social gathering websites.

http://www.visajourn...showtopic=18806

I mentioned this in another thread...

I fail to see that if the government considered these sites as Marriage Brokers, how is anyone going to answer the next question which is,...if so provide the name and where the international broker is located. How many people can actually "dig" deep to find out who made that website and where their headquarters are located?! A site called www.taiwandatesforyou.com could actually be owned by someone in Texas or Ohio USA! How many applicants would really be able to answer that question?

Exactly, and well put. First, It is unreasonable to call a website a mariage broker when they don't actually broker mariages. Secondly, You aren't paying some agent to buy a mariage, which is what a mariage brokerage is. So there is no one to track down when it is just a chat/social gathering type website. Even IF the intention is to connect lines of communication with people from one particular country to another.

This is a far cry difference than a russian website I found recently (it has since changed it's URL or been taken down) which had a shopping cart on it and you would select a girl (no men were featured, even though there was a link) and the price of the girl was based on education and physical features, like breast size. They offered meeting services, yes even basic communication, but not chat based, and also legal services for visas in the USA, Japan, and United Kingdom from various places in russia. THAT is an online mariage broker if ever there was one.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-06-23 05:53:00

In Regards to IMBRA, lets define what a mariage broker is

Uh, zethris, I don't know where you are getting your information from, but that's not at all what's in the language of the statute which actually DEFINES what an international marriage broker is (see below). I don't think it says anything about "social networking websites" or "price tags to order."

(4) INTERNATIONAL MARRIAGE BROKER.?

(A) IN GENERAL.?The term ??international marriage
broker?? means a corporation, partnership, business, individual,
or other legal entity, whether or not organized
under any law of the United States, that charges fees
for providing dating, matrimonial, matchmaking services,
or social referrals between United States citizens or
nationals or aliens lawfully admitted to the United States
as permanent residents and foreign national clients by
providing personal contact information or otherwise facilitating
communication between individuals.

(B) EXCEPTIONS.?Such term does not include?
(i) a traditional matchmaking organization of a
cultural or religious nature that operates on a nonprofit
basis and otherwise operates in compliance with the
laws of the countries in which it operates, including
the laws of the United States; or

(ii) an entity that provides dating services if its
principal business is not to provide international dating
services between United States citizens or United
States residents and foreign nationals and it charges
comparable rates and offers comparable services to
all individuals it serves regardless of the individual?s
gender or country of citizenship.

Yes, point in fact, it IS what is in there. There is no arguement here that social networking/gathering websites are not mariage brokers because it does not talk about it (if thats what you mean?). There is no arguement here that mariage brokers charge a fee per "spouse" sometimes depending upon education and physical features eg. the "price tags to order." like a shopping cart/meat market. Which is why, in some ways I like IMBRA. It removes a lot of the possible abuse on more levels than hopefully preventing the physical abuse.

For detailed definition:

Part A means: no website such as the above examples (yahoo, eharmony, match, etc) can be classified as an IMB because they don't physicaly arrange "dating, matrimonial, matchmaking services,
or social referrals between United States citizens or
nationals or aliens lawfully admitted to the United States
as permanent residents and foreign national clients by
providing personal contact information or otherwise facilitating
communication between individuals." #1 You find who you want to talk to yourself. If youw ant to try to say a search engine is defined as a referral I would disagree because no one is physically refering you to someone, you are searching on your own. #2 Personal contact information is defined as a real name, physical address, and/or phone number. Nothing else. IMB's offer this. Social websites like the above do not by default offer this, it is generaly given in private forms of communication by the actuall user, and NOT by the website's officers.

(L)

thank you Imbra2005 for the appology!!

Most of this is a no-brainer though, right? a Mariage Broker is a Mariage Broker. A social gathering website/MMORPG (game), etc. is just what they are too. It's not any form of MB or IMB. For the many of us who did meet online through a game or social gathering website, are exempt from saying they met through an IMB. (I am going to change social networking to social gathering. I was listening to talk radio earlier and got my words mixed up, lol. )

This is just usefull I think for those who are worried about everything right now to at least have some form of security and direction. The vast majority of us had to meet online. That is why there is so much more of an influx of international relationships since the advent of the internet. Airplane tickets haven't realy gotten that cheap where I could take frequent vacations on the weekend overseas.

Edited by zethris, 22 June 2006 - 10:08 AM.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-06-22 10:05:00

In Regards to IMBRA, lets define what a mariage broker is

To remove confusion, we should define what a mariage broker is with a semi-official definition, or at least a general consensus.
Most important to note before reading, IMBRA effects us all, not just those who went through a mariage broker. However, there is a question about if you met through a mariage broker on the new I-129F forms and the upcoming RFE's that are being sent out to the recalled petitions.

My take on a mariage broker is pretty cut and dry. (emphasis added on important key words)

1. Did you hire an agent or agency that has a database of women outside of a social networking website defined by examples such as eharmony.com, match.com, asianeuro.com, yahoo, IM'ing, etc.?

-If it is not a specific agency listing only women (or men?, never seen a mail order groom) and each one has a price tag to order, then your answer is no

2. Is the lawyer, agent calling themselves a mariage broker, or have their classification as such?

-no brainer, if no, then no.

3. Finally, if it is not a physical person orchestrating and aranging your finding, meeting, filing, etc. Then it's not a mariage broker. Social Network website cannot count because they are not physical mariage brokers. Lawer assistance also isn't a mariage broker unless they too arranged you finding, and meeting.

What did I leave out i'll edit accordingly?

Edited by zethris, 22 June 2006 - 07:59 AM.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-06-22 07:55:00

imbra web site

I think that website is the Monty Python of IMBRA. If you think of it as a farse, it's much more humerous.

It's humorous even if you take it seriously... "trapped into marriage with American feminists."

Yes, now that IMBRA is here, the U.S. government has started its own state-run marriage broker program. Each man who submits a K1 petition for a foreign fiancee is paired with a woman from the American Feminist Bride Database, and forced to marry her instead. The goal is two-fold: to force American men into peonage under the boot of the Feminarchy, and to control 70% of the lucrative marriage broker industry by 2010.

I mean even moreso than it is. Think "Parrot Sketch" if you know what I mean lol

zethris

Not Telling

2006-06-23 06:32:00

imbra web site

I think that website is the Monty Python of IMBRA. If you think of it as a farse, it's much more humerous.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-06-22 10:53:00

Dating Websites and IMBRA

What I am talking about isn't "common usage" it is the law as written and as defines what an MB/IMB is. The vast majority of the social gathering websites out there are not, and even can not be classified as a Mariage Broker.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-06-24 14:00:00

Dating Websites and IMBRA

Sorry -- I meant to say that in order to be "exempt" the statute requires that stuff....

Bottom line is, you don't want to guess wrong in your interpretation of the statute, and given that there are very serious penalties involved (making false statements on anything you submit carries a maximum 5 yr. prison sentence), I would seriously consider contacting an attorney if you have any doubts about how you should answer the RFE. Better safe than sorry, right?

I am not wrong about it. Websites that do not specialize in the sale of mariages, which is what a mariage broker is do not fall under this statute, nor should they. Dating websites, if we need to call them that, are not mariage websites. Most dating websites don't require payment up front either. Also, most dating websites don't give personal contact information. It is user initiated.

The custodian that is required to physically give this information is not there with these types of websites either.

In terms of Mate1, even though it's women members are free to use full servics (simply by the legaly inexperienced webmaster/owner), it is that way to increase traffic. Most women don't sign up to these things and it's a way to hold the imbalance of 25 men to 1 woman ratio at bay like many earlier social gathering websites and services commonly had in the past. Brick and Morter Dating services still fall under IMBRA becasue their general busienss model is to give out actuall contact information on the clients behalf. Also women are generaly free by default. Furthermore, mate1's primary business is not for mariage, nor is it for international matchmaking. It just happens to be on a website that can be accessed worldwide, so it has foreign nationals registered as a side effect.

Edited by zethris, 24 June 2006 - 01:45 PM.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-06-24 13:41:00

Dating Websites and IMBRA

Can anyone tell me what happens if u did meet by an International Marriage broker? I met my Fiance on Mate1.com and I think I may have to check yes on my RFE Form when I get it. My Fiance did not pay to use the dating website because it is free for all women. I did have to pay a fee to join. It was a monthly fee I paid for 2 months or so until I figuired out that you can go and use the site as a guest member. So I did pay them. This unfortunitely means that Mate1 is considered and International Marriage Broker even though they dont full arrange anything. Its just because they are not "Free", and charge to join. If I answer "Yes" on my RFE, how will this impact me? Will this disqualify me from my K1 Petition? I met my Fiance on that site November of last year.

It maybe time to contact a lawyer huh?

mate1.com is not a mariage broker. If it was, you would have bought the mariage of a specific person through their services.

Please refer to:
http://www.visajourn...showtopic=18770
and
http://www.visajourn...showtopic=18806

zethris

Not Telling

2006-06-24 11:59:00

Why is a DUI associated with Violence to Women?

[quote name='Artegal' post='271282' date='Jun 24 2006, 01:13 AM']
[quote name='zethris' post='271233' date='Jun 24 2006, 12:15 AM']
[quote name='BradLuvsMaria' post='271215' date='Jun 23 2006, 11:53 PM']
[quote name='Imbra2005' post='271195' date='Jun 23 2006, 10:39 PM']
Nobody said there are any studies that show correlation between DUI convictions and spousal abuse. What was said is that there is statistical correlation between substance abuse and domestic violence. Let me know if that's what you're disputing and I'll give you all the statistics and federal government studies on that (including one that found that half of the men receiving treatment for alcohol abuse were guilty of abusing an intimate partner within the year prior to seeking treatment).

Now, if you have a DUI, some might say (I'm not one of them) that drinking to intoxication and then getting behind the wheel is proof positive that you abused the intoxicant -- at least that time (and most would suggest that it wasn't the first time, either). Thus, there is a DUI's can be a proxy or marker for substance abuse. And then there is a connection between substance abuse and domestic abuse. If A=B and B=C, then A=C.
[/quote]

OK! I will still delete my profile but not without clarifying and asking for facts of your statements!!
First: lets quote you so no one miss interprits your statment:

(including one that found that half of the men receiving treatment for alcohol abuse were guilty of abusing an intimate partner within the year prior to seeking treatment).

Where are your facts to document this statement??? Do you read People magazine?

Second: Do you realize that almost all states in the US have a sobriety level of .08 That is the consumption of four beers or glasses of wine within a two hour period for a person that weighs 160 lbs. Senator Kennedy reciently only swallowed a mouth filled of pills and didn't remember what happened. He didn't mention the alcohol. Should he still be a US Senator!

You have no facts!!! You are expressing your opinion on a pre judged attitude that the person who was convicted with a DUI was Oblivious and passed out drunk. Most dinner parties these days have respectable people who leave and drive home but yet they fall in to the .08 catergory. Stop being so rightous!!!
[/quote]

I am sorry to say, but you are being to overtly emotional on this issue. Perhaps there is some sensitivity to the mistake you made and the truth hurts per se'. Whatever the truth may be, sometimes parts of what is said strikes home and irritates the tender parts. Your best bet is to just ride the wave.

Immediatly my impression of the whole deal is that you feel .08 isn't drunk enough to not drive? If so, then by this same token, how could a law be passed for such a low rating? Further, how could IMBRA or VAWA be passed? (other than the law encapsulation technique that occured this time around)

Well there ARE studies. Many that show direct corelations to other studies and points of logical deductive reasoning to have proviso's in the law for something like this. Think of it like computer software, you hear all the time about "hackers" exploiting a hole in the code until it is patched with another law. Well in the code of law there are many holes, and the laws that are intended to patch the hole are generaly made with this kind of deductive reasoning. It is in fact even used sometimes to show proof of concept mathematical equasions such as if a=b and b=c then a=c. This just happens sometimes. IMBRA, and the VAWA is a "we're not messing around" law that intends to patch even the most ambiguous holes.

I suggest just dropping the issue, leave your pride at the door here, and open your heart and get to sharing your story.
[/quote]

Problem is that life is not a strictly mathematical equation. So A does not equal B nor B equal C nor etc.

Sometimes A and B = C or may never = C. Life is a lot more variable then a formula for figuring out the area of a Right Triangle.

For example there is supposedly a statistical perponderance of drug abusers that also commit domestic violence. Now the problem is the assumption is that there is a cause and effect. But this may very well not be the case. There is most likely some other problem that is causing both addiction and violence antisocial behavior. So its not an A=B B=C therefore A=C problem. Its possible that A=C and B=C but never will A = B. Life just does not work that way.

And as far as your software analogy. This law still leaves gaping wholes that any hacker or wife abuser could drive the Budwiser Horses and Wagon through.

I guess when one leaves there pride at the door they should also burn the Bill of Rights and Constitution as well. Let us not be proud nor free. hmmm. Don't think so.

A better law would have been to increase funding for women's shelters, increase marriage conseling centers, and provide more assistance in substance abuse treatment.
[/quote]

Everyone has their (usually wrong) opinion on what "should" have happened and what would be a "better" way. Again, usually wrong and that can include me often enough. But unfortunatly, law is not dynamic, it is static in nature and cannot be left to interperatation on individual basis due to the fact that, that leaves a gaping hole right there for the law to be "inteperated" at random negating the laws power from the start. Your policial affiliation kind of shows through on this one. Not to split hairs or anything. But the extreme of trying to make laws cater to the chaos of life would be disasterous at best. On the same token, sometimes having the laws be inflexible is also not good. But because of how unruly people are, that is the only way to keep some sense of order.

Remember 4-square in gradeschool? Remember how a group would have a "ring leader" that would make up some random rule, usually to bend it to their favor? This is much like how your take on laws should be. 4-square ended up turning into that persons game rather than a structured game that everyone can have fun and play. We have only one planet, and only one truely free country (sorry folks, but I am an Americanist, lol) that invented true freedom. So it's not like we can go to another "game" in this respect because we don't like how the rules don't bend to our favor when we want it to. No, unfortunatly because of the advantages of staying here currently, we have to ride out the rules changes at this time, or until it truely becomes impossible to win.

[quote name='jangler' post='271308' date='Jun 24 2006, 01:56 AM']
[quote name='Imbra2005' post='271285' date='Jun 24 2006, 01:17 AM']
I agree that those studies do not show a cause/effect relationship. But that's not the point. The whole point of IMBRA is to arm the foreign spouse with critical information about their spouse -- information that is correlated with abuse -- not necessarily the cause of the abuse.

[/quote]

I bet ya that more abusers are that way because they saw their fathers treat women that way. They were "trained" to be that way by a bad example and role-model. I think that is more relevant than alcohol. I doubt that many men who come from warm, loving parents end up being abusers. If they are really looking to weed out the abusers, than maybe a more pertinent addendum to the I-129F would be, "Has your father ever verbally or physically abused your mother?"
[/quote]

To be honest, thats not a bad idea at all. I would support that in the IMBRA. But I think it would have to be voluntary, otherwise one might say they need to provide proof of such abuse somehow.

[quote name='Anna Sif' date='Jun 24 2006, 06:04 AM' post='271403']
[/quote]

I bet ya that more abusers are that way because they saw their fathers treat women that way. They were "trained" to be that way by a bad example and role-model. I think that is more relevant than alcohol. I doubt that many men who come from warm, loving parents end up being abusers. If they are really looking to weed out the abusers, than maybe a more pertinent addendum to the I-129F would be, "Has your father ever verbally or physically abused your mother?"
[/quote]

There's so many factors that can lead or influence wether someone abuses his/her partner, not to mention each individual circumstances, that it'd be impossible to touch on all of them in one form. It'd probably need a psychiatric assesment of each couple, so cases would take years.
I think we're missing the point that one of the main reasons for IMBRA is so that the foreign fiance(e) is INFORMED of certain aspects of the future husband/wife that may have an effect on their future. And the information has to be irefutable, you could easily answer no to the hypothetical question of "were you abused as a child", but with the criminal past, there's a record, so the petitioner can't lie.
We also have to keep in mind this law wasn't made with us (loving couples who are marrying out of love and we have shared all our life stories with our SOs) in mind. We have to accept the fact that there's men/women out there who might have less than honest intentions when getting a foreign wife/husband and men/women in poor countries who will marry out of economic reasons or in search of a better life and might get caught out in a life threatening situation. The law is made for those cases, so if you want to vent your frustration on someone, why not on the people who prey on the economically disadvantaged for dishonest reasons?
(even though i know we're stuck in this limbo and delays hell due to USCIS plain ineptitude, and believe me, it frustrates me too)
[/quote]

That, in a nutshell is the God's honest truth. Well said.

Edited by zethris, 24 June 2006 - 08:55 AM.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-06-24 09:09:00

Why is a DUI associated with Violence to Women?

Nobody said there are any studies that show correlation between DUI convictions and spousal abuse. What was said is that there is statistical correlation between substance abuse and domestic violence. Let me know if that's what you're disputing and I'll give you all the statistics and federal government studies on that (including one that found that half of the men receiving treatment for alcohol abuse were guilty of abusing an intimate partner within the year prior to seeking treatment).

Now, if you have a DUI, some might say (I'm not one of them) that drinking to intoxication and then getting behind the wheel is proof positive that you abused the intoxicant -- at least that time (and most would suggest that it wasn't the first time, either). Thus, there is a DUI's can be a proxy or marker for substance abuse. And then there is a connection between substance abuse and domestic abuse. If A=B and B=C, then A=C.

OK! I will still delete my profile but not without clarifying and asking for facts of your statements!!
First: lets quote you so no one miss interprits your statment:

(including one that found that half of the men receiving treatment for alcohol abuse were guilty of abusing an intimate partner within the year prior to seeking treatment).

Where are your facts to document this statement??? Do you read People magazine?

Second: Do you realize that almost all states in the US have a sobriety level of .08 That is the consumption of four beers or glasses of wine within a two hour period for a person that weighs 160 lbs. Senator Kennedy reciently only swallowed a mouth filled of pills and didn't remember what happened. He didn't mention the alcohol. Should he still be a US Senator!

You have no facts!!! You are expressing your opinion on a pre judged attitude that the person who was convicted with a DUI was Oblivious and passed out drunk. Most dinner parties these days have respectable people who leave and drive home but yet they fall in to the .08 catergory. Stop being so rightous!!!

I am sorry to say, but you are being to overtly emotional on this issue. Perhaps there is some sensitivity to the mistake you made and the truth hurts per se'. Whatever the truth may be, sometimes parts of what is said strikes home and irritates the tender parts. Your best bet is to just ride the wave.

Immediatly my impression of the whole deal is that you feel .08 isn't drunk enough to not drive? If so, then by this same token, how could a law be passed for such a low rating? Further, how could IMBRA or VAWA be passed? (other than the law encapsulation technique that occured this time around)

Well there ARE studies. Many that show direct corelations to other studies and points of logical deductive reasoning to have proviso's in the law for something like this. Think of it like computer software, you hear all the time about "hackers" exploiting a hole in the code until it is patched with another law. Well in the code of law there are many holes, and the laws that are intended to patch the hole are generaly made with this kind of deductive reasoning. It is in fact even used sometimes to show proof of concept mathematical equasions such as if a=b and b=c then a=c. This just happens sometimes. IMBRA, and the VAWA is a "we're not messing around" law that intends to patch even the most ambiguous holes.

I suggest just dropping the issue, leave your pride at the door here, and open your heart and get to sharing your story.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-06-23 23:15:00

Has anyone had an IMBRA recall AFTER they've interviewed

I was not told that I would be sent an RFE nor have I received an RFE. I am not sure we will be sent an RFE because the cases of my friends whose visa were approved in error after March 06th, 2006 like mine but had gone through thier interviews were not recalled nor were they sent RFEs.
So there may be an issue of Equal Protection because all the K-1 visa petitions approved in error and sent to the embassy are not being treated equally. That is what I think they are grapling with. They might just send these cases back, issue the visas to the 1100 petitions that were recalled and let the foriegn fiances fend for themselves baring an exreme circumstance.
petitions were recalled because they were not compliant with the IMBRA even those scheduled interviews..and even those that had their interviews already but were under 212g and not yet given their visas were recalled. It was clearly stated in the telegram from DOS to the consulate posts that those already issued status (their visas) would not be recalled..hence those ones you mention.

You will be sent an RFE of some description before your petition will be reapproved and sent back to the consulate. Otherwise this was a pretty pointless excercise, wouldnt you think.

I beg to disagree with you. They recalled it but they are not sure what to do with them at this time. There is a law in this Country. In this country even the USCIS is not above the law. You don't know what you are talking about. I am sorry. They may just do a background check on thier own and send most of them back. I called them and they told me that my case will be completed within 30 days. What would you say about that. This is not Australia.

Many of us do know what we are talking about, that includes AussieWench. What she said is true. As well as some of what you have said. But you need to be a little bit more respectful of those you don't know. I understand it's a stressfull situation right now. But thats no valid excuse to disrespect us all like that.

It is a well known issue that the USCIS and DHS is nearly untouchable. Otherwise they would have been slaped with multiple lawsuits over the years and lost almost each one for their abusive nature. I have spent hours upon hours on this issue since IMBRA to see about a possible class action. Instead it's looking more advantageous to leverage them into things through political means, rather than legal.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-06-24 08:42:00

Zethris, I am also going through Vermont for a Philippines application as well, and I've received no word yet either. My NOA2 was March 30, and the petition was sent back from Manila on June 2. My USCIS online status is still "Approved on March 30." Just giving you a bit of consolation that you're not alone! I haven't heard from anyone going through Manila who have received an updated email yet...it can't be much longer though!

Larry

Well I haven't even gotten notice that it has been sent back yet. The embassy seems to think it's still there, but answer too quickly to truely be looking for it phyicaly.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-06-23 16:17:00

I wish I could get an e-mail telling me my RFE is on the way

I was to the point I was about to get an interview scheduled though so I am at the end of the line.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-06-23 06:30:00

Has anybody really tried sending in an expedite request yet?

I doubt it yet due to the fact that we haven't gotten our RFE's yet to send in. But they don't really like to do expedite ever, if at all possible. Many have tried for other things seemingly valid, but still get denied while others get approved.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-06-18 16:43:00

somone wrote (sorry, accidentally deleted the part that stated who, and don't care to start over)
Someone stated this earlier - it's not just that you want to marry someone, but you want to bring them into the U.S., and that is an immigration issue, and to a larger extent, a social issue. If requiring you to disclose how you met your fiancee is social engineering then so is any rule or regulation established in deciding what immigrants we let into our country. Secondly, Mail-Order Bride services do in fact exist and anyone who doesn't believe that is simply in denial. The law hasn't made that illegal since it is difficult to clearly define just how much a marriage broker is marketing foreign women to American men. It's just requiring petitioners to state whether they used one or not. How is that harmful to anyone who sincerely wants to marry someone out of love?
So then I write the following...
well, let's see, it has now cost about 10,000 couples about 3 months, which according to my math equals about 5,000 years of human lives. How many years of human lives have been improved with this thing do you figure?

By the way, on the so called "mail order bride" issue, I am assuming you all have read the fine print on this. For reasons that are unclear (to me anyway) certain internet meeting sites are exempt, while ones that charge men but not women are not. The non exempt ones have such a burden put on them, some of them have quit serving Americans. Others have quit doing business. For a resourceful person, he can merely look around and find different venues to conduct his search. In my case, I used a site that would not be exempt at this point. That site does not follow the dictates now, and so I would have had to find someone else. While their are lots of wonderful Vietnamese ladies out there, I wonder who I would have found otherwise? Seems to me that the system should not have that much power, to force a change in the person I will spend the rest of my life with.

On the name "mail order bride", I think that this is a holdover from the 1800s when a man could actually have a woman sent over having never met her. Of course, disparites in wealth and living conditions, (as well as potential for future well being) between the American men and the foreign women was always a big factor in this equation, and often still is. See the great movie "Picture Bride" to learn more about this. Or better still, study the subject in general, the more you learn about the subject, the better a partner you will be for your foreign spouse. With the requirement of meeting your intended spouse, as well as the visa process, there is no way these people should be considered "mail order", and I think the term itself lends sleaziness to the whole subject, which is a big part of the problem we are faced with. Hence, this new requlation, as well as the negative attitude projected by so many normal Americans when judging our "mail order" marriages.

As someone said earlier, you are a great writer!

As far as time lost, I suppose you could make that argument against the long lines at the DMV (Dept. of Motor Vehicles) as well...hehehe. ...or traffic congestion.

I appreciate your distaste for the term 'Mail-Order Bride' and I've had to fight some stereotypes with my own family when I told them I was dating a woman long distance from a Third World country. However, that doesn't dismiss the reality that there are many unscrupulous agencies out there who are profiteering on the notion that an American man can simply 'buy' his spouse. They even state such things as saying that these women are submissive, obediant, non-complaining, etc.

Not every site that connects foreign women to American men are necessarily sinister or evil. But let's not be ignorant about the possibility of woman being coerced or forced into such services. The sex trade exists and is a huge problem among Third World countries. Because these agencies are international and not under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Federal courts, we are unable to stop them from using unscrupulous practices.

I think the new IMBRA law will in fact be a positive effect in putting pressure on dating agencies to use ethical standards when American men who are serious about marrying someone for love will be more careful as to which agency they use. That's something that has long been needed.

Yeah it's deplorable with how badly discriminatory the label "Mail-Order Bride" is and the thoughts it brings to someone and about the person you love. Luckily, my immediate family was just happy I found someone finally. So they have been pretty supportive. Even with the initial suspisions due to "what they hear on the news" etc.

And lol @ Philippina's being submissive, obediant, non-complaining. hee hee! My fiance is all about the 'tell it like it is' "you either fix that, or i'll get the hammer and do it myself" type. I LOVE IT! :yes:

I know what you mean though. These agencies should be shut down faster than the RIAA can send a 12 year old to jail. They profiteer on that notion fairly easily, unfortunatly, because of the many DOM's out there (Dirty Old Men) who want to have a fantasy life wife much younger than them that they think they can control. I can't tell you how many God realatives my fiance has here who have had to leave their abusive older husbands. Lets just say more than 15.

yes indeed, and a great detriment to the phil's is the sex trade there. That is also a great detriment to us because of all the extra steps we have to take to prevent sham weddings due to the abuse thats going on there, and in many other parts of the world.

I support the good parts of IMBRA and what it can do. But the only reason why it wouldn't pass on it's own is because of the bad parts in it that are not fair. The writer refused to change it, and instead hid it in another law. Then once they realized it passed (two months after the deadline) (ok an exaggeration) anyways, once that happened the way they are implementing it is what I have a major issue with. It is sickoning quite frankly.

Edited by zethris, 18 June 2006 - 04:36 PM.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-06-18 16:34:00

[quote name='top-gorilla' date='Jun 18 2006, 02:17 PM' post='258628']
somone wrote (sorry, accidentally deleted the part that stated who, and don't care to start over)
Someone stated this earlier - it's not just that you want to marry someone, but you want to bring them into the U.S., and that is an immigration issue, and to a larger extent, a social issue. If requiring you to disclose how you met your fiancee is social engineering then so is any rule or regulation established in deciding what immigrants we let into our country. Secondly, Mail-Order Bride services do in fact exist and anyone who doesn't believe that is simply in denial. The law hasn't made that illegal since it is difficult to clearly define just how much a marriage broker is marketing foreign women to American men. It's just requiring petitioners to state whether they used one or not. How is that harmful to anyone who sincerely wants to marry someone out of love?
[/quote] So then I write the following...
well, let's see, it has now cost about 10,000 couples about 3 months, which according to my math equals about 5,000 years of human lives. How many years of human lives have been improved with this thing do you figure?

By the way, on the so called "mail order bride" issue, I am assuming you all have read the fine print on this. For reasons that are unclear (to me anyway) certain internet meeting sites are exempt, while ones that charge men but not women are not. The non exempt ones have such a burden put on them, some of them have quit serving Americans. Others have quit doing business. For a resourceful person, he can merely look around and find different venues to conduct his search. In my case, I used a site that would not be exempt at this point. That site does not follow the dictates now, and so I would have had to find someone else. While their are lots of wonderful Vietnamese ladies out there, I wonder who I would have found otherwise? Seems to me that the system should not have that much power, to force a change in the person I will spend the rest of my life with.

On the name "mail order bride", I think that this is a holdover from the 1800s when a man could actually have a woman sent over having never met her. Of course, disparites in wealth and living conditions, (as well as potential for future well being) between the American men and the foreign women was always a big factor in this equation, and often still is. See the great movie "Picture Bride" to learn more about this. Or better still, study the subject in general, the more you learn about the subject, the better a partner you will be for your foreign spouse. With the requirement of meeting your intended spouse, as well as the visa process, there is no way these people should be considered "mail order", and I think the term itself lends sleaziness to the whole subject, which is a big part of the problem we are faced with. Hence, this new requlation, as well as the negative attitude projected by so many normal Americans when judging our "mail order" marriages.
[/quote]

I remember when even meeting online for people localy was completely taboo. Now with social meet websites out there, and social online gaming, it's not so taboo. Old traditions die hard though. You marry a spouse from a foreign country, especially asia or russia, and that must immediatly mean he/she is a mail order spouse.

[quote name='rlt' post='258670' date='Jun 18 2006, 02:49 PM']
[quote name='Luis&Laura' post='258651' date='Jun 18 2006, 03:36 PM']
Cigarovich, I am betting on it, on USCIS expediting cases, but to play safe, everyone recalled should make a request for expedite processing when returning the RFE, under USCIS error motive.

I can´t find who said USCIS said they´d be expediting cases.
[/quote]

Well, I don´t know about you guys, but as one of the recalled cases, I´m not worried about the process after submiting the RFE.
Is waiting for it that makes the waiting unfair.

I´m sure after we send the RFE it will be pretty fast until it gets to the Embassy abroad.

But it could take us a long time to get the RFE.
I wonder if we could ask for an expedition now, before we get the RFE.
[/quote]

Honestly I think it is the waiting part that we will have to endure that will make it seem like we haven't even began applying yet for a visa. For many of us, we were just waitng for the appointment to be scheduled. So most of the actuall work is done. Once the RFE is recieved and sent it, it's just a matter of waiting for it to be processed and then it gets put in the que at the end of the line for appointment scheduling at the embassy.

[quote name='elizaxyz' post='258674' date='Jun 18 2006, 02:52 PM']
[quote name='rlt' post='258670' date='Jun 18 2006, 02:49 PM']
[quote name='Luis&Laura' post='258651' date='Jun 18 2006, 03:36 PM']
Cigarovich, I am betting on it, on USCIS expediting cases, but to play safe, everyone recalled should make a request for expedite processing when returning the RFE, under USCIS error motive.

I can´t find who said USCIS said they´d be expediting cases.
[/quote]

Well, I don´t know about you guys, but as one of the recalled cases, I´m not worried about the process after submiting the RFE.
Is waiting for it that makes the waiting unfair.

I´m sure after we send the RFE it will be pretty fast until it gets to the Embassy abroad.

But it could take us a long time to get the RFE.
I wonder if we could ask for an expedition now, before we get the RFE.
[/quote]

I don't think it would be useful at this point, tbh. The case will only be considered lost sixty days after the Consulate sent it back, and I doubt the incorrect approvals will qualify us for expedited handling, since the situation is technically being formally addressed. I'm sure the request would be denied.
[/quote]

yep, thats how i think they would get out of honoring expidite requets due to USCIS error too.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-06-18 16:23:00

Er.. just got a phone call. Apparently I wasn't supposed to say what I heard because it's not yet officialy documented. Just something he found out on Friday during a confrence call before going home. LOL oh well. I felt you all should know anyways becauce technicaly everything we say here is hearsay anyways.

Honestly, I doubt USCIS would do that after stating they will expedite the recalled petitions, I think the reason people that aren´t recalled ones got RFE e-mails first is ´cus we must remember there are many people working on these files, and maybe someone started faster, that´s why the RFEs aren´t coming in an especific order. At this point when they used the word immediatly I trully believe they´ll work faster.

I think this upcoming week we´ll hear good news to the recalled petitioners and to the rest of us as well, there will be RFEs rolling out.

I hope you are right, but with the news to the contrary, I gather they don't care about order anymore. Everything is a big semi ordered pile right now to prevent as much loss of records as possible. They never had anything like this happen before at this scale. So they don't have measures of order implemented for such a recall to keep everything like this in the exact same line as it was before the recall. They are processing what they have closest to hand right now and it just so happens to be the most recent applicants and NOA's

Some of our cases haven't even arrived yet (Such as mine, it's still apparently waiting at the embassy to be sent to the NVC) It is their hope that once it gets back tot he embasies, that maybe they could sort through the hundreds, rather than the thousands to bring back some order to the que. But unfortunatly, unless they halt the entire process in the mean time, there will be many who get processed before us that had a later noa date due to the fact of the time it will take for our cases to finally get back to the embasy with the requested evidence.

A straight line is always the shortest and quickest path. So it is for those with later NOA's it seems.

By the way, the expidite service could be an idea. But technicaly they arent' admitting an error (even though the memo said they were in error) so we may not be elegible for it. Worth a shot though.

Edited by zethris, 18 June 2006 - 12:20 PM.

zethris

Not Telling

2006-06-18 12:16:00