Lets collect some information about IMBRA effects

[tmma 467]

So logic says this agency would be grandfathered from complying since they met before Januarary 2006. Also, I don't believe IMBRA is enforceable to a foreign entity (agency).

Businesses that operate in the United States must comply with American law, even if they're foreign-owned, so I'm not sure how you figure that IMBRA won't be enforceable.

Pax is correct on this.

Also ( an open message to owners of foreign dating/matchmaking sites)

Surely you care enough about the people on your books that use your service within your country; to only accept foreign clients that not only follow the laws of their own land ( in this case the USA)-but that are not past criminal/sex offenders or sex traffikers?

Why would you want to take the risk of pairing up a paying client with a possible criminal/sex offender?

As much hassle as this new law is; and the delays it is causing-the law in itself is designed to PROTECT foreign spouses/fiance(e)s.

Surely you would want your clients to be as protected as possible?

Just my thoughts.

[NaNaNaNaBooBoo 0]

NOTE TO PERMANENT RESIDENT GRANTEES

I am pretty sure they just changed the USCIS Case Status website, right underneath the title "finding the status of your case" it now says: "If you were granted permanent resident status or entered the U.S. with an immigrant visa more than 60 days ago and have not received your first permanent resident card, please call 1-800-375-5283" https://egov.immigration.gov/cris/jsps/index.jsp

I don't think this was always there, but I have looked at this site so many times in the past two days I no longer have an clairity.

If it is true, something very fishy is going on with USCIS, I wonder if it really is IMBRA or something else.

[Aquelunya 0]

Well I spoke to USCIS today, and finally someone actually said something about this law, considering all the other times they knew absolutely nothing! Anyway, it looks like the Embassy has not sent my petition back yet!!! Even though they cancelled the interview on May 11th!! NVC still did not receive it as of yesterday, therefore neither did USCIS. Here is some information I got from the immigration representative though may be helpful to some:

-There will be a separate form/questioner sent out to the petitioner to fill out, as soon as the petition is received at the local center from the US embassy abroad.

- You will not be placed at the bottom of the "pile" and they will in fact try to speed up all the delayed petitions effected by the IMBRA law

-Therefore you should fill out this form ASAP, and return to them so they can finish with this new process.

She was very nice and understanding...not that it helps me, but does simmer the boiling a little

Edited June 2, 2006 by Aquelunya

[hafiz 1]

wow this forum is kicking some ###, good job gary. your next assignment should you choose to accept is to start a thread about petition being sent to california

[Vagina Journey 0]

A response i just got from Rick Santorum

Dear Ms. R.....

Thank you for contacting me regarding immigration reform. I appreciate hearing

from you and having the benefit of your views.

As you may know, the Senate passed S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform

Act of 2006, on May 25, 2006. I voted against this legislation because I do not

believe this is the right way to reform our immigration system.

As the son of an Italian immigrant who came to the United States in 1930, I

understand the important and valuable contributions legal immigrants have made

and continue to make to our country. I have great respect for those who have

legally come to our nation seeking a better life for their families.

However, I firmly believe that the safety and security of our country must be

our first priority. Who is traveling across our borders and why they are doing

so is as important as any issue we currently face. It is a complicated issue

with far reaching implications that will impact our national security, our

economy, and our culture.

Securing our border is a basic responsibility of a sovereign nation. An

immigration policy that does not control who is entering our nation is not an

immigration policy at all. The best way to do this is by strengthening and

supporting our Border Patrol, both through greater numbers and technological

advancements. To this end, I cosponsored and voted for a successful amendment

introduced by Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama that authorizes the Department of

Homeland Security to construct 370 miles of triple-layer fence and 500 miles of

vehicle barriers at strategic locations along our southern border.

I also cosponsored an amendment offered by John Ensign of Nevada that provides

reimbursement for the temporary use of the National Guard to secure the borders

of the United States. With the approval of the Secretary of Defense, the

governor of any state may order the use of the National Guard to provide

"command, control and continuity of support" such as ground and airborne

reconnaissance, logistical, tactical and administrative support, communications

services and emergency medical services. I was pleased to see both of these

amendments pass as they are solid first steps towards border security.

However, the main reason that I voted against S. 2611 is that this bill gives

amnesty to the immigrants who came to this country illegally. I believe those

who have entered this country illegally must return to their native land and

move through the legal process just like everyone else. The idea that those who

have been here illegally for an arbitrary number of years should be able to stay

in America simply by paying back taxes is an insult to all those who have waited

patiently and lawfully for their chance to come here and pursue the American

dream.

There were many opportunities to improve this legislation throughout Senate

debate, and I was disappointed that the majority of my colleagues did not truly

hear the call of their constituents to oppose amnesty. I cannot support an

amnesty proposal now because amnesty has failed in the past. In 1986, Congress

attempted to address this same issue, though on a much smaller scale. Estimates

of the size of the illegal-immigrant population in the U.S. in 1986 placed the

total number close to 1 million; today we are dealing with around 12 million.

Providing amnesty to one million illegal immigrants yielded 12 million over the

course of 20 years. Amnesty simply fails the test of history.

S. 2611 also threatens the health of our nation's social safety net-Social

Security-by adding millions of new beneficiaries to an already burdened program.

I cosponsored an amendment offered by Senator John Ensign that would have

prevented illegal immigrants from getting Social Security benefits based on

their illegal work history, often with an invalid number. Unfortunately, a

majority of my colleagues voted to kill this amendment. By doing so, the Senate

has rewarded illegal immigrants by putting our current elderly beneficiaries,

who paid into the Social Security system for decades in order to collect the

benefits they receive today, further at risk in an already stretched system.

America is a nation of immigrants, a nation that derives much of our strength

from those who come here to live the American Dream. However, the immigrants

who have contributed so much to the character of our nation came here legally.

We devalue their sacrifices and hardships if we fail to ask the same of today's

immigrants. I will continue to oppose any legislation that provides amnesty for

illegal immigrants.

Thank you again for contacting me. If I can be of further assistance on this or

any other matter, please do not hesitate to call on me again.

Sincerely,

Rick Santorum

United States Senate

This e-mail, a copy of which has been archived in the United States Senate, is

an official Senate communication intended for the individual or entity named

above. Any improper alteration or fraudulent misuse of the contents of this

e-mail may constitute a violation of federal law (18 USC 1030; 18 USC 2511; 18

USC 2701), and/or state laws governing defamation and misattribution. If the

reader of this message is not the intended recipient, please notify us that the

message was received in error and then delete it.

[elizaxyz 0]

How helpful of Santorum...

[Ladylethal 12]

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Well I spoke to USCIS today, and finally someone actually said something about this law, considering all the other times they knew absolutely nothing! Anyway, it looks like the Embassy has not sent my petition back yet!!! Even though they cancelled the interview on May 11th!! NVC still did not receive it as of yesterday, therefore neither did USCIS. Here is some information I got from the immigration representative though may be helpful to some:

-There will be a separate form/questioner sent out to the petitioner to fill out, as soon as the petition is received at the local center from the US embassy abroad.

- You will not be placed at the bottom of the "pile" and they will in fact try to speed up all the delayed petitions effected by the IMBRA law

-Therefore you should fill out this form ASAP, and return to them so they can finish with this new process.

She was very nice and understanding...not that it helps me, but does simmer the boiling a little

Here's some info I found on another forum:

Here's the link: http://www.hinigugma.com/index/about2142.html

In attempt to avoid any further delays our K-1 visa petition, I went to the morgue of cold souls and called the USCIS. I was hoping that I could actually contact the people involved with the background checks in order to get the ball rolling. I was seeking forms are whatever information I was needing to provide, just to get the process either started or expedited.

So. . .

I called the USCIS customer service number 1-(800) 375-5283.

After multiple calls and being on hold for over two hours on my cell phone, two separate persons at the USCIS told me to call the the U.S. State Department at telephone number: 1-202-663-1225. I was told by the USCIS that the new rules/law is basically under the realm of the State Department; that everything is upon their shoulders; that they are the ones to create the policies and procedures governing all background checks. So, in other words, they did not know and probably did not care and just pushed me off to someone else.

Calling the State Department, the robo-operator said that their office hours are Monday through Friday, 8 am to 5 pm, except on Wednesdays, when they are only available from 11 am to 12 noon. (and of course closed on national holidays). I am not sure which time zone that is in, but it probably is the "twilight zone." The first three attempts ended with yet another computer message that roughly said that "all agents are busy, try again later." At that time, the call was terminated by the robo operator.

Friday, I did manage to get through to an actual human! He said not to worry, that they will perform the background checks on their own, without any additional forms or lost time on the petition for K-1 visas. At least, at this time.

Hope that person from the State Department wasn't just blowing smoke.

[Ladylethal 12]

Isn´t it already pretty clear that they´re gonna have us send them the new form?

[tigretigre 0]

Nothing is particularly clear about any of this, as far as I'm concerned.

I think the best way to find out what will happen is to wait until it happens.

I really, really do.

If it turns out your particular prediction was correct, have an "I told you so" party afterwards.

There's no way to tell right now if anybody here has "better" information than everyone else.

Hang in there.

[AndyMisiu 0]

I'm not sure if anyone has read this yet or posted it. I was searching "IMBRA on the www.USCIS.gov site and came up with an interesting supporting statement. Try this link and see if you are able to read the form.

http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/formsfee/for.../i-129fsupp.pdf

If the link didn't work go to www.USCIS.gov and search "IMBRA" there should be 4 subjects concerning IMBRA, one being the "Supporting Statement" posted on 6/1/2006

Go to line 8 and tell me what you think of it

From what I read they posted a notice in the Federal Register on May 26, 2006 requesting emergency review by OMB for the revisions to the form I-129F. They gave a 60 public comment period followed by a 30 day review of comments period.

So, included with the 4 subjects is the new draft of the I-129F and information about the paperwork reduction act.

Well, I conclude that the I-129F draft was posted on 6/1/2006 for 60 public comment to be followed by the 30 day review period. This could potentialy mean a 90 day delay from yesterday.

Now, I now we heard about the June 6 deadline from the lawyer and some other opinions which point to something faster (we hope) and I don't mean to give bad vibes. I am just looking for answers like everyone else and came accross this. Can you look into the form and tell me what you think? and if this is old or wrong information than I give you permission to slap me for the scare!!

I wish us all the luck!!!!!

[AndyMisiu 0]

Oh!! and by the way.. I agree with "tigretigre" nobody gonna know nuttin until they tell us. With that said we really don't know dittly doo!! but I don't blame us for searching for the possitive. I think we all just want something to make us sleep a little better at night!! It could be are fiancee if........ no, let me stop!!! I'm just kiddin!! peace my new friends and post something that will make my day start good tomorrow!!

[jozlee 0]

The original request for emergency review on the Federal Register. The Federal Register is where agency's publish their findings. Herein, they seeking to determine if they need emergency approval of usage of this form by the Office of Management and Budget - basically weighing the Paperwork Reduction Act with the disruption in immigration. The previous post states that they found that emergency approval is required, which would only last for 180 days (I believe) after OMB grants it.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS)

Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services

Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection; Comment Request

71 FR 30434

DATE: Friday, May 26, 2006

ACTION: Notice of 60-day information collection under review: Petition for Alien Fiance(e); Form I-129F. OMB Control No. 1615-0001.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has submitted an emergency information collection request (ICR) utilizing emergency review procedures, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with section 1320.13(a)(1)(ii) and (a)(2)(iii) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The USCIS has determined that it cannot comply with the normal clearance procedures under this part because normal clearance procedures are likely [*30435] to prevent or disrupt the collection of information.

If granted, the emergency approval is only valid for 180 days. All comments and/or questions pertaining to this pending request for emergency approval must be directed to OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer, Department of Homeland Security, 725-17th Street, NW., Suite 10235, Washington, DC 20503.

During the first 60 days of this period, a regular review of this information collection is also being undertaken. Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), USCIS, Director, Regulatory Management Division, Clearance Office, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, 3rd floor, Washington, DC 20529. Comments may also be submitted to DHS via facsimile to 202-272-8352 or via e-mail at rfs.regs@dhs.gov. When submitting comments by e-mail please make sure to add OMB Control No. 1615-0001 in the subject box. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Overview of This Information Collection

(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved information collection.

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Petition for Alien Fiance(e).

(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Homeland Security sponsoring the collection: Form I-129F. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Individuals or Households. This information is collected by USCIS to determine whether satisfactory evidence has been submitted by a U.S. citizen to establish that the parties are married, in the case of a citizen seeking to obtain a nonimmigrant visa for his or her spouse.

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: 200,000 responses at 1 hour and 30 minutes (1.50) per response.

(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: 300,000 hours.

If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please visit the USCIS Web site at: http://uscis.gov/graphics/formsfee/forms/pra/index.htm.

If additional information is required contact: USCIS, Regulatory Management Division, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20529, (202) 272-8377.

Dated: May 23, 2006.

Richard A. Sloan,

Director, Regulatory Management Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

[FR Doc. E6-8206 Filed 5-25-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-10-P

[Ladylethal 12]

From what I read they posted a notice in the Federal Register on May 26, 2006 requesting emergency review by OMB for the revisions to the form I-129F. They gave a 60 public comment period followed by a 30 day review of comments period.

So, included with the 4 subjects is the new draft of the I-129F and information about the paperwork reduction act.

Well, I conclude that the I-129F draft was posted on 6/1/2006 for 60 public comment to be followed by the 30 day review period. This could potentialy mean a 90 day delay from yesterday.

I posted about this today, and I think you´re misinformed in your conclusion. If you read that again you´ll see that 1) they said the 60-day notice would go on as normal BUT they had requested an emergency approval valid for 180 days so it wouldn´t increase the backlog in the service centers; 2) if you go to USCIS under Laws and Regulations, click News and find the I-129F notice you´ll see it has gone to a 30-day notice already.

So in worst case we´re looking at a 30 day delay from yesterday, not 90. And with all that has being going on I honestly think they´ll put this form up sooner as an emergency approval.

[jozlee 0]

According to the OMB - OIRA page the current I-129F form is approved until :

OMB NO: 1615-0001 EXPIRATION DATE: 06/30/2006

RESPS:200,000 HOURS:100,000 COSTS(000):$1,900

Petition for Alien Fiance(e)

FORMS: I-129F

And if you look it isn't reviewed in the past 30 days or pending...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/library/OMBI...HS.HUD.html#DHS