ccmkoho

Help !!

How is every one deciding whether to answer yes or no on the IMBRA form question number 1?

Because sometimes it is a fine line.

If I used a websight and paid a fee is that an automatic YES answer if most of the women on it are foreign?even if the webswight had no real contact with me and my fiancee?

I have heard conflicting opinions. Cant anyone help me out here????????????????????????????????

From how you describe, you should answer "yes". They facilitated a meeting for a fee you paid.

Just got my RFE today- and even though the emailed notice said 6/19, it was actually mailed on the 20th. On another note, I am unsure about one thing and hope someone can clarify for me. On the RFE is the definition of an International Marriage Broker, so if a couple met on a site but never paid for a membership or anything like that, would that fall under the definition of Marriage Broker?

If no money was exchanged then I believe you are exempt from anwsering "yes" to the question of meeting via an IMB.

It sounds as though you met through a pay site but somehow averted paying for it.

Remember though, at the interview the question of how you met will probably be asked and I assume they will have your RFE form so some extra explaining on the interview might be necessary.

tracked reciept for rfe going back to vermont....they recieved it this morning...

I just looked a few mins agao but nothing recieved as of yet...your only 20 mins away i would have just went and placed it in the mailbox and saved a few bucks

apparently you are not allowed to do that...lol...bill inquired....wierd that they dont allow you to do that...yours shouldnt be too long...you are not that far if i remember correctly....good luck to you....good luck to everyone....oh...while i am here...what happens next?...noa2...then it goes to nvc...do you get a case number before it goes on to the embassy?...i know i am way ahead of myself here...but for the life of me...cant remember..lol

I would think it would go to noa2 then vsc then embassy..not sure of the case number......hopefully we will find out soon!! Im in Pennsylvania, so it would be a hike for me

RFE recieved today. Kinda surprised they did not include a self addressed envelope with some type of way of forwarding the RFE to the right "department". With all the mail they will be receiving I hope none of these will get lost in the shuffle.

Question: when you send the new RFE, do you re-send the complete original package or just the new form?

In this case I would assume you will just return the RFE form.

I received my RFE notice from Vermont yesterday 6/16/06. So I guess my earlier assumption that there was some type of chronological order to the USCIS RFE process was wrong.

This is just rediculous. First they totally screwed up and had to recall the petitions, and now they have no order what so ever. The RFE's are not being sent out by receipt date. The only thing I can think of is they are sending them out based on when they received them back from the consulates, or in the order when the security check was done. Why couldn't they just send out an automated email for people to print and then send in?????????????? They RFE is the same for everyone.

I was told several times by USCIS staff that they have to have the petition back before taking any action. So if the embassy is slow to send it, your receipt date is meaningless.

<grinds teeth impatiently>

Well that's only for the ~10% of the petitions that have an NOA2. Most of us have only received an NOA1 so in fact they can do a chronological send of the RFE's and in fact if you look at the VJ's that have received a RFE notice you will see they are all in the early to mid March timeframe.

It definitely helps to be positive and to share as much info as we can!

Unless people have not updated their timelines, I have not seen any NOA2 petitioners from Vermont that have received an email that informs them that they are being sent an RFE. I hope I am mistaken.

Maybe for those of us who already have a NOA2, the RFE doesn't show up in the system/email?

Just trying to stay positive here...

I called the USCIS today and asked about the above detail, "is there a problem with the email system because it recognizes the NOA2 as already approved". I made a very clear point to her that the USCIS has not at any time communicated to me that my petition was "recalled". The person I had on the line could not explain any of it. She just said wait 2-3 weeks.

I'm staying positive also and knowing all the details about this process can help all of us.

As I said I was referring to the NOA1 date. The majority of the RFE's will be sent to individuals who have yet to receive an NOA2. Only 1,100 out of the 10,000 + affected petitions had received an NOA2 (~10%).

Well to be fair it is only 8:30 am in California at the moment, so hopefully they will be sent out later.

It appears the USCIS is sending out the RFE's in chronological order of NOA1 date. I'm only assuming this from the timelines of the people on VJ saying they've received a notice that an RFE was sent. It appears all of these people are in early to mid March.

If every illegal worker were magically whisked back over the border right now, we'd have a serious economic crisis on our hands. It's time we came up with a sensible guest worker program instead of sneering at and exploiting people who cross the border without permission in order to support themselves and their families.

And it you're an unskilled, uneducated worker in a poor country desperate to make some money, just how fast do you think a visa is going to show up? I'd be more than willing to cross the border illegally to support my family if that were my only option.

Actually all of this may be incidental. Many of you probably don't realize President Bush announced the formation and creation of "“Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America” (SPP)".The creation of this new agreement was never submitted to Congress for debate and decision. Instead, the U.S. Department of Commerce merely created a new division under the same title to implement working groups to advance a North American Union working agenda in a wide range of areas, including: manufactured goods, movement of goods, energy, environment, e-commerce, financial services, business facilitation, food and agriculture, transportation, and health.

The Task Force’s central recommendation is the establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter.

The only borders or tariffs which would remain would be those around the continent, not those between the countries within (Mexico, US, Canada).

This is not a conspiracy theory. It's all there on the government website:

www.spp.gov

Say goodbye to the dollar and hello to the amero.

Anyone who thinks that the majority illegals are living the life of Reilley while legal immigrants suffer is living in la-la land, frankly.

And despite the fact that I'm currently in IMBRA limbo, I'd still rather be in the position I'm in right now than to be in the US illegally struggling to support a family, living with the fear of deportation. Most people are illegals out of economic desperation, and to complain that they have it so good while we who are 'doing it right' suffer is very shortsighted. The whole system is screwed up, and if by some miracle Congress manages to come up with a workable system to issue guest worker visas, I'll be happy for those people rather than complain that they haven't fixed my problem first. All immigrants are in this mess together.

No, Illegals, as the name implies are breaking the law by being here illegal. You have some audacity to equate an illegal immigrant to a person who applies and goes through the required process.

Just a thought, but seems to me that they would most likely send out a 1st round of RFE's with the questionaire to only those of us who were already approved.

After about a week or so, for those not approved, they will either (i) send out a 2nd round of RFE's with the questionaire, or (ii) send out an RFE with instructions requesting them to fill out the new form to be attached as an addendum to their existing application.

Of course as efficiently as the government has handled everything else in this fiasco, I'm sure whatever they do will be another huge mess.

No, the OMB has to approve the RFE template. The USCIS post implies there will be only one "type" of RFE for all petitioners.

I agree as well, but I was expecting to read a notice saying "We have sent today an RFE to all who applied" and not "We´ll do that, eventually"

I think from a USCIS adminstrative POV that they will focus on getting the new 129 form on line ASAP as this will mitigate the number of RFE's they have to send out. Maybe they are working on the template in parallel but I would think getting the new form out is the #1 priority.

I am saying that from what the notice said about further RFEs I´d think that those with such cases will get another RFE to submitt their criminal records or something else, and they´ll then have to warn the beneficiaries, thus delaying the approval.

Well that part is kind of ambiguous in the notice. I read that as them (USCIS) saying you could get an RFE for something else such as lack of proof of meeting in person. Remember our petitions probably have not even been looked at yet.

Rlt, you must remember that the recalled petitions might not be considered approved anymore, ´cus some might have to say yes to meeting through a broker, or some might have a criminal record, so that would change their status, those petitions will be reapproved according to what people put in their RFE´s.

Having a record and/or meeting through a marriage broker is not a reason that USCIS can deny the petition. I'm not sure about the multiple filings as it pertains to the new law.

The document talks about the current status of the new I-129F with OMB but, from how I read it, they (OMB) also have to approve the RFE template. I wonder what the current status of this RFE template is.

yes, but it also appears this is their way of expediting the petitions on hold, so you have to assume the template will be approved sooner than the new form will be ready for use. Someone posted on another thread that their senator's office called to tell them to expect a questionnaire of sorts within 2 weeks...

Well there was nothing on the OMB website as of Friday regarding this "template" so the OMB might not even have it yet. I wouldn't assume anything with this mess.

I am going to hope that this means that the RFEs can be expected before the new form is approved later this month. That is what the wording implies to me.

The document talks about the current status of the new I-129F with OMB but, from how I read it, they (OMB) also have to approve the RFE template. I wonder what the current status of this RFE template is.

Laura,

Yes, that's what it says on the draft.

The expiration date for the existing I-129f is also 30 June 2006. (I wonder if someone forgot to update the expiration date when the draft was created?)

Yodrak

I think that what expires June 30th is the draft.

mike,

The draft I-129f form on the USCIS web site says the estimated time to complete the form is 1.5 hours (=300,000 hours for the estimated 200,000 submissions per year).

Are you reading from the draft form or from the supporting statement? Be careful that you find the correct supporting statement, the supporting statement for the draft I-129f, revised for IMBRA, does say 300,000 hours. It's the supporting statement for the last revision, updated for LIFE, that says 100,000 hours.

Yodrak

Ok, I think I may have figured this out. The draft on their website is the new form. If you actually open the draft, it contains the new questions, but the man hours are now back to 100,000. .....

Do you mean 1.5 man hours to review the form or for petitioner to complete?

There are not 200,000 K1 submissions per year. By the statistics on USCIS web page about 30,000 fiance visas are granted per year. Unless 170,000 get denied. Maybe I am missing something here.

Huh? Did you read the above in this thread?

Absolutely I read that, but that is based on what has been in the past and makes no concession for a change in the process. Also, remember it is an opinion only, just like mine.

What we do know at this moment is that the Biometrics notice has not shown up on the K-1 NOA1 receipt before and the odds are this is not by accident.

Not true, the biometrics statement has shown up on the K-1 NOA1 receipt as stated above in the thread, it is on mine too and has nothing to do with IMBRA.

Collecting Biometrics from the USC does provide them with an easier method to validate the information concerning criminal history since they have that system in place now and I expect them to take the easy way out on meeting what they interpret as their responsiblity.

Validate the information? Why would they have to validate the information they receive from the criminal background check they run on the petitioner? They run the check via name, ss #, I assume, and will forward any relevant IMBRA information on the the consulate.

Things are clear. That appears on the bottom of everyone's NOA1. It's on mine too. But it only applies to I-485 and I-698. They use the same NOA form and template for all such applications.

A member on CFL just got the Biometrics notice on their NOA1 for a K-1 petition as well.

http://candleforlove.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=18504

Looks like USCIS has made a decision on how to comply with the IMBRA and we may have a new step in the process.

Huh? Did you read the above in this thread?

But hey, what's a few abused, raped, tortured, and/or murdered women compared to the gutwrenching, heartbreaking inconvenience of filling out an extra form?

Imbra2005, there's no statistical proof/study that says international women are abused at a higher rate than domestic relationships. Please point me to a non-biased statistical study if it exits. Don't try to justify your position by picking and choosing individual cases. And don't tell me that ####### that American men are looking for submissive women.

This should get you started, if you are actually seeking the facts. The entire report is at:

http://legalmomentum.org/legalmomentum/files/dvusc.pdf

There is a growing body of research data demonstrating that immigrant women are a

particularly vulnerable group of victims of domestic violence. They tend to have fewer

resources, stay longer in the relationship, and sustain more severe physical and emotional

consequences as a result of the abuse and the duration of the abuse than other battered

women in the United States (Abraham, 2000; Anderson, 1993; Ammar, Orloff, Dutton &

Hass, 2005; Ammar & Orloff, 2006; Bui, 2003; Hass, Dutton, & Orloff, 2000; Menjivar

& Salcido, 2002; Raj & Silverman, 2002; Raj & Silverman, 2003; Rodriguez, 2004;

Valdez, 2005; Warrier, 2002). In particular, research studies have found that abusers of

immigrant domestic violence victims actively use their power to control their wife’s and

children’s immigration status and threats of deportation as tools that play upon victim’s

fears so as to keep their abused spouses and children from seeking help or from calling

the police to report the abuse (American Bar Association,1994; Ammar, Orloff, Dutton &

Hass, 2005; Natarajan, 2003; Orloff, Dutton, Hass, & Ammar, 2003; Raj & Silverman,

2003; Ramos & Runner, 1999; Raj, Silverman, McCleary-Sills & Liu, 2005).

Although the lifetime prevalence of domestic violence in the U.S. in the general

population is estimated at 22.1% (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000), the prevalence of domestic

violence for immigrant women has been reported as being much higher. In a study of

immigrant Latinas in Atlanta; Perilla, Bakerman, and Norris (1994) found that half of

them have sought out assistance for abuse. The Immigrant Women’s Task Force of the

Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights and Service (CIRRS, 1990) in their study of

immigrant Latina and Filipina women in the San Francisco Bay Area found that 34% of

Latinas and 20 % of Filipinas admitted experiencing domestic violence. More than half

(52%) of the battered Latina said they were still living with the abusive partner. Taken

together, studies of intimate partner violence prevalence in Latina, South Asian, and

Korean immigrant women report numbers that range from 30% to 50% (Dutton, Orloff &

Hass, 2000; Raj & Silverman, 2002ab; Rodriguez & Duran, 1995; Song, 1996).

Yeah right, just look at the source of the link. "Legal momentum - Advancing Women's Rights". I think we all know why you're here and it's not seeking advice for immigration.

Thanks for keeping an eye on all us VJ's and educating us.

But hey, what's a few abused, raped, tortured, and/or murdered women compared to the gutwrenching, heartbreaking inconvenience of filling out an extra form?

Hey Pax,

Here's an idea. Let's open up the check for ALL those getting married domestic included. Why not? There are far more domestic abuse cases than those of international marriages. We can save lives!

Imbra2005, there's no statistical proof/study that says international women are abused at a higher rate than domestic relationships. Please point me to a non-biased statistical study if it exits. Don't try to justify your position by picking and choosing individual cases. And don't tell me that ####### that American men are looking for submissive women.

Oh, and I forgot one thing...also add in the fact that the woman's legal status in the United States is entirely dependent upon the very person who may be abusing her....

Imbra2005 where's your timeline? Why are you here on VJ?

I agree with Yoprak. Basically, I'm just saying that marriage broker as it's defined in the act isn't precise to know whether or not online dating agencies are included, which won't be decided until some court (or even possibly an agency) decides who fits in it or who doesn't. I dont' know for sure, but I would think that the USCIS to be safe would probably include everyone.

The forum's bet is that because the old I-129F form isn't clear about how you met enough to disqualify the option of meeting through a marriage broker, everyone's assuming that everyone submitted after march 6th before the new i-129f form is approved will get RFEd with the new form to just make sure they don't qualify for any of the extra checks, because the only i-129f form doesn't provide sufficient information to the service centers about what level of examination an applicant needs.

You are absolutely right Jozlee, everyone is effected no matter what. How they will be affected if you met in anyway but in person will be determined in the courts. My concern for those who met online, or via any type of agency is that they may have hard time meeting what ever standards they come up with.

Now on the other hand for all we know they may just ask the question and if this is the only I-129F you have ever submitted, well they might just pass it on thru.

Guess the point is that no one knows how they will be handled. My original comment was meant to let people know that IMBRA doesnt cleary define what a marriage broker is. Like alot of other laws when first enacted it will take long time for the courts to sort it out and define what "marriage broker" is.

Not sure what you mean by "standards they come up with". Again, every person who files a petition will be subject to a criminal background check. Those agencies that fall under IMBRA must have their clients fill out a questioner and then do a check of the client through the National Sex Offender public registry.

My belief is that everyone will be scrutinized the same for the NOA2 and interview regardless of how they met.

Whether or not match.com or other personals are included won't be decided until court for a while down the line.

Where did you get this information?

Basically if you met online, you can either risk a flaw in documentation and go with the first time you met in person, or just say you met through an online dating service and have all the other documentation ready.

What flaw? And what "other" documentation?

I met my wife on Eharmony.. I wonder if that could be considered a marriage broker...

Well Eharmony does not have to comply with IMBRA and gather background information on their clients. I guess it's not really relevant from a petitioners point of view due to the fact that no matter how you met the petitioner must go through the criminal background check process.

Should this law only affect couples that met through an agency or Internet? We met a regular way on my trip to Russia. Please let me know someone who knows.

It affects everyone, regardless of how you met.

I agree the law was created to cut down on the Mail order bride issue. However everyone is effected, no matter how they met or whether the male or female is the USC. We all are going to have to give them permission for background check and answer the questions "Did we use a marriage broker? and Does the USC have a criminal conviction?" If you have to answer yes to either of those questions you are going to have to answer a lot of questions and I expect that your time line will lengthen accordingly.

Why will answering "yes" subject you to a great level of questioning? I assume USCIS asks this question on the form to track the agencies involved and try to make sure they comply with IMBRA, specifically gathering the customers background information. The "match.coms" and "Yahoo personals" are removed from complying probably because they would fight it and they have a lot more money to spend on lawyers than the smaller sites, although people will argue that they are not an international dating agency. "Match.com" probably has more foreigners listed than all the "international" sites combined.

Should this law only affect couples that met through an agency or Internet? We met a regular way on my trip to Russia. Please let me know someone who knows.

It affects everyone, regardless of how you met.

I agree the law was created to cut down on the Mail order bride issue. However everyone is effected, no matter how they met or whether the male or female is the USC. We all are going to have to give them permission for background check and answer the questions "Did we use a marriage broker? and Does the USC have a criminal conviction?" If you have to answer yes to either of those questions you are going to have to answer a lot of questions and I expect that your time line will lengthen accordingly.

Well in this gentlemens case they may not operate in the US. If I'm a Russian business person and operate a dating website in Russia how that accept clients from all over the world how are you going to make me conform??????? There are MANY of such!

I don't know. But not knowing how they'll enforce the law on the business isn't the same as assuming that the law won't or can't be enforced.

Moreover, surely word gets around among the young women who use these services...if one service screens the American gentlemen who patronize it quite carefully and gives the women good information, and another doesn't, it stands to reason that the law-abiding business will most likely thrive and survive, while the other does not.

"...law-abiding business..."

Ok, Ill put this one to rest after this post. You make assumption that the non US business is not law abiding. What law are they breaking? They are not under US jurisdiction.