Imbra2005

Here's a news report that mentions IMBRA:

http://video.wjla.com/wjla/candidate0725.wmv

I disagree, but so what.

If that's what your lawyer told you for your situtation, then by all means, you should follow his advice.

More generally, I think if Match.com is exempt it's because Match.com doesn't meet the definition in the statute, not because IAC/Interactive does or doesn't.

This is a repost of mine from the thread on flipinaheart.com in this same section of the forums. You might want to check that thread out to.

I talked to an immigration attorney today. Unfortunately I was told (was pretty sure already though) that the site my fiancee Sheryl and I met through is condsidered an IMB under IMBRA. But he said since we met last year prior to the law going into affect that this would not negatively affect her visa process.

So if you met on a site that charges fees for matchmaking, online dating, social referrals etc. between a USC or legal US resident and foreign national clients by providing personal contact information or otherwise facilitating communication between individuals. Then you met through an IMB....

One huge exception to the law is if this type of business is NOT the principal business of the company you met through. For instance Match.com is not considered an IMB because matchmaking and online dating etc. is not it's main source of income. Here are a few of the companies the parent company of Match.com owns.

The parent is: IAC/InterActiveCorp

They also own:

ask.com

Home Shopping Network

ServiceMagic

Ticketmaster

to name a few.

Yahoo for pretty obvious reasons also meets this exemption to the law. So do a little research on the ownership of your site and see what you can come up with. Unless it was a totally free service.

I don't think what the "parent company" does (if the website has one) makes one bit of difference. Even if "Bob's Mail Order Brides, Inc." is a wholly owned subsidiary of Ford Motor Company, Bob's Mail Order Brides principal business is not making cars.

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.

I think I've figured out the code!

AM must mean American Men, and AW must mean American women.

"AM are not animals just because they don't want to submit to the greed and servitude demanded by the AW."

I think this means: American Men beat American Women becuase the women are greedy and demand servitude, when everyone knows it's the woman who has to be the subservient one.

Well, if that's his take on it, no wonder he doesn'tlike IMBRA. Now he wont be able to keep some unlucky girl around as his subservient little slave/power trip.

You're right on the money.

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.

Okay Gary. I will stop.

John, I only post about those things that I think will be useful to others and about which I have some knowledge and understanding. I do know quite a bit about IMBRA so that's what I talk about here. I suppose if there was a forum here talking about the other things I know quite a bit about and have an interest in (e.g. sailing or medicine) I suppose I might speak up about those too.

Look, like I said, if you guys don't want me around, then fine, I'm out.

(1) Because I choose not to share personal information about myself on the internet.

(2) Because I had a hard time coming up with a name when I decided to post for the first time about 5 weeks ago, and that was the topic being discussed. Again, I don't like to share personal information about myself.

For the last time, I am neither a lobbyist nor activist and nobody (individual or group) is paying me or asked me to post here.

Next time, that's what I'll do then. Sorry for the misstep.

Well, I think what I was doing in starting this thread was to post the evidence (for the rest of the community to ultimately decide) that tends to demonstrate ScottishHighlands was in fact posting "messages designed intentionally to annoy and antagonize the existing members." He so much as admitted it in the post that I cut and pasted.

I just don't think I've done that, I'm sorry. I have consistently provided truthful information with references for verification. I admit, it's a controversial topic, but nothing I've posted had the intended purpose of annoying or antagonizing existing members. That's the difference.

If I'm wrong about this, then I would appreciate someone explaining to me what line I crossed and where. Thanks.

Here is wikipedia's definition of "troll":

In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude, repetitive or offensive messages designed intentionally to annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion.

Honestly, and in my own defense, I don't think that describes me or my contributions to this forum over the past month or so. I did, however, seek to expose someone who signed up yesterday for what he is.

But if I'm truly not welcome here, then I have no desire to stay.

Ok, then it's a tag team troll post then. That explains it.

How about it Captain Ewok? Me thinks me smells a dirty troll!

I didn't bother reading except I find it just stupid that his name is IMBRA 2005 when it passed in 2006. Duh.

Actually, it's called the "International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005." It was passed by Congress in December 2005, but not signed by the president until January 2006.

(oh, and thanks, Gary!)

The following are two messages that ScottishHighlands just left on Gary Bala's blog. I hope you find them as interesting as I did.

Jim Peterson wrote:

Why is nobody else at http://www.visajourney.com?

VisaJourney.com needs to have anti-IMBRA posting every day.

There is a major discussion going on now about the Cumberland Times article.

29/06 07:35:46

Jim Peterson wrote:

Guys,

Don't come on the visajourney.com forum too strongly, but please do register and give an opinion. Dave Root started a thread and I find myself the only one there who is talking sense.

You see, many men there want so much their fiances to be accepted that they are willing to distance themselves from men who actually used an IMB. They distancing themselves but they are cutting off their own noses to spite their faces.

Cowards!

The women are outright feminists who support IMBRA and then expect someone to cry boo hoo that their french guy cannot get into the USA.

29/06 08:50:12

oh, brother....

I am getting that deja vu feeling here....a troll wearing a sock puppet.

Somebody please buy these guys a clue! There is no restraining order on IMBRA. The govt. cannot enforce certain provisions against a single mail order bride company temporarily. And once the federal judge in Ohio came out with his ruling practically laughing them out of court, the mail order bride companies picked up their marbles, and went home crying.

This situation is very common and there is one group that is intimately familiar with it and can help (in fact, they helped draft IMBRA).

Have this woman (or you) contact The Tahirih Justice Center: http://www.tahirih.org

Although they are located in Virginia, they can get this woman free help immediately (including immigration help) anywhere in the U.S. This is exactly what they do.

Tahirih Justice Center

6066 Leesburg Pike, Suite 220

Falls Church, VA 22041

Phone: (703) 575-0070

Fax: (703) 575-0069

Email: justice@tahirih.org

From their website:

With a grant from the National Association for Public Interest Law (NAPIL) and funding from Greenberg Traurig LLP, the Center initiated the Battered Immigrant Women Advocacy Project in 2000 to provide holistic legal services and education to battered immigrant women. Through this project, Tahirih helps battered immigrant women self-petition under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) for legal permanent resident status when they are being abused by a U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse. This provision prevents abused women from being forced to choose between staying in an abusive relationship and possible deportation. The Tahirih Justice Center is one of only a few Washington, D.C. area advocacy organizations with an attorney who provides full-time assistance to women under VAWA.

Since this program was established in 2000, Tahirih has assisted abused immigrant women and their children secure peace and safety in the United States.

Tahirih clients

The number of calls Tahirih receives requesting assistance has dramatically increased. Where six months ago we received 8-10 weekly calls for assistance, Tahirih now receives 40-50 weekly pleas—a 400% increase. This increased demand for our services is straining our capacity. At least a portion of this increased need is due to the fact that U.S. immigrants are now confronted with ever harsher and restrictive policies. Women are particularly vulnerable because of cultural obstacles, lack of resources, limited English proficiency and ignorance of the U.S. legal system. We fear the anti-immigrant sentiment will not abate in the near future and may, in fact, worsen. Without adequate legal advocacy, they face either extreme forms of violence or certain deportation. In 2004, the Tahirih Justice Center was honored to be the only Virgina-based recipient of 2004 funding from the Violence Against Women Office (VAWO). This means that other organizations that previously were able to help meet the demand for services by immigrant women are no longer funded by VAWO. As a result, Tahirih has become a critical resource and its ability to provide effective social services is even more important.

To maximize access to legal services for battered immigrant women, Tahirih gives presentations at numerous social service organizations about the special rights and needs of abused foreign-born populations. In particular, Tahirih regularly conducts trainings on how existing service groups can remove institutional barriers to better work with persons who have limited English proficiency and on what immigration relief may be available to abused non-citizens.

Through the Battered Immigrant Women Advocacy Project, Tahirih has helped free many women from a life of violence.

(1) Who would you sue?

(2) What would you sue for?

(3) How do you get around the fact that Congress can pretty much do whatever it wants with regard to immigration matters, i.e. they can completely do away with immigration altogether, or open the borders, or something inbetween (like eliminating all family-based immigration)?

I've been sitting here trying to figure out why you thought it was so funny. I think I've stumbled on it. Do you think I was actually talking about you, Jangler? I wasn't commenting on the merits of your particular situation at all...

This is twice using the generic "you" may have gotten me into trouble. Sorry about that.

And in answer to your question . . . I have no idea what the government expects. But, as one enters any legal or administrative proceeding, and he or she is unsure as to how or what to do with regard to legal questions that arise during those proceedings, then I would think a great many people would agree that person ought to contact a lawyer for advice and counsel. As they say, "ignorance of the law is no excuse." Do you think telling the IRS "I didn't know I couldn't deduct that" will keep you from getting assessed penalties?

Obviously, that's why people use accountants and tax lawyers -- so they don't have to make their "best guess" at what the law means.

Sorry -- I meant to say that in order to be "exempt" the statute requires that stuff....

Bottom line is, you don't want to guess wrong in your interpretation of the statute, and given that there are very serious penalties involved (making false statements on anything you submit carries a maximum 5 yr. prison sentence), I would seriously consider contacting an attorney if you have any doubts about how you should answer the RFE. Better safe than sorry, right?

Do you or the government really expect thousands of people to now contact lawyers if we have doubts? I answered the question NO and I did so to the best of my ability to be truthful. There was no intentional falsehood stated. I did not go to a marriage broker. If the government calls a piece of toast a toilet, it is still a piece of toast in my mind unless of course I get years of brainwashing to convince me that it is really a toilet. To suggest to people that they could get 5 years in prison if they unintentionally answered a question wrong is absurd. Knowingly stating falsehoods to mislead or deceive is a different story. What's with the scare tactics?

You're correct...the 5 yr. penalty is for "knowingly or willfully" making false statements. So you might be able to avoid jail time. Didn't mean to get you so upset. Unfortunately, though, if the government says that in order to obtain a visa, you have to tell the govt. if you've ever eaten a toilet -- and then it defines "toilet" as "any foodstuff derived from grain" you'd probably better answer "yes, I've eaten a toilet" if you've ever eaten a piece of toast, don't you agree?

Thanks for answering Zethris. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I understand what you're saying but the thing is, the statute itself is what defines the term, and that's the definition that's going to be used by USCIS and courts, and whatnot. What you and I might think it means in common usage is simply not relevant.

Sorry -- I meant to say that in order to be "exempt" the statute requires that stuff....

Bottom line is, you don't want to guess wrong in your interpretation of the statute, and given that there are very serious penalties involved (making false statements on anything you submit carries a maximum 5 yr. prison sentence), I would seriously consider contacting an attorney if you have any doubts about how you should answer the RFE. Better safe than sorry, right?

Also, the statute says that sites that don't principally do international matchmaking/dating must ALSO charge the same amount to men and women and provide comparable services to them, regardless of gender. That's because there is an "AND" between those two clauses.

"an entity that provides dating services if its

principal business is not to provide international dating

services between United States citizens or United

States residents and foreign nationals AND it charges

comparable rates and offers comparable services to

all individuals it serves regardless of the individual’s

gender or country of citizenship."

Zethris, I'm still not sure why you think a website has to sell "marriages" of specific people under the statute. The general part of the definition calls marriage brokers any company that "charges fees for providing dating, matrimonial, matchmaking services, or social referrals . . . by providing personal contact information or otherwise facilitating communication between individuals." Where does the buying of marriages to specific people fit into this? I'm not trying to be obtuse, I just don't understand how you're coming to this conclusion. Thanks.