Dating Websites and IMBRA

[Madison Man 0]

Can anyone tell me what happens if u did meet by an International Marriage broker? I met my Fiance on Mate1.com and I think I may have to check yes on my RFE Form when I get it. My Fiance did not pay to use the dating website because it is free for all women. I did have to pay a fee to join. It was a monthly fee I paid for 2 months or so until I figuired out that you can go and use the site as a guest member. So I did pay them. This unfortunitely means that Mate1 is considered and International Marriage Broker even though they dont full arrange anything. Its just because they are not "Free", and charge to join. If I answer "Yes" on my RFE, how will this impact me? Will this disqualify me from my K1 Petition? I met my Fiance on that site November of last year.

It maybe time to contact a lawyer huh?

[vartan 0]

No .. I think you got this wrong.. IMBRA is there to protect the foriegn person from being hurt. They are not saying that Marriage Brokers are bad they just want the foreign fiance to know what they are getting into. This stemmed from two foriegn fiances being brutally murdered in Washington State. So yes you will have to check that you met them on a broker and then answer if you have been convicted of any crimes and what not. But seriously if you have committed no crimes.. you should be peachy. Its just a way to go through the Fiance Petition and then when the embassy interviews your fiance they will say .. "Hey did you know this sweet guy you are wanting to marry has been convincted of 17 sexual offenses??" That kinda thing... Hope this helped.

[Madison Man 0]

Yes thanks for the info. I understand what the law is supposed to do in protecting woman. I also have a squeeky clean record. I just dont know if that dating website (mate1.com) is considered a Int. Marriage Brker or not. I don't know whether to check yes or no on my RFE.

[vartan 0]

That I don't know how to comment on.. I am still confused on what is and what is not considered a MB. From what I understand if its a site set out to find you a foreign wife it is.. if its just a personals site its not.. But hey I could be wrong.

[jangler 0]

Yes thanks for the info. I understand what the law is supposed to do in protecting woman. I also have a squeeky clean record. I just dont know if that dating website (mate1.com) is considered a Int. Marriage Brker or not. I don't know whether to check yes or no on my RFE.

I also met my fiance on a website such as the one you did and I put NO as my answer. The law clearly states, "EXCEPTIONS.—Such term does not include—(ii) an entity that provides dating services if its principal business is NOT to provide international dating services between United States citizens or United States residents and foreign nationals and it charges comparable rates and offers comparable services to all individuals it serves regardless of the individual’s gender or country of citizenship."

Those websites are NOT principally geared for US citizens only. Anyone from anywhere can join those sites and pick whomever they want to chat with and the other member can choose to chat with you or not. Nobody is brokering a MARRIAGE. This makes logical sense to me. I guess I could be wrong but I have answered their question as honestly and to the best of my ability. I did not go to a marriage broker nor would I have ever done so.

[zethris 0]

Can anyone tell me what happens if u did meet by an International Marriage broker? I met my Fiance on Mate1.com and I think I may have to check yes on my RFE Form when I get it. My Fiance did not pay to use the dating website because it is free for all women. I did have to pay a fee to join. It was a monthly fee I paid for 2 months or so until I figuired out that you can go and use the site as a guest member. So I did pay them. This unfortunitely means that Mate1 is considered and International Marriage Broker even though they dont full arrange anything. Its just because they are not "Free", and charge to join. If I answer "Yes" on my RFE, how will this impact me? Will this disqualify me from my K1 Petition? I met my Fiance on that site November of last year.

It maybe time to contact a lawyer huh?

mate1.com is not a mariage broker. If it was, you would have bought the mariage of a specific person through their services.

Please refer to:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=18770

and

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=18806

[Madison Man 0]

Can anyone tell me what happens if u did meet by an International Marriage broker? I met my Fiance on Mate1.com and I think I may have to check yes on my RFE Form when I get it. My Fiance did not pay to use the dating website because it is free for all women. I did have to pay a fee to join. It was a monthly fee I paid for 2 months or so until I figuired out that you can go and use the site as a guest member. So I did pay them. This unfortunitely means that Mate1 is considered and International Marriage Broker even though they dont full arrange anything. Its just because they are not "Free", and charge to join. If I answer "Yes" on my RFE, how will this impact me? Will this disqualify me from my K1 Petition? I met my Fiance on that site November of last year.

It maybe time to contact a lawyer huh?

mate1.com is not a mariage broker. If it was, you would have bought the mariage of a specific person through their services.

Please refer to:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=18770

and

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=18806

Thank you for this post

[Imbra2005 0]

Zethris, I'm still not sure why you think a website has to sell "marriages" of specific people under the statute. The general part of the definition calls marriage brokers any company that "charges fees for providing dating, matrimonial, matchmaking services, or social referrals . . . by providing personal contact information or otherwise facilitating communication between individuals." Where does the buying of marriages to specific people fit into this? I'm not trying to be obtuse, I just don't understand how you're coming to this conclusion. Thanks.

Edited June 24, 2006 by Imbra2005

[Imbra2005 0]

Also, the statute says that sites that don't principally do international matchmaking/dating must ALSO charge the same amount to men and women and provide comparable services to them, regardless of gender. That's because there is an "AND" between those two clauses.

"an entity that provides dating services if its

principal business is not to provide international dating

services between United States citizens or United

States residents and foreign nationals AND it charges

comparable rates and offers comparable services to

all individuals it serves regardless of the individual’s

gender or country of citizenship."

[Imbra2005 0]

Sorry -- I meant to say that in order to be "exempt" the statute requires that stuff....

Bottom line is, you don't want to guess wrong in your interpretation of the statute, and given that there are very serious penalties involved (making false statements on anything you submit carries a maximum 5 yr. prison sentence), I would seriously consider contacting an attorney if you have any doubts about how you should answer the RFE. Better safe than sorry, right?

[zethris 0]

Sorry -- I meant to say that in order to be "exempt" the statute requires that stuff....

Bottom line is, you don't want to guess wrong in your interpretation of the statute, and given that there are very serious penalties involved (making false statements on anything you submit carries a maximum 5 yr. prison sentence), I would seriously consider contacting an attorney if you have any doubts about how you should answer the RFE. Better safe than sorry, right?

I am not wrong about it. Websites that do not specialize in the sale of mariages, which is what a mariage broker is do not fall under this statute, nor should they. Dating websites, if we need to call them that, are not mariage websites. Most dating websites don't require payment up front either. Also, most dating websites don't give personal contact information. It is user initiated.

The custodian that is required to physically give this information is not there with these types of websites either.

In terms of Mate1, even though it's women members are free to use full servics (simply by the legaly inexperienced webmaster/owner), it is that way to increase traffic. Most women don't sign up to these things and it's a way to hold the imbalance of 25 men to 1 woman ratio at bay like many earlier social gathering websites and services commonly had in the past. Brick and Morter Dating services still fall under IMBRA becasue their general busienss model is to give out actuall contact information on the clients behalf. Also women are generaly free by default. Furthermore, mate1's primary business is not for mariage, nor is it for international matchmaking. It just happens to be on a website that can be accessed worldwide, so it has foreign nationals registered as a side effect.

Edited June 24, 2006 by zethris

[Imbra2005 0]

Thanks for answering Zethris. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I understand what you're saying but the thing is, the statute itself is what defines the term, and that's the definition that's going to be used by USCIS and courts, and whatnot. What you and I might think it means in common usage is simply not relevant.

[zethris 0]

What I am talking about isn't "common usage" it is the law as written and as defines what an MB/IMB is. The vast majority of the social gathering websites out there are not, and even can not be classified as a Mariage Broker.

[jangler 0]

Sorry -- I meant to say that in order to be "exempt" the statute requires that stuff....

Bottom line is, you don't want to guess wrong in your interpretation of the statute, and given that there are very serious penalties involved (making false statements on anything you submit carries a maximum 5 yr. prison sentence), I would seriously consider contacting an attorney if you have any doubts about how you should answer the RFE. Better safe than sorry, right?

Do you or the government really expect thousands of people to now contact lawyers if we have doubts? I answered the question NO and I did so to the best of my ability to be truthful. There was no intentional falsehood stated. I did not go to a marriage broker. If the government calls a piece of toast a toilet, it is still a piece of toast in my mind unless of course I get years of brainwashing to convince me that it is really a toilet. To suggest to people that they could get 5 years in prison if they unintentionally answered a question wrong is absurd. Knowingly stating falsehoods to mislead or deceive is a different story. What's with the scare tactics?

[Imbra2005 0]

Sorry -- I meant to say that in order to be "exempt" the statute requires that stuff....

Bottom line is, you don't want to guess wrong in your interpretation of the statute, and given that there are very serious penalties involved (making false statements on anything you submit carries a maximum 5 yr. prison sentence), I would seriously consider contacting an attorney if you have any doubts about how you should answer the RFE. Better safe than sorry, right?

Do you or the government really expect thousands of people to now contact lawyers if we have doubts? I answered the question NO and I did so to the best of my ability to be truthful. There was no intentional falsehood stated. I did not go to a marriage broker. If the government calls a piece of toast a toilet, it is still a piece of toast in my mind unless of course I get years of brainwashing to convince me that it is really a toilet. To suggest to people that they could get 5 years in prison if they unintentionally answered a question wrong is absurd. Knowingly stating falsehoods to mislead or deceive is a different story. What's with the scare tactics?

You're correct...the 5 yr. penalty is for "knowingly or willfully" making false statements. So you might be able to avoid jail time. Didn't mean to get you so upset. Unfortunately, though, if the government says that in order to obtain a visa, you have to tell the govt. if you've ever eaten a toilet -- and then it defines "toilet" as "any foodstuff derived from grain" you'd probably better answer "yes, I've eaten a toilet" if you've ever eaten a piece of toast, don't you agree?

Edited June 24, 2006 by Imbra2005