FilipinaHeart.com Responds to my IMBRA Question

[jangler 0]

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.

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.

[Dean iWait 0]

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.

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.

Edited July 1, 2006 by Dean iWait

[Imbra2005 0]

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Edited July 1, 2006 by Imbra2005

[Littleone+Robert 0]

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.

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...