Lets collect some information about IMBRA effects

[Mike n Huong 1]

I hope everything thing goes well for us all. I just don't understand why they need to return the petition to the US. Don't they have our information on record at the NVC or USCIS, that they could just run name checks, and if something pops up with your name, then they can recall it, but if your name doesn't get hits then no problem. They should begin with names with the closest interview dates, and move down the line, therefore they would not have to cancel interviews, if your name doesn't get hits. It just amazes me how unorganized and how unproffesional our government is working. I would have assumed that they did a criminal backround check before approving the petition.

Good Luck to us all on our long Journeys!!! Wish we were all as lucky as those who enter illegally, but we are law abiding citizens, and we get the shaft usually.

Sorry had to Vent!!!!!!!!

[ccmkoho 0]

As I mentioned in my post, we most definitely didn't meet through an IMB and were very clear in stating that we met in person at a sporting event, but our petition was still recalled.

In addition to describing how we met the first time, we also mentioned that he traveled up to visit me during the summer and supported it with the stamps in his passport (even though Canada doesn't usually stamp passports anymore, they were working to rule at the time), photos of us at a city-run event he attended that I coordinated (it's listed in my employment history), and AMTRAK stubs with our names on them from our travel within the US (and both purchased with his credit card). There should be no concern whatsoever that we met through an IMB. I hope this means we'll be re-approved quickly.

It doesn't matter how you met.

"Q #10: Does this law apply at all to couples who did NOT meet through an IMB?

Answer: Yes. This law does NOT APPLY ONLY TO IMBs. There are provisions in this law which apply to ALL petitioners and couples, regardless of how they met. They apply to ANY K Visa petititoner, even those who did NOT meet their fiancee or spouse through an IMB, but for instance just through friends or family. "

from:

http://usaimmigrationattorney.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=2

[Wrenly 0]

It doesn't matter how you met.

"Q #10: Does this law apply at all to couples who did NOT meet through an IMB?

Answer: Yes. This law does NOT APPLY ONLY TO IMBs. There are provisions in this law which apply to ALL petitioners and couples, regardless of how they met. They apply to ANY K Visa petititoner, even those who did NOT meet their fiancee or spouse through an IMB, but for instance just through friends or family. "

from:

http://usaimmigrationattorney.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=2

But didn't someone say that that particular site was trying to encourage people to hire an attorney. So wouldn't it behoove them to state that it affects everyone? I think I remember someone saying that, but I could be wrong???

[ccmkoho 0]

It doesn't matter how you met.

"Q #10: Does this law apply at all to couples who did NOT meet through an IMB?

Answer: Yes. This law does NOT APPLY ONLY TO IMBs. There are provisions in this law which apply to ALL petitioners and couples, regardless of how they met. They apply to ANY K Visa petititoner, even those who did NOT meet their fiancee or spouse through an IMB, but for instance just through friends or family. "

from:

http://usaimmigrationattorney.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=2

But didn't someone say that that particular site was trying to encourage people to hire an attorney. So wouldn't it behoove them to state that it affects everyone? I think I remember someone saying that, but I could be wrong???

Well, actually it makes more sense to me. Why would someone who goes through an "IMB", which is still loosely defined, be more apt at having a domestic violence background than someone who met their fiance through a chat room? They both should be scrutinized the same.

JMHO

[Wrenly 0]

It doesn't matter how you met.

"Q #10: Does this law apply at all to couples who did NOT meet through an IMB?

Answer: Yes. This law does NOT APPLY ONLY TO IMBs. There are provisions in this law which apply to ALL petitioners and couples, regardless of how they met. They apply to ANY K Visa petititoner, even those who did NOT meet their fiancee or spouse through an IMB, but for instance just through friends or family. "

from:

http://usaimmigrationattorney.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=2

But didn't someone say that that particular site was trying to encourage people to hire an attorney. So wouldn't it behoove them to state that it affects everyone? I think I remember someone saying that, but I could be wrong???

Well, actually it makes more sense to me. Why would someone who goes through an "IMB", which is still loosely defined, be more apt at having a domestic violence background than someone who met their fiance through a chat room? They both should be scrutinized the same.

JMHO

I want to agree with you because it does seem only fair--and a lot less like profiling. But someone must have done some research and found out some grim statistics about IMB marriages in particular or they wouldn't have written the law in the first place. Although trying to fit logic into the legislative process is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

[cdngirl06 0]

It doesn't matter how you met...

Yes, I'm aware that the new law affects everyone. I was just responding to the comment that it seemed like the recalls were only affecting those who met through an IMB or were vague in describing how they met... we were neither and were still affected, so I wanted to make that clear.

[Sacha 0]

Name - Sacha

Country - UK

Service Centre - TSC

NOA1 - 13/03/2006

Thanks

Sacha

[PorknBeanz 0]

I want to agree with you because it does seem only fair--and a lot less like profiling. But someone must have done some research and found out some grim statistics about IMB marriages in particular or they wouldn't have written the law in the first place. Although trying to fit logic into the legislative process is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

When the senator from Washington thought up this law in 2003 a study was commissioned to gather statistics on physical abuse in visa-related marriages, and abuse of the system in general. That study and another subsequent study, found the actual number of confirmed abuse cases was so small as to be meaningless in the context of the large number of visas issued.

When she again tried to get this law passed in 2005, the senator didn't mention the study because it would hurt her platform of fighting rampant abuse of poor illiterate women brought to the US by abusive men. In fact, there were no hearings at all. IMBRA was added to the law protecting women act and there was only a voice vote.

When IMBRA was challenged, the study was brought to light. A federal judge issued an injunction against IMBRA for probably violating two of our constitutional rights. He also felt the law was overreaching and unfair in that it only covered IMBs. Since there was no statistical evidence that IMB marriages were prone to abuse, why not protect people who meet in brothels, or libraries? Why are international Match.com marriages exempt from the initial contact disclosure requirements of IMBRA? To be fair, the law should state that domestic women who meet domestic men in the US should have to carry a letter showing how many children they've had, every address they've had since they were 18, and that they're not in the sexual predator database.

[Wrenly 0]

I want to agree with you because it does seem only fair--and a lot less like profiling. But someone must have done some research and found out some grim statistics about IMB marriages in particular or they wouldn't have written the law in the first place. Although trying to fit logic into the legislative process is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

When the senator from Washington thought up this law in 2003 a study was commissioned to gather statistics on physical abuse in visa-related marriages, and abuse of the system in general. That study and another subsequent study, found the actual number of confirmed abuse cases was so small as to be meaningless in the context of the large number of visas issued.

When she again tried to get this law passed in 2005, the senator didn't mention the study because it would hurt her platform of fighting rampant abuse of poor illiterate women brought to the US by abusive men. In fact, there were no hearings at all. IMBRA was added to the law protecting women act and there was only a voice vote.

When IMBRA was challenged, the study was brought to light. A federal judge issued an injunction against IMBRA for probably violating two of our constitutional rights. He also felt the law was overreaching and unfair in that it only covered IMBs. Since there was no statistical evidence that IMB marriages were prone to abuse, why not protect people who meet in brothels, or libraries? Why are international Match.com marriages exempt from the initial contact disclosure requirements of IMBRA? To be fair, the law should state that domestic women who meet domestic men in the US should have to carry a letter showing how many children they've had, every address they've had since they were 18, and that they're not in the sexual predator database.

!!!!!

It sounds a bit similar to the argument I had with my mother when I used to be on Yahoo! Personals. "But mom, he could be just as crazy if I met him in a bar on a Friday night!!"

Thanks for the information. I didn't know that.

[bwaaderant 0]

Receipt date: March 1, 2006

NOA1: March 3, 2006

NOA2: May 8, 2006

California Service Center

Country: Russia

[lt&gh 0]

Receipt date: April 17, 2006

NOA1: April 18, 2006

Nebraska Service Center

Country: Ecuador

I'm seeing a trend....where nebraska is not doing anything

Edited May 17, 2006 by lt&gh

[ppboo 0]

I sent my 129f on March 10 to VSC, received NOA2 on March 24. NVC has already completed processing and my financee already received her packet from the Moscow Embassy. Her interview is set for June 13.

I was after the March 6 date completely, and it moved fast for me.

My only concern is that USCIS will re-assess their approvals made after March 6 in order to conduct the criminal investigation and such. I have not heard any word about people getting their approvals "revoked" yet, but would be interested to know if anyone else has heard such a thing.

I highly doubt that the USG has the energy to revoke the approvals made after that time...they are probably still trying to figure out what to do with the ones coming in.

People take a look at this thread started by ppboo...

MY Case GET RECALL after my Interview APPROVED!!!, I just got a call from my Embassy

Our case has gone all the way through the process and just before picking up the visa it was recalled!!!!!

Sheldon (US) & Wendy (Malaysia)

2006-03-09 - I-129F Sent to VSC

2006-03-13 - NOA1

2006-03-25 - NOA2

2006-03-27 - NVC Received

2006-03-29 - NVC Left

Not sure when Consulate Received

2006-04-10 - Sent email to local Consular, Consular advice that Packet 3 sent on 10 April

2006-04-21 - Received Packet 3!

2006-04-24 - Sent DS230 Part 1 and Checklist back to Embassy

2006-04-28 - Packet 4!

2006-04-29 - Medical check-up (result will be ready in 5 days)

2006-05-11 - Interview Day!!!! - APPROVED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2006-05-17 - Got a call from my Embassy, my case recall!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2006-05-19 - Suppose to pick up my VISA and passport

[globetrotter 0]

NOA 1: 10 March

NOA 2: 11 May

Texas service centre

Country: UK

[Aquelunya 0]

I sent my 129f on March 10 to VSC, received NOA2 on March 24. NVC has already completed processing and my financee already received her packet from the Moscow Embassy. Her interview is set for June 13.

I was after the March 6 date completely, and it moved fast for me.

My only concern is that USCIS will re-assess their approvals made after March 6 in order to conduct the criminal investigation and such. I have not heard any word about people getting their approvals "revoked" yet, but would be interested to know if anyone else has heard such a thing.

I highly doubt that the USG has the energy to revoke the approvals made after that time...they are probably still trying to figure out what to do with the ones coming in.

People take a look at this thread started by ppboo...

MY Case GET RECALL after my Interview APPROVED!!!, I just got a call from my Embassy

Our case has gone all the way through the process and just before picking up the visa it was recalled!!!!!

Sheldon (US) & Wendy (Malaysia)

2006-03-09 - I-129F Sent to VSC

2006-03-13 - NOA1

2006-03-25 - NOA2

2006-03-27 - NVC Received

2006-03-29 - NVC Left

Not sure when Consulate Received

2006-04-10 - Sent email to local Consular, Consular advice that Packet 3 sent on 10 April

2006-04-21 - Received Packet 3!

2006-04-24 - Sent DS230 Part 1 and Checklist back to Embassy

2006-04-28 - Packet 4!

2006-04-29 - Medical check-up (result will be ready in 5 days)

2006-05-11 - Interview Day!!!! - APPROVED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2006-05-17 - Got a call from my Embassy, my case recall!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2006-05-19 - Suppose to pick up my VISA and passport

oh my god, thats really someting!!! I cant believe they recalled it when you already received your approval and was about to pick up your visa! WOW what craziness

I am so sorry to hear this

Edited May 17, 2006 by Aquelunya

[KaiserD 12]

That's really stupid, I can't believe they would do that to you! I hope it gets sorted soon