storyteller

I'm beginning to rethink the goverment corruption in Russia as possibly a good thing. At least their you can PAY (bribe) someone to not get screwed. Here you get screwed and there is nothing you can do about it. That our goverment works for the people is a happy childhood illusion. In truth they work for themselves almost always against us.

Well.. I beg to differ... it can be used by someone with a private interest to get you. Think about it. It does happen on a regular basis.

I am sure that once the RFEs return, the recalled petitions will be sent foward first, expedite. I would´t worry, folks, unless one of those recalled petitions fall under the new IMBRA requirements (for those who met through an IMB) you´ll be sent fast back to the consulate.

Well... filing limitations apply regardless whether you've met through IMB or otherwise...

On the other hand, meeting through IMB does not affect the decision either IMO.

so, in short, forget about how you met. Pay attention to the new filing limitations which apply to everyone (which are btw written grossly wrong way in the current 129F petition IMO). So read the law, not the new I-129F instructions, for i beleive there are at least two mistakes in how they are spelled out in the petition form.

PS. So for all those people that, as previously was said, inundate the shelters. They all must be some sort of former K1 beneficiaries. How many people are smuggled illegaly annually into the US? Let me throw a wild guess. 700,000? 500,000?.. I couldn't be much far off. Come on, why not get on the real issues out there, for a change.

Second, I think people lose sight of the fact that the K-visa is a creation of Congress and could be taken away at any time. Congress could determine that no immediate relatives or spouses of USC's could be admitted and there would be nothing that anyone (even the courts) could do about it. The constitution give absolute discretion to Congress on immigration matters. That said, strictly speaking the law doesn't keep you from marrying. You're free to marry your fiance in Russia, aren't you? I know that's not the way you wanted it, but my point is the law isn't stopping you.

IMBRA,

First of all, that's right. Congress has broad powers. But it is not a question of what Congress can or cannot do, it is a question of what serves the people of United States, and what doesn't. That's why the people are given the right to petition the government, aren't they? So what good the argument is, that Congress can be a hard-liner of sorts?? "Calm down and be grateful for whatever rights are still given to you", that sort of argument?? Is this still America we are living in?

So... how does exactly the IMBRA serve the people of US? Except for being a nuisance to join the loved ones? Well, there are two groups of provisions in the law: the ones that relate to marriage brokers, and the one that relate to all the USC petitioners. The former ones do not protect USC, and the latter ones just create a nuisance. Plus, all those nuisances are aided by additional overhead for the implementation of the law -- that alone sucks in a lot of money and time at this point.

As far as immigration is concerned, my view on that is that the purpose of the government is to determine if any particular immigration case would present problem for the national interests. E.g. so much beaten up border security issue. Foreign nationals' backgrounds checks. Once this issue is cleared, the government should have no further saying in how marriage should be regulated. Try to implement that sort of regulation on the USC-to-USC marriage. Everybody would agree that would be ridiculous. The argument that foreign fiance(e)s are more vulnerable because they are not really accustomed to the US environment is IMHO quite an arrogant thing to say. I think this argument is plain wrong. Americans could give foreigners some credit. Foreigners are not some sort of weak and humble creatures that need extra protection once in the US. Want proof? Try statistics for enterpreneurship. Immigrants are so much more eager to take risks and adjust to new environment. So that doesn't hold either. And the argument about trafficking has some grounds, but no more than e.g. children trafficking issue. Human trafficking is not a prerogative of K-1 petitioners by any stretch of imagination. Why not fight trafficking with some more general immigration laws, but not just target K1 process exclusively?

So the law does not add to the US national interests, or US people secuirty, since its ammendments are not targeted at controlling the immigration per se. Instead, the law tries to regulate private matters of group of people, part of whom are explicitly non-US people, allegedly to protect them while they never asked to be protected. You cannot deny the fact that the most people here interested in this regulation are not positive about this law, which makes me think that this law does not generally serves their interest, in their majority.

So, what do we have at the end of the day... The law that doesn't serve US interests. The law that doesn't serve US people's interests either. The law that doesn't even serve the foreign people's interests. Instead, it sneaks certain private matters into the regulated area under disguise of controlling immigration, while the whole issue in fact does not have anything to do with immigration. The law that does not address human trafficking at the entire scale, either. The law that would add (oh, so unpredictably and unexpectedly, really!) 3-4 months of delays for people to meet their loved ones because of notorious slowliness of government agencies to implement any new law.That's what IMBRA is. Quite a mistargeted and misplaced piece of work that does not address any single problem it claims to address, on the large scale. While domestic violence and abuse and human trafficking are all serious problems, i don't see any reason why those problems should be resolved based on very loose immigration criterion such as what K1 is. Domestic violence and abuse issues are not a prerogative of K-1 petitioners by any stretch of the most wildest imagination, as much as human trafficking.

I am all for protecting the rights of women throughout the world, as in many cases their voices are not being heard. [...]

I just can't agree with what I understand about the rest of it. Someone please explain how the background checks before you even get someones phone number will reduce the occurance of this crime? Do you think all criminals will continue to use these services? Do you think there is no other way for them to contact women? What about our American women? Shouldn't we protect them in the same manner? Why as a man am I assumed guilty until proven innocent?

Well.. if i understand correctly, it doesn't even apply to all the non-american women the same way... Only to those who wish to marry in the US... apparently, marrying outside US and subsequently applying for a CR1 makes them somehow less vulnerable to abuse. Which makes this law discriminating by definition.

The land of the free? Ha! I wonder what the ACLU thinks. Suddendly I need paperwork BEFORE I date someone?

Correction. Not before you date. Before you speak to, or make any contact.

I agree though, petition is poorly written, even style- and spelling-wise, and tries to focus on the brokers-related aspects of the law for the most part, while in fact IMHO there's much more to the discrimination imposed by the law regardless whether broker was involved or not. Indeed, sounds like written by a broker's lobbyist.. Most people (at least whom i know) did not use any brokers, and the aspects of the law that would apply to most of the people are not emphasized in the petition at all. The whole tone leaves an impression that someone with a vested interest just tries to capitalize on mass resentment and back-firing issues that this law seems to cause.

I spoke with an immigration attorney who told me that his contacts at the consulates said that those people who met before the new law went into effect won't have any problems. The law only really applies from the date it went into effect and is not retroactive.

I agree with what you've said. But I also don't beleive that it would have a negative effect even on people who used MB after 03/06. That is, except for this slowdown. All they are asked on interview is whether broker did provide all required information. But even if he didn't, I don't see why that should affect the interview or petition in a negative way, since obviously neither petitioner, nor beneficiary are responsible for MB's actions. As far as I understand, this information is gathered as a part of evidence on brokers, but not their clients.

I also see that some peeps are saying something about biometrics? I hope not. The nearest office is 2 hours away for me.

Then you wait. But you shouldnt be advising others to do so when no one knows how long before an RFE is going to come. The centers have not stopped processing petitions, they just cant approve them until they are compliant with the IMBRA. There is much more to processing then just the IMBRA.

This is definitely a valid argument. As we know, a petition spends most of the time waiting for somebody to look at it, not so much being processed. That is, the position in line often proves to be an important factor.

But I am not advising. I just said "if", which makes it a speculation. That is, I am just sharing my own opinion, like everyone else here. Just my thoughts, nothing else. Based solely on my immigration experience, and some people I know. Precedent-based thinking, if you will. I agree, the ultimate outcome is hard to predict either way. But historically, those who started with obsolete rules, and then had to get "upgraded", pretty often proved to lag behind those who started just bit later but with new rules. And position in the waiting line does not play significant role anymore. I am saying, there's still some possibility that something similar is taking place now. This opinion is mine and private and does not bound to come true by any means, but that's what my gut feeling tells me. At this point any estimate when the new petition rules may take effect are purely speculative, which makes your opinion as speculative in terms of processing times as mine.

That said, I hope everyone understands these are no lawyer advises in this thread (lawyers wouldn't advise anything in this situation in terms what would eventually end up being faster. They wouldn't speculate at all, that's why they are lawyers, they have their reputation to upkeep).

thanx alot guys, I was thinking along those lines anyways, just gave us the extra boost that we needed.

However. Since the draft became available, it just may be possible that INS would start sending out new petition form (or some customized form if it) as RFE, within next few weeks. While there's some benefit in obtaining slightly earlier priority date, i don't think it would matter much in this chaos. If one files now, he/she would get RFE one way or another, which doesn't exactly speed everything up. Even if RFE response is processed instantaneously upon receiving by INS (which is never the case), the whole mail roundtrip deal would take about ~10 days alone. If the new filing procedure becomes available in the next couple of weeks, i'd rather wait for that in order to avoid subsequent RFEs...

30-day notice of I-129F

http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/formsfee/forms/pra/index.htm

Scroll down and you´ll see it.

I have at least 3 problems with that piece of work.

1 -- As far as I remember the text of the IMB regulation, question No.19 is required at the interview and directed at the beneficiary. It is not required on the petition. (My reading of the law may be flawed, though).

2-- In the filing instructions for the form:

If you have filed two or more K-1 visa petitions at any timein the past or previously had a K-1 visa petition approvedwithin two years prior to the filing of this petition, youmust apply for a waiver. To request a waiver you mustsubmit a written request with this petition accompanied bydocumentation of your claim to the waiver.

Anyone sees a major problem with paragraph? It must be "and", not "or". In the current edition it sounds like you must obtain the waiver by default if you are filing 3rd (or greater) petition, I.e. to petition for the 3rd time is limited by default. This is absolutely not what the law says. (Indeed, the best way to protect our women from domestic violence is just to prevent us from marrying them. And if one does want to marry (or even just try to marry) for the third time, one d better prepare good explanations why he or she would experience a great hardship otherwise... Indeed... Geesh.. What a mind work. )

3 -- in the same paragraph, limitation applies (as far as my reading of the law goes) only to different beneficiaries. If you petition for the second time for the same person, that limitation must not apply.

Frankly, I have come to expect a much greater attention to details of the INS lawyers. Or are they in so much a hurry that they cannot put one paragraph straight in 3 months since the law enactment? That s just so great performance one couldnt help appreciating...