INTERNATIONAL MARRIAGE BROKER?

[JoeMama 0]

I remember going over the question of what does IMBRA actually mean and if I qualified to list it? It is fairly simple. If you had met through any website which they are for "profit" and do charge money, whether you paid for their services or not, it qualifies for IMBRA. Regardless, of where the company is based ANY WHERE IN THE WORLD. Religious based organizations are exempt. It is not a big deal whether you met through a paid site or not. How the two of you had met needs to be disclosed.

Edited March 22, 2007 by altimixdj

[pushbrk 12,127]

I remember going over the question of what does IMBRA actually mean and if I qualified to list it? It is fairly simple. If you had met through any website which they are for "profit" and do charge money, whether you paid for their services or not, it qualifies for IMBRA. Regardless, of where the company is based ANY WHERE IN THE WORLD. Religious based organizations are exempt. It is not a big deal whether you met through a paid site or not. How the two of you had met needs to be disclosed.

Except it isn't that simple. I'll repeat once more.

Religious based organizations are not the only exception. I'm amazed at how often this little section gets overlooked.

"The Non-Primary Business with Comparable Rates": a domestic dating service or other primary service whose principal business is NOT international dating and which charges comparable rates for comparable services to all individuals, men and women, domestic and foreign."

For example, I met my wife through the same dating website I met several other local women and a couple long distance relationships over about three years. There are relatively few profiles on the site for people outside the USA. The site is not and IMB. It is a domestic dating service whose principal business is NOT international dating and which charges comparable rates for comparable services to all men and women, domestic and foreign.

Edited March 22, 2007 by pushbrk

[Turboguy 6]

I agree there are other exemptions such as you mentioned.

The bad part about IMBRA is not the way it is being enforced now but the potential for the future. The teeth are in the law, they are just not biting yet.

Under IMBRA any MOB agencies are required to obtain a criminal background check on you before you are allowed to contact anyone. Right now very few agencies are doing that. The potential is there to levy big fines to them and to deny a visa to you under those regualations.

Someday we may look back on this as the good olde days.

[pushbrk 12,127]

I agree there are other exemptions such as you mentioned.

The bad part about IMBRA is not the way it is being enforced now but the potential for the future. The teeth are in the law, they are just not biting yet.

Under IMBRA any MOB agencies are required to obtain a criminal background check on you before you are allowed to contact anyone. Right now very few agencies are doing that. The potential is there to levy big fines to them and to deny a visa to you under those regualations.

Someday we may look back on this as the good olde days.

I completely agree but prefer to think we will someday look back at these as the long gone IMBRA days.

The law has teeth but is so poorly written it is clearly unenforceable and very likely unconstitutional to boot. Here's to the repeal of IMBRA. Really, I have no axe to grind in this. I'm pre-IMBRA.

[K1researcher 0]

So am I correct in assuming that Yahoo personals, eharmony, match and the ilk are NOT IMB?

We met on Yahoo and moved to phone after one email so I marked NOT and IMB. but i am baffled by the wording.

[payxibka 10,044]

So am I correct in assuming that Yahoo personals, eharmony, match and the ilk are NOT IMB?

We met on Yahoo and moved to phone after one email so I marked NOT and IMB. but i am baffled by the wording.

They are excluded from the definition

[KAT&Allie 0]

Oh, how I wish I never came across this topic... I was so happy in my ignorance.

OK, here is another angle to this. What would happen to a K-1 application if we didn't tick IMB box on our I-129F form? We simply assumed that because we met on a dating site aimed for predominantly strictly religious people that it would be excluded from the IMBRA. We both paid fees and the membership is predominantly American but not exclusive. Would the USCIS consider we lied on our petition? We genuinely thought that because in our religion most people meet through a marriage broker that dating site isn't it. We never meant to mislead anybody but we are obviously clueless and until I read these posts, I didn't have an inkling that we could have potentially have done something wrong. Also, what exactly is a religious organisation? Would a dating site based on religious preference be deemed as exempt under IMBRA?

I'm more confused then ever....

Can anybody shed some light on this please?

[payxibka 10,044]

Oh, how I wish I never came across this topic... I was so happy in my ignorance.

OK, here is another angle to this. What would happen to a K-1 application if we didn't tick IMB box on our I-129F form? We simply assumed that because we met on a dating site aimed for predominantly strictly religious people that it would be excluded from the IMBRA. We both paid fees and the membership is predominantly American but not exclusive. Would the USCIS consider we lied on our petition? We genuinely thought that because in our religion most people meet through a marriage broker that dating site isn't it. We never meant to mislead anybody but we are obviously clueless and until I read these posts, I didn't have an inkling that we could have potentially have done something wrong. Also, what exactly is a religious organisation? Would a dating site based on religious preference be deemed as exempt under IMBRA?

I'm more confused then ever....

Can anybody shed some light on this please?

based on what you wrote, on the surface it sounds like they are NOT an IMB

[KAT&Allie 0]

based on what you wrote, on the surface it sounds like they are NOT an IMB

Thanks payxibka. That’s what we thought but as you said yourself it appears to be "on the surface". This is why I'm so confused, it could easily swing either way... talk about walking on thin ice. I've emailed the site asking whether, in their opinion, they come under IMBRA or not. Now I just need to wait for the reply. Getting used to this waiting game...

However, if we assume that they are IMB, how would the USCIS and CO look at it if we, completely unintentionally, did not declare that we met through IMB (we did mention the name of the website on the application form)?

[Kevin&Leilei 1]

Does anyone know if http://worldfriends.tv qualifies as an IMB? I said it wasn't on my I-129F, but gave the URL in my description of how we met.

I would think it fits into the exemption, as it does not cater specifically to Americans, or for dating/marriage. But, you never know. If someone handling my petition deems it to be an IMB, what problems will I face?

[pushbrk 12,127]

Does anyone know if http://worldfriends.tv qualifies as an IMB? I said it wasn't on my I-129F, but gave the URL in my description of how we met.

I would think it fits into the exemption, as it does not cater specifically to Americans, or for dating/marriage. But, you never know. If someone handling my petition deems it to be an IMB, what problems will I face?

You were right. It's not an IMB. I've seen no evidence it matters how you answer that question.

[Kevin&Leilei 1]

You were right. It's not an IMB. I've seen no evidence it matters how you answer that question.

Thank you.

[DanielParul 50]

Definition of an International Marriage Broker. “International marriage broker” is defined as an entity (whether or not U.S.-based) that charges fees for providing matchmaking services or social referrals between U.S. citizens/permanent residents and foreign nationals. The definition also exempts nonprofit religious or cultural matchmaking services, and dating services that do not match U.S. citizens/residents with aliens as their principal business and that charge comparable rates and offer comparable services to all clients, regardless of gender or country of citizenship.

[Tristan 0]

The only current enforcement of IMBRA is in questioning how a couple met. Also, if applicants admit to having had more than two immigrant spouses then waivers are granted.

The GAO recently published a report about the status of IMBRA which report was required by IMBRA itself. I spoke with the authors of that report and provided them with information and contact information for source information. The report indicated that in many respects the government agencies responsible for IMBRA compliance - DHS, DOS and DOJ - are not complying with the law. Part of the reason for this is bureaucratic inertia and part of it is that many of those responsible for compliance with the law do not like the law.

The main organization which lobbied for the law and which claims that it authored the bill, Tahirih Justice Center, recently received a $1.1M earmark from the December appropriations bill passed by Congress. The purpose for the earmark was so that Tahirih could assist in enforcement of the law. Apart from the incongruity of having taxpayer money supplied to a feminist group to help enforce a dating law, it is certain that this money will be used to pressure the three agencies to enforce the law. And what with the GAO essentially admitting that the law is not being enforced, this organization will be able to use that report to force the government's hand.

And at some point the IMBRAists will be successful, either in convincing some US Attorney in one of the 93 federal districts to prosecute an IMB that has been targeted by Tahirih as an egregious violator of IMBRA (for PR purposes they will pick one that advertises women like cattle) or in convincing the USCIS to begin refusing visas to those who admit to using an IMB that does not comply with IMBRA.

In either case, the real fireworks will begin. And owner of an IMB who is indicted by a grand jury for a felony of allowing an American man to communicate with a foreign woman without doing the required background check on the man will surely hire a criminal lawyer who will attack the constitutionality of the law. Less certain is whether the men whose fiances are denied visas will take action. But I think that it is likely some of them will have the time and the means to challenge the law.

[pushbrk 12,127]

The only current enforcement of IMBRA is in questioning how a couple met. Also, if applicants admit to having had more than two immigrant spouses then waivers are granted.

This is not correct. They are also enforcing the provision that requires answers to questions related to certain criminal convictions and if applicable they require the court records IMBRA requires.