Lets collect some information about IMBRA effects

[AndyMisiu 0]

Well, from what I read it all seems pretty straight forward. If you have been convicted for any of the mentioned crimes you need to provide police records with the petition. This information will be provided to the beneficiary for awareness. I read a post earlier asking if the government would be denying approval based on past convictions. I feel this would be highly unconstitutional and would create a huge uproar for later law suites. Thus this information is to be provided to the beneficiary for a better clue as to the person she is getting involved with. "we as americans have the right to marry whom we want" regardless of any past crime or conviction. From what I read everything should be picking up again soon.

I have a question: I have had 3 DUI's, 2 convictions and 1 PBJ. I wonder if I should just send in a complete criminal background check with all charges and outcomes ever had, just to be on the safe side, or should I just not send anything and not check a box on the petition. I am one who likes to cover all his bases but I wonder if there is such a thing as too much information. I dunno!!!

[pax 0]

Well, from what I read it all seems pretty straight forward. If you have been convicted for any of the mentioned crimes you need to provide police records with the petition. This information will be provided to the beneficiary for awareness. I read a post earlier asking if the government would be denying approval based on past convictions. I feel this would be highly unconstitutional and would create a huge uproar for later law suites. Thus this information is to be provided to the beneficiary for a better clue as to the person she is getting involved with. "we as americans have the right to marry whom we want" regardless of any past crime or conviction. From what I read everything should be picking up again soon.

Precisely. The petition will not be denied on such a basis; rather, the beneficiary will have the choice whether or not to go forward, fully apprised of anything in his or her partner's past. If the beneficiary trusts that the petitioner will not repeat such behavior, then he or she is free to continue to pursue the visa.

And of course, if the petitioner has been honest with the beneficiary from the get go, then there ought not be a problem.

Right?

[Mike n Huong 1]

I think this law is godd for those invloved, but why is the US citizen not given the same right. AS far as I know we are not informed of any criminal backround.

[pax 0]

Au contraire. Your foreign sweetie has to obtain a police certificate to obtain her visa, yes? And if there's anything in her past much worse than a speeding ticket, you're going to know about it, because she'd have to then file a waiver to get the visa.

[Yodrak 7]

mike,

Less demonstrated need for it? How many US women (or men) are abused or killed by their immigrant husbands (or wives)? A few, surely, but not as many as the other way around.

And if your alien fiance(e) or spouse does have a serious criminal background that they didn't tell you about, you are going to find out about it when the consular officer denies the visa application.

Yodrak

I think this law is godd for those invloved, but why is the US citizen not given the same right. AS far as I know we are not informed of any criminal backround.

Edited June 2, 2006 by Yodrak

[drogger1 0]

There's a light at the end of the tunnel folks.

Yeah, it's another train heading towards yours.

[Cassie 8]

Ok guys I just reread the email and noticed something.

On June 1, 2006, we transferred your I129F PETITION FOR FIANCE(E) to an

office in CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER for processing. That office has

jurisdiction over the case. They will send you a written decision as soon

as processing is complete. You should receive a notice informing you

that your case has been transferred to a local office.

This sounds like it is going to our local offices. What does everybody else think?

Honestly? I think it was a poor choice of wording on their part, and they mean you'll hear from your consulate once the petition has been approved in Cali and sent on its way. I mean, the local offices hardly do any processing anymore, since the Chicago lockbox came into effect. JMHO.

[elizaxyz 0]

There's a light at the end of the tunnel folks.

Yeah, it's another train heading towards yours.

Hahahaha. That's about how I feel right now!

I called USCIS yesterday; the problem I'm having now is that they haven't yet received the file back from the Embassy. So State can't tell me anything because they have sent the file back, and USCIS can't tell me anything because they don't have it. So I'm in limbo until someone has the damn file.

I don't know whether to be encouraged or discouraged by the draft form; I'm hoping this doesn't mean we have to send the whole application all over again. And pay another $170. But I suspect that will be the case.

[hockeygal 0]

I'm hoping this doesn't mean we have to send the whole application all over again. And pay another $170. But I suspect that will be the case.

They won't expect you to pay again. It will most likely just be an RFE with the new form.

[elizaxyz 0]

I'm hoping this doesn't mean we have to send the whole application all over again. And pay another $170. But I suspect that will be the case.

They won't expect you to pay again. It will most likely just be an RFE with the new form.

I'm less worried about paying again, although I wouldn't be pleased, that I am about having to reapply from scratch with the new form.

I'm just trying to let it go for now. I'm going over to the UK to visit at the end of July. If nothing has happened by then, I'll reconsider moving to the UK.

[milestogo 0]

Here's asort of "What would you do?" question for everyone.

Our scheduled interview was cancelled and now we evidently have to respond to a forthcoming RFE and fill out a new I-129F form. My fiance co-runs an agency and we met because of this but not through the agency. On the originally approved I-129F for how we met I answered we met during a trip to Russia where she acted as my guide and translator.

She is not listed on any agency nor was she seeking a foreign husband. So when the new form asks whether we met through an agency how do I answer so as not to unnecessarily delay the process? Further complicating this is my provided email correspondence has her agency name in the domain. Note that I do not have any criminal record.

[aussiewench 9]

Here's asort of "What would you do?" question for everyone.

Our scheduled interview was cancelled and now we evidently have to respond to a forthcoming RFE and fill out a new I-129F form. My fiance co-runs an agency and we met because of this but not through the agency. On the originally approved I-129F for how we met I answered we met during a trip to Russia where she acted as my guide and translator.

She is not listed on any agency nor was she seeking a foreign husband. So when the new form asks whether we met through an agency how do I answer so as not to unnecessarily delay the process? Further complicating this is my provided email correspondence has her agency name in the domain. Note that I do not have any criminal record.

Answer truthfully. If you did not meet through the agency then the answer is no on the form.

With anything even prior to the IMBRA if there was anything that you felt explained your case further especially with potential red flags, then one could provide that on a seperate sheet.

[hockeygal 0]

Our scheduled interview was cancelled and now we evidently have to respond to a forthcoming RFE and fill out a new I-129F form.

We still don't know what the next step will be - we are just taking guesses because it gives us somethign to do!

As for your situation... she runs a marriage broker type agency? But you contacted it not to meet a woman but to get a translator? If she runs this agency, won't it show on the forms you are filling out, as her employer? That might raise a few eyebrows, I'd imagine. If I were filling out the form, I would say you met when she was your translator, because that is the truth, but you may want to explain the rest of it, to avoid further RFE's. ?

[ccmkoho 0]

Our scheduled interview was cancelled and now we evidently have to respond to a forthcoming RFE and fill out a new I-129F form.

We still don't know what the next step will be - we are just taking guesses because it gives us somethign to do!

As for your situation... she runs a marriage broker type agency? But you contacted it not to meet a woman but to get a translator? If she runs this agency, won't it show on the forms you are filling out, as her employer? That might raise a few eyebrows, I'd imagine. If I were filling out the form, I would say you met when she was your translator, because that is the truth, but you may want to explain the rest of it, to avoid further RFE's. ?

Well can anyone say for certain the ramifications of answering "yes" to this question? The petitioner is already required to provide criminal backgound if they have one, no matter how they met. Maybe it is to verify the agency that they met through is compliant with IMBRA (That they "broker" provided the benificiary with the criminal background BEFORE they met).

[aussiewench 9]

Our scheduled interview was cancelled and now we evidently have to respond to a forthcoming RFE and fill out a new I-129F form.

We still don't know what the next step will be - we are just taking guesses because it gives us somethign to do!

As for your situation... she runs a marriage broker type agency? But you contacted it not to meet a woman but to get a translator? If she runs this agency, won't it show on the forms you are filling out, as her employer? That might raise a few eyebrows, I'd imagine. If I were filling out the form, I would say you met when she was your translator, because that is the truth, but you may want to explain the rest of it, to avoid further RFE's. ?

Well can anyone say for certain the ramifications of answering "yes" to this question? The petitioner is already required to provide criminal backgound if they have one, no matter how they met. Maybe it is to verify the agency that they met through is compliant with IMBRA (That they "broker" provided the benificiary with the criminal background BEFORE they met).

Its two pronged really, as they will verbally ask the same question of the foreign fiance/spouse as well at the interview. I dont know of any ramifications, as long as both have been honest. But yes, from reading the IMBRA they do wish to make sure that the broker has complied.

Edited June 2, 2006 by aussiewench