Thought many of you might be interested to read this. Filipinaheart.com is a hugely popular site owned by Australians (who also own many other dating internet sites). This is their response to me:

"Dear Member,

Thank you for contacting us and congratulations!

We are exempt from the IMBRA law under the provisions of section 4 ( b ) (ii), however we are in the process of implementing an information form so that those US members who are seeking marriage may complete the required information. It is our understanding that it may be beneficial to the Spouse Visa Application if US men complete the information specified in the IMBRA regulations.

However, we need to inform you that the law commenced March 6, therefore it will be applicable if you and your fiancee met after 6 March. If you met prior to this date the law will not be applicable therefore you will not be required to complete the form.

We would love to hear your success story and share it with all our other members.

If you would like to submit your success story, please do so by email to team@FilipinaHeart.com or by submitting it on the site. There is a link to add your success story on the home page of our site.

We wish you every happiness in the future and thank you for your valued membership at our site.

Please contact us if you require any further assistance.

Regards

team@FilipinaHeart.com"

I also met my fiance through a site owned by the same company as FilipinaHeart.com and I was wondering about the same thing. Thank you so much for that information. 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?

Considering (1) that you're taking the agency's own interpretation of whether or not they are exempt (they sort of have a dog in the fight, you know?); and (2) that there may be serious consequences if you guess wrongly, it may make sense to seek and rely on the the advice of qualified legal counsel.

Reading the law, it seems that if you met your fiancée through any third party that required you to pay any kind of fee, it would be considered a marriage broker. If the site doesn't provide owner or contact information, you can use "whois" to look up the owner of any registered domain name.

Marilyn and Peter.

Where can I read this law?

You can find it on the Internet but just take a look at the revised I-129F form and how it describes marriage brokers. The USCIS interpretation is the only one that matters.

Marilyn and Peter.

Not necessarily as many that charge a fee to members fall under the exemptions.

They are mistaken though: if you met before March 6th, but filed on or after for the visa, you are still subject to the IMBRA compliance.

It has nothing to do with when you met, and everything to do with when you filed, or else why has my application been sitting there gathering dust?

hi, i'm also in the same situation, i met my finace on asianeuro.com, also same company that owns filipinaheart.com.... i'm wondering if someone could shed a light to our situation.. i have a few questions..

1) we met "online" at asianeuro.com on december 4, 2005 - so we are not affected by IMBRA law because it took effect on march 6?

2) but asianeuro.com charges a fee for membership if someone wants to contact one member (chat, email), so is it considered a marriage broker?

3) my fiance and i has been corresponding for about 6 months now and we will meet "face to face" in july and he will file k1 petition in august, so that would mean we are affected by IMBRA law now? and that should we say YES or NO if we meet through a marriage broker? and i'm wondering if asianeuro.com is considered a marriage broker site..

please , i'm a little confused.. thanks a lot - aix

It's not when you met that matters. It's when you file your petiton that matters. If you have not yet filed, then you definately fall under IMBRA. Also, the site you met through does charge a fee, and does specifically "market" persay Asian-American relationships/marriage, so it would qualify as a marriage broker, so you would answer yes.

oh wow i see..

Sorry but I disagree. AsianEuro.com, like most other sites, is exempt because the law clearly states, " EXCEPTIONS.—Such term does not include—(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."

AsianEuro and similar sites provide a place for people from ANY country, NOT principally between United States citizens and foreign nationals, to find PENPALS, LANGUAGE PRACTICE, FRIENDS, or MARRIAGE to others from ANY country. You can join AsianEuro if you are from Great Britain and find someone from Iceland.

The site clearly states...

"WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS SITE?

The purpose of this site is to assist people to find an Asian partner for friendship, language practice, romance or possible marriage.

I'M NOT ASIAN CAN I STILL JOIN?

Yes everyone is welcome to join, in fact many Asian ladies are specifically seeking a non-Asian partner. Some are also seeking an Asian partner or partner of an overseas Asian background. "

They are NOT principally geared for Americans!

oh wow very well said.. now i have some light about our situation.. thank you for the input - aix

No, none of these websites qualify under a mariage broker definition. That is incorrect information. A mariage broker is a mariage broker.


(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.

(cool.gif 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.


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 you want 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 gathering 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.

ref: http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=18770

Because these social gathering websites DO NOT physically arange an in person meeting or mariage, they do not broker mariages to be classified as a mariage broker. Furthermore, even though it may charge a fee to operate, it is no different than your paying a fee to use premium features of ANY other website. While the end result of websites such as asianeuro may be to start a friendship with someone that may lead to a relationship or mariage, it is simply a side effect that happens when a form of communication is opened that previously didn't exist.

Otherwise, is World of Warcraft, a Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game for the PC that boasts over 5 million people a Mariage broker? Going by what a couple people here want to say about social gathering websites, that must mean it is due to the fact that multiple mariages have resulted from the friendships developed online through that game.




I fully agree to this, and it is even another arguement against the idea that social gathering websites like asianeuro.com are IMB's.

I believe you are incorrect, If you define your situation from the instructions on the new I-129F. Either way, answering yes or no does not exclude you from filing a petition. Why is everyone so worried about answering yes? Instead of trying to split hairs, answer yes if you fit the critera on the new I-129F form or the RFE and don't worry so much.

Marilyn and Peter.

Let me just say first that I know virtually nothing about the IMBRA law, so I was just browsing here to try to learn about it a bit. Going to go read what's pinned next(I'm assuming there is something) which is, no doubt, where I should have started...

This is my question though, to those of you who know: I thought *everyone* who filed after March 6 had to comply with the IMBRA law? regardless of how you met...a real marriage broker, online, in person, whatever....

As I said, my ignorance is showing, but can someone clear that up for me? Off to read...M.

You are right.. and it is unfortunate that it affects us all .. I personally met my fiance in the US while she was on a school visa .. But yeah it affects us all

Well the news media is talking about this law as a mail order bride/groom law. (which is very derrogatory to many of us) if you remember in the past, many people considered online dating the same as a mail order bride/groom. Whispers of that still exist today even though it's a very common occurance. Now that the older, more conservative people, who are too scared of change to know when something new is actually good and immediatly act as if it's evil, have learned more about it, less and less treat it with prejudice. Especially those who admit they "met online" are met with much less disdain or scruitiny than before when online dating was new.

For a while, for a couple to say they "met online" it was like coming out of the closet for a homosexual. Now both are more accepted, it's a bit easier to come out with it and talk about it. Meeting online, of course, is being accepted much faster in society. But we aren't going to get into that. What the point is, prejudice in general about meeting online is going down so it's fake equivelenc to mail order bride/groom in peoples minds is going down. However, the media will exploit it and "remind" people of it to get their attention.

So what has happened here is the shadows of the past coming back to haunt us with IMBRA and how it's being reported online. People are "reminded" that it used to be considered taboo. So they worry IMBRA might effect them if they had met online.

Well IMBRA effects us all regardless of where you met. But, the media is tryign to make it sound as if anything remotely sounding like a "mail order bride/groom" service aka Mariage Broker (and especially International Mariage Brokers) will change our lives forever and all is lost. So grasping at straws, and splitting hairs is what it's time to do for most people right now concerned about their future.

Very insightful of you, zethris. Excellent observations.

Ah...thanks for answering my question, both of you. I feel for everyone affected by it. M.

Ha! The debate goes on! What exactly is an IMB? One thing you folks should note in the act is the words "or facilitate". That can mean just about anything. Seems to me that there is a general consensus that match.com and yahoo personals were big enough and had enough stroke to get exempted, beyond that, I think it would be best to assume that if you used any paid site, or paid anyone to help you meet, you should be preparing for falling under the act. I am not an expert on IMBRA, but I have been studying the general subject of foreign marriage for about 20 years, and if I were going thru the visa process now, I would prepare for the worst. Here is another understanding I have, and especially worry about. If the site you use indeed is an IMB, their job is to gather this info from the USC, translate it into the language of the contact, have her (almost never him) sign off on it, before they send you the contact info. Is this correct? That is my understanding. So, what if you have used a service (or even an individual you paid to facilitate, not actually a broker) and this task was not completed? My worry is that this fact would negate your ability to bring this fiance in, as you did not follow the rules. One excellent site I am very familiar with, a small operation with very sincere ladies listed, is ignoring the rules. They are not in the U.S. so the U.S. can't touch em. They don't have to worry about no stupid U.S. laws, and that is the attitude they are taking. They are still selling addresses to any and all. So some poor schmuck who is not up to speed on this whole thing can use a service like that, get to a certain point, and then what does he do? He can never unmeet this lady who he has chosen. Am I missing something here?

Off the beaten subject just a bit, my favorite country (Vietnam) is well known for the fact that many poor, desperate ladies marry Taiwanese, who are considerably more abusive than Americans (IM me for extensive documentation on this well known fact, if you care for details). Americans are considered the very best candidates for marriage for these girls, precisely BECAUSE they tend to almost never abuse these women, and take good care of them. So the really hilarious thing is, IMBRA will quite likely have the OPPOSITE of its intended effect, driving Americans off, and driving more girls into abusive relationships. Funny, huh?

I have read some other posts about how people are answering question #1. Specifically asking if you used a marriage broker. One poster said they had called the online company they met thru and the company said they were not a marriage broker so the person answered no.

Everyone should read the following as it is a direct quote from the RFE defining marriage broker.

" 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 USC, or nationals or aliens lawfully admitted the the US as lawful permanent residents and foreign national clients by providing contact information or otherwise facilitating communication between individuals"

Essentially if you met thru and dating service, matchmaker or anything else you have to answer yes to question 1

Basically, I would answer yes if it tends to promote international relationships over domestic, I believe match and yahoo would be able to get an exemption as domestic "marriage brokers" (given they are using a generic term to be more politically correct than mail-order). Filipinaheart and Chinablossom, I would say you should say yes. If you read the law and the legislative history, the legislator's clearly intend to create background checks on Americans who are bringing over individuals who are met through international dating services, particularly from third-world countries given the tragedies with the various shootings tied to mail-order brides. The background check is merely in regards to the Americans convictions and marital status, which had never been checked before (particularly a concern because many of the women seeking protection under VAWA are in relationships with men who had applied for multiple K1s or have prior convictions). IMBRA was created to promote healthy relationships, not destroy them.

Jozlee, I agree with most of what you are saying (especially about why the law was created and how it is long overdue) however how someone answers the question on the RFE will have far reaching affects for them. By the definition given on the form people could get themselves in a world of hurt if they answer no and then it is discovered that they did use a company that is covered in the definition.

First of all how someone answers it, well let their conscious be their guide, because answering no when they actually met thru any agency from yahoo personals to any of the mail order bride companies could be found to have perjured themselves and be subject to fine at the worst and have their application dissapproved at the least.

How did they answer the supplemental question on the 129F? Did they mention how they met? I did. My Fiancee and I met in person while she lived in this country. We have known each other for years. Did anyone that met thru a dating agency, yahoo personals admit that in their questionare? If they did they had better answer yes.

Now do i think that all those people did something wrong? Of course not, however what I think or what anyone thinks on this forum is immaterial. The law is very open admittedly but I think those individuals taking the word of the very organization that arranged the meeting of the couple in the first place is not a good idea.

The big question in all their minds should be, what are the ramifications of answering yes. That know one knows. Even USCIS doesnt have the answer.

It is unfair to say any and every social gathering website, that does not specialize in mariages as their primary business, is an IMB. I will answer no, but the rest of you can anser yes. I feel no is more truthfull. Either way, it really doesn't matter. Nor will it effect anything in any way. It's just a matter of record keeping.

Well I'm sure glad I found this forum. I met my fiancee in November 2005. I met her and we were engaged in April 06 and we files our petition wiht a receipt date of 5/3/06. The site we met through states that they are not an IMB. I tend to agree since they are similar to asianeuro. The site is www.blossoms.com. At no time do they share any personal information of either the USC or the foreign national. You can join for free and search all the personals you want. If you find someone you would like to contact them you the pay a fee so you can either send an email through the sites re-mailer or opt for an online chat through their site. If you choose to exchange personal info. after that it's up to you and your chat mate. The law also states that a personal profile with a photograph and general background information about a person is not considered personal information. However they charge the USC but the site is free for the foreign ladies (few could afford the fees and pay for internet access, at least I know my finacee couldn't).

Common sense says if you met prior to 3/6/06 through an IMB the USCIS or the consulate will not try to investigate or confirm the IMB provided the background info to your fiancee. There is a portion of the law that requires the USCIS to maintain a database on all K-1 petitions and whether the USC had a conviction, whether the IMB was in compliance with the law, how many pettitons were approved, denied blah blah blah..... So this is why I'm thinking that they are asking the IMB question even though you have proof that you met prior to 3/6/06.

Sites like Yahoo and Match would be exempt since their principal business in not matchmaking. They have the dollars to make sure the sponsors of the bill put that in there making them exempt.

So having said that I still don't know how I'm going to answer that question. LOL I'm waiting for a phone consultation with an attorney.

This is getting into the realm of opinions, rather than facts. We all have opinions, perhaps some more well thought out than others. I would say, in my opinion, if I wanted to be extremely naive and charitable, IMBRA was created to destroy unhealthy relationships. Certainly not to promote healthy relationships. Healthy relationships don't really need the help of the government, do they? Do you folks need the government to help you with your relationships? At best, it is making fiance visas more difficult for all applicants, so I don't really see how one can make the statement it is promoting any kind of relationships, except maybe the relationships with your lawyers. Actually, in my opinion, the agenda of IMBRA is neither of those things.

[quote name='Dean iWait' date='Jun 29 2006, 08:10 PM' post='281794']
[quote name='zethris' post='269211' date='Jun 23 2006, 03:44 AM']
[quote name='Brian and Amy' post='269039' date='Jun 23 2006, 01:04 AM']
[quote name='aixaix' post='269000' date='Jun 23 2006, 12:34 AM']
However they charge the USC but the site is free for the foreign ladies (few could afford the fees and pay for internet access, at least I know my finacee couldn't).


[/quote]

part of the laws refers to entities that "facilitate", it does not just have to be actually selling you the address. As they charge the men, and do not charge the women (one of the criteria stated in the act), seems pretty clear to me they are not exempt from the act. My favorite site (the one I found my wife on) pretends it is a non issue to them also, it is a non issue to them, because they are not in the U.S. so our laws mean nothing to them. But if an American uses them, he is not in compliance, the way I read this thing. Worst thing will be if the guy does not know about all this, how does he undo the fact that he did not follow the rules, those being, the so called broker was supposed to put the info in front of the girl before he got her address? What a mess this all is.

I don't think anyone is against protecting women, but IMBRA is not the right law. You might want to read the law again. Match.com (MSN) and Yahoo are automatically exempt since their principal business is not matchmaking (thanks to a strong lobby and $$ in D.C. they had the bill sponsors add that in). Both have huge number of foreign nationals as clients. To require that the foreign finacee be provided this background information makes sense. I have no problem with that. But to make IMB's (no lobby or $$ in D.C.) provide all this background info on the USC to the foreign national before the USC can even say hello makes no sense. The various shootings you speak of just don't ring true. Thousands of women in America are murdered by their husbands every year. Why don't we have a law that requires any man in America to provide a woman all his background info, past marriages, all addresses since he was 18 before he asks her out on a date? Sound ridiculous? It is, but thats what IMBRA requires if you want to simply meet a foreign national through an IMB. The law was created by 2 senators from a state with one high profile murder of a foreign bride. This guy was a sick bastard. At the time of the murder he had a K-1 petition in process for another fiancee. Parts of the law are good, but some are just plain ridiculous.

[quote name='top-gorilla' date='Jun 29 2006, 07:34 PM' post='281843']
[quote name='Dean iWait' date='Jun 29 2006, 08:10 PM' post='281794']
[quote name='zethris' post='269211' date='Jun 23 2006, 03:44 AM']
[quote name='Brian and Amy' post='269039' date='Jun 23 2006, 01:04 AM']
[quote name='aixaix' post='269000' date='Jun 23 2006, 12:34 AM']
However they charge the USC but the site is free for the foreign ladies (few could afford the fees and pay for internet access, at least I know my finacee couldn't).


[/quote]

part of the laws refers to entities that "facilitate", it does not just have to be actually selling you the address. As they charge the men, and do not charge the women (one of the criteria stated in the act), seems pretty clear to me they are not exempt from the act. My favorite site (the one I found my wife on) pretends it is a non issue to them also, it is a non issue to them, because they are not in the U.S. so our laws mean nothing to them. But if an American uses them, he is not in compliance, the way I read this thing. Worst thing will be if the guy does not know about all this, how does he undo the fact that he did not follow the rules, those being, the so called broker was supposed to put the info in front of the girl before he got her address? What a mess this all is.
[/quote]




Yeah, I'm thinking answering yes will be the way to go. Definately some gray areas there though. Now if I would just get the damn RFE!

What happens if you say 'yes' to be safe and the answer really should have been 'no'? Will it just be ignored and/or ammended on USCIS end?

OR ... what if you say 'yes' and it really is 'yes'.. could this be cause for denial?

I met my own love on match.com, btw.


Mo

Good question. I'm really hoping they will use common sense with this. Maybe that's hoping for to much when you are dealing with the federal gov. LOL. If you can document that you met before 3/6/06 I would have to beleive that even though they will ask the IMB question, they would not deny a visa no matter what your answer. I believe they want to monitor and possibly prosecute IMB's that are not in compliance. For couples that meet after 3/6/06 who knows? I'm going to spend a little money for a phone consultation with an immigration attorney. I'll post after I get some answers from him on this.

I have been told that sites like Match.com and Yahoo Personals don't count as a IMB. If in doubt call the USCIS and ask but I am pretty sure that is the case.

we met on match.com too

I am going to call the USCIS - just hoping that after making five phone calls I don't get five different answers! lol




perhaps we should get a match.com thread going --- keep tabs on who's getting by with what?

Mo

I asked a USCIS Officer and he said he cannot tell me if my dating website (mate1.com) is considered an IMB. He said all he can do by law is to read the Law to me over the phone. Cause the truth he implied... is he does not know and nobody know right now. I emailed Mate1.com they told me they don't know either!!!!
I am thoroughly Digusted with Politicians

I am married to a vn lady and done, personally. I do advise folks on the process a bit, and having studied this for about 20 years, (the process, not our laws), I continue to watch what is happening. I am in contact with various so called IMB's just to see their reactions. I can tell you that some of them pretend it does not relate to them, well, that is true, to an extent. As they are not U.S. corporations, they have the right to ignore our laws. Problem is, if a USC USES THEM. The USC has then played outside the rules, OUR rules. So he is the one in trouble on this, not the IMB. These smaller outfits basically have given up on the deal, they will sell contact info to the USC and pretend that they are legal (which they are, in the country they work out of). I think this info might belong somewhere else on VJ, this may not be the right forum for it. Anyone who is more involved in VJ than I am, feel free to post this where it may be more relevant.

I talked to an immigration attorney today. Unfortunately I was told (was pretty sure already though) that the site my fiancee Sheryl and I met through is condsidered an IMB under IMBRA. But he said since we met last year prior to the law going into affect that this would not negatively affect her visa process.

So if you met on a site that charges fees for matchmaking, online dating, social referrals etc. between a USC and foreign national clients by providing personal contact information or otherwise facilitating communication between individuals. Then you met through an IMB....

One huge exception to the law is if this type of business is NOT the principal business of the company you met through. For instance Match.com is not considered an IMB because matchmaking and online dating etc. is not it's main source of income. Here are a few of the companies the parent company of Match.com owns.

The parent is: IAC/InterActiveCorp

They also own:

ask.com
Home Shopping Network
ServiceMagic
Ticketmaster

to name a few.

Yahoo for pretty obvious reasons also meets this exemption to the law. So do a little research on the ownership of your site and see what you can come up with. Unless it was a totally free service.

Thank you very much for this information, Dean. It was and is invaluable to me.

Thanks so much too, Dean

The statute says that in order to be exempt it has to BOTH not have international dating as its principal business but and ALSO charge men and women the same. If it doesn't do both of these things, it is not exempt.

to the best of my recollection, match.com did charge both the same. now, actually buying in was an option, but in order to do anything other than 'wink' (show interest) then you had to pay a fee. correct me if i'm wrong, Littleone.

Hi! I met my fiance via Cherry Blossoms. I just sent them an email and asked them how they interpret IMBRA and if they consider themselves to be a "Marriage Broker" Once I receive their response, I will post it.

Oh, Imbra2005, must we go through this again? Why do you omit words which were obviously important enough for the makers of this law to include? Why do you say the statute says, "not have international dating as its principal business", when it actually states that, "principal business is not to provide international dating services between United States citizens or United States residents and foreign nationals"? That's a big difference. Are you blind to the words you don't want to see? They are right there in plain sight.

I'll save you the time. Here is the reponse I got from CB.

Dean,



Unfortunately you will be receiving one. It affects all petitions filed after 3/6/06. The USCIS just last week made the announcement of the new RFE’s.



Please let us know when you receive yours.



We do not consider Cherry Blossoms an International Marriage Broker as we do not receive funds from women nor do we charge for marriages.



Aloha



Duane

CB Staff



Ok I love these people they have been great at helping Sheryl and me with the whole VISA process. Thank you from the bottom of my heart to Cherry Blossoms. But the immigration attorney I talked to today said they are without a doubt an IMB under the new law. So I will be answering yes to the question on the RFE. The answer from them really makes no sense at all to me. The law does not state anything about charging for marriages and not receiving funds from the women doesn't make them exempt either. I really hope they don't find themselves in trouble soon, but I fear that is inevitable.

When I meant "international" I meant between US and foreigners.



This is exactly why I said that the responses from the agencies as to whether they consider themselves an IMB will not be helpful. They have a dog in the fight. Of course they want to consider themselves exempt from the law. But they don't get to decide that question for themselves. Getting the advice of a qualified attorney is the sensible thing to do.

The fact that CB doesn't charge women for their services (but presumably charges men) makes them MORE likely to be considered an IMB, not less so. So their response makes no sense to me either.

to answer your question. Yes that is...but I didn't pay anything, my fiance (USC) paid...I got 3 days trial for free
I contacted him by then....

well, let's hope to hear the clear definition of Marriage broker....

Cheers,

Littleone

to confirm again....my fiance' talked with lawyer ...this is what he told "mach.com is not considered as a marriage broker" the lawyer is an immigration attorney...