Lets collect some information about IMBRA effects

[Ladylethal 12]

30-day notice of I-129F

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

Scroll down and you´ll see it.

[jozlee 0]

thanks, way for the oira not to update their webpage, and to think they're in charge of information...

[Ladylethal 12]

Are you sure that´s not a report not based in daily updates? ´Cus the 30-day noticed started June 1st.

[jozlee 0]

it's based on daily updates, so maybe it didn't kick in with yesterday's updates yet

[Aquelunya 0]

Oh right!!! i forgot to add to spec of info from my talk with the USCIS rep from this morning.

She said that the status on their online website would change once they have received my petition back from the embassy abroad....so keep checking, for those whose petitions have been recalled

[T&N 0]

Oh right!!! i forgot to add to spec of info from my talk with the USCIS rep from this morning.

She said that the status on their online website would change once they have received my petition back from the embassy abroad....so keep checking, for those whose petitions have been recalled

Thanks a lot, Aquelunya

That’s good news!! At least something!

[Mike n Huong 1]

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.

You know what is funny, I emailed him about 1 or 2 weeks ago, and I got the same exact response.

[aussiewench 9]

If you all wouldnt mind having a look at this thread and tell me if Im reading the post correctly as it could very well be something telling. If not then I should go to bed and get some sleep and stop reading this IMBRA stuff lol

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=16262

Edited June 3, 2006 by aussiewench

[AndyMisiu 0]

Well, that's great that everyone could help me to understand what I was reading better. I hope I didn't stir up to many emotions. I think that 30 days sounds a hell of a lot better thatn 90. I'm getting ready go come back to the states on June 14th from visiting my fiancee for 2 months. I plan to start preparing the paperwork then. I hope this will all come a lot clearer by then. Thanks for everyones input, advice, and investigation.

Oh! and thanks for starting my day off on a good note!!!!

[rebeccajo 14]

I see you all are getting some progress. That's great! I went looking for the IMBRA thread in Immi News forum and found them all gone except Laura's post with the new draft I129F, which led me here....

It DOES look like USCIS is aware of the backlog this could create and is being pro-active by handling the issue thru Emergency measures.

I know Ewok will keep an eye for any "loose" IMBRA postings that occur in the forums. This thread will be great for keeping us all up to speed on what's happening as this continues to evolve.

[elizaxyz 0]

Can someone clarify this 60 and 30 day thing for me? I'm a bit confused by all these dates. Does the expiration date on the draft of the revised 1-129f mean that after that date, comments and input are done with?

[aussiewench 9]

Can someone clarify this 60 and 30 day thing for me? I'm a bit confused by all these dates. Does the expiration date on the draft of the revised 1-129f mean that after that date, comments and input are done with?

If you look at the dates....the one with the 60 day notice has already finished. It started back in Feb. It was then sent to washington for emergency review. The 30 day notice is now on the Draft I-129F, so it seems. Hopefully then it will be off and running not long after. There are members here that have a pretty good understanding of the OMB so hopefully they will post.

[elizaxyz 0]

Ah, thanks. I just read through the notices on Laura's link. That's quite encouraging.

[Isabel 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

Hy everyone,

I actually came to a conclusion. So I disagree with almost everyone here . Great.

Well it was already written on the "old" I129f that it would expire on 6/30/06, so I really dont think that the new I129f was just written because of the IMBRA law. Of course they set it up with IMBRA regulations, but that just shows that they are flexible. Since the old petition would have been expired anyway they had to set up a new one, no matter if a new law was passed or not.

And btw I dont know if anyone read that, but someone already mentioned for the pending petitions(cases) they(USCIS or NBC) will do the background check. And as far as I know they just need you to obtain any police record or evidence if your(USC) name is registered at the FBI....They are working together with the FBI so I believe that there is no RFE or new Petition or whatever unless you have some records in your past.

We all need to calm down a little. There is not much we can do and I know waiting sucks. But honestly a delay of 1 month is ok. (BTW what was that delay related to? to the new petition? Then its clear. Since it expires at the end of june...if not yeaaahhhh some news ...what was supoosed to happen on June 6th?)

So any real news are welcome but pls try not to speculate so much. There is no official statement at all.

Regards Isabel

[kitkat1 5]

And btw I dont know if anyone read that, but someone already mentioned for the pending petitions(cases) they(USCIS or NBC) will do the background check. And as far as I know they just need you to obtain any police record or evidence if your(USC) name is registered at the FBI....They are working together with the FBI so I believe that there is no RFE or new Petition or whatever unless you have some records in your past.

We all need to calm down a little. There is not much we can do and I know waiting sucks. But honestly a delay of 1 month is ok. (BTW what was that delay related to? to the new petition? Then its clear. Since it expires at the end of june...if not yeaaahhhh some news ...what was supoosed to happen on June 6th?)

I think the problem for everyone is that there is zero information available regarding how the information regarding the "possible criminal background" of the USC petitioner will need to be provided. The one and only post from USCIS regarding this mentioned something about questionnaires being sent. There was no indication that they are going to work with the FBI to get this information. USCIS has also given no information to people in the middle of this process. They have email address and mailing addresses and they could clearly send a form letter to state that although they were required by law to comply with the IMBRA law, they did not do it and as a result blah blah blah. And we as petitioners have a right to know where we stand and what is going on. The bigger problem is that there is no proof that there will be a delay of one month. Especially now that you noted that the original I-129F form was set to expire at the end of June. This only tells us that they already had a reason to revise the form by that date. It doesn't tell us anything about the supposed questionnaire or how we are going to provide the additional information or how much longer they will keep us waiting in the dark. The uncertainty and not knowing is what kills the people who followed the process correctly and used the forms that the stupid USCIS provided to us in the first place. They are one backwards organization and the fact they can't even tell us what is going to happen next leaves us all angry and speculating.