Lets collect some information about IMBRA effects

[drogger1 0]

For whatever it may be worth, I received this email from the Ombudsman's office today. I sent my email Thursday night, so not a bad turnaround time, especially considering the holiday on Monday.

Dear Ms. [Tigre],

On behalf of the Ombudsman, Mr. Prakash Khatri, our office thanks you

very much for bringing the issue of the K-1 visa adjudication to our

office's attention.

Our office has received other inquiries, comments and suggestions of

similar nature. The information that you provided was reviewed by the

appropriate persons in our office, and it will be brought to the

attention of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

(USCIS).

Under the Homeland Security Act of 2002, it is the CIS Ombudsman's

statutory mission to assist USCIS customers, to identify problem areas

in the immigration process, and to propose changes to the administrative

practices of USCIS. Process change recommendations from individuals like

you are the best source for identifying systemic problems in the

immigration benefits process. Again, Ombudsman Khatri thanks you very

much for brining this important issue to our attention, and for taking

the time to provide your suggestions and comments.

Sincerely,

CIS Ombudsman's office

OH boy! they thanked you like 3 times

And they said nothing at all

I really don't think signing that petition against the IMBRA law is a good idea. I have no problem with the law, just the way they are handling it and the timeframe. If you guys make a big enough uproar, then it is only going to prolong them figuring out what they need to do to start processing again. So if you want to add more wasted time to everyones petitions, sign the petition.

Gee, so if I protest against a law, the government will slow down? Um ok, if you say so.

[tigretigre 0]

I think what was meant was that the legislation isn't the problem, it's the administrative failure that is slowing our petitions down. Once a law is enacted, the affected agencies usually have a specified window of time for promulgating new regulations to change their procedures in order to implement it. There is where we've gone wrong--they never got around to doing that.

Working at the legislative level by petitioning for the repeal of IMBRA really is taking the long way.

Let's suppose you were able to get enough support to convince some member of Congress that IMBRA has to go. Well, it's part of the re-authorized Violence Against Women Act, so this person would have to propose that Congress amend VAWA. That won't happen without a lot of debate on the House and Senate floors. Then the actual process of passing the amendments and getting the Prez to sign the amendments to VAWA. Congress is designed to move pretty slowly, and this wouldn't be likely to be a priority bill anyway. Assuming you even got to the floor (which could take years if it happened at all), I'd say 6 months, minimum, for Congress to act. Which is worth it if what you don't like is the law itself. But if your beef is with how everything's ground to a halt at the Service Centers, you are definitely barking up the wrong tree by petitioning for the repeal of IMBRA.

That, and the fact that with all the "male activist" buzz about IMBRA, your petition might end up getting filed with all the others from men's groups wanting the law repealed. The agenda at the legislative level isn't about hurrying the process along--it's about preventing regulation of the foreign bride industry and (they would say) the inappropriate disclosure of the petitioners' criminal histories to prospective wives. Might not slow the process down further, but it wouldn't result in anything moving faster either, because the people looking at it wouldn't be the people issuing the NOAs.

[aikorob 0]

Letters to legislators as well as DHS Ombudsman sent yesterday. Add another tiny voice crying in the wilderness.

BTW-in case you need the info www.vote-smart.org will give you names and addresses of your Reps

[Ladylethal 12]

So that was useless.

[Ladylethal 12]

So that was useless.

[Ladylethal 12]

So that was useless.

[Ladylethal 12]

So that was useless.

[amwo 0]

Hi All,

I hope you are all hanging in there - oh how I know we all want to be with our loves!

But at the end of the day, IMBRA really is a serious issue. Unfortunately there have have been far too many occurences in this country that necessitate the need for this law. Hopefully the government will sort this out so that IMBRA really does protect people from abuse. So let’s consider ourselves crusaders while we are creating awareness of the negative IMBRA affects. Hopefully the new forms/procedures/checks/??? the government comes up with will take into account those of us who do not use marriage brokers.

And I am willing to wait a few extra months if this really does save any person from any country harm, pain, and/or death (even though my bloody ovaries are kicking and I’m going through fert........ oops....... sorry........ venting!)

Here’s a reminder to the worst case/best case time frame scenario........

Along with the new forms we talk of, we need to add the pamphlet on domestic violence that needs to be written and translated into x number of languages, delivered to every beneficiary. Now doesn’t THAT add some time!!?

Cheers

[teukros 0]

This would take much much longer and set every petitioner all the way back to the beginning. That would make no sense. It would be stressfull for petitioners and service centers. It would be ridiculous.

...which means that that is precisely what they will do.

I called USCIS today about not receiving my NOA1 for an I-129F which arrived at the California Service Center in late April (an entirely different issue). I asked about the affects IMBRA had on my application and was told something along the lines of "there is no need for me to request a background check from the FBI on myself and that DHS will handle everything". I got the impression USCIS will not be sending additional packets or new I-129Fs to current applicants. Instead it sounds like they'll just get criminal histories from other government organizations... I hope this really is the case

There are others on this forum who have a much better understanding of the law than I do, but my understanding is that this would result in illegal and probably unconstitutional disclosure of information to some foreign fiance(e)s which would set IMBRA up for numerous lawsuits in the future.

[aussiewench 9]

There are others on this forum who have a much better understanding of the law than I do, but my understanding is that this would result in illegal and probably unconstitutional disclosure of information to some foreign fiance(e)s which would set IMBRA up for numerous lawsuits in the future.

I imagine a signed release by the USC would cover that though.

[aussiewench 9]

Whether or not this is factual, I dont know, but Gary Bala is an AILA lawyer

taken from http://fianceevisalawyer.com/

May 30, 2006

Parts of the IMBRA law, which are not currently being challenged in court such as Section 832, require USCIS and DHS to gather from U.S. petitioners their criminal background information, including information on convictions. The USCIS approved petitions as of March 06, 2006 and later were not complicant with this requirement. Thus, State Department is unable to continue to process. New I-129F Petition forms asking petitioners for this information was obviously called for under IMBRA, but USCIS has thus far not been able to comply. Though technically IMBRA applies to all K-Visas (K-1 & K-3), State Department is currently implementing the recall only on the I-129F Petition for K-1 Visas, for reasons which are not clear.

Meanwhile, USCIS is apparantly taking the position that standard administrative protocol allows a six (6) month grace period after passage of a new law such as IMBRA to issue the implementing regulations and release any new required immigration forms. The six (6) month grace period would expire appoximately June 06, 2006.

It would appear that in these cases USCIS will: either send a Request for Additional Evidence (RFE) to the affected petitioners requesting the newly-required information and documents to bring the petition approvals into IMBRA-compliance, after which they will continue to process the case and forward to State Department; or perhaps in some cases request that State Department and the post ask for the information and documents of petitioner through a letter to the visa beneficiary.

Our office contacted the USCIS, Regulatory Management Division, which advised us that they expect to issue implementing regulations and new form requirements by the six (6) month time frame after the new law's passage, which would be by approximately June 06, 2006. With the guidance to officers and others needed from the implementing regulations, it would thus be reasonable to expect that USCIS processing of the "recalled" I-129F Petitions will continue after that time. Petitioners and beneficiaries would be well advised to continue their efforts to remain patient.

[AndyMisiu 0]

Well, this all sounds pretty good "I think". I'm not sending in my petition in until after June 21st!! so I hope that everything will be resolved by then. I have never seen a better group of detectives as there are on this sight. From what I've been reading they should have new forms out soon and the processing back up to speed within a month, correct?....................just looking for something to make me smile!!! I've been confused by this IMBRA ####### for a couple of day's.

[GaryC 7]

Well Aussie, thats an interesting find. So if I read that right they will begin whatever procedure they decide on sometime around June 6. If that is the case then the black hole we are in may soon open up. One can only hope! Thanks lady!!

[aussiewench 9]

Well Aussie, thats an interesting find. So if I read that right they will begin whatever procedure they decide on sometime around June 6. If that is the case then the black hole we are in may soon open up. One can only hope! Thanks lady!!

It looks that way yes. This is the first time there has been anything that I've noted about any information coming out of USCIS regarding IMBRA and I doubt Gary would be posting fairy tales, nothing to gain by that. It would fall into the timeframe too for new I-129F's referred to in the latest OMB emergency review request.

[ppboo 0]

Thanks for the good news... at least something...

I'm in the stage looking for doing DCF... needed to get marriage first, abandon my K1 and file for CR-1... it seems that the marriage process does take some time and the CR-1 will also take another time…