IMBRA O.K. Under U.S. Constitution

[Turboguy 6]

Journalism is not about spreading the truth or standing up for what is right. It is about selling newspapers and magazines and getting audience share. A story about a happy marrige will not draw people in like a little blood and guts, some sympathy for a battered defenceless woman and the like.

An article based on the only study ever done, back in 1999 that showed the domestic abuse was 1/7th the rate of American marriages just does not have enough gore to be interesting.

[njboy70 0]

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Judge reverses stance on ‘mail-order bride’ law

Internet Web sites must now require American men to disclose violent criminal histories to would-be brides

By R. Robin McDonald, Staff Reporter

WHEN A FEDERAL judge in Atlanta last year issued a restraining order halting enforcement of a law to protect “mail-order brides,” the president of an Alpharetta Web site for men seeking foreign brides thought other judges would follow suit.

He was wrong.

Instead, on March 23, U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper reversed himself, finding that the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005—which requires male users to reveal their arrests or convictions for violent crimes—does not restrict the Web site’s commercial free speech rights.

Cooper’s order denying European Connections & Tours Inc. the injunction it had sought suggested that the law would impact only “those American men who have a significant history of violence toward women—the very type of person that Congress is concerned about.”

Setting aside what he described as European Connections’ “doomsday scenario,” the federal judge suggested that if the new law succeeds in reducing abuses of “mail-order brides” by their American spouses, the international marriage broker business “may actually grow.”

“In any event,” Cooper added, “Economic loss … does not constitute a First Amendment injury. … When balancing the harms in this case, the Court is confronted with the classic ‘blood-versus-money’ analysis, and the safety of foreign women coming to the United States clearly is the more vital interest.”

On Monday, Preston Steckel, the president of European Connections in Alpharetta, said he was “very disappointed in the outcome.” The federal statute, passed in February 2006, could make his business liable if the men who enroll in one of several international matchmaker Web sites he operates lie about previous arrests or convictions.

The statute requires international marriage brokers to obtain a certification from their U.S. customers documenting whether they have ever been the subject of civil protection or restraining orders; whether they have been arrested or convicted on criminal charges that include homicide, assault, domestic violence, sexual assault, torture, kidnapping or stalking; and whether they have any arrests or convictions associated with engaging in prostitution or procuring prostitutes. It also requires customers of international marriage brokers to disclose their marital histories and the ages of any children under 18.

The federal statute also requires international marriage brokers to search national and state sex offender registries for the names of the men they may enlist and provide that information to the foreign women seeking either romance or marriage.

Steckel said that although he does not object to individual background checks, “We are not in the security business,” and he has no way of policing compliance.

Steckel’s Web sites operate as introduction and matchmaking services for American men seeking foreign women, primarily from Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Men pay a membership fee to join, which varies based on the nature of the services. Women, who are often located through European Connections’ Russian counterpart agencies, pay nothing except for e-mail and translation services.

“We’re caught between a rock and a hard place,” Steckel said. “We have no way of verifying information that a person puts down.”

Steckel explained that applicants who do not have any criminal problems “will be honest.” But applicants “who actually have a problem, who are abusers—they will lie.”

Meanwhile, the requirement to provide criminal background information on would-be grooms may give foreign women drawn to Steckel’s sites “a false sense of security.” If male customers with violent histories lie with impunity, “You have a lady who has got her guard down,” he explained.

Steckel also expressed concern for male customers who might reveal a violent criminal history. “I don’t know about ladies in other countries,” he said, “but the Russians are very, very devious. … If we have to get together all this information, they could download all this information and come back and blackmail people who filled out the form.”

But Steckel said he will not appeal Cooper’s ruling.

“I just feel like it’s wasting my money,” he said.

Instead, he said he will convert two of his Web sites, EastWestmatch.com and RussianLadies.com, to entertainment sites with information and chat rooms rather than serving as a paid liaison to foreign women seeking American husbands.

His third site, Globaladies.com, will conform to the new regulation. “When you are in business, you adjust,” he said. “That’s what we are going to do.”

Decatur lawyer Ralph S. Goldberg represented Steckel.

According to Cooper’s order, the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2006, international marriage brokers “simply transmit background data from their male clients to their female clients as a prerequisite to releasing the women’s personal information, and the international marriage brokers expressly do not vouch for the background information provided by the male clients.”

The 2006 law is one of a succession of laws Congress has passed over the 15 years to address what Cooper’s order said is a rising rate of domestic violence against immigrant women, many of whom entered America under temporary visas as “mail-order brides.”

Cooper noted that the international marriage broker industry “has grown rapidly in response to increasing demand by some American men for foreign ‘traditional’ wives.” A 1999 report to Congress by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service estimated that more than 200 U.S.-based businesses paired 4,000 to 6,000 American men a year with foreign women seeking marriage. By, 2004, Cooper’s order said, those numbers had doubled.

As the number of visas for foreign fiancées has risen, there has been a corresponding increase in domestic violence cases involving “mail-order brides.”

In response to that rising tide of abuse, Atlanta native and Agnes Scott graduate Layli Miller-Muro, formerly an attorney with Washington’s Arnold & Porter, established the Tahirih Justice Center in Washington. The Tahirih Justice Center, represented by Jones Day attorney Randall M. Hawkins and Arnold & Porter attorney Randall Miller, intervened in the Atlanta case after Cooper had issued the temporary restraining order.

The U.S. Justice Department was represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Alonzo H. Long in Atlanta. Long could not be reached for comment.

On Monday, Hawkins said that in the final order denying an injunction to European Connections, “Judge Cooper hit the nail on the head” when he said the marriage broker regulation act “is highly likely to reduce domestic abuse—and may actually save lives.”

“The whole purpose of the law is to protect people who largely don’t have the protections that other folks do,” Hawkins said. Mail-order brides make up “a vulnerable population … and I think Judge Cooper recognized that.”

In his order, Cooper noted that “the profit incentives of international marriage brokers are presently skewed to satisfy the male client rather than to safeguard the women they recruit.”

That makes them different from religious and cultural nonprofit organizations that arrange marriages across international borders as well as international dating services which charge men and women equally, Cooper said. Both types of organizations are exempt from the new statute.

“Congress reasonably could assume that without the motivation to keep its male customers satisfied, traditional religious and cultural matchmaking agencies are not as likely to be complicit in developing abusive relationships,” Cooper’s order continued.

The Congress, he continued, was also “particularly concerned with companies that collected their membership fees from men and not from women. This distinction characterizes the IMBs [international marriage brokers] where the man pays and the woman typically is the ‘commodity.’ … Congress was concerned with the power imbalance that results in a business model where the American male pays for the services, but the woman does not.”

Cooper also dismissed arguments that the marriage broker law attempts to impermissibly regulate commercial speech.

“IMBs are not restricted from touting their services,” Cooper wrote. “Nowhere in the IMBRA [international Marriage Broker Regulation Act] statute are there any provisions attempting to regulate the content of IMBs commercial messages in which they tout their respective services in an attempt to induce commercial transactions.”

Instead, Cooper said the law’s disclosure requirements “are reasonably related to Congress’ legitimate interest in preventing fraud and deception and addressing domestic abuse and human trafficking against so-called ‘mail-order brides.’”

For his part, Steckel said that no foreign bride who has paired with an American man through his sites has ever been a victim of violence. In more than a decade that he has been in the matchmaking business, Steckel said there have only been “three or four situations” in which a foreign bride was isolated in her home by her husband. In those instances, he said, his company provided the woman with a return plane ticket home.

Steckel also acknowledged “an occasional call from a lady having trouble,” but denied any of them were abusive situations. “We will, on occasions, if we think it will help, we will talk to the men,” he explained. “We have never had anybody hit anybody. It’s always been kind of argument-type things where they’re not getting along. … In some situations, we’ve called shelters. But overall, I could say that I bet we’ve had no more than 15 problems of any kind.”

Staff Reporter R. Robin McDonald can be reached at rmcdonald@alm.com.

[Caladan 19]

The challenge by European Connections wasn't just about the foreign agencies not complying with IMBRA. It was also about American introduction services not being held to the same standards. If foreign women (remember this is a part of VAWA) are to be informed about prior convictions of abuse, sexual assault, etc. why then shouldn't the American introduction services have to uphold the same standards? Do we think that the American woman is so asute that she will not be taken in by an abuser online?

When we hear about all of the children that are drawn into elaborate scandals online, it really makes you wonder why the introduction services are not also being more closely screened.

That was one of European Connections case points, but apparently the judge didn't feel that was worth extending the law towards those online services.

For one, an American woman speaks the language, likely has friends and family in the area to help her if the marriage sours, knows her rights under the law, and also is able to meet the man in person without marrying him, in his own town to get a better sense of his personality. She may not; there are certainly a lot of liars out there, but she's not in a position where she *can't* get that information.

A foreign bride has none of those abilities, so she's more at risk. Plus, before VAWA, it would be very easy for some chopf*ck to bring her over here and refuse to file her green card to keep her dependent on him. How much abuse do you think gets reported if she's being told that she'll be deported if she speaks up because he hasn't filed her paperwork?

Not to mention that federal law doesn't generally address marriages, so there'd be no way to enforce an IMBRA-like law on a domestic company.

And the law doesn't prevent you from marrying your bride. You can marry her and live in her country. Or (as we've seen), IMBRA doesn't prevent someone from bringing her here to the U.S. And everyone is required to be compliant with it; had I a criminal record, I'd have to have it disclosed to C. though there isn't exactly a mail-order husband service.

It just means that an abuser can't use the fact that his fiancé is desperate to get out of a poor country to hide his past. Most people who use marriage brokers are fine men for whom the traditional dating scene doesn't work out; some are chopf*cks who want someone who is a slave they can dominate and abuse with little repercussion. It won't hurt the upstanding men; it keeps the chopf*cks from taking out their problems on some poor foreign girl.

[Beauty for Ashes 257]

Here's a press release:

Constitutionality of International Marriage Broker Regulation Act is Upheld

Falls Church, VA. March 27, 2007 – On Monday March 26th 2007, in an important legal

decision, Judge Clarence Cooper (from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of Georgia in Atlanta) rejected an international marriage broker’s claim that the

2005 International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA) is unconstitutional. IMBRA is

a new law designed to provide greater protection for foreign women who marry men

through what are commonly known as “mail order bride” agencies. Layli Miller-Muro, the

Executive Director of the Tahirih Justice Center noted, “This decision sends an important

message to the international marriage broker (“IMB”) industry, which has worked to resist

and evade its regulation, that it can no longer keep foreign women from poorer countries

ignorant of the violent histories of the men who use their services and the legal rights

available to women living in the United States.”

The lawsuit defeated in Monday’s decision was brought by a leading international marriage

broker, European Connections (“EC”). EC alleged that the law’s requirement that IMBs

provide information to foreign women about their legal rights and the criminal

backgrounds of their prospective American husbands infringed upon their constitutional

rights. In a detailed 40-page decision, Judge Clarence Cooper found that “The rates of

domestic violence against immigrant women are much higher than those of the U.S.

population” and that “IMBRA is highly likely to reduce domestic abuse – and may actually

save lives.” When considering EC’s arguments that the implementation of IMBRA would

cost them money, the judge noted that “the Court is confronted with the classic ‘bloodversus-

money’ analysis, and the safety of foreign women coming to the United States is

clearly the more vital interest.”

The lawsuit was an attempt to resist the regulation of the IMB industry, which derives its

profits from pairing foreign women from poorer countries with American men. The

requirements imposed by IMBRA seek to ensure that women who speak limited English,

have no social ties in the U.S., and are unfamiliar with U.S. laws are given sufficient

information to decide whether to enter into a relationship and know where to find help if

the relationship turns abusive. IMBRA was passed in 2005 with wide bi-partisan support as

a part of the Violence Against Women Act, after over a decade of examination by

Congress of the special vulnerabilities of immigrant women to abuse and recent attention

to concerns about abuse through the IMB industry.

Another lawsuit, brought in Ohio by a consortium of IMBs, made similar constitutional

arguments and was dismissed in January 2007. The United States Attorney’s Office and the

Tahirih Justice Center defended both cases. The Tahirih Justice Center was represented on

pro bono basis by the law firms of Arnold & Porter (Washington, DC) and Jones Day

(Atlanta, GA). Lead attorney and partner at Arnold & Porter Randy Miller noted, “This is

an important victory that decisively protects a historic law designed to protect extremely

vulnerable foreign women coming to the United States from developing countries to marry

American men through these agencies.”

Available for Interview

European Connections matched a young Siberian woman named Katerina with an American man named Frank

Sheridan who soon after her arrival in the U.S. kept her a virtual prisoner in his home, taking away her

identification documents and cutting all the phone lines to the house. During one violent rage, he beat Katerina

and dragged her around the house by her legs. When she told him she was leaving him and going back home to

Russia, Frank stabbed himself and then accused her of doing it to get her thrown in jail, only agreeing to post bail if

she promised to return to him and be a dutiful wife. Katerina fled instead to a domestic violence shelter where

she remained for nine months, and endured more than two years of harassment and threats. While investigating

Frank for aggravated stalking, the police discovered he was in Russia looking for a new bride. Later, when a

sheriff’s deputy came to Frank’s house to arrest him for another stalking-related crime, Frank opened fire,

shooting the deputy in the face, chest, leg and back. The deputy returned fire and, after 25 rounds of gunfire,

Frank was dead and Katerina’s nightmare was finally over.

Katerina’s saga unfortunately is not unusual. The Court’s decision on Monday notes that many other “mail order

brides” in the U.S. have suffered similar abuse at the hands of their American husbands, and that the

“perpetrators of these crimes were often involved with multiple foreign women and were seeking to become

involved with other foreign women at or around the time they committed the crimes.”

Katerina is willing to talk to press about her experience and feelings about the legal decision against European

Connections.

Dont blame them for passing the law... I think if this is one of the cases...not surprsied it passed

[BJZags 17]

Katerina’s saga unfortunately is not unusual. The Court’s decision on Monday notes that many other “mail order

brides” in the U.S. have suffered similar abuse at the hands of their American husbands, and that the

“perpetrators of these crimes were often involved with multiple foreign women and were seeking to become

involved with other foreign women at or around the time they committed the crimes.”

I suspect that its not the law itself that upsets some people so much, for its purposes are to do good and protect women who may be in a weaker position than their US citizen petitioners. Its probably declarations such as "Katerina's saga is not unusual" that is hurtful to some readers of these stories. To me its the one-side nature of these politically correct stories that at times slay me. Writers could just as easily say something like: "the stupidness and desperation of these brides to leave their miserable living conditions in their home countries contributed to their plight." But with that being said, the only people truly affected by IMBRA and such laws are those who have a criminal or abusive past. For the rest of us, it likely only means a slightly longer time to process a visa.

[rebeccajo 14]

............ the only people truly affected by IMBRA and such laws are those who have a criminal or abusive past. For the rest of us, it likely only means a slightly longer time to process a visa.

Exactly.

[MidnightinMoscow 0]

Of course IMBRA hurts all Americans and American women will feature as plaintiffs in the upcoming lawsuit by citizens.

Liability for websites puts them out of business or makes them go "free" while stopping them from expanding.

Americans with no criminal record who are in a foreign city on business or for a 4 day weekend holiday...are finding the red tape of their background checks are lasting 5 days in some cases...wrecking the chances of two people meeting each other.

Also, since women in Russia often only read their email once per month, one needs the address to write a paper letter or telegram which will be received much faster (instantly in the case of telegrams).

IMBRA assumes that everyone uses webmail every day.

You cannot have a law that allows the government to interfere with the "hello" process.

You cannot have a law that takes away the rights of women to decide their own level of security.

Most of these women want at least their anonymous Hotmail addresses to be given out. Most want their postal addresses given out. They are not stupid doing this.

Women should have the right to at least sign an IMBRA waiver.

It may happen that the final result will be that the Supreme Court upholds the right of the US government to harrass Americans who actually file for visas (ignoring the sorry history of the Expatriation Act of 1907 where a male dominated US Congress persecuted American women who wanted to marry European aristocrats).

But the interference in the "hello" process has got to go. The book "1984" describes the government "disclosing" information to a woman about the man she is dating. George Orwell meant to say that, although Julia could use the info that Winston betrayed her under torture, it was 100% wrong for the government to be involved in such disclosures.

None of the above was said in the other two trials, and there will be a lot more said.

If you go to www.mediaradar.org, you will see that the Republicans largely lost the 2006 elections because of VAWA/IMBRA and they are in for a huge loss in 2008 unless they change course.

Edited April 25, 2007 by MidnightinMoscow

[MidnightinMoscow 0]

You can see by Preston Steckel's comments above that he was the wrong plaintiff in that he agreed with background checks as some kind of social conservative. The unpublished trial transcripts have him and his lawyer agreeing with almost everything the Tahirih Justice Center said while allowing, without objection, a recent law school graduate to say she is an expert on the dating industry because she met a few battered wives in a few shelters.

In all, nothing much was said by European Connections in their case. They entered no evidence and gave a minimum of arguments. The closest they came to mentioning politics and ideology was by calling a report "hearsay". Judge Cooper had been with them not only at the beginning, when he gave the restraining order, but for 5 months after the trial as he kept the restraining order in effect until September and only lifted it for technical reasons.

But they had not backed up even what Cooper said in the restraining order. Cooper had started out saying that a government cannot interfere with two people saying hello, but then the plaintiff himself undermined him by agreeing with IMBRA in general and background checks in specific.

Judge Cooper was left only the option of saying (paraphrase): "Plaintiff himself agrees that background checks for dating is OK".

Significantly, Judge Cooper never bothered to argue against the points he had originally made in the restraining order...and this will be used in the next trial to discredit the entire EC case. Both of his "decisions" were apples and oranges to each other. The courts still have to clarify if they have jurisdiction over two people saying "hello" to each other.

And regular citizens did not read the transcripts until a week before the decision...mainly because IMBRA opponents believed Preston that the trial had gone "very well".

Judge Cooper then said that meeting someone was like buying a gun, which requires background checks.

Now, if you go to the AODA case that the plaintiffs dropped, you were looking at a group of people who let their lawyer, who knew nothing about the dating industry, run the show and not listen to any advice. The lawyer then said "The Supreme Court has never held that there is a fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner"...adding "for an intimate relationship" as if the government can decide why two people are contacting each other.

The Republican judge in that case agree with the plaintiff's lawyer.

No IMBRA case has yet been heard where the plaintiff has actually declared the Right to Assembly is inviolable.

No IMBRA case has been heard where mountains of material are used to prove that those who meet foreigners are generally upper middle class and speak other languages.

What is past is prologue.

Edited April 25, 2007 by MidnightinMoscow

[Beauty for Ashes 257]

You can see by Preston Steckel's comments above that he was the wrong plaintiff in that he agreed with background checks as some kind of social conservative. The unpublished trial transcripts have him and his lawyer agreeing with almost everything the Tahirih Justice Center said while allowing, without objection, a recent law school graduate to say she is an expert on the dating industry because she met a few battered wives in a few shelters.

In all, nothing much was said by European Connections in their case. They entered no evidence and gave a minimum of arguments. The closest they came to mentioning politics and ideology was by calling a report "hearsay". Judge Cooper had been with them not only at the beginning, when he gave the restraining order, but for 5 months after the trial as he kept the restraining order in effect until September and only lifted it for technical reasons.

But they had not backed up even what Cooper said in the restraining order. Cooper had started out saying that a government cannot interfere with two people saying hello, but then the plaintiff himself undermined him by agreeing with IMBRA in general and background checks in specific.

Judge Cooper was left only the option of saying (paraphrase): "Plaintiff himself agrees that background checks for dating is OK".

Significantly, Judge Cooper never bothered to argue against the points he made in the restraining order...and this will be used in the next trial to discredit the entire EC case.

And regular citizens did not read the transcripts until a week before the decision...mainly because IMBRA opponents believed Preston that the trial had gone "very well".

Judge Cooper then said that meeting someone was like buying a gun, which requires background checks.

Now, if you go to the AODA case that the plaintiffs dropped, you were looking at a group of people who let their lawyer, who knew nothing about the dating industry, run the show and not listen to any advice. The lawyer then said "The Supreme Court has never held that there is a fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner"...adding "for an intimate relationship" as if the government can decide why two people are contacting each other.

The Republican judge in that case agree with the plaintiff's lawyer.

No IMBRA case has yet been heard where the plaintiff has actually declared the Right to Assembly is inviolable.

No IMBRA case has been heard where mountains of material are used to prove that those who meet foreigners are generally upper middle class and speak other languages.

What is past is prologue.

Well I am filing for an imbra waiver because of an approved fiancee case that never made it to the consul. I am heartbroken at the possibbility that I cannot make free choices or live my life because of the weirdness in the interpretation of this law. The lawyers are not making things much better. One told me the only way I would get a waiver is if I gave him 2000 dollars in addition to the case cost and in looking at a total fee of over 3000 when in fact... what he would really do is beyond me. I sent in my waiver letter with my request and other than a bunch of touches I have heard NOTHING. Touch touch touch and I got notice that the old case was sent back to the service center for review. What they actually do when they are touching the file, I dont know. they touched it for 3 days straight and then nothing. Am I getting An RFE... and intent to deny or an approval? Why is this system so huge and over powering? You do things the legal and right way and you get deluged with nos and pounds of papers.

I wanted to trust an attorney to prepare my imbra.. but what could he say anymore than I broke up with the guy before the interview and please let me get married again... Gees...

[MidnightinMoscow 0]

If you pay an attorney for anything, it should be for a restraining order on the entire law. Take this to an attorney:

1) Overriding point: IMBRA takes away the right of women (and foreign men) to decide their own level of security. Before the visa application process, it cannot be assumed that these women (or foreign men) specifically want to marry an American and live in the USA. These women are doctors and lawyers and university students who speak more languages, on average than their American counterparts…and there is no superiority difference between an American woman who can only speak English and a Russian woman who can speak only Russian. The court must be reminded that, at the “hello” stage, there is no vulnerability of the foreigner being in a strange land without friends (it is the American who will be vulnerable in the foreign land). The Clarence Cooper decision was fundamentally flawed in that he conflated the act of two people saying “hello” with immigrating to the USA and then getting beaten. He literally made no distinction in his ruling.

2) Heterosexual American men are now caught in a political whirlwind where they are noticing that they have few lobbyist groups. If you look carefully, the Republicans are not representing this group anymore. A good lawyer can prove that social globalization is, in fact, occurring and that some people in both parties in power want it stopped. I could show you a letter from a housewife named Bonnie who said that she wrote her Congressman when her husband left her for a young foreigner he met online. She asked her Congressman to stop American husbands from being able to contact foreign women. To show how this is selective politics, you can note that inner city men and men of certain ethnic backgrounds have been proven to be more violent than others, but prior restraint on their being introduced to women by a dating agency is politically impossible.

3) Since 9-11, there has been a disturbing trend for the US federal government to believe they have jurisdiction over the private behavior of Americans who leave the boundaries of the United States and Congress is particularly greedy about gaining power over aspects of life that the states normally preside over. This has nothing to do with national security and the court needs to be told that this trend will have major political repercussions including loss of the overseas vote and military vote. We can readwww.escapeartist.com for points that can be made in this regard, but the main point to be made is that the US IS REGULATING ITS OWN CITIZENS WHO TRAVEL ABROAD MORE THAN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, including communist China. Meanwhile the USA is trying to regulate the Internet more than most other countries (only North Korea and China have more laws, although Germany admittedly does have a COPA-style law on pornography).

Germany would never pass an IMBRA law. It mimics a previous law they had, but which was overthrown in 1945.

Heck, my fiance just got her visa to England within 10 days of applying. That should be the standard for a significant other who is officially vouched for financially and who has bought medical insurance.

The point is that England did not require that I promise to marry her in 90 days, which is my business and hers, not their's.

When it comes time to try to get her into the US in a few months, I would sooner spend $2000 to ask for a restraining order on IMBRA and earlier laws that I can show were not rationally thought out by Congress.

But I won't have to worry about spending my own money. There are people who are willing to give anyone $20K to do a lawsuit.

[Beauty for Ashes 257]

Well I am a heteroseual female being messed around by it. I cannot even make the choice to love who I want without applying for a waiver from a relationship I DID NOT LEAVE. He left me before the interview process for another woman and now I cannot move on with my life. I am forced to write a waiver letter with no guidlelines to do so and no idea if I say the right thing or this or that. Immigration attorneys want 2000 dollars to say the same thing as I can. And then to top it off.. there is no one at immigration to call... or to help you.. I am so terrified that I will get through the whole process with my boyfriend only to have to start all over again .... and the horror that some of the people must feel who do nt even have waivers to file must be enormous. I cant get a straight answer out of anyone. The website says september cases are being worked on when most of Decembers ao2s have gone out and it just doesnt seem like there is anyone I can call or talk to..

I am so sad.. that I cannot even make my own choices as to who to love

I agree . I dont think they want people coming here or immigrating and with the internet, they have been overwhelmed. Mine is from country on a high list.. but not many people travel there ( algeria) and other countries like Morocco have a 50 percent and higher denial rate for k1 and k3. I have no idea what the ALGERIA rate is cause its so much harder to get there from the USA ( visas.. hard to get .... plane fares there enormous and lower internet rate than Morocco)

Look at the visas for Morocco on the board as opposed to Algeria and you will see the numberical stats..

I just want to love as l like and live and I like... I think they should allow people with good reason to overcome numerical limits cause things happen and relationships break up

[mybackpages 0]

and other countries like Morocco have a 50 percent and higher denial rate for k1 and k3.

Morocco does not have a 50% denial rate for K-1 and K-3. Some estimate the denial rate for all visas to be approximately 50%. Very tough to get a tourist visa or even through the lottery. Most denials are not family based.

Edited April 25, 2007 by mybackpages

[Beauty for Ashes 257]

and other countries like Morocco have a 50 percent and higher denial rate for k1 and k3.

Morocco does not have a 50% denial rate for K-1 and K-3. Some estimate the denial rate for all visas to be approximately 50%. Very tough to get a tourist visa or even through the lottery. Most denials are not family based.

Just looking at the January stats per country and approval... they are pretty low...

I just saw a 30 year old get turned down with a not much younger guy... there goes that theory on that flag... I think cases that would fly iin other places get turned down there..

[Turboguy 6]

They can find a few high profile cases that create sympathy for the law. Great, The cold hard facts are that every day 3 American women die from Domestic abuse. There was only one study ever done about domestic abuse among MOB's. It was done in 1999 by the government and showed the rate of abuse among MOB's to be 1/7th the rate of an all American couple. They are fixing a problem that does not exist.

So, they want to save these poor foreign women from a life of hell. If they do prevent some from coming to America and finding a great guy who will care from them many of them are now living in countries where women are treated as not much more than property and with a very high abuse and death rate. IMBRA will kill far more women than it saves.

The founding fathers barely had ink on the paper before they got to the point of saying we had a right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. What is happiness if it does not include being with someone you love becuase some of some stupid law that should never have been passed, that failled to pass several times on it's own because of the facts involved and only passed hidden in another law as everyone waited to go home for Christmas.

[Beauty for Ashes 257]

I am just really waiting for something concrete that will tell me how much time my imbra application will add to the adjudication of my case. At least you have an NO2... I am still waiting on mine. My time at the service center is the least of my worries... At least you have VSC and they got your papers done fast. Those of us at the california center are DYING.. waiting and waiting and waitng and waiting....

Have you been checking for touches.. ooops.. you cant check for anything at VSC can you... I forgot about that..

What exactly do they do over there anyway?

And when the heck will I get my No2 if ever? They never sent me a requset for an imbra waiver.. I just sent one with my package cause I couldn't figure out if I needed one anyway.. and no one has asked me for RFE's cause I sent them all the original plane tickets and hotel stuff in the application. I think I sent them too much and I think my waiver was too much too.. I told too much info and went on and on and on...

Arent the requirement for the visa actually meeting in person and being able to marry ( within the last 2 years) So after IMBRA , if they approve me ... if I ever get that far.. then its the consulates decision to kill our relationship.. I WILL FREAK OUT..

I miss my boyfriend so much and I am so sick of waiting.. I am going there in a few weeks but this wait and uncertainty is making me so so so so so so depressed. I wonder if I go to the consulate and just say hi if that helps.. probably not.. maybe they wil hate me