IMBRA RFE Scan

[aussiewench 9]

Ok, the questions begin. I met Luz through Yahoo personals. I am guessing that it isn't a MB but I would like to hear that from someone official. I had one previous petition MORE than 2 years ago. If I read that right I don't think I need the wavier. Right?

Gary

Im not official but it seems very clear on the RFE what they require.......

If you have filed two or more K-1 petitions at any time in the past or previously had a K-1 petition approved within two years prior to the filing of this petition, you must apply for a waiver.

You say you had a previous petition more then 2 years ago. That would mean the above DOES NOT apply in your case as you have only had ONE previous petition. Being outside of the two years, the second part does not apply either.

Yahoo Personals.......NO WAY and I will bet my life on that.

[GaryC 7]

Ok, the questions begin. I met Luz through Yahoo personals. I am guessing that it isn't a MB but I would like to hear that from someone official. I had one previous petition MORE than 2 years ago. If I read that right I don't think I need the wavier. Right?

Gary

Im not official but it seems very clear on the RFE what they require.......

If you have filed two or more K-1 petitions at any time in the past or previously had a K-1 petition approved within two years prior to the filing of this petition, you must apply for a waiver.

You say you had a previous petition more then 2 years ago. That would mean the above DOES NOT apply in your case as you have only had ONE previous petition. Being outside of the two years, the second part does not apply either.

Yahoo Personals.......NO WAY and I will bet my life on that.

Thanks Aussie, I kind of thought that but I guess after all this I am getting gun-shy.

[mybackpages 0]

Got my IMBRA RFE in the mail today, and already sent it back to Vermont.

Here is a scan of the RFE IMBRA_RFE.pdf

Thank is so helpful to see what it looks like. Looks simple enough , very much like the new section on the newest version of the 129F petiton. Good luck! You are on your way!

[gobdogman 0]

Ok i have question about the marriage broker question.

I met my fiancee in june 2005 on filipinaheart but that was before the law was in affect.

1. is filipinaheart a marriage brokerage by the laws terms?

2.with us meeting before the law actually being in affect do i have to say yes or no for the question?

This is so confusing because how can they hold us to something that wasnt even in affect a year ago

anyone have an idea on this?

Edited June 22, 2006 by gobdogman

[GaryC 7]

Ok i have question about the marriage broker question.

I met my fiancee in june 2005 on filipinaheart but that was before the law was in affect.

1. is filipinaheart a marriage brokerage by the laws terms?

2.with us meeting before the law actually being in affect do i have to say yes or no for the question?

This is so confusing because how can they hold us to something that wasnt even in affect a year ago

anyone have an idea on this?

It does not matter when you met, only when you filed your petition. I know, that sucks but thems the rules. I don't know about this filipinaheart site. Is it geared only to introducing Philipinas to men from other countries? If so then I would say yes, it is a marriage broker.

[gobdogman 0]

Well i dont have any criminal record so i am not too worried about the whole IMBRA just hope that being as that the filipinaheart website didnt ask me for the information before us talking online doesnt cause us more delays because that is part of the law also that the marriage brokerage is supposed to collect the information before you can have contact with the other members.

Being that it wasnt a law a year ago they never collected that info from me.

[abdcas 0]

Got my IMBRA RFE in the mail today, and already sent it back to Vermont.

Here is a scan of the RFE IMBRA_RFE.pdf

Thanks for sharing this. It seems odd that no question relates to the limitation on the number of application you had filed or had approved in the past two years. I guess because it is unenforceable in that it attempts to apply the law retroactively which may be unconstitutional since prior to the effective date of March 06th, 2006 no such limitation existed. They are only requesting that you voluntarily seek a waiver if you know that you have filed more than two K-1 visa before March 06th, 2006. I think it was intended for the post March 06th, 2006 serial applicants by then there will also be database to verify their accuracy

[GaryC 7]

I have some thoughts and comments on this. If you met your fiance before March 6 2006 then the whole question of how you met is moot. The rest of the law will still apply ie. criminal background and number of petitions. So for you it's not the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act but the Alien Fiance Regulation Act. (I just made that up ) If you met AFTER March 6 2006 then the only thing that will change is the MB should have gotten this info they are now asking for and gave it to the fiance before exchanging personal info. If they didn't provide the background of the USC then the penalty would be on the broker and not the petitioner. I can't see them denying a petition because of a f##k up on the brokers part. It just wouldn't stand up to a court challenge. From the way they are applying this law however, they are asking EVERYONE for the criminal background checks. The law is misnamed and misleading.

Just my thoughts here. Take it for what it's worth.

[Littleone+Robert 0]

Ok, the questions begin. I met Luz through Yahoo personals. I am guessing that it isn't a MB but I would like to hear that from someone official. I had one previous petition MORE than 2 years ago. If I read that right I don't think I need the wavier. Right?

Gary

Im not official but it seems very clear on the RFE what they require.......

If you have filed two or more K-1 petitions at any time in the past or previously had a K-1 petition approved within two years prior to the filing of this petition, you must apply for a waiver.

You say you had a previous petition more then 2 years ago. That would mean the above DOES NOT apply in your case as you have only had ONE previous petition. Being outside of the two years, the second part does not apply either.

Yahoo Personals.......NO WAY and I will bet my life on that.

I and my Fiance' met on Match.com. I would like to know it is considered as a "Marriage Broker"?

we are also waiting for RFE. if we know we will will have the correct answer....Thanks

[GaryC 7]

I was just told by my lawyer that Yahoo does not count as a MB so I would guess that Match.com would fall into the same category.

[Littleone+Robert 0]

I was just told by my lawyer that Yahoo does not count as a MB so I would guess that Match.com would fall into the same category.

[color=#3333FF]oh! Thanks GaryC , at least make us happy

wishing all good news soon[/color]!

[color=#3333FF]Littleone & Robert[/color]

I was just told by my lawyer that Yahoo does not count as a MB so I would guess that Match.com would fall into the same category.

[color=#3333FF]oh! Thanks GaryC , at least make us happy

wishing all good news soon[/color]!

[color=#3333FF]Littleone & Robert[/color]

sorry...not good at making post

[aussiewench 9]

Anyone else see a red herring in the midst of this form?....

I understood that the "waiver" that the new law included was specifically related to the number of prior K1 application filings by the petitioner. Now, the RFE includes reference to a "waiver" needed for any criminal conviction as well?!!

It was my fear that the delays were very much due to the Justice Dept/Homeland Security's efforts to expand the law beyond what was written. Am I alone in reading the law and RFE this way?

The waivers for criminal convictions where also included in the IMBRA.......there is no red herring in that regard.

‘‘©(i) The Secretary of Homeland Security is not limited by

the criminal court record and shall grant a waiver of the condition

described in the second sentence of subparagraph (B) in the case

of a petitioner described in clause (ii).

‘‘(ii) A petitioner described in this clause is a petitioner who

has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty and who is

or was not the primary perpetrator of violence in the relationship

upon a determination that—

‘‘(I) the petitioner was acting in self-defense;

‘‘(II) the petitioner was found to have violated a protection

order intended to protect the petitioner; or

‘‘(III) the petitioner committed, was arrested for, was convicted

of, or pled guilty to committing a crime that did not

result in serious bodily injury and where there was a connection

between the crime and the petitioner’s having been battered

or subjected to extreme cruelty.

‘‘(iii) In acting on applications under this subparagraph, the

Secretary of Homeland Security shall consider any credible evidence

relevant to the application. The determination of what evidence

is credible and the weight to be given that evidence shall be within

the sole discretion of the Secretary.

[seldi 1]

I wish they would give examples of what they considered international marriage brokers. According to the RFE ("any blah blah blah blah that charges fees"), it's basically any paid services.

I met my fiance in 1998 at a friend's party, but we eventually lost touch. We ran into each other in 2005 on a FREE dating/friendship website. So since the site is free, and since we technically didn't meet through it, than it doesn't apply to me. I hope I'm right

[jen&darcy 0]

I assume on question 2 and 3 if you haven't had any convictions or abuse you just don't check anything right?

[hockeygal 0]

I assume on question 2 and 3 if you haven't had any convictions or abuse you just don't check anything right?

that is my guess. I am surprised they don't have a space for saying "none" since they are so keen on that throughout the I-129F application!