Did anyone see this as well?

SUPPORTING STATEMENT
Petition for Alien Fiance(e)
(Form I-129F)

http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/formsfee/for.../i-129fsupp.pdf

[attachmentid=1281][attachmentid=1281]


Hello everyone,

It seems that the new form is almost ready. On the USCIS website there's a link to the DRAFT version of the new I-129F. (I've attached the document to this quote)

Inge

Folks,

I would like to offer a confernce call for those who had their scheduled interviews canceled under IMBRA. Email me at milestogo0310@hotmail.com. If their are more than 4 people interested I will set up an 800 number and give you a code to participate. Also I will publish an agenda. The purpose will be to share information and speed our processes.

Name: milestogo
Fiance country: Russia
SC: VSC
NOA1: 04/03/06
NOA2: 04/12/06
Interview: 06/29/06
Canceled: Yes

Going by the Draft I-129F the only thing that I can see where members maybe able to get a head start is to obtain court and police records of any of the listed offences if applicable. That way when an RFE is forwarded any necessary documentation will have already been obtained. There is no other way of speeding up this process no matter how much everyone wants there to be. USCIS/DHS has the reins on this period.

That is my assumption as well especially as K-3's come under the IMBRA. They would be failing in their inadministration of the act if there had been approved petitions not yet issued visas, allowed to remain at consulate posts. I imagine some may of been returned from NVC if they had reached that stage. What I do find interesting is that from looking in the VJ timelines there appears to be petitions that where submitted to NBC after the act came into effect that got approvals mid May. Interesting to see what happens with those particular ones and if they are now being held or moved onto NBC.

Aussie, do you believe even those that didn't comitt the offenses will have to supply the police records?
And if it's advisable, which police records? We know the state one is easy to get, but how do we prove that's the only state the petitioner ever lived? And the FBI one takes 1-2 months. I'm unsure as to what we should do now.

Well what does everybody else think from reading the draft? On my reading it, it is asking for those that have any of the offences listed, to supply a police and court records of such. It doesnt seem to say that these are required if the answer is negative. The USCIS has various data bases to do background checks......what they seem to be asking for is hard copy from the petitioner. Perhaps this is what would be then shown to the beneficiary/applicant at interview as is mentioned in the IMBRA.

Didn't everyone read the new I-129f form? You only need documentation if you HAVE been convicted of any of the listed crimes.

From the Instructions:

9. What Documents Do You Need to Comply With the InternationalMarriage Broker Regulation Act?

If you have ever been convicted of any of the following crimes, submit certified copies of all court and policerecords showing the charges and dispositions for every such conviction. (This is required even if your records were sealed or otherwise cleared or if anyone,including a judge, law enforcement officer, or attorney,told you that you no longer have a record.

Domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse andneglect, dating violence, elder abuse, and stalking.

Homicide, murder, manslaughter, rape, abusivesexual contact, sexual exploitation, incest, torture,trafficking, peonage, holding hostage, involuntaryservitude, slave trade, kidnapping, abduction,unlawful criminal restraint, false imprisonment, or an attempt to commit any of these crimes.

Crimes relating to a controlled substance or alcoholon three or more occasions, and such crimes did notarise from a single act.
**********************************************************

From the form:

2. Have you ever been by a court of law (civil or criminal) or court martialed by a military tribunal for any of the followingcrimes. This is required even if your records were sealed or otherwise cleared or if anyone, including a judge, law enforcement officer, or attorney, told you that you no longer have a record. (Check all that apply. Using a separate sheet(s) of paper, attach information relating to the conviction(s), such as crime involved, date of conviction and sentence.)

Domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse and neglect, dating violence, elder abuse and stalking.

Homicide, murder, manslaughter, rape, abusive sexual contact, sexual exploitation, incest, torture, trafficking, peonage,holding hostage, involuntary servitude, slave trade, kidnapping, abduction, unlawful criminal restraint, false imprisonment or an attempt to commit any of these crimes.

Three or more convictions for crimes relating to a controlled substance or alcohol not arising from a single act.



And, of course, it was addressed while I was still gathering the information. lol

desperatewife,

Read the I-129f instructions. There is a section specific to married petitioners that tells them what sections of the instructions should be ignored as applicable only to fiance(e)s.

Yodrak

That's what I understood from the draft, but with USCIS, you never know, although the instructions are always pretty clear.

Well, from what I read it all seems pretty straight forward. If you have been convicted for any of the mentioned crimes you need to provide police records with the petition. This information will be provided to the beneficiary for awareness. I read a post earlier asking if the government would be denying approval based on past convictions. I feel this would be highly unconstitutional and would create a huge uproar for later law suites. Thus this information is to be provided to the beneficiary for a better clue as to the person she is getting involved with. "we as americans have the right to marry whom we want" regardless of any past crime or conviction. From what I read everything should be picking up again soon.

I have a question: I have had 3 DUI's, 2 convictions and 1 PBJ. I wonder if I should just send in a complete criminal background check with all charges and outcomes ever had, just to be on the safe side, or should I just not send anything and not check a box on the petition. I am one who likes to cover all his bases but I wonder if there is such a thing as too much information. I dunno!!!

Precisely. The petition will not be denied on such a basis; rather, the beneficiary will have the choice whether or not to go forward, fully apprised of anything in his or her partner's past. If the beneficiary trusts that the petitioner will not repeat such behavior, then he or she is free to continue to pursue the visa.

And of course, if the petitioner has been honest with the beneficiary from the get go, then there ought not be a problem.

Right?

I think this law is godd for those invloved, but why is the US citizen not given the same right. AS far as I know we are not informed of any criminal backround.

Au contraire. Your foreign sweetie has to obtain a police certificate to obtain her visa, yes? And if there's anything in her past much worse than a speeding ticket, you're going to know about it, because she'd have to then file a waiver to get the visa.

mike,

Less demonstrated need for it? How many US women (or men) are abused or killed by their immigrant husbands (or wives)? A few, surely, but not as many as the other way around.

And if your alien fiance(e) or spouse does have a serious criminal background that they didn't tell you about, you are going to find out about it when the consular officer denies the visa application.

Yodrak

Yeah, it's another train heading towards yours.

Honestly? I think it was a poor choice of wording on their part, and they mean you'll hear from your consulate once the petition has been approved in Cali and sent on its way. I mean, the local offices hardly do any processing anymore, since the Chicago lockbox came into effect. JMHO.

Hahahaha. That's about how I feel right now!

I called USCIS yesterday; the problem I'm having now is that they haven't yet received the file back from the Embassy. So State can't tell me anything because they have sent the file back, and USCIS can't tell me anything because they don't have it. So I'm in limbo until someone has the damn file.

I don't know whether to be encouraged or discouraged by the draft form; I'm hoping this doesn't mean we have to send the whole application all over again. And pay another $170. But I suspect that will be the case.

They won't expect you to pay again. It will most likely just be an RFE with the new form.

I'm less worried about paying again, although I wouldn't be pleased, that I am about having to reapply from scratch with the new form.

I'm just trying to let it go for now. I'm going over to the UK to visit at the end of July. If nothing has happened by then, I'll reconsider moving to the UK.

Here's asort of "What would you do?" question for everyone.

Our scheduled interview was cancelled and now we evidently have to respond to a forthcoming RFE and fill out a new I-129F form. My fiance co-runs an agency and we met because of this but not through the agency. On the originally approved I-129F for how we met I answered we met during a trip to Russia where she acted as my guide and translator.

She is not listed on any agency nor was she seeking a foreign husband. So when the new form asks whether we met through an agency how do I answer so as not to unnecessarily delay the process? Further complicating this is my provided email correspondence has her agency name in the domain. Note that I do not have any criminal record.

Answer truthfully. If you did not meet through the agency then the answer is no on the form.

With anything even prior to the IMBRA if there was anything that you felt explained your case further especially with potential red flags, then one could provide that on a seperate sheet.

We still don't know what the next step will be - we are just taking guesses because it gives us somethign to do!

As for your situation... she runs a marriage broker type agency? But you contacted it not to meet a woman but to get a translator? If she runs this agency, won't it show on the forms you are filling out, as her employer? That might raise a few eyebrows, I'd imagine. If I were filling out the form, I would say you met when she was your translator, because that is the truth, but you may want to explain the rest of it, to avoid further RFE's. ?

Well can anyone say for certain the ramifications of answering "yes" to this question? The petitioner is already required to provide criminal backgound if they have one, no matter how they met. Maybe it is to verify the agency that they met through is compliant with IMBRA (That they "broker" provided the benificiary with the criminal background BEFORE they met).

Its two pronged really, as they will verbally ask the same question of the foreign fiance/spouse as well at the interview. I dont know of any ramifications, as long as both have been honest. But yes, from reading the IMBRA they do wish to make sure that the broker has complied.

The thing is what is the truth? An argument could be made we did meet through an agency even as I THINK the right answer is we did not. Going through verbal hoops to explain this to USCIS would only cause them to become confused and delay us with endless requests for more information or worse deny.

What would you do? This is so fustrating returning tickets, cancelling wedding plans and the like. It's sad and hurtful. What I really don't understand is that IMBRA should apply to those who MET after march 6th. I smell class action suit. The damages are obvious and real. 1100 people and a class action suit. Gary or John, want to take this on? Lot's of $$ to be made.

So logic says this agency would be grandfathered from complying since they met before Januarary 2006. Also, I don't believe IMBRA is enforceable to a foreign entity (agency).

Businesses that operate in the United States must comply with American law, even if they're foreign-owned, so I'm not sure how you figure that IMBRA won't be enforceable.

Well in this gentlemens case they may not operate in the US. If I'm a Russian business person and operate a dating website in Russia how that accept clients from all over the world how are you going to make me conform??????? There are MANY of such!

I don't know. But not knowing how they'll enforce the law on the business isn't the same as assuming that the law won't or can't be enforced.

Moreover, surely word gets around among the young women who use these services...if one service screens the American gentlemen who patronize it quite carefully and gives the women good information, and another doesn't, it stands to reason that the law-abiding business will most likely thrive and survive, while the other does not.

Ditto Pax.

"...law-abiding business..."

Ok, Ill put this one to rest after this post. You make assumption that the non US business is not law abiding. What law are they breaking? They are not under US jurisdiction.

I'm no expert in international business law, but it seems to me that businesses that operate to serve American customers does need to abide by American law. For example, I'm familiar with a cosmetics company based in Hong Kong that will pay Customs fees for any of the goods that I purchase from them as a courtesy to me, or to any international customer, as they ship all over the world. Thus, if the company wants to do business with Americans, they must see that American customs fees are paid. If they didn't pay the fee, I would have to do so—either way that fee has to be paid.

Car companies that build cars in Germany, Japan, Mexico, wherever have to conform to American safety standards if they want to sell their cars in the States. If they don't want to do so, that's fine, but then they are shut out of the American market.

I'm also not an expert, but I'm a law graduate in Brasil, and at least in my country an international company must comply with the laws of all the countries she operates in.

Anyone noticed that the 60-day notice issued for the I-129F in the emergency effect is still pending?

"USCIS has submitted an emergency information collection request (ICR) utilizing emergency review procedures, to the OMB for review and clearance in accordance with section 1320.13(a)(1)(ii) and (a)(2)(iii) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The USCIS has determined that it cannot comply with the normal clearance procedures under this part because normal clearance procedures are likely to prevent or disrupt the collection of information. If granted, the emergency approval is only valid for 180 days."

They said that the 60-day notice will continue as normal as well.

So what we're now hoping for is that this emergency review will be approved and that they'll put this form up real fast for us, even if it's for 180 days only pending further review of the form, for many of us that would be enough time to get our visas issued. Let's hope, pray, do santeria, or whatever it takes for this emergency think to work!

I have a question in this fast moving thread....
So lets say they put the form up next week and I sent my paper work today. Would I need to wait for and RFE to fill out said form or would I mail it to the service center?? Just curious! And I know there may not be a correct answer. Just looking for opinions!

milestogo,

How do you figure that? Is it your personal opinion, or is it how you read the law?

Yodrak

Ajames, I figured we'll need the RFE, 'cus we send the notice back and then they know where that form is supposed to go and all that. If everybody just sent their new form for them they'd have a hard time finding where everyone's file is by their name alone.

ccmkoho,

Perhaps you won't be made to conform. But your Russian customers who hook up with your American customers may find themselves having difficulty at their visa interviews, possibly to the extent that their visa applications are denied.

How that affects your business may, or may not, help you to decide whether or not you want to conform.

Yodrak

and once again thank you!!
You are quite helpful especially since I am not thinking clearly!

Foreign businesses operating over the Internet worldwide are sued and prosecuted in United States courts all the time.

There are lots of ways a company can be considered to be "doing business in the United States" without actually being located there, and "doing business" there gives the U.S. jurisdiction. Some ways to do that are to solicit customers in the United States, sell them products, provide them with services, or conduct transactions with them. On the Internet, it's pretty easy to fall into one of these categories if you engage in global commercial activity--your company is on every desktop in every country around the world, including the U.S.

Foreign business that do not want to submit to U.S. jurisdiction restrict their activities accordingly. In the case of an international marriage broker, my guess is this would mean refusing to serve American clients for starters.

But remember--I'm not a attorney. Consider this information learned from extensive research, not information offered as legal advice. Get an attorney if you need legal advice.

Pax is correct on this.

Also ( an open message to owners of foreign dating/matchmaking sites)

Surely you care enough about the people on your books that use your service within your country; to only accept foreign clients that not only follow the laws of their own land ( in this case the USA)-but that are not past criminal/sex offenders or sex traffikers?

Why would you want to take the risk of pairing up a paying client with a possible criminal/sex offender?

As much hassle as this new law is; and the delays it is causing-the law in itself is designed to PROTECT foreign spouses/fiance(e)s.
Surely you would want your clients to be as protected as possible?
Just my thoughts.

NOTE TO PERMANENT RESIDENT GRANTEES

I am pretty sure they just changed the USCIS Case Status website, right underneath the title "finding the status of your case" it now says: "If you were granted permanent resident status or entered the U.S. with an immigrant visa more than 60 days ago and have not received your first permanent resident card, please call 1-800-375-5283" https://egov.immigration.gov/cris/jsps/index.jsp

I don't think this was always there, but I have looked at this site so many times in the past two days I no longer have an clairity.

If it is true, something very fishy is going on with USCIS, I wonder if it really is IMBRA or something else.

Well I spoke to USCIS today, and finally someone actually said something about this law, considering all the other times they knew absolutely nothing! Anyway, it looks like the Embassy has not sent my petition back yet!!! Even though they cancelled the interview on May 11th!! NVC still did not receive it as of yesterday, therefore neither did USCIS. Here is some information I got from the immigration representative though may be helpful to some:

-There will be a separate form/questioner sent out to the petitioner to fill out, as soon as the petition is received at the local center from the US embassy abroad.

- You will not be placed at the bottom of the "pile" and they will in fact try to speed up all the delayed petitions effected by the IMBRA law

-Therefore you should fill out this form ASAP, and return to them so they can finish with this new process.

She was very nice and understanding...not that it helps me, but does simmer the boiling a little

wow this forum is kicking some ###, good job gary. your next assignment should you choose to accept is to start a thread about petition being sent to california

A response i just got from Rick Santorum

Dear Ms. R.....

Thank you for contacting me regarding immigration reform. I appreciate hearing
from you and having the benefit of your views.
As you may know, the Senate passed S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Act of 2006, on May 25, 2006. I voted against this legislation because I do not
believe this is the right way to reform our immigration system.
As the son of an Italian immigrant who came to the United States in 1930, I
understand the important and valuable contributions legal immigrants have made
and continue to make to our country. I have great respect for those who have
legally come to our nation seeking a better life for their families.
However, I firmly believe that the safety and security of our country must be
our first priority. Who is traveling across our borders and why they are doing
so is as important as any issue we currently face. It is a complicated issue
with far reaching implications that will impact our national security, our
economy, and our culture.

Securing our border is a basic responsibility of a sovereign nation. An
immigration policy that does not control who is entering our nation is not an
immigration policy at all. The best way to do this is by strengthening and
supporting our Border Patrol, both through greater numbers and technological
advancements. To this end, I cosponsored and voted for a successful amendment
introduced by Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama that authorizes the Department of
Homeland Security to construct 370 miles of triple-layer fence and 500 miles of
vehicle barriers at strategic locations along our southern border.

I also cosponsored an amendment offered by John Ensign of Nevada that provides
reimbursement for the temporary use of the National Guard to secure the borders
of the United States. With the approval of the Secretary of Defense, the
governor of any state may order the use of the National Guard to provide
"command, control and continuity of support" such as ground and airborne
reconnaissance, logistical, tactical and administrative support, communications
services and emergency medical services. I was pleased to see both of these
amendments pass as they are solid first steps towards border security.

However, the main reason that I voted against S. 2611 is that this bill gives
amnesty to the immigrants who came to this country illegally. I believe those
who have entered this country illegally must return to their native land and
move through the legal process just like everyone else. The idea that those who
have been here illegally for an arbitrary number of years should be able to stay
in America simply by paying back taxes is an insult to all those who have waited
patiently and lawfully for their chance to come here and pursue the American
dream.

There were many opportunities to improve this legislation throughout Senate
debate, and I was disappointed that the majority of my colleagues did not truly
hear the call of their constituents to oppose amnesty. I cannot support an
amnesty proposal now because amnesty has failed in the past. In 1986, Congress
attempted to address this same issue, though on a much smaller scale. Estimates
of the size of the illegal-immigrant population in the U.S. in 1986 placed the
total number close to 1 million; today we are dealing with around 12 million.
Providing amnesty to one million illegal immigrants yielded 12 million over the
course of 20 years. Amnesty simply fails the test of history.

S. 2611 also threatens the health of our nation's social safety net-Social
Security-by adding millions of new beneficiaries to an already burdened program.
I cosponsored an amendment offered by Senator John Ensign that would have
prevented illegal immigrants from getting Social Security benefits based on
their illegal work history, often with an invalid number. Unfortunately, a
majority of my colleagues voted to kill this amendment. By doing so, the Senate
has rewarded illegal immigrants by putting our current elderly beneficiaries,
who paid into the Social Security system for decades in order to collect the
benefits they receive today, further at risk in an already stretched system.

America is a nation of immigrants, a nation that derives much of our strength
from those who come here to live the American Dream. However, the immigrants
who have contributed so much to the character of our nation came here legally.
We devalue their sacrifices and hardships if we fail to ask the same of today's
immigrants. I will continue to oppose any legislation that provides amnesty for
illegal immigrants.

Thank you again for contacting me. If I can be of further assistance on this or
any other matter, please do not hesitate to call on me again.

Sincerely,

Rick Santorum
United States Senate


This e-mail, a copy of which has been archived in the United States Senate, is
an official Senate communication intended for the individual or entity named
above. Any improper alteration or fraudulent misuse of the contents of this
e-mail may constitute a violation of federal law (18 USC 1030; 18 USC 2511; 18
USC 2701), and/or state laws governing defamation and misattribution. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, please notify us that the
message was received in error and then delete it.

How helpful of Santorum...

Here's some info I found on another forum:

Here's the link: http://www.hinigugma.com/index/about2142.html


In attempt to avoid any further delays our K-1 visa petition, I went to the morgue of cold souls and called the USCIS. I was hoping that I could actually contact the people involved with the background checks in order to get the ball rolling. I was seeking forms are whatever information I was needing to provide, just to get the process either started or expedited.

So. . .

I called the USCIS customer service number 1-(800) 375-5283.

After multiple calls and being on hold for over two hours on my cell phone, two separate persons at the USCIS told me to call the the U.S. State Department at telephone number: 1-202-663-1225. I was told by the USCIS that the new rules/law is basically under the realm of the State Department; that everything is upon their shoulders; that they are the ones to create the policies and procedures governing all background checks. So, in other words, they did not know and probably did not care and just pushed me off to someone else.

Calling the State Department, the robo-operator said that their office hours are Monday through Friday, 8 am to 5 pm, except on Wednesdays, when they are only available from 11 am to 12 noon. (and of course closed on national holidays). I am not sure which time zone that is in, but it probably is the "twilight zone." The first three attempts ended with yet another computer message that roughly said that "all agents are busy, try again later." At that time, the call was terminated by the robo operator.

Friday, I did manage to get through to an actual human! He said not to worry, that they will perform the background checks on their own, without any additional forms or lost time on the petition for K-1 visas. At least, at this time.

Hope that person from the State Department wasn't just blowing smoke.

Isn´t it already pretty clear that they´re gonna have us send them the new form?

Nothing is particularly clear about any of this, as far as I'm concerned.

I think the best way to find out what will happen is to wait until it happens.

I really, really do.

If it turns out your particular prediction was correct, have an "I told you so" party afterwards.

There's no way to tell right now if anybody here has "better" information than everyone else.

Hang in there.