The Russian bride business is dead!! I don't think so.

[BC]

Laws simply can't be written to include every possible scenario.  As long as it is generally perceived that the majority is being correctly assisted, benefit of doubt will be given.  I believe ANY negative impact for the beneficiary will be disregarded in favor of 'saving' the majority.

Consider laws as a sieve with a rather large grate at the beginning that slowly evolves into finer mesh as the justice system creates precedents.

There will always be casualties along the way in an uphill battle.  Most will simply give in since they will not be able to find enough support (mostly financial) to play the game through to the end.

'Suck it up and move on' will be the operative advice unless someone is able to find a huge flaw in this legislation.  It's been what.. 5 years since the first unsuccessful lawsuits with zip results?

Bottom line:

IV.   Public Interest
In this case, the public interest has been vindicated – through the public’s representatives in Congress – through the enactment of IMBRA. The public has a keen interest in having its representatives enact legislation to protect women from domestic violence, and the public also has an interest in avoiding the wisdom of such legislation second-guessed in a judicial forum. Domestic abuse is a significant public concern, and the public interest will be vindicated by denying Plaintiff’s request for a permanent injunction that would bar the enforcement of IMBRA.
CONCLUSION Based on the findings and conclusions set forth above, the Court DENIES
Plaintiff’s request for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. All motions presently pending on the Court’s docket are DENIED as moot. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to mark this case closed.

http://iwp.legalmomentum.org/reference/additional-materials/immigration/imbra/case-law/Final%20Decision%20Georgia%20IMBRA%20Litigation.pdf/at_download/file

[GQBlues]

In fact, then some GCG's may actually look for guys with a previous DV record, get married to him and then accuse him of beating her up.  Most would believe her 'cuz of his track record.

Well, that was in fact what I had in mind when I mentioned this with the guy before Tim. For a GCG, certainly that would be the more logical route if there isn't any type of caveat within the law's compliance.

Conversely, if a guy with a history goes on on a freesite, or non-IMBRA regulated site, and marries a woman who he eventually abused, then the woman (GCG or otherwise) would have an excuse she never had an idea about his potential tendencies...

There's a part of me that want to believe this law isn't solely for the purpose of filtering through questionable sponsors from victimizing unsuspecting beneficiaries, Tim. I think there's a part in this that would also serve to stop immigration fraud as gawd knows every protected victim is causing someone monies somehow.

Here's a segment of the article Dan linked..

To stubbornly deny that there is any fraud in the VAWA program while there is rampant fraud in every other program relating to immigration benefits, thereby requiring the formation of a specific unit within USCIS to combat this rampant fraud, is a clear indication of politics and social agendas influencing the administration of the VAWA program and "the fix is in". 

The inescapable facts and the inconvenient truth is that there IS fraud in the VAWA program and there is a huge motivation for an alien spouse of a US citizen to deliberately lie and falsely allege domestic violence against their US citizen spouse. The main incentive is when an alien spouse, who has fraudulently induced a US citizen to marry them based upon promises and pronouncements of love and devotion that are simply not true,  wants to cover up the evidence of her crime and wishes to abandon the relationship she has with her US citizen "spouse". She want no scrutiny of her actions or her motivations whatsoever. And the government of the United States of America, which is supposed to serve and protect its citizens, obliges the alien and accepts, at face value, any and all allegations, and prohibits the US citizen from even knowing these allegations have been made against him, much less allow him "his day in court".

When the smoke clears, here's what happens. The alien gets her green card, no questions asked, oftentimes with the apologies of the United States government for her inconvenience and the fact that she has been "victimized", even if the facts don't support her allegations. In many cases, she remarries her foreign "ex spouse" and then petitions for him once she becomes a US citizen.

Just kicking the bucket here once or twice...

Consider laws as a sieve with a rather large grate at the beginning that slowly evolves into finer mesh as the justice system creates precedents.

That may well be in this scenario, BC.

[Maxx2]

Just kicking the bucket here once or twice...

That's the best way to get to the truth. There is villains on both sides of this issue.

Here's Julia the immigration attorney who usually supports the side of the immigrant spouse

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4wiIlgcPxw[/youtube]

[Admin]

Countering what I wrote upthread, I found this recent USCIS decision in which an immigrant spouse filed self-petition alleging abuse by her US Citizen husband (copy attached).

I am not sure if this result is due to a particularly thorough investigation by the Vermont Service Center, or if it is representative (will require reading through many, many published decisions), but at least in this case, the immigrant spouse was NOT successful with her claims.

FWIW

- Dan

[Admin]

I just found another self-petition on the grounds of abuse, only this time the foreign spouse had a criminal record of prostitution. On pages 9 and 10 of the attached decision, one finds elements of the VAWA legislation that potentially allows criminals to still gain entry into the US - though, in this case, the good judgment of the investigators at the Vermont Service Center prevailed.

- Dan

[GQBlues]

Good bit of research Dan. The fact the decision date is relatively 'recent' and with no/little media fanfare, suggests to me that any type of uncontestable ( e.g. prior warning) information can or may even give greater lawful leverage to deny and/or deport unconditionally.

Any meat on this assessment you think?

[Admin]

Good bit of research Dan. The fact the decision date is relatively 'recent' and with no/little media fanfare, suggests to me that any type of uncontestable ( e.g. prior warning) information can or may even give greater lawful leverage to deny and/or deport unconditionally.

Any meat on this assessment you think?

I don't know GQ. Maybe.

One of the things I am stumbling onto is a bit disturbing though. I am now looking at dozens of appellate decisions - like those two I posted. There is clearly a disproportionate percentage of those denials that affect male petitioners (foreign spouse). To be certain of this allegation would require much more time than I can devote right now - but I am reasonably confident from the sampling I've done in the past couple of hours that this is the case - and I did not expect to find this result.

It seems between the conflicting priorities and possible hidden agendas (taking aboard John Sampson's claims) - it makes it quite difficult to be certain of much in these cases. Would probably require a very significant investment of time to conduct research into published documents - and then likely file FOIA to retrieve others - before some sense might be made of it.

- Dan

[Maxx2]

This youtube says 12 minutes long although it is only 2 1/2 minutes in length.

Julia the immigration attorney talks about the two I-360 cases she lost. One was a woman who had 14 arrests for prostitution and never disclosed it on her self petition. I did the interview in 2007 and she had been in practice since about 2000.

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymvor4VUjtg[/youtube]

Julia has had only two rejections of her more than 200 self petitions she has filed for abuse.

The other immigration attorney I interviewed Elizabeth said she has had zero rejections.

Dan, I am wondering what the gathering of these USCIS/court documents can be used for? The crunching of the numbers and so on? Is it for a possible court challenge to this law?

[BC]

Good bit of research Dan. The fact the decision date is relatively 'recent' and with no/little media fanfare, suggests to me that any type of uncontestable ( e.g. prior warning) information can or may even give greater lawful leverage to deny and/or deport unconditionally.

Any meat on this assessment you think?

I read through these two decisions Dan provided and find that they are unrelated to the type of scenarios that are being discussed here.  The decisions seem to be based on not fulfilling the requirements of immigration in the first place.

Case 1 was about a couple that were interviewed (guessing AOS?) and inconsistencies were found, later she screamed abuse..  She first overstayed her tourist visa a couple years until she found someone to marry her.  Their case did not hold up, nor did she have enough evidence to show abuse.

Case 2 was a woman that committed several moral crimes after immigration. Seems she also overstayed a tourist visa, later got married, got permanent residence, then before renewal the relationship died putting her in a hard spot with nothing other than WAVA to keep her in country.

Both relate to WAVA, but nothing I would even remotely relate to combined IMBRA/WAVA issues or MOB.

[BC]

Dan,

Was a bit rushed before. The following excerpts will help when you review other cases.  It's this paragraph that sorta sets the stage, and 'mindset' of the response. Probably the most important paragraph in the whole document and gives you a good filter when reviewing.

The record of proceeding establishes the following pertinent facts and procedural history. The petitioner is a citizen of the People's Republic of China who entered the United States on February 15, 2000, in nonimmigrant visitor status, with authorization to remain in the United States through March 16, 2000. The petitioner married B-G-,2a United States citizen, on August 8, 2003. B- G- filed Form 1-130, Petition for Alien Relative, on behalf of the petitioner on November 6, 2003. The petitioner filed Form 1-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, on that same date. Although the Form 1-130 was approved on February 7, 2006, the Form 1-485 was denied on June 12, 2006. Previous counsel filed a motion to reconsider the denial of the Form 1-485 on July
12,2006, and the motion was granted and an interview scheduled.

The record of proceeding establishes the following pertinent facts and procedural history. The petitioner, who was born in the Dominican Republic on February 5, 1952, entered the United States as a nonimmigrant visitor on or around April 21, 1988. She married B-R-,' a citizen of the United States, on May 29, 1992. B-R- filed Form 1-130, Petition for Alien Relative, on behalf of the petitioner on July 15, 1992, and it was approved on April 14, 1994. According to Service records, the petitioner became a permanent resident on April 14, 1994 based upon her marriage to B-R-.

I would classify these as long term tourist visa overstays followed by USCIS review that didn't hold up.  USCIS did give them a good chance to establish a relationship despite the overstay.  I would think such cases are flagged and get some extra attention.  Crying WAVA was their last and only resort and the marriages were a sham from the beginning - set up by the women AND the men involved.  I wonder if there were any follow on actions against the men.. not by the women but by the Government.

[BC]

Dan,

Here's an interesting document I stumbled across.

Addresses concerns of VAWA or WAVA[sic] where circumstances might adversely affect the result of their petition.

http://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1371&context=mulr

Tried to attach but guess was too large.

[Admin]

I read through these two decisions Dan provided and find that they are unrelated to the type of scenarios that are being discussed here.  The decisions seem to be based on not fulfilling the requirements of immigration in the first place.

Case 1 was about a couple that were interviewed (guessing AOS?) and inconsistencies were found, later she screamed abuse..  She first overstayed her tourist visa a couple years until she found someone to marry her.  Their case did not hold up, nor did she have enough evidence to show abuse.

Case 2 was a woman that committed several moral crimes after immigration. Seems she also overstayed a tourist visa, later got married, got permanent residence, then before renewal the relationship died putting her in a hard spot with nothing other than WAVA to keep her in country.

Both relate to WAVA, but nothing I would even remotely relate to combined IMBRA/WAVA issues or MOB.

True enough. Most of the published decisions are based on appeals that are pretty 'pedestrian' in nature. Those particular decisions addressed VAWA claims - and when you read the article by Sampson - and comments made by Maxx, it is easy to form the impression that anyone who self-petitions by claiming abuse is automatically granted legal admission to the US. In at least the two instances above, there was enough of an investigation conducted that the petitioner was denied legal admission, hence, it countered some of the previous materials.

Your point about the intro paragraphs and screening is appreciated. I *have* found some decisions involving a K-visa petitioner - but as I mentioned earlier, most of those are involving male petitioners.

I am not making the commitment to dedicate the time and energy to conduct a thorough review of these decisions - though I am now very suspicious that it would result in some interesting and unexpected outcomes.

- Dan

[GQBlues]

BC-

Posts noted, however I was a bit more 'far-reaching' with my target. Those two case samples Dan rendered seem to give light (at least to myself) that the lawmakers still do in fact exercsie due diligence in their legislations. In essence what I'm saying is, VAWA and anyone else cannot go thinking that a simple 'claim' of abuse would undoubtedly give them a free pass to residency. To me, they (abuse claims) seemed to be all a slam dunk before when in fact they really aren't.

NOW - with the new IMBRA regulation, with all its kinks and wrinkles i.e. the scenario I cited; will it make it even more easier for lawmakers to be more diligent than they already are, and would VAWA have lesser leverage for any type of opposition if the scenario I mentioned do happen?

[BC]

NOW - with the new IMBRA regulation, with all its kinks and wrinkles i.e. the scenario I cited; will it make it even more easier for lawmakers to be more diligent than they already are, and would VAWA have lesser leverage for any type of opposition if the scenario I mentioned do happen?

GQ,

When we find a case of a bona fide or real 'greencard' marriage where one or both parties are not involved in immigration fraud there will be something to really discuss instead of guess at.

One other interesting thing I found:

The Supreme Court has established a three-step framework for interpreting
statutes: “first, a natural reading of the full text; second, the common-law meaning of the
statutory terms; and finally, consideration of the statutory and legislative history for
guidance.”

http://www.eichorn-law.com/CM/IntheNews/Lockhart-Sixth-Circuit-Widow-Case.pdf
(interesting read btw)

I would think the 'natural reading' would be enough to tip the scales in favor of a woman unless there was very compelling and well documented reasons otherwise.

As implied before, when benefit of doubt comes into play, the woman will win.  It takes only a grain of sand, more or less, to tip the scales of justice.

[Bruno]

I'm still not clear as to how our American government can hold other countries accountable for our laws. In America it is illegal to sell beer to children or under aged young adults.  A 17 year old American exchange student is in Paris. An outside cafe sell's this student a beer.  This cafe has just violated an American law.  The American parents find out this outside cafe sold their 17 year old a beer, they have violated an American law. The parents are upset, they contact the state department. Now should the cafe owner, or waiter who served the beer, should they have to appear in an American court and stand for charges of providing alcohol to a minor.  Where does it stop and start?  I am still baffled as to how our American government can demand citizens of other countries, who are in there own country, of complying with American laws.

American laws are for American citizen and territory... Why do you think that Guantanamo Bay detention camp was created? Because the Justice Department advised that the Guantánamo Bay Detention Camp could be considered outside U.S. legal jurisdiction... and it have allow US to keep people there without respecting the US rules for put someone in jail. The military have act as interrogators, prosecutors and defense counsel, judges, and when death sentences are imposed, as executioners. The trials have be held in private. None of the guarantees of a fair trial need have be observed.

Same thing about the IMBRA... IMBRA is not a international law... the IMBRA is written in a way who make it possible to become a international law but it will need other countries to sign in for make it a international law.

For your example, the cafe being in France, it is French laws who count... since it is illegal in France to give alcohol drink to a minor ( 18 yo ), US parent can call the French police...

But it is possible for justice to punish one of his own citizen for something made in a other country... by example, Belgium tribunal can punish a Belgium guy who have sexual relation with a minor in Thailand... So if you are a US citizen, living in Ukraine, owner of a local marriage agency, and not respecting the IMBRA, maybe you will have problem the next time you return to the US...

Need to see how far the Justice Department wish to go... they can always arrest a foreign guy who don't respect the IMBRA once he put one foot on the US territory... it will be illegal but it can take years of procedure for prove it... Who wish take the risk?

Now, related to your quote, some other quote from the US Justice Department :

"In this section, you will find information on what you should know about the legal system of the countries to which you will be traveling. The U.S. Embassy or Consulate abroad is limited in what it can do to assist you if you should get into legal trouble abroad. As a foreigner in a foreign land, you are obligated to act in accordance with foreign law.
...
Constitutional Rights: You cease to be protected by U.S. law and Constitutional rights once you leave the country."

Since the IMBRA is not a international law, only a US law... and if what is wrote on the US Justice Department site is true, i conclude that IMBRA cannot be apply outside the US...

[BC]

Since the IMBRA is not a international law, only a US law... and if what is wrote on the US Justice Department site is true, i conclude that IMBRA cannot be apply outside the US...

Bruno,

There are many examples where the US government has a far reach as it regards it's citizens and ANY business that does bizness [sic] in the US.

Some examples:

Restrictions on travel of US citizens to Cuba

PROTECT Act  http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1467.html where USC's can be prosecuted for commercial sex with anyone under the age of 18, or anyone under 16 when there is at least a 4 year age difference etc etc

Very many antitrust actions against foreign corporations doing business or commerce with the US or who have US affiliated branches or other operations in the US.. Here's an example of actions against a Belgian company: 

http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/press_releases/2006/215056.htm

There are probably quite a few more..

[BC]

Bruno,

Yes, it goes the other way around too... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_competition_case

EU vs Microsoft

[Bruno]

There are many examples where the US government has a far reach as it regards it's citizens and ANY business that does bizness [sic] in the US.

Some examples:

Well, in the first example, about Cuba, the restriction apply on US citizen when they are on US soil... second example is similar to our own laws, mainly based on UN rules and human right... 197 countries have sign... for the last, EU have more strong antitrust laws that the US but again, it is related to real international laws... if they have try the same thing on EU soil, sanction will have be more high if they was catch...

In his actual form, IMBRA cannot make a lot of problem for foreign owner located in a foreign country... unless the guy is enough stupid for visit the US... but soon, maybe something will be possible... US gov is working on laws who will allow the censure of the internet in US... if it pass, US will be allowed to block site put on a black list by the department of Justice... these site can be blocked worldwide because they will use the DNS service located in US... if it happen, it will become to shutdown marriage agency located in other country who don't complain with the IMBRA... we are not yet there, as today IMBRA cannot reach directly foreign business but i am pretty sure that with time, they will have the needed tools like stop the use of paypal/visa for the site not respecting IMBRA, and if needed, shutdown the site ( locally or worldwide ) ...

Now, about foreign dating/marriage, it is really growing here in Belgium... http://www.rtlinfo.be/videos/19h/265599 ... the begin of the video is about a Belgium/Ukrainian marriage but the real topic is about cohabitation ( living together with a contract without being married )... in 2009, there was 33781 cohabitation contract... 15% of them ( 5067 ) was with foreign citizen... 5067 can seem little but we have only a population of 10 million... if Belgium was big like the US, it will be over 150000 cohabitation contract with one of the partner being foreign... and this is not counting the usual marriage who have not really decline...

Pity that it is almost impossible to find EU stat related to foreign dating/marriage but i bet that for several marriage agency, EU is becoming the main business and they can be exempt of the IMBRA since the US customer are not their main business.

Let see, US with 300 million people ( potential customer ), with IMBRA, with almost no tourist visa to FSU ladies, with the golden tree myth destroy by the economic crisis ( drop in the marriage rate ), far from the FSU, etc... AGAINST ... EU with 500 million people ( more large potential market ), with easy tourist visa ( can visit the guy home before decide to marry him ), with cohabitation contract ( don't need to marry the guy and have a contract protection ), with economic crisis having no influence on the marriage rate, neighbour of FSU ( some FSU country already included in EU ), etc ... what will be the best market for business and/or for FSU ladies...

Seem that the US wish to close his border to everything who is foreign... their problem, they have vote for the peoples who vote the laws... any US guy who stop seek a foreign bride mean less concurrence and more choice for EU citizen... for the business, if market decrease somewhere, it will increase somewhere else... same if some agency die in the process, there who survive will claim the market share of the dead agency...

And IMBRA is not really a problem for big agency... simply add a few $$$ IMBRA fee for a US customer... somebody need to pay for the guy checking the public DV database and for the guy translating in the woman language...

[SANDRO43]

There are many examples where the US government has a far reach as it regards it's its citizens and ANY business that does bizness [sic] in the US.

Not only laws, but court orders as well, IINM .

On January 17, 1969, the Justice Department filed a complaint for the case U.S. v. IBM. The suit alleged that IBM violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by monopolizing or attempting to monopolize the general purpose electronic digital computer system market, specifically computers designed primarily for business...On May 19, 1975, the trial of U.S. v. IBM began and spanned a period of over six years.

In the wake of Ted Kennedy's action, many competitors jumped on the bandwagon, including Memorex (a manufacturer of plug-compatible disk units):

DECEMBER 17, 1973 Memorex Sues IBM For $3 Billion
SAN FRANCISCO — Memorex last week brought the latest and largest in a series of antitrust complaints against IBM, filing three separate actions that seek total treble damages of more than $3 billion.

IIRC a California judge accepted a Memorex motion that went something like: "We cannot prove our claim conclusively unless we are granted access to IBM's records worldwide", and issued a disclosure order (?) to that effect.

As a consequence, our management issued strict orders that NO bit of paper whatsoever - including notepad sheets where one would doodle while on the phone - could thenceforth be destroyed, but had to be stored pending a possible inspection by Memorex lawyers. For some 3 months we accumulated a few tons of this scrap in the basement of our Italian headquarters, until the inspectors eventually showed up - and were probably daunted by the sight .