Will it hurt to say "yes" to marraige broker?

[sjordan723 0]

According to the scanned IMBRA RFE and the USCIS definition almost any website can be considered a "marriage broker." Basically, it says that if you paid to simply be able to contact someone, then it's considered marriage brokering. If one was to answer "Yes" to using a marriage broker... could it add somehow to further processing time? Who knows? No one knows! I just want to make sure I have the shortest processing time possible. I also feel I should be completely truthful on these forms. I met my fiance on Latinamericancupid.com. Does anyone have any thoughts or clues?

[Mew 0]

Be sure to check the exceptions that IMBRA brings. Not necessarily if you paid, it makes the site automatically a marriage broker.

There's a thread in this forum about a VJ who said yes to the question. From what I remember, he got a second RFE but I don't recall the contents of this second one. Try and search for the thread. If I find it, I'll let you know.

EDIT: http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=21373 The VJ even met his fiance on the same website.

Edited July 19, 2006 by Mew

[sbgwolf1 0]

According to the scanned IMBRA RFE and the USCIS definition almost any website can be considered a "marriage broker." Basically, it says that if you paid to simply be able to contact someone, then it's considered marriage brokering. If one was to answer "Yes" to using a marriage broker... could it add somehow to further processing time? Who knows? No one knows! I just want to make sure I have the shortest processing time possible. I also feel I should be completely truthful on these forms. I met my fiance on Latinamericancupid.com. Does anyone have any thoughts or clues?

Currently no precedence set for this yet. We are the guinnea pigs. I believe it is best to be straightforward. I did answer yes also. I included a letter explaining that the site may be exempted but that I wanted to be as forthcoming as possible. I also listed all the contact information. I wanted to he honest to prevent the ramifications of lying on this process. I hope this helps. I also hope it does not delay the process, but better to delay and then get through it correctly than to get most of the way through, then a flag come up and they deny/audit it due to misinformation.

BTW, mine was filipinaheart.com which actually has even sent people emails saying they are exempt. The issue is that it is the USCIS definition and interpretation that is important. Not ours, not the websites.

Good luck on everything.

[robhankins 0]

According to the scanned IMBRA RFE and the USCIS definition almost any website can be considered a "marriage broker." Basically, it says that if you paid to simply be able to contact someone, then it's considered marriage brokering. If one was to answer "Yes" to using a marriage broker... could it add somehow to further processing time? Who knows? No one knows! I just want to make sure I have the shortest processing time possible. I also feel I should be completely truthful on these forms. I met my fiance on Latinamericancupid.com. Does anyone have any thoughts or clues?

Many of us (including me) met our fiancees on one of the Cupid sites. They have about 25 huge sites. They are based in Australia and do qualify by definition as an IMB. It is always best to be truthful about such matters, even if it means more time for approval. Since Imbra RFE's, I am not sure it will take extra time to say yes. Likely they will develop a "good list" and a "bad list" of marriage brokers quickly. Cupid seems to be one of the best ones.

Good Luck to all of us

[Jello 0]

I think everybody knows what they are implying when they ask if you met through an IMB - People want to disect the definition in the law however they want, but I believe that if it smells like one, the USCIS will say it is one. Besides, I think it's better to err on the side of conservative..............the last thing you want is for the USCIS to think you were trying to hide something.

With regards to people that have answered "Yes" and gotten a 2nd RFE, I have only seen 2 and one of those only provided an email address for the site so I don't think it's a forgone conclusion that you will get a 2nd RFE if you answer "Yes".

Lastly, I would just be sure to state along with the company information that you met your fiance before IMBRA was signed into law (Jan. 6, 2006).

[Dean iWait 0]

I think everybody knows what they are implying when they ask if you met through an IMB - People want to disect the definition in the law however they want, but I believe that if it smells like one, the USCIS will say it is one. Besides, I think it's better to err on the side of conservative..............the last thing you want is for the USCIS to think you were trying to hide something.

With regards to people that have answered "Yes" and gotten a 2nd RFE, I have only seen 2 and one of those only provided an email address for the site so I don't think it's a forgone conclusion that you will get a 2nd RFE if you answer "Yes".

Lastly, I would just be sure to state along with the company information that you met your fiance before IMBRA was signed into law (Jan. 6, 2006).

The law was signed by the President on 1/6/06. It did not however go in to effect unitl 3/6/06.

[jangler 0]

BTW, mine was filipinaheart.com which actually has even sent people emails saying they are exempt. The issue is that it is the USCIS definition and interpretation that is important. Not ours, not the websites.

Good luck on everything.

We met on AsianEuro.com, a virtual clone of Filipinaheart.com owned by the same company as well. I answered NO to the question on the RFE even though I had stated in my original I-129F submission that we met online on that site...and we were APPROVED. Although my fiance and I made original contact on that site and SHE had picked ME to chat with, we never met on that site again. All of our contact after that was on Yahoo IM, so I fail to see how ANYONE "brokered" our marriage. There is a big difference between paying $10,000 for a wife via a marriage broker and going into a site where penpals OR relationships can be formed. I am not saying that you should answer it how I did. I am only saying that I was truthful to the best of my knowledge and it worked for me.

[Dean iWait 0]

BTW, mine was filipinaheart.com which actually has even sent people emails saying they are exempt. The issue is that it is the USCIS definition and interpretation that is important. Not ours, not the websites.

Good luck on everything.

We met on AsianEuro.com, a virtual clone of Filipinaheart.com owned by the same company as well. I answered NO to the question on the RFE even though I had stated in my original I-129F submission that we met online on that site...and we were APPROVED. Although my fiance and I made original contact on that site and SHE had picked ME to chat with, we never met on that site again. All of our contact after that was on Yahoo IM, so I fail to see how ANYONE "brokered" our marriage. There is a big difference between paying $10,000 for a wife via a marriage broker and going into a site where penpals OR relationships can be formed. I am not saying that you should answer it how I did. I am only saying that I was truthful to the best of my knowledge and it worked for me.

I met my fiancee on a similar site. The law says nothing about "brokering marriages". It is very straight forward. I answered yes to the question. No one "brokered" our marriage either. But according to the definition of the law we met through an IMB. I met my fiancee on a site I paid $45 for a 3 month membership. It simply has profiles similar to Match.com or Yahoo personals The site never shares any personal information with anybody. Soon after we met on that site we started chatting on MSN.

Edited July 19, 2006 by Dean iWait

[jangler 0]

I met my fiancee on a similar site. The law says nothing about "brokering marriages". It is very straight forward. I answered yes to the question. No one "brokered" our marriage either. But according to the definition of the law we met through an IMB. I met my fiancee on a site I paid $45 for a 3 month membership. It simply has profiles similar to Match.com or Yahoo personals The site never shares any personal information with anybody. Soon after we met on that site we started chatting on MSN.

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. Was the site you met at's principal business to provide international dating services between United States citizens or United States residents and foreign nationals? If it was then you should answer YES. The exception to the law seems clear to me. The site I used was not principally for U.S. citizens.

[sbgwolf1 0]

I met my fiancee on a similar site. The law says nothing about "brokering marriages". It is very straight forward. I answered yes to the question. No one "brokered" our marriage either. But according to the definition of the law we met through an IMB. I met my fiancee on a site I paid $45 for a 3 month membership. It simply has profiles similar to Match.com or Yahoo personals The site never shares any personal information with anybody. Soon after we met on that site we started chatting on MSN.

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. Was the site you met at's principal business to provide international dating services between United States citizens or United States residents and foreign nationals? If it was then you should answer YES. The exception to the law seems clear to me. The site I used was not principally for U.S. citizens.

I dont see what we all debate this. Ultimately the USCIS will make the decision. It's thier interpetation and I am sure they may implement it a variety of ways until the precedence is set. I answered yes, but explained that I didnt think it was and explained why. I did however give the requested information to be safe. I think what is imporant is being honest. We dont have to argue the point here, but instead lets all support one another through this process. Good luck to all

[jangler 0]

I dont see what we all debate this. Ultimately the USCIS will make the decision. It's thier interpetation and I am sure they may implement it a variety of ways until the precedence is set. I answered yes, but explained that I didnt think it was and explained why. I did however give the requested information to be safe. I think what is imporant is being honest. We dont have to argue the point here, but instead lets all support one another through this process. Good luck to all

I agree with you. But since there are so many different opinions on the correct answer, all we can do is be honest to the best of our ability. As long as you state to them where you met, let the government determine whether or not you met through a marriage broker. I really believe that if you give a YES or NO answer, even if pertaining to the exact same website, it will make no difference to them. I see approvals coming to people who have met on the same sites yet answered differently.

[Dean iWait 0]

I met my fiancee on a similar site. The law says nothing about "brokering marriages". It is very straight forward. I answered yes to the question. No one "brokered" our marriage either. But according to the definition of the law we met through an IMB. I met my fiancee on a site I paid $45 for a 3 month membership. It simply has profiles similar to Match.com or Yahoo personals The site never shares any personal information with anybody. Soon after we met on that site we started chatting on MSN.

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. Was the site you met at's principal business to provide international dating services between United States citizens or United States residents and foreign nationals? If it was then you should answer YES. The exception to the law seems clear to me. The site I used was not principally for U.S. citizens.

I agree with that. Just wanted to make sure everyone understood that just because they did not meet through a service that "brokered" their marriage doesn't mean that they didn't meet through an IMB according to the law.

[jangler 0]

I agree with that. Just wanted to make sure everyone understood that just because they did not meet through a service that "brokered" their marriage doesn't mean that they didn't meet through an IMB according to the law.

The problem is that neither you nor I met our partners on any website that even has the capabilities to broker a marriage, so how can they be marriage brokers without that capability? If a company's business does not sell nor deal in refridgerators then how can it be deemed a Refridgerator Sales Company? I do understand and accept your notion that according to the law some of these sites may be considered IMBs. However, I also believe that the law's exceptions clearly make most of these sites exempt from being called an IMB, especially those where personal information is not given out by the website itself but instead is freely given to you by the person you are talking with.

[garya505 2]

I agree with that. Just wanted to make sure everyone understood that just because they did not meet through a service that "brokered" their marriage doesn't mean that they didn't meet through an IMB according to the law.

The problem is that neither you nor I met our partners on any website that even has the capabilities to broker a marriage, so how can they be marriage brokers without that capability? If a company's business does not sell nor deal in refridgerators then how can it be deemed a Refridgerator Sales Company? I do understand and accept your notion that according to the law some of these sites may be considered IMBs. However, I also believe that the law's exceptions clearly make most of these sites exempt from being called an IMB, especially those where personal information is not given out by the website itself but instead is freely given to you by the person you are talking with.

Well, IMBRA is the law now so the definition of an International Marriage Broker under IMBRA is what matters, not what you or I think makes sense. Most of IMBRA is good, but this part of the legislation is a little weird.

[BrightontoCali 0]

What will "hurt" more is to not answer the questions that are asked honestly. One thing I'm sure you wouldn't want to do is delay your petition any further because of something that you could have avoided.

Of course, you can see everyone has a different definition and filled the form out accordingly. Unless you've consulted with your attorney, you should take others experience with a grain of salt. What works for them may not work for you.

Good Luck!