Manila US Embassy - IMBRA Questions Asked?

[garya505 2]

What IMBRA-related questions were you asked your interview at the US Embassy in Manila? These would be questions about whether you met online and what web site it was. If you met on a web site that was not IMBRA-complaint, what else did they ask and what happened after that?

[garya505 2]

Ah, lotta people reading this, nobody posting!

[Mew 0]

Ummm, I guess people who've gotten approved after IMBRA haven't made it to the interview yet. As you may be aware, the waiting time there is of a few months.

[Dean iWait 0]

Ummm, I guess people who've gotten approved after IMBRA haven't made it to the interview yet. As you may be aware, the waiting time there is of a few months.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. I don't know of any post IMBRA filers that have made it to the Manilla interview yet.

[G&C 0]

Where does one find a list of "IMBRA compliant" websites? That is a new one!

[garya505 2]

Where does one find a list of "IMBRA compliant" websites? That is a new one!

Haha, USCIS isn't even sure which web sites are compliant.

Ummm, I guess people who've gotten approved after IMBRA haven't made it to the interview yet. As you may be aware, the waiting time there is of a few months.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. I don't know of any post IMBRA filers that have made it to the Manilla interview yet.

They don't have to be post-IMBRA filers for the EMBASSY to ask the IMBRA questions at interview. I've seen reports of people already being asked.

[john_and_marlene 162]

They asked IMBRA-type questions even before IMBRA. They asked about whether the website charges the same membership fee to both people or if there was a fee for contact information.

It's not your responsibility to make sure the site is IMBRA compliant. You only have to show that your relationship is bonafide.

[garya505 2]

They asked IMBRA-type questions even before IMBRA. They asked about whether the website charges the same membership fee to both people or if there was a fee for contact information.

It's not your responsibility to make sure the site is IMBRA compliant. You only have to show that your relationship is bonafide.

True, but there are rumors around that we can be denied the VISA solely for using a non-compliant website.

[john_and_marlene 162]

They asked IMBRA-type questions even before IMBRA. They asked about whether the website charges the same membership fee to both people or if there was a fee for contact information.

It's not your responsibility to make sure the site is IMBRA compliant. You only have to show that your relationship is bonafide.

True, but there are rumors around that we can be denied the VISA solely for using a non-compliant website.

What rumors? Where are they? What part of the statute says that using a non-compliant website is grounds for visa denial? While sanctions can be taken against a U.S. owned website for non-compliance, it does not change the nature of your relationship. It may cause them to be more thorough in their questioning of your relationship, but it is not grounds for denial. If you have a bonafide relationship, there will be many factors that will show that to be the case.

[garya505 2]

They asked IMBRA-type questions even before IMBRA. They asked about whether the website charges the same membership fee to both people or if there was a fee for contact information.

It's not your responsibility to make sure the site is IMBRA compliant. You only have to show that your relationship is bonafide.

True, but there are rumors around that we can be denied the VISA solely for using a non-compliant website.

What rumors? Where are they? What part of the statute says that using a non-compliant website is grounds for visa denial? While sanctions can be taken against a U.S. owned website for non-compliance, it does not change the nature of your relationship. It may cause them to be more thorough in their questioning of your relationship, but it is not grounds for denial. If you have a bonafide relationship, there will be many factors that will show that to be the case.

A Consular Officer is not required to issue a VISA even if all requirements have been met, especially if there is a legal violation as part of the case. They can simply say that the use of a non-compliant "International Marriage Broker" puts the validity of the relationship in question.

[john_and_marlene 162]

Although I find your arguement uncompelling, if you really think that they will weigh the use of a noncompliant marriage broker so heavily as to overcome any other evidence of a valid relationship, you can take it out of the hands of the CO by disclosing it on the original petition to the USCIS. Any information contained in your original petition that was approved cannot be readjudicated by the CO at the consulate.

[garya505 2]

Although I find your arguement uncompelling, if you really think that they will weigh the use of a noncompliant marriage broker so heavily as to overcome any other evidence of a valid relationship, you can take it out of the hands of the CO by disclosing it on the original petition to the USCIS. Any information contained in your original petition that was approved cannot be readjudicated by the CO at the consulate.

USCIS apparently can't even decide if certain web sites are IMBs or not (for example, Cherry Blossoms). So, why can't the CO simply say that a law was broken because the couple met on a non-compliant IMB and the beneficiary was not provided the petitioner's background information as required by law (even thought there is no criminal record in it), so the VISA is denied?

[john_and_marlene 162]

Although I find your arguement uncompelling, if you really think that they will weigh the use of a noncompliant marriage broker so heavily as to overcome any other evidence of a valid relationship, you can take it out of the hands of the CO by disclosing it on the original petition to the USCIS. Any information contained in your original petition that was approved cannot be readjudicated by the CO at the consulate.

USCIS apparently can't even decide if certain web sites are IMBs or not (for example, Cherry Blossoms). So, why can't the CO simply say that a law was broken because the couple met on a non-compliant IMB and the beneficiary was not provided the petitioner's background information as required by law (even thought there is no criminal record in it), so the VISA is denied?

Cherry Blossoms is an Australian owned website, and as such does cannot violate the requirements of the statute.

Your visa is not going to be denied because some web site broke a law. You are making an issue where there is none. If a U.S. owned website breaks a law, any adverse action would be taken against the website, not the members. The law does not make it illegal to be a member of such a site or to meet through such a site. Your requirement, under the statute is to provide certain information with your petition--nothing more. It does not restrict your use of any website.

[garya505 2]

Although I find your arguement uncompelling, if you really think that they will weigh the use of a noncompliant marriage broker so heavily as to overcome any other evidence of a valid relationship, you can take it out of the hands of the CO by disclosing it on the original petition to the USCIS. Any information contained in your original petition that was approved cannot be readjudicated by the CO at the consulate.

USCIS apparently can't even decide if certain web sites are IMBs or not (for example, Cherry Blossoms). So, why can't the CO simply say that a law was broken because the couple met on a non-compliant IMB and the beneficiary was not provided the petitioner's background information as required by law (even thought there is no criminal record in it), so the VISA is denied?

Cherry Blossoms is an Australian owned website, and as such does cannot violate the requirements of the statute.

Your visa is not going to be denied because some web site broke a law. You are making an issue where there is none. If a U.S. owned website breaks a law, any adverse action would be taken against the website, not the members. The law does not make it illegal to be a member of such a site or to meet through such a site. Your requirement, under the statute is to provide certain information with your petition--nothing more. It does not restrict your use of any website.

I hope you are right.

[Dean iWait 0]

Although I find your arguement uncompelling, if you really think that they will weigh the use of a noncompliant marriage broker so heavily as to overcome any other evidence of a valid relationship, you can take it out of the hands of the CO by disclosing it on the original petition to the USCIS. Any information contained in your original petition that was approved cannot be readjudicated by the CO at the consulate.

USCIS apparently can't even decide if certain web sites are IMBs or not (for example, Cherry Blossoms). So, why can't the CO simply say that a law was broken because the couple met on a non-compliant IMB and the beneficiary was not provided the petitioner's background information as required by law (even thought there is no criminal record in it), so the VISA is denied?

Cherry Blossoms is an Australian owned website, and as such does cannot violate the requirements of the statute.

Your visa is not going to be denied because some web site broke a law. You are making an issue where there is none. If a U.S. owned website breaks a law, any adverse action would be taken against the website, not the members. The law does not make it illegal to be a member of such a site or to meet through such a site. Your requirement, under the statute is to provide certain information with your petition--nothing more. It does not restrict your use of any website.

Actually Cherry Blossoms is owned and operated inside the U.S. But, I agree with you that they aren't going to be denying anyone's visa based on some website not being IMBRA compliant.