Today, in a 40 page written opinion, which you can find at http://www.usaimmigrationattorney.com/Judg...perDecision.pdf
a federal judge in Atlanta, Georgia upheld the constitutionality of IMBRA in a challenge brought by a international marriage broker, European Connections and Tours. Judge Cooper is the second federal judge to deny relief to individuals and agencies who claimed that IMBRA violates their free speech rights and also that it violates the equal protection guarantees of the constitution.

Bottom line, two federal courts have now held that IMBRA is NOT unconstitutional.

That is a real bummer. Of course they were challenged on the basis that it was unfair to the American agencies to have to compete with foreign ones who they are now at a disadvantage to and there could be other basis to challenge it. It has never been challenged as it pertains to K-1's. Of course most of us could not afford to challenge it.

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

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

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

Here's a press release:

Constitutionality of International Marriage Broker Regulation Act is Upheld

Falls Church, VA. March 27, 2007 – On Monday March 26th 2007, in an important legal
decision, Judge Clarence Cooper (from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia in Atlanta) rejected an international marriage broker’s claim that the
2005 International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA) is unconstitutional. IMBRA is
a new law designed to provide greater protection for foreign women who marry men
through what are commonly known as “mail order bride” agencies. Layli Miller-Muro, the
Executive Director of the Tahirih Justice Center noted, “This decision sends an important
message to the international marriage broker (“IMB”) industry, which has worked to resist
and evade its regulation, that it can no longer keep foreign women from poorer countries
ignorant of the violent histories of the men who use their services and the legal rights
available to women living in the United States.”

The lawsuit defeated in Monday’s decision was brought by a leading international marriage
broker, European Connections (“EC”). EC alleged that the law’s requirement that IMBs
provide information to foreign women about their legal rights and the criminal
backgrounds of their prospective American husbands infringed upon their constitutional
rights. In a detailed 40-page decision, Judge Clarence Cooper found that “The rates of
domestic violence against immigrant women are much higher than those of the U.S.
population” and that “IMBRA is highly likely to reduce domestic abuse – and may actually
save lives.” When considering EC’s arguments that the implementation of IMBRA would
cost them money, the judge noted that “the Court is confronted with the classic ‘bloodversus-
money’ analysis, and the safety of foreign women coming to the United States is
clearly the more vital interest.”

The lawsuit was an attempt to resist the regulation of the IMB industry, which derives its
profits from pairing foreign women from poorer countries with American men. The
requirements imposed by IMBRA seek to ensure that women who speak limited English,
have no social ties in the U.S., and are unfamiliar with U.S. laws are given sufficient
information to decide whether to enter into a relationship and know where to find help if
the relationship turns abusive. IMBRA was passed in 2005 with wide bi-partisan support as
a part of the Violence Against Women Act, after over a decade of examination by
Congress of the special vulnerabilities of immigrant women to abuse and recent attention
to concerns about abuse through the IMB industry.

Another lawsuit, brought in Ohio by a consortium of IMBs, made similar constitutional
arguments and was dismissed in January 2007. The United States Attorney’s Office and the
Tahirih Justice Center defended both cases. The Tahirih Justice Center was represented on
pro bono basis by the law firms of Arnold & Porter (Washington, DC) and Jones Day
(Atlanta, GA). Lead attorney and partner at Arnold & Porter Randy Miller noted, “This is
an important victory that decisively protects a historic law designed to protect extremely
vulnerable foreign women coming to the United States from developing countries to marry
American men through these agencies.”

Available for Interview
European Connections matched a young Siberian woman named Katerina with an American man named Frank
Sheridan who soon after her arrival in the U.S. kept her a virtual prisoner in his home, taking away her
identification documents and cutting all the phone lines to the house. During one violent rage, he beat Katerina
and dragged her around the house by her legs. When she told him she was leaving him and going back home to
Russia, Frank stabbed himself and then accused her of doing it to get her thrown in jail, only agreeing to post bail if
she promised to return to him and be a dutiful wife. Katerina fled instead to a domestic violence shelter where
she remained for nine months, and endured more than two years of harassment and threats. While investigating
Frank for aggravated stalking, the police discovered he was in Russia looking for a new bride. Later, when a
sheriff’s deputy came to Frank’s house to arrest him for another stalking-related crime, Frank opened fire,
shooting the deputy in the face, chest, leg and back. The deputy returned fire and, after 25 rounds of gunfire,
Frank was dead and Katerina’s nightmare was finally over.

Katerina’s saga unfortunately is not unusual. The Court’s decision on Monday notes that many other “mail order
brides” in the U.S. have suffered similar abuse at the hands of their American husbands, and that the
“perpetrators of these crimes were often involved with multiple foreign women and were seeking to become
involved with other foreign women at or around the time they committed the crimes.”

Katerina is willing to talk to press about her experience and feelings about the legal decision against European
Connections.

Little about immigration (if anything) is protected by constitutional rights.

Why then should IMBRA requirements be unconstitutional?

Screw the Govt!!!! They take our freedoms away left and right!! and people do NOTHING!

I say KILL BIG BROTHER!!!

That's what the Declaration of Independence states!

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)

I'm a Marine and we swear to protect the Constitution! NOT the Government

Oh come on. We haven't used the U.S. Constitution in YEARS! Get with the program man.

Why is everybody so against IMBRA? I've always thought it was great, because whatever protects immigrants is always a good thing. Immigrants are vulnerable as it is, and their rights are limited, especially rights of marriage-based immigrants. Being in an abusive relationship is bad enough, but being in an abusive relationship with a conditional green card or - better yet - without one, is even worse.

Now don't let loose your dogs on me - I am not familiar with IMBRA that well. But if it helps a potential immigrant find out anything about the USC that raises red flags, it's great.

LOL

I am all in favor of protecting immigrants but totally opposed to IMBRA. Mostly because it infringes on our rights. First off, I don't think the government has a right to tell us who and when we can marry. I think from an agency point of view I don't think it is fair to put regualtions on US based agencies that are very ackawrd and restrictive but with agenies based outside the US it is business as usual.

It does not probibit those with records of abuse from doing a K-1. They just make sure the fiancee knows about the persons record. I think it is unfair to make those of us who seek a foreign wife to follow stricter regulations when we want to meet a woman. The women that come her on a K-1 often come from countries where the chance of abuse is much higher. The abusive men will abuse American women if they can't find a foreign one to abuse. I don't see it solving any problems. Studys of domestic abuse with foreign women have found there is less abuse than in marriages with American women anyway. No matter what they do, they will never stop it totally.

I think a smarter choice would have been to require a criminal background check on the petitioner in all K-1 cases when the visa is applied for not when they want to meet a woman also. The foreign beneficiary already has to do that. I have no problem with both doing it. Then all successful K-1 pettioners should have to attend several classes where the help available to them is fully explained. Then up the fee's, which they are doing anyway, and build a better support system in the USA for the women who do find themselves in an abusive realtionship.

One other thing, there are teeth built into IMBRA which are not being used yet so we may see worse in the days to come. They have the right to deny visas to anyone who used an IMB who did not comply with the regualtions and if the regualtions were strictly enforced it would be far more burdensome than it is now.

One thing you should understand about IMBRA is that when congress tried to pass legislation just on this, it was handily defeated. So, they added it to the Violence Against Women Act of 2005. The idea of IMBRA is not by itself a bad thing. But the interpretations made by USCIS is not following the law as written. Also, if this is such a good idea to protect women, then why aren't domestic introduction agencies required to follow it. Aren't men that abuse women just as likely to do this with an American woman as with a foreigner.

Of course, this Tahirih Justice Center, has taken a very strict stance in this case. I would say that in their opinion, all men are abusive to women. I'm not trying to make light of abuse, but TJC has some very strange concepts of why men look towards foreign women as spouses. They probably would never think that some men are just looking for a woman that doesn't have the same attitudes as American women.

That case they described in the press release is by far one of the most extreme I've ever heard of. But, would it be better or worse if the woman involved was American born?

Here is the competing Press Release. It seems we are having dueling Press Releases.

Note that the plaintiff lawyers in both the Georgia and Ohio cases were incompetent. The EC lawyer said accidentally that interfering with the hello process was OK but the law was just "overbroad". That is like throwing an interception pass on your own 10 yard line. The AODA lawyer was just as bad. She said "We recognize that the Supreme Court has never recognized a fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner for a relationship...but please grant heterosexual men such a right based on the trend in granting privacy rights for instance to women on abortion and to gay men on gay sex". She knew she was talking to a Republican judge and said that. If she was even mentally on the side of her own clients, she failed to reassert that the Right to Assemble clearly covered this issue from day 1 of the republic and she did not consider the 9th Amendment, that says that you cannot take a right away that everyone thought they had, simply because the Consitution and the Supreme Court never specifically said it was OK. The 9th Amendment says that, although breathing and eating and mating are not covered specifically by the Constitution as rights, they are covered anyway. So, with friends like that, nobody even needed the enemy. The Tahirih Justice Center could have just stayed home and won both cases because the lawyers for the small dating agencies were out of their element. And they were out of their element because they never consulted with the actual men and women who date foreigners.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 30, 2007

US Judge Affirms IMBRA: Americans Must Have Criminal Checks Before Contacting Foreigners on Internet

A new federal law that makes it a crime for Americans to communicate with foreigners on dating websites is upheld by a federal judge.

On March 26, 2007 a new federal law restricting Americans from contacting foreigners through internet dating sites was upheld by a federal court after a Constitutional challenge by an internet dating company. In European Connections v. Alberto Gonzales, 1:06-CV-0426-CC, Judge Clarence Cooper of the US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia dismissed a lawsuit by European Connections which claimed that the law violated the right to freedom of speech contained in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The plaintiff had failed to challenge the law based on the First Amendment right to assemble.

According to Tristan Laurent, President of the advocacy group Online Dating Rights at www.online-dating-rights.com, “We will now have to take legal action from the point of view of the users of online dating sites. The whole idea that it is now a crime for American men to send emails to women in other countries is so preposterous it is beyond belief. The judge’s ruling that there is no Constitutional violation in forcing Americans to divulge all sorts of highly personal information to a complete stranger or scammer abroad before the American can even say hello or know to whom he is writing is only exceeded in foolishness by Congress in making the law."

The law was originally called the International Matchmaker Regulation Act, but it did not pass Congress in previous years by that name and it was later named the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA) before it passed on December 17th, 2005. The law, which was attached to the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was apparently not debated in public and Mr. Laurent says that no dating company or dating site user was invited to a closed-door Senate hearing in July 2004.

IMBRA makes it a felony for an internet dating company, that primarily focuses on introducing Americans to foreigners, to allow any American to communicate with any person of foreign nationality without first subjecting that American to a criminal background check, a sex offender check and without first having the American certify any previous convictions or arrests, any previous marriages or divorces any children and all states of residence since 18. Match.com is excluded from the law, and the judge found that this exception posed no challenge to the Fifth Amendment equal protection clause because American women are supposedly not abused by American men that they meet on the internet, and thus are not in need of protection.

The law was sponsored by Sen. Sam Brownback, R-KS and Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-WA and was championed by key women's groups. The law was passed after these groups made claims that foreign women who marry American men are subjected to higher rates of abuse than are American women. However, the only study that addresses this issue was done by the INS in 1999 and it found that the rate of abuse in such international marriages is one-seventh the rate of abuse in domestic marriages. You can read the study in its entirety by clicking HERE.

Online Dating Rights Director of Public Relations Jim Peterson said of the judge’s ruling that, “It is a sad day for freedom in our country when an American has to have a criminal background check before he can say ‘Hello” to a foreigner through the internet.” He also said that: “ is the only country in the world that regulates communication between two consenting adults seeking to communicate via internet, with the possible exceptions of North Korea. Without new email technology, IMBRA could not have been even feasible because people generally sent paper letters to each other's home addresses just a few years ago. Is it right for the US government to make a form of communication illegal when it was the only form of communication possible just a few years ago?”.

The law has been attacked in a bipartisan fashion by prominent feminist Wendy McElroy at http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/edi.../2006/0111.html and by men’s rights supporter David Usher (link HERE) and by immigration attorney Gary Bala (link HERE). Mr. Laurent says that his organization has undertaken a fundraising drive to raise $100,000 for a class-action suit against the government on behalf of all the men who can no longer contact women in Canada, England, Germany, Russia and the Philippines due to this law. Contributors are asked to visit the Online Dating Rights website.

Both Mr. Laurent and Mr. Peterson are available for media interviews but since both have to work for a living and do not receive federal taxpayer funding, arrangements for telephone interviews should be made by email. Contact Mr. Laurent at onlinedatingrights@yahoo.com and Mr. Peterson at veterans@veteransabroad.com

Note that the AODA case was simply dropped by the plaintiffs when the dating website owners noticed that the judge agreed with their own lawyer's bizarre statement about the Supreme Court never holding that there was a fundamental liberty interest in meeting foreigners.

The European Connections case is the only IMBRA case that exists and it was lost at the district level. Judge Clarence Cooper made a number of key errors, as he basically copied his entire decision off the Tahirih website (he was probably told he would be nominated for the Supreme Court by Hillary if he did this). Here is one example of a key error: He said that Match.com was not similar to EC because Match.com charged women members the same as male members. Everybody knows that young attractive American women use Match.com for free because it is the person who does the approaching who always pays.

So, in other words, Judge Clarence Cooper was saying that Match.com can now be regulated if it can be shown that men and women are NOT made to pay equally for the service. That can easily be done.

If you read his decision, you will see a dozen such remarks that show that no thought or effort was made in the decision except to find precedents to prove that the 5th Amendment (equal treatment under the law) isn't something judges care about and to find precedent (easily found) for saying that Congress doesn't have to prove they were acting on legitimate information (the plaintiff has to prove this).

And everyone knows that most court decisions are investigated and written by young court clerks. Judge Cooper probably just signed this one.

In 1907, the Expatriation Act was the same as IMBRA but only in reverse. Then, a male dominated Congress decided to stop American women from dating and marrying European aristocracy, so they said a woman would lose her American citizenship if she married a foreigner. Back then, the Austro-Hungarian empire was the superpower and Vienna and London housed the halls of power. American women gravitated toward the men in the superpowers. American men did not like this.

The courts consistently upheld the Expatriation Act and it was only repealed in Congress in 1932 after the Austro-Hungarian empire completely collapsed and Vienna turned into a second-class city.

Judge Cooper in his opinion relied heavily, even totally, on the data submitted by the defendants. Either: European Connections chose to present no dispositive date; there is no "positive results" from "mail-order bride" situations; or Judge Cooper chose to ignore the plaintiff's data when he crafted his opinion.

Also, in a very brief survey of the law journal articles on the topic, I was able to find over 20 articles focusing on the negative treatment and abuses suffered by foreign brides, and NOT ONE written in a more positive light. I'm not sure why this is, but it sounds like an opportunity for me or someone else to write an article arguing the other side.

Journalism is not about spreading the truth or standing up for what is right. It is about selling newspapers and magazines and getting audience share. A story about a happy marrige will not draw people in like a little blood and guts, some sympathy for a battered defenceless woman and the like.

An article based on the only study ever done, back in 1999 that showed the domestic abuse was 1/7th the rate of American marriages just does not have enough gore to be interesting.

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Judge reverses stance on ‘mail-order bride’ law
Internet Web sites must now require American men to disclose violent criminal histories to would-be brides

By R. Robin McDonald, Staff Reporter


WHEN A FEDERAL judge in Atlanta last year issued a restraining order halting enforcement of a law to protect “mail-order brides,” the president of an Alpharetta Web site for men seeking foreign brides thought other judges would follow suit.

He was wrong.

Instead, on March 23, U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper reversed himself, finding that the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005—which requires male users to reveal their arrests or convictions for violent crimes—does not restrict the Web site’s commercial free speech rights.

Cooper’s order denying European Connections & Tours Inc. the injunction it had sought suggested that the law would impact only “those American men who have a significant history of violence toward women—the very type of person that Congress is concerned about.”

Setting aside what he described as European Connections’ “doomsday scenario,” the federal judge suggested that if the new law succeeds in reducing abuses of “mail-order brides” by their American spouses, the international marriage broker business “may actually grow.”

“In any event,” Cooper added, “Economic loss … does not constitute a First Amendment injury. … When balancing the harms in this case, the Court is confronted with the classic ‘blood-versus-money’ analysis, and the safety of foreign women coming to the United States clearly is the more vital interest.”

On Monday, Preston Steckel, the president of European Connections in Alpharetta, said he was “very disappointed in the outcome.” The federal statute, passed in February 2006, could make his business liable if the men who enroll in one of several international matchmaker Web sites he operates lie about previous arrests or convictions.

The statute requires international marriage brokers to obtain a certification from their U.S. customers documenting whether they have ever been the subject of civil protection or restraining orders; whether they have been arrested or convicted on criminal charges that include homicide, assault, domestic violence, sexual assault, torture, kidnapping or stalking; and whether they have any arrests or convictions associated with engaging in prostitution or procuring prostitutes. It also requires customers of international marriage brokers to disclose their marital histories and the ages of any children under 18.

The federal statute also requires international marriage brokers to search national and state sex offender registries for the names of the men they may enlist and provide that information to the foreign women seeking either romance or marriage.

Steckel said that although he does not object to individual background checks, “We are not in the security business,” and he has no way of policing compliance.

Steckel’s Web sites operate as introduction and matchmaking services for American men seeking foreign women, primarily from Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Men pay a membership fee to join, which varies based on the nature of the services. Women, who are often located through European Connections’ Russian counterpart agencies, pay nothing except for e-mail and translation services.

“We’re caught between a rock and a hard place,” Steckel said. “We have no way of verifying information that a person puts down.”

Steckel explained that applicants who do not have any criminal problems “will be honest.” But applicants “who actually have a problem, who are abusers—they will lie.”

Meanwhile, the requirement to provide criminal background information on would-be grooms may give foreign women drawn to Steckel’s sites “a false sense of security.” If male customers with violent histories lie with impunity, “You have a lady who has got her guard down,” he explained.

Steckel also expressed concern for male customers who might reveal a violent criminal history. “I don’t know about ladies in other countries,” he said, “but the Russians are very, very devious. … If we have to get together all this information, they could download all this information and come back and blackmail people who filled out the form.”

But Steckel said he will not appeal Cooper’s ruling.

“I just feel like it’s wasting my money,” he said.

Instead, he said he will convert two of his Web sites, EastWestmatch.com and RussianLadies.com, to entertainment sites with information and chat rooms rather than serving as a paid liaison to foreign women seeking American husbands.

His third site, Globaladies.com, will conform to the new regulation. “When you are in business, you adjust,” he said. “That’s what we are going to do.”

Decatur lawyer Ralph S. Goldberg represented Steckel.

According to Cooper’s order, the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2006, international marriage brokers “simply transmit background data from their male clients to their female clients as a prerequisite to releasing the women’s personal information, and the international marriage brokers expressly do not vouch for the background information provided by the male clients.”

The 2006 law is one of a succession of laws Congress has passed over the 15 years to address what Cooper’s order said is a rising rate of domestic violence against immigrant women, many of whom entered America under temporary visas as “mail-order brides.”

Cooper noted that the international marriage broker industry “has grown rapidly in response to increasing demand by some American men for foreign ‘traditional’ wives.” A 1999 report to Congress by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service estimated that more than 200 U.S.-based businesses paired 4,000 to 6,000 American men a year with foreign women seeking marriage. By, 2004, Cooper’s order said, those numbers had doubled.

As the number of visas for foreign fiancées has risen, there has been a corresponding increase in domestic violence cases involving “mail-order brides.”

In response to that rising tide of abuse, Atlanta native and Agnes Scott graduate Layli Miller-Muro, formerly an attorney with Washington’s Arnold & Porter, established the Tahirih Justice Center in Washington. The Tahirih Justice Center, represented by Jones Day attorney Randall M. Hawkins and Arnold & Porter attorney Randall Miller, intervened in the Atlanta case after Cooper had issued the temporary restraining order.

The U.S. Justice Department was represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Alonzo H. Long in Atlanta. Long could not be reached for comment.

On Monday, Hawkins said that in the final order denying an injunction to European Connections, “Judge Cooper hit the nail on the head” when he said the marriage broker regulation act “is highly likely to reduce domestic abuse—and may actually save lives.”

“The whole purpose of the law is to protect people who largely don’t have the protections that other folks do,” Hawkins said. Mail-order brides make up “a vulnerable population … and I think Judge Cooper recognized that.”

In his order, Cooper noted that “the profit incentives of international marriage brokers are presently skewed to satisfy the male client rather than to safeguard the women they recruit.”

That makes them different from religious and cultural nonprofit organizations that arrange marriages across international borders as well as international dating services which charge men and women equally, Cooper said. Both types of organizations are exempt from the new statute.

“Congress reasonably could assume that without the motivation to keep its male customers satisfied, traditional religious and cultural matchmaking agencies are not as likely to be complicit in developing abusive relationships,” Cooper’s order continued.

The Congress, he continued, was also “particularly concerned with companies that collected their membership fees from men and not from women. This distinction characterizes the IMBs [international marriage brokers] where the man pays and the woman typically is the ‘commodity.’ … Congress was concerned with the power imbalance that results in a business model where the American male pays for the services, but the woman does not.”

Cooper also dismissed arguments that the marriage broker law attempts to impermissibly regulate commercial speech.

“IMBs are not restricted from touting their services,” Cooper wrote. “Nowhere in the IMBRA [International Marriage Broker Regulation Act] statute are there any provisions attempting to regulate the content of IMBs commercial messages in which they tout their respective services in an attempt to induce commercial transactions.”

Instead, Cooper said the law’s disclosure requirements “are reasonably related to Congress’ legitimate interest in preventing fraud and deception and addressing domestic abuse and human trafficking against so-called ‘mail-order brides.’”

For his part, Steckel said that no foreign bride who has paired with an American man through his sites has ever been a victim of violence. In more than a decade that he has been in the matchmaking business, Steckel said there have only been “three or four situations” in which a foreign bride was isolated in her home by her husband. In those instances, he said, his company provided the woman with a return plane ticket home.

Steckel also acknowledged “an occasional call from a lady having trouble,” but denied any of them were abusive situations. “We will, on occasions, if we think it will help, we will talk to the men,” he explained. “We have never had anybody hit anybody. It’s always been kind of argument-type things where they’re not getting along. … In some situations, we’ve called shelters. But overall, I could say that I bet we’ve had no more than 15 problems of any kind.”

Staff Reporter R. Robin McDonald can be reached at rmcdonald@alm.com.

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

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

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

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

It just means that an abuser can't use the fact that his fiancé is desperate to get out of a poor country to hide his past. Most people who use marriage brokers are fine men for whom the traditional dating scene doesn't work out; some are chopf*cks who want someone who is a slave they can dominate and abuse with little repercussion. It won't hurt the upstanding men; it keeps the chopf*cks from taking out their problems on some poor foreign girl.

Dont blame them for passing the law... I think if this is one of the cases...not surprsied it passed

I suspect that its not the law itself that upsets some people so much, for its purposes are to do good and protect women who may be in a weaker position than their US citizen petitioners. Its probably declarations such as "Katerina's saga is not unusual" that is hurtful to some readers of these stories. To me its the one-side nature of these politically correct stories that at times slay me. Writers could just as easily say something like: "the stupidness and desperation of these brides to leave their miserable living conditions in their home countries contributed to their plight." But with that being said, the only people truly affected by IMBRA and such laws are those who have a criminal or abusive past. For the rest of us, it likely only means a slightly longer time to process a visa.

Exactly.

Of course IMBRA hurts all Americans and American women will feature as plaintiffs in the upcoming lawsuit by citizens.

Liability for websites puts them out of business or makes them go "free" while stopping them from expanding.

Americans with no criminal record who are in a foreign city on business or for a 4 day weekend holiday...are finding the red tape of their background checks are lasting 5 days in some cases...wrecking the chances of two people meeting each other.

Also, since women in Russia often only read their email once per month, one needs the address to write a paper letter or telegram which will be received much faster (instantly in the case of telegrams).

IMBRA assumes that everyone uses webmail every day.

You cannot have a law that allows the government to interfere with the "hello" process.

You cannot have a law that takes away the rights of women to decide their own level of security.

Most of these women want at least their anonymous Hotmail addresses to be given out. Most want their postal addresses given out. They are not stupid doing this.

Women should have the right to at least sign an IMBRA waiver.

It may happen that the final result will be that the Supreme Court upholds the right of the US government to harrass Americans who actually file for visas (ignoring the sorry history of the Expatriation Act of 1907 where a male dominated US Congress persecuted American women who wanted to marry European aristocrats).

But the interference in the "hello" process has got to go. The book "1984" describes the government "disclosing" information to a woman about the man she is dating. George Orwell meant to say that, although Julia could use the info that Winston betrayed her under torture, it was 100% wrong for the government to be involved in such disclosures.

None of the above was said in the other two trials, and there will be a lot more said.

If you go to www.mediaradar.org, you will see that the Republicans largely lost the 2006 elections because of VAWA/IMBRA and they are in for a huge loss in 2008 unless they change course.

You can see by Preston Steckel's comments above that he was the wrong plaintiff in that he agreed with background checks as some kind of social conservative. The unpublished trial transcripts have him and his lawyer agreeing with almost everything the Tahirih Justice Center said while allowing, without objection, a recent law school graduate to say she is an expert on the dating industry because she met a few battered wives in a few shelters.

In all, nothing much was said by European Connections in their case. They entered no evidence and gave a minimum of arguments. The closest they came to mentioning politics and ideology was by calling a report "hearsay". Judge Cooper had been with them not only at the beginning, when he gave the restraining order, but for 5 months after the trial as he kept the restraining order in effect until September and only lifted it for technical reasons.

But they had not backed up even what Cooper said in the restraining order. Cooper had started out saying that a government cannot interfere with two people saying hello, but then the plaintiff himself undermined him by agreeing with IMBRA in general and background checks in specific.

Judge Cooper was left only the option of saying (paraphrase): "Plaintiff himself agrees that background checks for dating is OK".

Significantly, Judge Cooper never bothered to argue against the points he had originally made in the restraining order...and this will be used in the next trial to discredit the entire EC case. Both of his "decisions" were apples and oranges to each other. The courts still have to clarify if they have jurisdiction over two people saying "hello" to each other.

And regular citizens did not read the transcripts until a week before the decision...mainly because IMBRA opponents believed Preston that the trial had gone "very well".

Judge Cooper then said that meeting someone was like buying a gun, which requires background checks.

Now, if you go to the AODA case that the plaintiffs dropped, you were looking at a group of people who let their lawyer, who knew nothing about the dating industry, run the show and not listen to any advice. The lawyer then said "The Supreme Court has never held that there is a fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner"...adding "for an intimate relationship" as if the government can decide why two people are contacting each other.

The Republican judge in that case agree with the plaintiff's lawyer.

No IMBRA case has yet been heard where the plaintiff has actually declared the Right to Assembly is inviolable.

No IMBRA case has been heard where mountains of material are used to prove that those who meet foreigners are generally upper middle class and speak other languages.

What is past is prologue.

Well I am filing for an imbra waiver because of an approved fiancee case that never made it to the consul. I am heartbroken at the possibbility that I cannot make free choices or live my life because of the weirdness in the interpretation of this law. The lawyers are not making things much better. One told me the only way I would get a waiver is if I gave him 2000 dollars in addition to the case cost and in looking at a total fee of over 3000 when in fact... what he would really do is beyond me. I sent in my waiver letter with my request and other than a bunch of touches I have heard NOTHING. Touch touch touch and I got notice that the old case was sent back to the service center for review. What they actually do when they are touching the file, I dont know. they touched it for 3 days straight and then nothing. Am I getting An RFE... and intent to deny or an approval? Why is this system so huge and over powering? You do things the legal and right way and you get deluged with nos and pounds of papers.

I wanted to trust an attorney to prepare my imbra.. but what could he say anymore than I broke up with the guy before the interview and please let me get married again... Gees...

If you pay an attorney for anything, it should be for a restraining order on the entire law. Take this to an attorney:

1) Overriding point: IMBRA takes away the right of women (and foreign men) to decide their own level of security. Before the visa application process, it cannot be assumed that these women (or foreign men) specifically want to marry an American and live in the USA. These women are doctors and lawyers and university students who speak more languages, on average than their American counterparts…and there is no superiority difference between an American woman who can only speak English and a Russian woman who can speak only Russian. The court must be reminded that, at the “hello” stage, there is no vulnerability of the foreigner being in a strange land without friends (it is the American who will be vulnerable in the foreign land). The Clarence Cooper decision was fundamentally flawed in that he conflated the act of two people saying “hello” with immigrating to the USA and then getting beaten. He literally made no distinction in his ruling.

2) Heterosexual American men are now caught in a political whirlwind where they are noticing that they have few lobbyist groups. If you look carefully, the Republicans are not representing this group anymore. A good lawyer can prove that social globalization is, in fact, occurring and that some people in both parties in power want it stopped. I could show you a letter from a housewife named Bonnie who said that she wrote her Congressman when her husband left her for a young foreigner he met online. She asked her Congressman to stop American husbands from being able to contact foreign women. To show how this is selective politics, you can note that inner city men and men of certain ethnic backgrounds have been proven to be more violent than others, but prior restraint on their being introduced to women by a dating agency is politically impossible.

3) Since 9-11, there has been a disturbing trend for the US federal government to believe they have jurisdiction over the private behavior of Americans who leave the boundaries of the United States and Congress is particularly greedy about gaining power over aspects of life that the states normally preside over. This has nothing to do with national security and the court needs to be told that this trend will have major political repercussions including loss of the overseas vote and military vote. We can readwww.escapeartist.com for points that can be made in this regard, but the main point to be made is that the US IS REGULATING ITS OWN CITIZENS WHO TRAVEL ABROAD MORE THAN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, including communist China. Meanwhile the USA is trying to regulate the Internet more than most other countries (only North Korea and China have more laws, although Germany admittedly does have a COPA-style law on pornography).

Germany would never pass an IMBRA law. It mimics a previous law they had, but which was overthrown in 1945.

Heck, my fiance just got her visa to England within 10 days of applying. That should be the standard for a significant other who is officially vouched for financially and who has bought medical insurance.

The point is that England did not require that I promise to marry her in 90 days, which is my business and hers, not their's.

When it comes time to try to get her into the US in a few months, I would sooner spend $2000 to ask for a restraining order on IMBRA and earlier laws that I can show were not rationally thought out by Congress.

But I won't have to worry about spending my own money. There are people who are willing to give anyone $20K to do a lawsuit.

Well I am a heteroseual female being messed around by it. I cannot even make the choice to love who I want without applying for a waiver from a relationship I DID NOT LEAVE. He left me before the interview process for another woman and now I cannot move on with my life. I am forced to write a waiver letter with no guidlelines to do so and no idea if I say the right thing or this or that. Immigration attorneys want 2000 dollars to say the same thing as I can. And then to top it off.. there is no one at immigration to call... or to help you.. I am so terrified that I will get through the whole process with my boyfriend only to have to start all over again .... and the horror that some of the people must feel who do nt even have waivers to file must be enormous. I cant get a straight answer out of anyone. The website says september cases are being worked on when most of Decembers ao2s have gone out and it just doesnt seem like there is anyone I can call or talk to..
I am so sad.. that I cannot even make my own choices as to who to love

I agree . I dont think they want people coming here or immigrating and with the internet, they have been overwhelmed. Mine is from country on a high list.. but not many people travel there ( algeria) and other countries like Morocco have a 50 percent and higher denial rate for k1 and k3. I have no idea what the ALGERIA rate is cause its so much harder to get there from the USA ( visas.. hard to get .... plane fares there enormous and lower internet rate than Morocco)

Look at the visas for Morocco on the board as opposed to Algeria and you will see the numberical stats..

I just want to love as l like and live and I like... I think they should allow people with good reason to overcome numerical limits cause things happen and relationships break up

Morocco does not have a 50% denial rate for K-1 and K-3. Some estimate the denial rate for all visas to be approximately 50%. Very tough to get a tourist visa or even through the lottery. Most denials are not family based.

Just looking at the January stats per country and approval... they are pretty low...

I just saw a 30 year old get turned down with a not much younger guy... there goes that theory on that flag... I think cases that would fly iin other places get turned down there..

They can find a few high profile cases that create sympathy for the law. Great, The cold hard facts are that every day 3 American women die from Domestic abuse. There was only one study ever done about domestic abuse among MOB's. It was done in 1999 by the government and showed the rate of abuse among MOB's to be 1/7th the rate of an all American couple. They are fixing a problem that does not exist.

So, they want to save these poor foreign women from a life of hell. If they do prevent some from coming to America and finding a great guy who will care from them many of them are now living in countries where women are treated as not much more than property and with a very high abuse and death rate. IMBRA will kill far more women than it saves.

The founding fathers barely had ink on the paper before they got to the point of saying we had a right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. What is happiness if it does not include being with someone you love becuase some of some stupid law that should never have been passed, that failled to pass several times on it's own because of the facts involved and only passed hidden in another law as everyone waited to go home for Christmas.

I am just really waiting for something concrete that will tell me how much time my imbra application will add to the adjudication of my case. At least you have an NO2... I am still waiting on mine. My time at the service center is the least of my worries... At least you have VSC and they got your papers done fast. Those of us at the california center are DYING.. waiting and waiting and waitng and waiting....

Have you been checking for touches.. ooops.. you cant check for anything at VSC can you... I forgot about that..

What exactly do they do over there anyway?

And when the heck will I get my No2 if ever? They never sent me a requset for an imbra waiver.. I just sent one with my package cause I couldn't figure out if I needed one anyway.. and no one has asked me for RFE's cause I sent them all the original plane tickets and hotel stuff in the application. I think I sent them too much and I think my waiver was too much too.. I told too much info and went on and on and on...

Arent the requirement for the visa actually meeting in person and being able to marry ( within the last 2 years) So after IMBRA , if they approve me ... if I ever get that far.. then its the consulates decision to kill our relationship.. I WILL FREAK OUT..

I miss my boyfriend so much and I am so sick of waiting.. I am going there in a few weeks but this wait and uncertainty is making me so so so so so so depressed. I wonder if I go to the consulate and just say hi if that helps.. probably not.. maybe they wil hate me

Just relax, with all the touches you are likely close to the NOA-2. I would be happy to trade places with you. Administrative review like I am in can go on for years with no information available.

Yes, you only have to prove you have met for the intitial filing. At the interview you need to prove a real relatiionship. It is better to send copies of things like the airline boading passes with your original application. You should have the originals for the interview. It probably won't be a big deal but you never get anything back you send in so copies are the order unless it is something they need the original for.

I have always felt it was better not to send too much with the first filing. The more they have to look at the longer it might take but that is just a guess. I think you will be fine and together long before my fiancee and I will be. Best of luck. What was the reason you requested the waver?

I had a case approved last March ( I had filed in October originally and they kept sending it back to me.. once cause the fees went up in the middle etc) I had 3 years ago divorced a guy I was sponsoring for beating me up so I have 2 prior cases. I forgot to put the first case on the application this time but then just got notice that they pulled the second case from the dept of state to look at. That arrived at CSC on April 12th. THen I got touched 20th, 23 24 then nothing today. Do alot of touches mean I am getting somewhere or they will deny me? How do I know they are working on the IMBRA? They have never let me know I needed the imbra.. I just sent it anyway...The one that I had last year I cancelled because we broke up in the middle of the case.. no biggie.. He just didnt love me anymore and wanted to be with soeone else which is what I told the immigration..

I am so depressed about all of this.. My file is a colossal mess

So, if I am reading your post right you married a guy before on a K-1 and then divorced him because he beat you up but you forgot all about that when you did your application. OK, Yes, I can see why you are worried. All I can say is you are just going to have to wait and see what happens. It sounds like something most people would want to forget anyway. I wish you the best of luck.

No... I enclosed the divorce papers and disclosed the marriage.. I forgot to write down that I sponsored him in that little section cause there wasnt much room.. I pulled his papers and never followed the process. We never even went to an interview either..he got no greencard...and was prosecuted and got in trouble...i forgot to write out his case no on the paper but wrote the marriage and enclosed the dovorce papers... i just forgot to note the case no on that tiny space on the k1 app

I had noted it on the previous k1 and enclosed all the divorce papers both times ...

I am more just concerned with the waiver cause that other one got approved after teh freaky ex.... I divorced in 2004 and had a fiancee petition approved in 2006 I have had a petition approved since this event... I am concerned about IMBRA and what it will mean to me... I had and needed a reverse IMBRA to protect ME from this freaky foreigner .

I have not heard a thing in regards to whether I ever even needed the IMBRA to begin with and I have had no correspondance from them whatsoever. I find it very weird that NO ONE communicates with you the whole process....Nothing happens and things just sit and sit..


Why did they approve you with a NO2 and then send you to sit in another pile... That makes NO sense whatsover.....why approve you one place and then put you in another pile

It does look like they are working on your case so you may have some good news soon. California is slow. I agree it is the pits when you get passed one place and hit a snag in another where things are usually fast and automatic. This is also the second K-1 for my fiancee. She was here for 30 days on one a couple of years ago when she found out a secret about her fiance that she could not accept and returned home. A second K-1 for our beneficiary seems to trigger an A/R

I think you will be fine on what you were not able to tell them. Some of those forms seem like they were designed by a government offical. Places where you need space you don't have it and others where it is not necessary there is too much wasted space.

Border Patrol and ICE agents are enemy officers.

There is a loophole here, and that is, the IMBRA applies to agencies that charge fees. It is therefore left to individuals to post lots of brides on personal websites. There have been plenty of USA men posting their wives' sisters and nieces on small websites. There can even be ads on the sites, just not fees. Got a scanner? Got a PC? She just needs an e-mail address she can check from time to time at the internet cafe. The e-mail link can send an e-mail to the webmaster AND the woman, and that allows the webmaster to phone the woman.

It is pretty pathetic that the government relies on criminals to tell the government what is in its own public court records.

However, when fees are charged, it is a commercial transaction, international commerce, and the Constitution does empower Congress to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. So like Prohibition and the federal income tax, it's not unconstitutional, just very Despotic. Governments cannot acquire authority by manufacturing documents, even constitutions.