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

[BJZags 17]

We met on FH. I answered YES. wrote their eMail address and their mailing address on the initial RFE that was mailed before the new I-129F's were generated. I did NOT provide a letter explaining further. I did NOT receive a second RFE. We are now approved and in que for our interview.

[garya505 2]

If you want to have a laugh, call USCIS and ask them if a particular introduction service (Cherry Blossoms for example) is an IMB. Apparently the answer depends on who takes the call and the phase of the moon.

That's the problem with IMBRA, the definitions are difficult to apply. They tried to target web sites that cater to international customers. Sites such as Match and Yahoo are exempt, though they may actually serve MORE international customers in number.

[Sheriff Uling 3]

Very interesting. I met my Honey on hotornot.com. I was one of the first to receive and return the IMBRA RFE and did not know enough about the letter of the law when it came to marriage brokers. I did not then and still don't interpret the hotornot.com website as a marriage broker. Needless to write that I answered NO and I am APPROVED. It will be interesting to discover if USCIS attempts to redefine or further define the definition of "marriage broker." I feel like this is all a formality gone really bad resulting in a lot of wasted time for many petitioners.

[Sheriff Uling 3]

Very interesting. I met my Honey on hotornot.com. I was one of the first to receive and return the IMBRA RFE and did not know enough about the letter of the law when it came to marriage brokers. I did not then and still don't interpret the hotornot.com website as a marriage broker. Needless to write that I answered NO and I am APPROVED. It will be interesting to discover if USCIS attempts to redefine or further define the definition of "marriage broker." I feel like this is all a formality gone really bad resulting in a lot of wasted time for many petitioners.

[zethris 0]

I said yes, just because I didn't know as it just plain isn't clear enough. We met at asianeuro.com

[Jello 0]

I said yes, just because I didn't know as it just plain isn't clear enough. We met at asianeuro.com

I also answered yes and was approved without any additional requests for info. From my interpretation of the law, this is just a way for the government to try and regulate the brokers and websites, but I didn't see anything in the law that says you will be denied for answering yes. In any case, I think if you met before the law went into effect it shouldn't matter anyway.

Plus, I've seen other postings where this will be asked of beneficiaries at the interview and I didn't want to take a chance on anything being misinterpreted then and being held up.

[garya505 2]

Very interesting. I met my Honey on hotornot.com. I was one of the first to receive and return the IMBRA RFE and did not know enough about the letter of the law when it came to marriage brokers. I did not then and still don't interpret the hotornot.com website as a marriage broker. Needless to write that I answered NO and I am APPROVED. It will be interesting to discover if USCIS attempts to redefine or further define the definition of "marriage broker." I feel like this is all a formality gone really bad resulting in a lot of wasted time for many petitioners.

Ya, good legislation gone horribly bad.

[Barry2005 0]

Has anyone been told that they answered the IMB question wrong? Has anyone been told by USCIS they needed another RFE because they DID meet through an IMB? or is all this going to be decided in the interview? Should we all have answered "no" to the IMB question and just claimed ignorance if we were wrong? I know some petitions have been approved but what about the interview...... Really I would like to know if anyone has been told they answered the RFE wrong. I am worried about the interviews. Hope I am worried over nothing.

[garya505 2]

What I really think is funny is that IMBRA defines a lot of internet introduction sites as "marriage brokers", when all they do is provide contact info (or just a ID on their site!) and we do the rest.

By that definition if your sister gives you the phone number of a friend she thinks you should meet, then she's a marriage broker too.

In my case, we chatted for about 2 minutes on Cherry Blossoms then started using Yahoo IM where we exchanged all of our contact info.

I think what really bugs Maria Cantwell and her buddies is that a guy with a few bucks can sign up for a site where he can meet women from disadvantaged countries who are looking for a nice husband and a better life. I think there's just something about that they don't like.

[aussiewench 9]

Very interesting. I met my Honey on hotornot.com. I was one of the first to receive and return the IMBRA RFE and did not know enough about the letter of the law when it came to marriage brokers. I did not then and still don't interpret the hotornot.com website as a marriage broker. Needless to write that I answered NO and I am APPROVED. It will be interesting to discover if USCIS attempts to redefine or further define the definition of "marriage broker." I feel like this is all a formality gone really bad resulting in a lot of wasted time for many petitioners.

If hotornot is a MB I will seriously eat my hat. By the way I met my hubby through there as well

1) It is not primarily for USC

2) It offers same service for anyone regardless of country and gender, including that either gender has option to pay the fee if they wish. One must at least be a full member in order to send an email. Once intitial contact is made you can chat using any means you so wish outside of hotornot.

3) hotornot's primary business is not for marriage purposes. People are there for fun with the photos posted, freindship, flings, affairs, etc and some are looking for that one special person for a commitment . Whatever takes their fancy.

hotornot.com completely fits the bill for the exemptions. Most people initially go to hotornot for the photo voting. My kids used to be on there all the time. Once day after messing around having fun voting, I decided what the hell, and put a profile up. I actually initially contacted my now hubby simply for someone to have an intelligent conversation with.

[Raqiwin 2]

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?

I know that site you're talking about...I met mine through filipinaheart.com. I believe it's under the same company that runs yours. As for my status...blody CSC got my IMBRA RFE on Jul 18. I answered yes. Knock on wood, they haven't given me a second RFE. But I'm still waiting and it's starting to take its toll of my poor girl. Hang in there!

[BlueRain77 0]

I said No to ImBRa though we did meet on a website. But it said that IMBRA was stated as paying to meet someone on the internet for marriage.

The website I met my boyfriend on is for Friends and Dating. Most people don't even get married off the site. So I just told them the website and but I stated No for Marriage Broker. I figured if they think it's a marriage broker they can ask for more info..But I don't think it is at all.

BTW it was called www.makefriendsonline.com (MFO)

[Yodrak 7]

garya,

It has nothing to do with IMBRA - all answers provided by the USCIS NCSC depend on the same two things, hence the nickname 'Misinformation Line'.

I agree, however, it will take some time to sort out the definitions. (Note that it took USCIS 9 years to issue its final ruling on implementation of the law that created I-864.)

Ambiguity is not unusual in matters of law, keeps the courts busy.

Yodrak

If you want to have a laugh, call USCIS and ask them if a particular introduction service (Cherry Blossoms for example) is an IMB. Apparently the answer depends on who takes the call and the phase of the moon.

That's the problem with IMBRA, the definitions are difficult to apply. ....

[garya505 2]

garya,

It has nothing to do with IMBRA - all answers provided by the USCIS NCSC depend on the same two things, hence the nickname 'Misinformation Line'.

I agree, however, it will take some time to sort out the definitions. (Note that it took USCIS 9 years to issue its final ruling on implementation of the law that created I-864.)

Ambiguity is not unusual in matters of law, keeps the courts busy.

Yodrak

If you want to have a laugh, call USCIS and ask them if a particular introduction service (Cherry Blossoms for example) is an IMB. Apparently the answer depends on who takes the call and the phase of the moon.

That's the problem with IMBRA, the definitions are difficult to apply. ....

I'm not sure what you mean "it has nothing to do with IMBRA". The IMBRA definition of International Marriage Broker is convoluted, which probably adds to the confusion and misinformation at USCIS. For example, a service is exempt if "its principal business is not to provide international dating services". What does that mean exactly, 99%, 90% or 51% of its business, or what?

I'm still curious why the people at Cherry Blossoms are saying they are not an IMB when it's clear when they are one under the IMBRA definition. The CB people seem to be thumbing their noises at the law, and AFAIK they are not doing anything in court, so #######?

BTW, I'm convinced that they used the name "International Marriage Broker" instead of the more accurate "International Dating Service" because they wanted to convey the negative connotation that "International Marriage Broker" provides, even though there is no brokering involved at all with most (maybe all) of the dating sites affected. A marriage broker would be an entity that arranges marriages for a fee.

[Yodrak 7]

garya,

Getting inconsistent answers from the NCSC is not an IMBRA phenomenon - their answers are inconsistent on all subjects.

And, IMBRA is hardly the only law that is open to varying interpretation.

Yodrak

garya,

It has nothing to do with IMBRA - all answers provided by the USCIS NCSC depend on the same two things, hence the nickname 'Misinformation Line'.

I agree, however, it will take some time to sort out the definitions. (Note that it took USCIS 9 years to issue its final ruling on implementation of the law that created I-864.)

Ambiguity is not unusual in matters of law, keeps the courts busy.

Yodrak

If you want to have a laugh, call USCIS and ask them if a particular introduction service (Cherry Blossoms for example) is an IMB. Apparently the answer depends on who takes the call and the phase of the moon.

That's the problem with IMBRA, the definitions are difficult to apply. ....

I'm not sure what you mean "it has nothing to do with IMBRA". ....