More Ambiguity, The New I-129F, WHAT About the Mandatory Beneficiary Disclosures?

[Pete 0]

So, it seem we will be getting RFE's and new forms to deal with this IMBRA fiasco. That is the good news for today, but let's think to tomorrow.

Here is where I am afraid it turns into a real living nightmare...

IMBRA law says you have to check the box acknowledging you met through an "International Marriage Broker" even if you met on a dating website. Yup- check it out. If you messaged your fiancee online, the website that facilitated your contact was supposed to have given your disclosures to your fiancee. BEFORE you contacted them! If not- THEY WERE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH IMBRA.

Did you meet on Cherry Blossom? FilipinaHeart? Any of several hundred websites? Beacuse of the way they wrote IMBRA, you then have to check the IMB meeting box on the new I-129F.

But here is the rub: No dating websites were (and many still are not) compliant with the disclosures that IMBRA now onerously imposes! So... if you are honest and check the box on the I-129 that you met (by IMBRA's definition) though an IMB, then the consulate officer must ask the beneficiary if they were informed by the IMB of the petioners disclosures.

And of course.. the petitioner, if they are honest must say "no- I was not given disclosures".

And then the interviewing consulate officer must deny your visa!

Anybody else see yet another ocean of heartache here thanks to this IMBRA law that was rammed through with no thought to its practical implementation?

I cannot find any discussion of how this will be dealt with, and certainly no comment from USCIS. And of course now that the IMBRA supporters have got their special interest legislation passed, the last thing they care about is cleaning up this god forsaken mess they have created for 10,000 innocent people.

Am I the only person to wonder about this? How many of you met on any website? If you did, you are affected. I expect the pro-IMBRA crowd to shout me down about this, but watch and see the inbroglio that ensues as this legislation gains full impact against tens of thousands of innocent people.

Will you be found "Guilty of meeting by internet"?

[shimmy 0]

I too have been considering the effects of the question concerning whether or not a petitioner met on a marriage broker. If you met before March 6th there will be no problem since this law is not retroactive, post March 6th I dont know.

The problem with me is that the definition is too broad and imprecise. I used a dating site and under this definiton I have used a "marriage broker" eventhough it was not my intent to do so. When it comes time to answering this Question on the form, I will check "yes" and then write I used a dating site which per your definition is considered a marriage broker.

Of concern to me is that I have read in that in the Philippines it is illegal to use marriage brokers, does anyone know if that is true? To follow up specifically the filipino person must not have been charged a fee?

[Ladylethal 12]

I haven´t thought much of this, to be honest, as my fiance and I didn´t meet in a dating site. I am sure the RFE will give better instructions for those cases, as they know the law wasn´t in effect when these couples met.

[tigretigre 0]

Out of curiosity, how broad IS their definition of "marriage broker"--the original poster appears to be suggesting that anybody who met their fiance online will be considered to have used a marriage broker.

I met my fiance in a support chat for people recovering from a particular illness. Not only was there no intent on the part of the site administrator to facilitate meetings between users, but the chat guidelines discouraged people from using the site with that intent. Do you really suppose my fiance and I met through the services of a marriage broker as defined by IMBRA?

How about my grandma's online bridge club? Marriage broker?

My dad belongs to a Cleveland Indians fan forum. Marriage broker?

I belong to a sewing pattern review mailing list. Marriage broker?

Something in my gut tells me that no, people who met in a chat about equestrian sports or on an indie rock forum will not be thought by the consular officers to have used a marriage broker.

Your point is well-taken, but I would be careful about making mountains out of molehills. It's awfully easy to trigger widespread panic here.

[Tim and Bethanie 1]

I too have been considering the effects of the question concerning whether or not a petitioner met on a marriage broker. If you met before March 6th there will be no problem since this law is not retroactive, post March 6th I dont know.

If there are petitioners that only just met in March, I think they will have a lot more to explain than if they met on an IMB!

[shimmy 0]

If there are petitioners that only just met in March, I think they will have a lot more to explain than if they met on an IMB!

What I stated was that the requirement that an IMB site provide information about a potential love interest could only affect people who meet post March 6th as the IMBRA law is not retroactive!

[Barry2005 0]

I knew about this before March 6. "Elana's Models" website had/has a section about it. (I never spent any money at this Website I was just looking lol) They said if your began your relationship (chat emails ect...) before March 6 then you were ok according to their lawyers. I am still a little worried considering lawyers pretend to be so confident....I wonder if the law will cover those who start their relationship after March 5 or will it be 60 days before that when the law was passed? I started talking to my gf on October 1st and met her in person before March 6 so maybe I will be ok. As I already posted in another thread: I wonder will I need a waiver and people who are in violation of IMBRA...what will happen to their dreams? Will there be a waiver or is there just a denial? People with criminal records will be given a chance to explain their situation so I think maybe others may have to ask for a waiver? I was starting to wonder if I was worrying too much since I haven't heard anything on this subject. Thanks for posting. James T sent me a link .....cant get it to post here sorry but it is on usaimmigrationattorney.com The big question is: Does it matter when you met online or in person and what date is important? Good luck to us all and may our hearts not be broken!

[noBS 0]

Out of curiosity, how broad IS their definition of "marriage broker"--the original poster appears to be suggesting that anybody who met their fiance online will be considered to have used a marriage broker.

Do you really suppose my fiance and I met through the services of a marriage broker as defined by IMBRA?

How about my grandma's online bridge club? Marriage broker?

My dad belongs to a Cleveland Indians fan forum. Marriage broker?

I belong to a sewing pattern review mailing list. Marriage broker?

A cogent and thoughtful Tigre post as always! According to one lawyers (Gary Bala) interpretation from his blog:

"IMB is defined very broadly in this law, as are all relevant terms in this law...

The definition of IMB, under Section 833(e)(4)(A), is any corporation, individual, or legal entity, whether or not existing under the laws of the U.S., who charges fees for providing dating, matrimonial, matchmaking or social referrals or is "otherwise faciliating communication between individuals."

Furthermore:

"There are, under Section 833(e)(4)(B), TWO IMPORTANT EXCEPTIONS, : 1) "The Non-Profit": a traditional matchmaking organization of a cultural or religious nature which offers its services on a non-profit basis under law, tyically a state-registered corporation, and 2) "The Non-Primary Business with Comparable Rates": a domestic dating service or other primary service whose principal business is NOT international dating and which charges comparable rates for comparable services to all individuals, men and women, domestic and foreign.

Your favorite international correspondence website on the Internet would in fact be subject to this law, IF the exceptions enumerated above do not apply.

Some U.S. clients and IMBs are asking if the IMB would "qualify" for an exception if they don't charge fees for the lady's personal contact. The safe answer would appear to be: only if the other qualifications of Exception No. 1 apply. An IMB's claim to an exception based in the statement that "We don't charge fees for lady's contact or any dating service", but coupled with an admission that the company generates revenue and profits, however small, from such things as advertising fees for related services such as flowers, candy and cards, Google "ad-words", or charitable donations from members, carries a risk that the "non-profit" exception does not genuinely apply."

Nobody wants a panic- but all of us want answers and we want to be with our loved ones. We all deserve to be treated with respect and not as criminals simply because we met on a web site. Had the full ramifications of this law been thought out beforehand we would not be in this state of confusion.

IMBRA will go down in history as generating the most pain for innocent victims of any law. A perfect example of do-gooders f*cking up an already broken system and causing untold grief in the guise of "protecting women".

Can you imagine thousands of consulate officers across the world, interviewing your fiance and holding your future together in their hands, trying to interpret the IMBRA law quoted above? I can, and that is why I am scared.

Edited June 14, 2006 by noBS

[Mephys 2]

Ok, I am kinda confused with all this stuff, and I am mainly french too so sometimes I get lost in technical words.

But heres my question. Me and my boyfriend met in an MMORPG (massive multiplayer online role playing game) known as World of Warcraft. We both had to pay to play the game, but no informations about anyone is available.

I met him as a human red haired chick rogue playing with maces and backstabbing monsters while I was a 7 foot tall night elf with pointy ears, purple skin, and having a giant purple tiger as a pet. Marriage broker? dont think so. (heres a little picture of us before we met for real)

Plus we had to have fun to keep playing with each other cause so far there is a couple millions of people playing that game, and we had to exchange our e-mail to really start chatting under our real names, after 6 months of soley playing.

So I sure hope we are fine with this imbra thing.

Mephys

Edited June 14, 2006 by Mephys

[shimmy 0]

Good post noBS!!

I was unaware of exception number two. Since the site I met my fiancee was directed primarily for american men and women and charged a flat rate it would seem that I will not have to check the yes box. I feel better now

[Caladan 19]

Mephys, I love your pics! My boyfriend and I met through an online text-based game in 2002. We became a couple, however, when we met in person in 2004, by my lights.

The game was free, and not a dating site. I will be checking 'no' in that box. They wanna make the argument that a game mostly populated by 14-year-old Romanian hackers is a dating site, they can make it. Hell, they can make the argument that using g-mail is, too, as it facilitates communication.

But imma not gonna do it for 'em.

What someone needs to do is accuse the New York Times or a well-known weblog as

being a marriage broker. That will get the law amended right quick.

[jozlee 0]

Yes, in the Philippines, marriage brokers are illegal. That's one of the reason why the US has been unable to track mail-order brides because of fears of repercussions in the foreign state. That's another reason why they made it explicit in this act.

I too have been considering the effects of the question concerning whether or not a petitioner met on a marriage broker. If you met before March 6th there will be no problem since this law is not retroactive, post March 6th I dont know.

The problem with me is that the definition is too broad and imprecise. I used a dating site and under this definiton I have used a "marriage broker" eventhough it was not my intent to do so. When it comes time to answering this Question on the form, I will check "yes" and then write I used a dating site which per your definition is considered a marriage broker.

Of concern to me is that I have read in that in the Philippines it is illegal to use marriage brokers, does anyone know if that is true? To follow up specifically the filipino person must not have been charged a fee?

[tigretigre 0]

I'd be careful of anything from that website, noBS...there is definitely some kind of anti-IMBRA agenda going on over there, and it's possible stuff is being exaggerated for the purpose inducing panic and anger.

The place where I met my fiance is one of the millions of totally free IRC channels out there, on just about every subject in the world, operated by everyone from obsessed Twin Peaks fans from Japan to home-brewing enthusiasts in Nebraska. Some people log on with their real names, while others call themselves poop_addict73 and claim to be from Antarctica. I should be okay unless the DHS wants to claim that the entire Internet is one big matchmaking service and that all our ISPs are marriage brokers.

Mephys, I almost peed my pants laughing...what a great story!

[hockeygal 0]

I was under theimpression after reading the draft new form, that typical dating services like yahoo and match and lavalife were NOT considered marriage brokers. Did I dream that up?

[phatmadame81 0]

I was under theimpression after reading the draft new form, that typical dating services like yahoo and match and lavalife were NOT considered marriage brokers. Did I dream that up?

I am finding this quite confusing, I too think I have been dreaming up things when I met Paul (my husband ) we were chatting in a popular forum for Jamaicans--Marriage broker? God I hope not.