Is Match.com considered a 'marriage broker'?

[payxibka 10,044]

You forgot the first part of that exclusion:

Entities that provide dating services if their principal business is not to provide international dating services between United States citizens or United States residents and foreign nationals and charge comparable rates and offers comparable services to all individuals it serves regardless of the individual's gender or country of citizenship.

Because they do not qualify as a "not-for-profit" business and their principal business is to enable dating services, the part about charging comparable rates does not apply. They cannot be excluded as a IMB.

But I will happily defer to any one who feels differently. I used rBrides.com and did indeed list them as an IMB.

Edited September 19, 2007 by fwaguy

[pushbrk 12,124]

WOW..it's absolutely AMAZING what happens when you read the instructions!! Check out what I found RIGHT on the instructions of the I-129F form.....I'm sooo rolling my eyes at myself!

The term "international marriage broker" does not include:

Traditional matchmaking organizations of a cultural orreligious nature that operate on a non-profit basis andin compliance with the laws of the countries in whichit operates, including the laws of the United States; or

Entities that provide dating services if their principalbusiness is not to provide international dating servicesbetween United States citizens or United Statesresidents and foreign nationals and charge comparablerates and offers comparable services to all individualsit serves regardless of the individual's gender orcountry of citizenship

Thank you everyone for your help.

Yes, the ommission of that paragraph from the original IMBRA comliant I-129F along with the fact that this paragraph is far removed from the definition you read in the law itself, was a major oversight, IMO. The misunderstanding lingers, as evidenced by much of the discussion in this forum.

So, in other words, Match.com is not an international marriage broker? Am I understanding that right?

Hell no, Match.com is not an IMB. The word "international" (the "I" in IMB) is key to the interpretation of the law. Dating services who do not have as their primary business "international..." and who charge comparable fees... are not IMB's.

Edited September 19, 2007 by pushbrk

[lostinblue 1,989]

My wife and I met on Match.com . For IMBRA I asked a question directed at Match.com and recieved this reply

Match.com is not an international marriage broker as defined by the IMBRA act of 2005 best wishes jenniferAtkins@match.com

I sent a copy of this letter in with my paper work .Put down NO it is not and we sailed right through interview with no questions asked about IMBRA.

[mox 298]

I don't think Match.com meets IMBRA either, but I think I would go ahead and put it down anyway and let them sort it out. It absolutely can't hurt, and may save a lot of hassle if you get someone at the interview who doesn't know what they're doing.

[NavarreMan 10]

I will correct myself here. I have never used nor been a member of Match.com. I just looked at their website and see that they use the zip code for their searches. This significantly limits the search results to the US or its territories. I think Canada may also use the 5 digit zip, I am not sure. That would mean that the principal business is domestic, at least for Match.com.

However, they do have an international side as well.

http://www.match.com/international/index.aspx

This website may not be excluded under the IMBRA. Again this is a legal definition and I defer (I learn from my mistakes) to any legal folks out there that can decipher this interpretation. Both entities seem to be under one roof so this is a sticky area. What is the harm in providing the info for the website regardless of the IMBRA status?

Funny, eating crow doesn't taste that bad but I wouldn't want to make a habit of it.

[ding 1]

Yep, crow tastes like chicken to me anymore!

I read it the same way.. that MOST of their business is in-country. So their PRIMARY business is not international match making.

my .02 only

I didn't use a service and have no skin in the game.

[pushbrk 12,124]

I will correct myself here. I have never used nor been a member of Match.com. I just looked at their website and see that they use the zip code for their searches. This significantly limits the search results to the US or its territories. I think Canada may also use the 5 digit zip, I am not sure. That would mean that the principal business is domestic, at least for Match.com.

However, they do have an international side as well.

http://www.match.com/international/index.aspx

This website may not be excluded under the IMBRA. Again this is a legal definition and I defer (I learn from my mistakes) to any legal folks out there that can decipher this interpretation. Both entities seem to be under one roof so this is a sticky area. What is the harm in providing the info for the website regardless of the IMBRA status?

Funny, eating crow doesn't taste that bad but I wouldn't want to make a habit of it.

The problem many have when they read such things is to make the mistake of focusing on a single word or phrase instead of expanding their understanding to the meaning of a full sentence or paragraph in context. One of the troubles in correctly reading IMBRA, in this regard, is that the exceptions are so far removed from the general definition in the document, then many miss them altogether.

A typical IMB focuses on charging a US Citizen to facilitate contact with a foreign national who is either not charged or charged a nominal fee in comparison to the USC. Also the focus is on brokering MARRIAGE, not just facilitating communication for pen pals or casual dating.

For example, I met my wife on the same dating website I met and dated several local women. It doesn't focus on international relationships but has some foreign members. All members are offered the same fee options, whether they just look, send messages or get married. It is not an IMB. It's a typical domestic oriented internet dating website, like match.com but not match.com.

[Kazan' Tiger 1]

My opinion: They are. They charge for the service of introducing couples from around the world for the purpose of partnering. When I was a member, several years ago, I received "matches" from Germany, England, Russia and many other countries. That sure sounds like an IMB to me.

[pushbrk 12,124]

My opinion: They are. They charge for the service of introducing couples from around the world for the purpose of partnering. When I was a member, several years ago, I received "matches" from Germany, England, Russia and many other countries. That sure sounds like an IMB to me.

That's because you don't know what an IMB sounds like or don't understand the word "primary". The law has context. Until you understand the context and take both the basic definition and the exclusions at their appropriate and intended meaning, you (I mean people not any individual.) will continue to make the same mistakes so many others have.

Fortunately, it seems not to matter a bit how you answer the question. Nobody is doing the criminal record notifications to the foreign fiance(e)s anyway. IMB, no IMB, no difference.

[James 2]

My opinion: They are. They charge for the service of introducing couples from around the world for the purpose of partnering. When I was a member, several years ago, I received "matches" from Germany, England, Russia and many other countries. That sure sounds like an IMB to me.

That's because you don't know what an IMB sounds like or don't understand the word "primary". The law has context. Until you understand the context and take both the basic definition and the exclusions at their appropriate and intended meaning, you (I mean people not any individual.) will continue to make the same mistakes so many others have.

Fortunately, it seems not to matter a bit how you answer the question. Nobody is doing the criminal record notifications to the foreign fiance(e)s anyway. IMB, no IMB, no difference.

The fact that you refer to an "intended meaning" says to me that that a plain meaning is not apparent from the face of the statute. Thus, unless one could show that the inclusion of match.com as an IMB is an unreasonable interpretation of the statute, a USCIS construction of the statute that includes match.com would be entitled to deference.

This is so because all government agencies are entitled to deference in the interpretation of statutes they are charged with administering, and a court may not substitute its own construction of a statutory provision for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrator of an agency.

Although it may be academic, in the absence of any indication from USCIS one way or another with respect to how it sees match.com, I would err on the side of caution and follow Yodrak's more conservative advice.

[pushbrk 12,124]

My opinion: They are. They charge for the service of introducing couples from around the world for the purpose of partnering. When I was a member, several years ago, I received "matches" from Germany, England, Russia and many other countries. That sure sounds like an IMB to me.

That's because you don't know what an IMB sounds like or don't understand the word "primary". The law has context. Until you understand the context and take both the basic definition and the exclusions at their appropriate and intended meaning, you (I mean people not any individual.) will continue to make the same mistakes so many others have.

Fortunately, it seems not to matter a bit how you answer the question. Nobody is doing the criminal record notifications to the foreign fiance(e)s anyway. IMB, no IMB, no difference.

The fact that you refer to an "intended meaning" says to me that that a plain meaning is not apparent from the face of the statute. Thus, unless one could show that the inclusion of match.com as an IMB is an unreasonable interpretation of the statute, a USCIS construction of the statute that includes match.com would be entitled to deference.

This is so because all government agencies are entitled to deference in the interpretation of statutes they are charged with administering, and a court may not substitute its own construction of a statutory provision for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrator of an agency.

Although it may be academic, in the absence of any indication from USCIS one way or another with respect to how it sees match.com, I would err on the side of caution and follow Yodrak's more conservative advice.

Your bolded text above is exactly what I mean. The exclusions that apply to the broad general definition of an IMB in the law are so far removed in the document and poorly writted that the "plain meaning" is not apparent from the main body of the statute.'

The irony is that it really doesn't matter now how you answer. I envision that if one answers yes to the IMB question and then writes that they met on match.com the USCIS adjudicator might chuckle at the folly of such an answer but continue the adjudication as if the question never even existed on the form. So maybe the only difference in answering yes or no is the occasional chuckle.

What worries me about those who answer yes unnecessarily is that perhaps someday, USCIS will actually implement a policy of dealing differently with petitions based on the answer to that question. When they do, a bunch of match.com folks are going to be screaming about the delays caused when match.com, clearly not an IMB, will not do their part in obtaining and notifying fiance(e)s of USC's criminal records. You see, the part of the law that requires IMB's to deal with USC criminal records actually IS clear on its face.

As such, I consider my advice to be the conservative advice. Unless you actually used a IMB, (There are plenty of companies brokering international marriage, that don't look anything like an internet dating website.) answer the question "NO" or better yet "HELL NO!"

Edited September 21, 2007 by pushbrk

[BillyB 0]

I know a guy who used bride.ru that's based out of Russia and he did not need to abide by IMBRA. They hook people up but they don't provide any services. Isn't marriage agencies supposed to collect your info and have you fill out paperwork before letting you get in contact with one of their ladies? If the site you used did not do that then they probaby don't fall into IMBRA.

IMBRA is a complete waste of taxpayers dollars.

[payxibka 10,044]

If the site you used did not do that then they probaby don't fall into IMBRA.

Or they are simply ignorant....

[mawilson 2,133]

Match.com is American first, International second.

Their primary business is in the U.S. - foreign countries were added as an afterthought.

My guess is they are NOT what the USCIS considers a marriage broker.

[Fandango 1,439]

IMB's are

'Hey there Americans, look at all these lovely women we have here waiting to marry and emigrate to you!'