FINALLY...NOA2 after 55(!!!) days post-RFE. Have hope!!!:)

[StephanieC 43]

Congrats on your NOA2.

can we all stop talking about our feelings now?

[Shauneg 762]

Couple things and then I'm done with this.

I actually disagree that it's the adjudicators responsibility to know whether the site you met on is imb or not. The burden of proof to prove that we have met and how is on us, not them. They can't know about every site that exists. If they have questions, they have to ask.

And no, I didn't know the wait times were going to be like this when I filed. I filed so long ago that they weren't this different. Tsc wasn't this far behind and csc wasn't this fast. I think the difference was more like 2-3 months not 6.

The restaurant analogy doesn't work. If I called a restaurant and they had a huge wait, I would go to another restaurant. That option doesn't exist in this situation. There are no other ways to have my visa processed.

Did you look at brett40000's profile? My point in providing his name was just to show everyone that the grass is not always greener on the other side. While rare, there are people who have it worse. Same goes for me. Sad to say but my 199 day approval was on the quicker side for tsc side.

Anyway I want everyone to move through this process and get to move on with our lives. I don't like seeing people in pain.

It is our responsibility to show that a website is not a broker site, not matter how well or little known the site is. Adjudicators should not be held to that burden.

[gtessier 17]

I actually disagree that it's the adjudicators responsibility to know whether the site you met on is imb or not. The burden of proof to prove that we have met and how is on us, not them. They can't know about every site that exists. If they have questions, they have to ask.

And I will respectfully disagree with you on this.

Please reread my reply. I stated that the site we met on has been around since the mid 90's - well before match.com and hundreds of others. Again, the site has been the beginning of literally thousands of successful K-1 submissions and marriages. They were around before the Internet and used to send out monthly booklets with girls placing ads. I specifically stated in my I-129F that we met on the site "Cherry Blossoms". It should be somewhat familiar to them as not being an IMB site after 20 years of receiving petitions/submissions similar to mine.

Further, why is the burden of proof upon the petitioner? Can you tell me where in the guidelines for submitting an I-129F it states that if you met on a dating site, that you must provide proof that it is not an IMB? And after researching this after getting the RFE, the only advice I get is to "lie and say you met elsewhere" rather than be honest and forthcoming and state you met on a dating site and hope you don't get an RFE. It's 2015 and the majority of international relationships begin online and the majority of those on dating sites. Let's not be naive and agree that the majority of these petitions were submitted and the applicants told the truth and said they met on dating sites. Let's just agree that this was an arbitrary decision by an adjudicator that either likes his job too much or has a misunderstanding of the IMBRA law or misinterpreted it. If every K-1 petition submitted stated that they met on a dating site got an RFE for proof it is not an IMB, the system would be flooded with RFE's

Finally, would it be asking too much to have a "cheat sheet" that has a list of sites that are and are not IMB's? Or possibly using that Google website and typing "Cherry Blossoms" into the box in the middle of the page and hit enter? Then click "Terms of Use" or About Us" and do less than 60 seconds of quick research? Seriously, that takes less time that doing a background check.

[Shauneg 762]

And I will respectfully disagree with you on this.

Please reread my reply. I stated that the site we met on has been around since the mid 90's - well before match.com and hundreds of others. Again, the site has been the beginning of literally thousands of successful K-1 submissions and marriages. They were around before the Internet and used to send out monthly booklets with girls placing ads. I specifically stated in my I-129F that we met on the site "Cherry Blossoms". It should be somewhat familiar to them as not being an IMB site after 20 years of receiving petitions/submissions similar to mine.

Further, why is the burden of proof upon the petitioner? Can you tell me where in the guidelines for submitting an I-129F it states that if you met on a dating site, that you must provide proof that it is not an IMB? And after researching this after getting the RFE, the only advice I get is to "lie and say you met elsewhere" rather than be honest and forthcoming and state you met on a dating site and hope you don't get an RFE. It's 2015 and the majority of international relationships begin online and the majority of those on dating sites. Let's not be naive and agree that the majority of these petitions were submitted and the applicants told the truth and said they met on dating sites. Let's just agree that this was an arbitrary decision by an adjudicator that either likes his job too much or has a misunderstanding of the IMBRA law or misinterpreted it. If every K-1 petition submitted stated that they met on a dating site got an RFE for proof it is not an IMB, the system would be flooded with RFE's

Finally, would it be asking too much to have a "cheat sheet" that has a list of sites that are and are not IMB's? Or possibly using that Google website and typing "Cherry Blossoms" into the box in the middle of the page and hit enter? Then click "Terms of Use" or About Us" and do less than 60 seconds of quick research? Seriously, that takes less time that doing a background check.

Perhaps they are legally bound for it to be apart of their record, it's not in the IMBRA but that doesn't mean there isn't guidance for them.. You seem concerned about whether they know a site is or isn't an IMB. I'm sure they are fully aware of most if not all sites. They could look it up and perhaps print something stating the site isn't IMB but then they'd be adding things to your petition that you signed and swore on...that's not right. As for you last paragraph.....as the petitioner, yes it does take 60 seconds to do .....so just do it. It would take them far more than that as they'd have to do that for each person.

Advising people to lie isn't a good thing.

[gtessier 17]

Perhaps they are legally bound for it to be apart of their record, it's not in the IMBRA but that doesn't mean there isn't guidance for them.. You seem concerned about whether they know a site is or isn't an IMB. I'm sure they are fully aware of most if not all sites. They could look it up and perhaps print something stating the site isn't IMB but then they'd be adding things to your petition that you signed and swore on...that's not right. As for you last paragraph.....as the petitioner, yes it does take 60 seconds to do .....so just do it. It would take them far more than that as they'd have to do that for each person.

Advising people to lie isn't a good thing.

I think you have missed my point.

As the adjudicator, it takes less than 60 seconds to look it up. That's if its not on your cheat sheet - if you were smart enough to have one. But I suppose its just easier to kick the file back and generate more back end traffic is better, right?

I have absolutely no problem providing this info on the front end. Just provide some sort of info that it is necessary so I can avoid the backend headache and delay. As it was, I front loaded the application trying to avoid an RFE. I did my due diligence - all I ask is that someone at CSC do less than a minutes worth. If I need to spoon feed them any information, just tell me up front and I'll gladly send a spoon too.

Finally, I did not advise anyone to lie. This was advice I found, and like you, I disagree with that tactic.

[Shauneg 762]

I think you have missed my point.

As the adjudicator, it takes less than 60 seconds to look it up. That's if its not on your cheat sheet - if you were smart enough to have one. But I suppose its just easier to kick the file back and generate more back end traffic is better, right?

I have absolutely no problem providing this info on the front end. Just provide some sort of info that it is necessary so I can avoid the backend headache and delay. As it was, I front loaded the application trying to avoid an RFE. I did my due diligence - all I ask is that someone at CSC do less than a minutes worth. If I need to spoon feed them any information, just tell me up front and I'll gladly send a spoon too.

Finally, I did not advise anyone to lie. This was advice I found, and like you, I disagree with that tactic.

There should really be instructions stating that you should prove it upfront and not leave it ambiguous by not mentioning anything of it. I'm sure they're bound by rules to the petitioner providing the proof, though not stated in IMBRA.

[Wooderz 314]

I understand your point that they probably are aware of the site you met on, but perhaps Shane is right that their policies require certain written proof. Or perhaps you got a new adjudicator who isn't aware. Or some other thing I haven't thought of. From my very very brief imb research, it seems the legal definition is quite broad intentionally.

Take a look at the adjudicators field guide: http://www.uscis.gov/iframe/ilink/docView/AFM/HTML/AFM/0-0-0-1.html

Specifically sections 10.3(e), 10.5, and chapter 11. I see one section in 10.5 regarding checking external sources before sending rfe's but upon further research a list of sources provided are all governmental/regulations sort of sources. I maintain burden of proof is on us as petitioners. Also, they make it clear that they shouldn't just issue rfe's without cause so I don't think it's accurate to say it's easier for them to just rfe.

I do agree that 55 days for a decision after an rfe is a long time, but in all the rfe's I've seen, the give themselves 60 days so did meet their own time frame.

[bublik 26]

Wooderz,

I think you are still missing the point.

See, there are some requirements that are set in stone and do not depend on the adjudicator's absence of knowledge, experience or other factors.

Didn't meet within 2 years of applying- RFE

no evidence of ending of previous marriages- RFE

etc

RFE for the dating site situation is totally dependent on the adjudicator. We have seen here so many different situations:

- people only mentioning that they met online- approved with no problems OR got an RFE

- people stating explicitly that they 'met on a dating site'- approved with no problems OR got RFE

- people naming the site- same thing, either approved or RFE

so how exactly this makes any sense? If there were set rules (say, met online- need to explain when and how etc, providing a specific site name)- then everybody would have gotten exactly the same RFE despite the fact that these requirements are NOT mentioned in the instructions for I-129F. But this is clearly not the case, so...

There are no rules about it.

If there are no rules, then it depends on the adjudicator, doesn't it? Which means, that it is THEIR responsibility to educate themselves and not produce unnecessary paperwork and delays. So, as the previous poster mentioned, the cheat sheet of all known not IMBRA sites should be easily available and be a must.

Especially if they are not allowed to spend much time on the internet researching stuff.

Sending RFE for a lack of knowledge is a lack of responsibility and lack of proper training.

[gtessier 17]

Wooderz,

I think you are still missing the point.

See, there are some requirements that are set in stone and do not depend on the adjudicator's absence of knowledge, experience or other factors.

Didn't meet within 2 years of applying- RFE

no evidence of ending of previous marriages- RFE

etc

RFE for the dating site situation is totally dependent on the adjudicator. We have seen here so many different situations:

- people only mentioning that they met online- approved with no problems OR got an RFE

- people stating explicitly that they 'met on a dating site'- approved with no problems OR got RFE

- people naming the site- same thing, either approved or RFE

so how exactly this makes any sense? If there were set rules (say, met online- need to explain when and how etc, providing a specific site name)- then everybody would have gotten exactly the same RFE despite the fact that these requirements are NOT mentioned in the instructions for I-129F. But this is clearly not the case, so...

There are no rules about it.

If there are no rules, then it depends on the adjudicator, doesn't it? Which means, that it is THEIR responsibility to educate themselves and not produce unnecessary paperwork and delays. So, as the previous poster mentioned, the cheat sheet of all known not IMBRA sites should be easily available and be a must.

Especially if they are not allowed to spend much time on the internet researching stuff.

Sending RFE for a lack of knowledge is a lack of responsibility and lack of proper training.

Bublik, you nailed it. As hard as I tried, I could not have said it better myself.

The IMBRA law, in and of itself, is vague and ambiguous. This leaves the door open for arbitrary decisions by adjudicators that are unfamiliar with the IMBRA law and the spirit and intention of the law itself. Your three examples for RFE's for dating site RFE's are spot on and clearly arbitrary decisions on the part of the adjudicator.

As I have mentioned, had I known this IMB/dating site issue was a potential roadblock, I would have certainly handled it on the front end rather than on the back end and having to wait an additional 42 day after they got the requested info to get an NOA2.

[Wooderz 314]

I'm not missing the point, you don't think the adjudicators should have any discretion. But they do. A ton of it. And their job is to use the proof we are burdened to provide. Their job is not to convince themselves. It's for us to convince them. There can be no hard-fast rules because truly every case is different. You nor I could know all of the pertinent facts about every other case that seems similar to ours. There could be criminal issues, multiple petitions, etc that make someone's case different than yours and there's no way for you to know about that.

Yes, they have discretion. Why would you think they wouldn't? There is no cut and dry because we all have different stories and different facts and different backgrounds.

I understand you think there should be a list of "approved dating sites" and maybe there is something of that nature. But again, if they have any questions the burden is solely on you as the petitioner. That is a fact and very clear in their manual.

I'm sorry you feel the adjudicating is inconsistent, but you're barking up the wrong tree and should be well aware that this process isn't consistent or fair. If it were I wouldn't have waited 199 days for approval.

Edited June 14, 2015 by Wooderz

[gtessier 17]

If it were I wouldn't have waited 199 days for approval.

Yawn...

More of the TSC bitterness.

Had you gotten an RFE after waiting 199 days, for dating site/IMB proof I would like to see how you felt after tacking another 45-60 days onto your already ridiculous wait.

[Wooderz 314]

Yawn...

More of the TSC bitterness.

Had you gotten an RFE after waiting 199 days, for dating site/IMB proof I would like to see how you felt after tacking another 45-60 days onto your already ridiculous wait.

Lol you are more bitter than I am I think. It was merely an example to prove that this process is arbitrary and unfair.

But good on ya for ignoring the fact that everyone's case is different and you can't know what else was in a persons petition that made their approval or rfe existence different than yours.

[bublik 26]

I'm not missing the point, you don't think the adjudicators should have any discretion. But they do. A ton of it. And their job is to use the proof we are burdened to provide. Their job is not to convince themselves. It's for us to convince them. There can be no hard-fast rules because truly every case is different. You nor I could know all of the pertinent facts about every other case that seems similar to ours. There could be criminal issues, multiple petitions, etc that make someone's case different than yours and there's no way for you to know about that.

Yes, they have discretion. Why would you think they wouldn't? There is no cut and dry because we all have different stories and different facts and different backgrounds.

I understand you think there should be a list of "approved dating sites" and maybe there is something of that nature. But again, if they have any questions the burden is solely on you as the petitioner. That is a fact and very clear in their manual.

I'm sorry you feel the adjudicating is inconsistent, but you're barking up the wrong tree and should be well aware that this process isn't consistent or fair. If it were I wouldn't have waited 199 days for approval.

I am sorry, but you are not making any sense at all...

we are not comparing different petitions that might have different issues (crim history, etc). This has nothing to do with anything.

We are talking solely about petitions that got RFE for dating sites.

And no, this is not our burden to interpret the law for them. Actually, when I was doing my RFE I researched the IMBRA act in details. While you might think it is ambiguous on the first glance, it is really really not.

Another thing- you are completely missing what I said above. If we had a burden to proof this, EVERYBODY who mentioned one way or another that they met online would have gotten the same RFE.

This is not the case.

Also, if a dating site is KNOWN to be not an IMB, what is exactly the point to prove it again and again? This should be established once and for all.

Also, you are mixing so many things in one pot. For example, the proof of the relationship bona fide- this is up to the discretion of the adjudicator, because there can be no rules, and very often everything looks perfect on paper, but there is an instinct that something is fishy. Can't make rules for that.

The IMB problem is not one of those. The site either is a broker or not. And if a specific site has been around forever and known to be a broker, there is not such thing as burden to prove it again and again.

I am also guessing you are not the one to wait for weeks for your RFE decision.

[Wooderz 314]

Clearly were not getting each other. I'd like to move on with my evening, though, so I'd just like to say I'm glad you both have moved beyond your rfes and have been able to continue the process.

While it may not seem like it, I really have come to a greater understanding through my wait and this site that waiting is difficult for us all and we have probably all experienced a thing or 2 that has frustrated and upset us. I tried to convey that sentiment earlier but I don't know if it was felt amongst the other stuff.

[bublik 26]

"I'm sorry you feel the adjudicating is inconsistent, but you're barking up the wrong tree and should be well aware that this process isn't consistent or fair. If it were I wouldn't have waited 199 days for approval. "

Actually, 199 days is extremely consistent. TSC waiting time is 7 months plus right now, so you aren't even over the expected time yet. Can't be more consistent than that.

You would have an argument if you were waiting for 8-9 months, couple months longer than other people IN THE SAME SERVICE CENTER. But I bet you aren't going to get this either.