International Marriage Broker Act of 2005

[Noyrt]

I am not a lawyer but just looking at the document leaves alot of holes for you to operate around.

  Maybe seem like a lot of loopholes but it has many agencies on the defensive already..  They are running scared.
Looking to sell to overseas interests.  And putting a deadline on the current services..
My preferred agency as well. !

Noyrt
[/quote]

[Noyrt]

Kevin:  The FSU Angelika network of agencies has interpreted this Law as forbiding the Marriage Agency from doing business with both US and non-US clients.  This is restraint of trade !
 YES, BY ALL MEANS, SIGN THE ANTI-LAW PETITIONS.

Kevin: please  Email me at w.d.reynolds@att.net, I have more info for you.



My Question...


Question??  If Angelika is American owned, as I know I have seen their sites also, as you wrote about.. 

So what is the issue if we now travel to these countries and walk into these agencies (who's business is connected to the american owned Angelika) Must we now have a special backround report info to carry with us before we can meet women!  

I see endless mirid of problems with this.. Must we not use only localy owned agencies that I believe are generally more corrupt.. 

Hmmmmmm  Where will this go??
 

[johnroth]

One of RWDs members invited me to share some postings that I had placed on other bulletin boards. I'll start by putting one below. A lot of people have panicked over this issue based on a superficial reading of the IMBRA.  There's too much speculation going on in the Internet (including by lawyers), and not enough old fashioned spade work (research, comprehensive analysis, calls, letters, etc.) to find out exactly what the government is thinking and intending (I'm working on it through various contacts/sources). I'll try to keep you guys advised as I hear things that are concrete.

I strongly disagree with the view that the International
Marriage Broker Regulation Act prevents International Marriage
Brokers ("IMBs") from selling personal contact information to
non-U.S. citizens who do not reside in the U.S. If you look at the
sentence ("..[a]n international marriage broker shall not provide
the personal contact information of any foreign national client to
any person or entity other than a United States client") standing
alone, you might well come to that conclusion. However, no court
or enforcement agency would seek to interpret a part of a statute,
much less a single sentence, without analyzing the statute in
whole. This is an elemental obligation in statutory analysis. I
believe that many people have made the classic mistake that
laymen make when they read a statute. They find some language that
seems to answer their question and then they stop short. Statutes
are like complicated computer programs - you have to read every
word of every subroutine before you understand what's going on.
My view is that the sentence in question is nothing more than
poorly drafted language that was intended only to proscribe the
release of personal information to someone for whom the data was
not intended. In this interpretation, the drafters are addressing
a legitimate concern - that foreign nationals might have their
privacy compromised through release of the data to other marriage
agencies, spammers, or even human traffickers (the latter being
a very big concern in recent years of the U.S. State Department).

There are several parts of the Act that argue for this narrow
interpretation of the sentence in controversy:

1 - The sentence appears in section of the Act dealing with
confidentiality and misuse of information. A broad extraterritorial
claim would not likely be placed in such a peripheral section of
the Act.

2 - The sentence in controversy is immediately followed by
a sentence that would not be necessary if personal contact
information could not be provided to foreign clients. The
sentences read:

LIMITATION ON DISCLOSURE.-An international marriage broker
shall not provide the personal contact information of any foreign
national client to any person or entity other than a United States
client. Such information shall not be disclosed to potential
United States clients or individuals who are being recruited to
be United States clients or representatives.

If no sales may be made to anyone but a U.S. client (under a broad
interpretation of the first sentence), then why bother adding
language proscribing sales to "potential United States clients or
individuals who are being recruited to be United States clients or
representatives"? They would already be prevented from obtaining
the data by the first sentence (if broadly construed). It's likely
that the drafters were intending with this additional sentence
only to close the door of selling addresses to, for example,
a resident of the UK who might move to the U.S. at some time in
the future (this "loophole" exists because the definition of
"U.S. clients" includes only residents of the US; it doesn't
include, for example, U.S. citizens living abroad). Whatever
their intention in the second sentence, the very fact of the
sentence's existence shows the drafters viewed the sale of
addresses to person overseas as possible under the Act.

3 - Legislative history is also another aid to statutory
interpretation. There's nothing in the record that indicates that
anyone had an intention to control sales to foreign clients. I've
spent many hours looking at the history and there's nothing that
even hints at an intention to prevent anyone from selling contact
data to Brits or Germans or to whomever.

4 - If the drafters wanted to cover sales to foreign national
clients they could have easily done so by simply choosing the
term "clients" rather "United States clients" when referring to
persons whose behavior is the subject to the Act. The modifier
"United States" is intended to limit the reach of the Act to
matters within the jurisdiction of the U.S.

5 - The criminal penalty in the Act is limited to conduct that
occurs "within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction
of the United States". One might argue, I suppose, that the
U.S. government may still control sales to foreign clients
by a firm doing business in the U.S. under the Act, or even
control sales by a foreign firm that mostly sells addresses to
U.S. clients, and therefore it is not quite so limiting as it
first appears. However, that language is the standard recognition
in these type statutes that the U.S. has jurisdiction to control
only behavior within its borders. It coincides with the narrow
interpretation of the sentence in controversy, not with the
broader interpretation.

At a minimum, I hope to have shown that things are not as clear
cut as they may sometimes seem, and the decision to "sell the farm"
may be a bit premature.

John F. Roth, Esq. http://fiancee-visa-attorney.com
<http://fiancee-visa-attorney.com/>

[johnroth]

Kevin,

Here's a posting I made on another bulletin board a couple of weeks ago, FYI.

John F. Roth, Esq.

http://fiancee-visa-attorney.com

 

FYI to IMBs:

 

Foreign based firms are not exempt from this law. The Act clearly applies to all entities "...whether or not organized under any law of the United States..."

It may be harder to enforce the law against foreign based firms, for both legal and practical reasons, but foreign IMBs face an additional, entirely business, problem. If they don't comply with the Act, persons who met through their agency will likely be refused a K-1 visa. As background, let me paste something here from an article I put up last week on my web site:

 

"The fiancé(e) will be asked in every instance whether she met her fiancée through a matchmaking site. If she replies untruthfully and is found out (a very real possibility), she will be denied the visa and barred from ever receiving a U.S. visa of any kind. If she admits to the means of acquaintance, but can not convince the consular officer that the marriage agency provided her with the required disclosures, the visa will be refused, and at best the case will go into administrative review. "



 

Full article at http://arctec.com/restrictions.html.

 

If a foreign agency's clients can't get fiancée visas due to the firm's noncompliance, the foreign IMB will lose it's credibility (indeed, it's raison d'etre) and will probably be forced from the market. This is particularly true if other IMBs are making hay out of the fact that they are complying with the law and that fiancees from their agency won't have IMB compliance problems during the K-1 visa interview.

 

There are numerous other ways to effectively fight this new law (changing client mix to take advantage of what I've been calling the "Yahoo! Personals exception", moving the focus of the former IMB away from contact data sales to other types of romantic support, constitutional challenges, agency & clients political protests, useful press coverage, etc.) but simply moving the organization of the business overseas is itself not likely to solve the problem.

 

 

 

 

[TigerPaws]

[color="blue"][size="4"]  I will defer to Mr. Roth's expert opinion on the IMBA, it is very possible the K1 visa will become too difficult to bother with anymore.

 Will this lead to an increase in the K3 visa as a work around the issues with the K1?
[/size][/color]

[TigerPaws]

[color="blue"][size="4"] 6 years ago I used the services of Mr. Roth's law firm to handle my ladies K1, he and his staff were helpful and professional, the fee at that time was $1,500.00 for everything and in my humble opinion well worth every penny.

 I have on several occasions over the years refered several men to his firm for assistance in the K1 visa process and they have had similar experiences.

[/size][/color]

[RacerX]

One bizarre aspect of the this Act is how it was not apparently intended to apply to men K-1s

However, if you read any of the threads on VisaJourney.com it becomes obvious that a lot of USA women are engaged/married to foreign men, especially those from Europe.

So, under the IMBRA, young women in the US will have to make the full disclosures called for while not receiving any in return.  Their husbands will be afforded all the protection of the law but they will not.  Sure, they will get a police report about their husbands, but in many countries these reports are a joke - meanwhile she will be subjected to the full scrutiny of our FBI.

Seems the feminazis might have missed their mark with this act - wherein foreign women are "protected," those in the US have been abandoned by their elected officials.

TigerPaws ~ I believe the Act applies to all K-visas (as I mentioned upthread, CR-1s would be exempt.

[TigerPaws]

TigerPaws ~ I believe the Act applies to all K-visas (as I mentioned upthread, CR-1s would be exempt.

[color="blue"][size="4"]It would be interesting to know if that is true because that would violate several treaties and sense a treaty becomes part of the Constitutation it seems to me that part of the IMBA would be invalid.[/size][/color]

[Admin]

[color="blue"][size="4"] I will defer to Mr. Roth's expert opinion on the IMBA, it is very possible the K1 visa will become too difficult to bother with anymore.

Will this lead to an increase in the K3 visa as a work around the issues with the K1?
[/size][/color]

My guess - as I mentioned WAY WAY WAY upthread, is I think it will drive traffic to going DCF - which, in turn, drives traffic to Ukraine and away from Russia.

Fundamental problem seems to be our desire/need for immediate gratification. In chat this AM, we were discussing the fact that many guys cannot afford the time away from work/home/whatever - to really do this in a more normal fashion. But if they DID, this business about IMBRA would probably not even apply.

Anyway, we'll all just have to wait and see how it all plays out.

- Dan

[johnroth]

Dan,

I agree with everything you said in your last email.


I don't think the K-1 visa will go away, however. After being involved with K-1 visas for almost ten years now, I'm certain that nothing is going to seriously hinder the powerful human drive for romance and companionship. If a man can't find it at home, he will naturally look elsewhere (and I agree, he should proceed with caution). The legal obstacles are not severe. My firm is going to make sure all our Fiancee visa beneficiaries have all the documentation necessary at the visa interview to assure that there will be no problems with the new disclosure requirements (including establishing that the IMO did all it should have). I don't expect it to create big problems in most cases.

What remains to be seen is how many IMOs will be scared out of the business by the new laws. Some will drop out, for sure.

Ther may be a silver lining in all this, however. Ever since the law has passed I have been asking foreign women looking for a US husband (or who have already found one) what their reaction is to all this talk about protecting them from domestic abuse. Its not upsetting them as much as I thought it would. They are mostly dismissing it as feminist propaganda or as standard female infighting over limited (male) resources. These women of course are not hothouse orchids. They mostly live in countries where domestic abuse is far more common than it is in the US (the Russians, somewhat horrifyingly, even have an expression "to beat means to love"). On the other hand, they have a positive reaction to the screening process that will be put in place. The large numbers of men who in recent years have been writing and never travelling has placed a big damper on the enthusiam of many women, particulary the more attractive ones who have more options.

So, we'll just have to see how it plays out.

 

John F. Roth, Esq.

http://fiancee-visa-attorney.com

 

[johnroth]

Dan,

P.S. You (and some others) are correct. The new law does NOT apply to CR-1 petitions. It applies only to K-1 or K-3 nonimmigrant visa applications.

John Roth

[Noyrt]

[size="3"][/size][size="3"][/size][size="3"] If they don't comply with the Act, persons who met through their agency will likely be refused a K-1 visa. [/size]
[size="3"][/size]
___________________________________________________________
[size="3"][/size] 
[size="3"]What????  I filed a K-1 once, and although I cancelled it before completion,  I never had to list the agency where I met the girl.

How could they know where you met her from and agency perspective, unless your agency is handling the K1 paperwork..  This is not any issue to worry about. 

Noyrt..
[/size]
[size="3"] [/size]

[size="3"][/size] 

[size="3"][/size] 

 

[BC]

[size="3"]I really don't know what all the fuss is about. There's more effort being made to get around this law than to comply. 

What does a sex offender search cost in terms of money and time?  10 mins maybe? 15 bucks to some external service that will do it for you?

Fill out a form stating your criminal history for the agency to put in it's file and show it to the ladies you are interested in? I guess it depends on the length of your rap sheet.. maybe 2 minutes?.. add another 3 for marital history LOL.

Hand out a pamphlet downloaded from the internet? maybe 1 minute to copy with a good copier/printer and costs a buck maybe.

ok.. all in all under 20 bucks and 15 mins time...

Yeah go ahead and have her lie to the CO about meeting via the agency when her pic, name and town is plastered over a hundred sites.. do you really think USCIS folks are too stupid to google?

Sure, multiple K filers will have to wait a couple years for the next one..  All this law says is choose your foreign mate wisely..  the 90 days is not a trial period.

So.. the K door closing? Not much.  If a guy around here has trouble fitting thru maybe he really should not be going thru.

[/size]

[Leslie]

This is an interesting observation Dan -

"Fundamental problem seems to be our desire/need for immediate gratification. In chat this AM, we were discussing the fact that many guys cannot afford the time away from work/home/whatever - to really do this in a more normal fashion. But if they DID, this business about IMBRA would probably not even apply."

IMBRA will discourage this type of guy.  Good thing too!

If you can't afford to spend the time to meet and court a foreign woman, marry a local....

The demise of the "Pick a puppy on vacation" tour companies (agencies) is very good news

Guys who propose marriage to a woman who is a virtual stranger are BAD people.

LP describes these guys as trying to fill a "hole in the soul" .  I reckon they are simply fools...........


 

 

[TigerPaws]

[size="4"][color="blue"] As with any new law like the IMBA it will take some time (maybe years) for the dust to settle, the courts will have to decide if the IMBA is constitutational, again this will take time.

 In the mean time it is my firm opinion that some men will simply say forget it, complying with the IMBA is too much trouble or that they feel giving out such information is wrong and an invasion of their privacy (I understand and agree with that). Other men will most likely marry the girl in her home country then do a Direct Counsler Filing (DCF) and avoid the IMBA provisions completly.

 I do believe the IMBA will fundamentally change the international dating and marrage scene, be that change for the good or bad remains to be seen but the next few months are going to be interesting. As for me I am happy I am no longer in the market for a lady from the FSU and that I can sit on the sidelines watching all of this play out.[/color]  
[/size]

[RacerX]

I think there is some confusion over the CR-1 visa ( which may become more popular due to this dumbazz law).

As part of a K-3 you file both an I-129f and a I-130.  Normally, the I-129f is approved long before the I-130 so your wife can arrive here more quickly.  However, at least in the recent past, some I-130s were approved within a month or two after the I-129f.  It may take longer, maybe several months more.

But, note, this is not a DCF.  The I-130 is approved by a US Service Center, or by one of the many USCIS offices located around the world.  Therefore, it is availble at all consulates.

If you do a DCF, then you file the I-130 with those consulates that will do you a favor by accepting it.  The approval is normally very fast.

If her I-130 is approved by the USCIS, then she gets her GC upon arrival, if by a DCF, they give it to her. 

In any event, if and when her I-130 is approved she is given a CR-1 visa.

At least this is how I understand the process - but maybe someone with more experience can corrrect me.

[al-c]

I have heard that the law does not apply if your contact throught the agency was made before 3/6/06, even if the interview is after that time.  This came from an immigration lawyer.  Has anyone heard anything about this?

Since my answers on the form are "no" right down the line, the only effect the law will have on me is to fill out the form.  If I need it, I want to get it done as soon as possible.

 

[ajayinsead03]

[user=624][line]Charles[/user] wrote:

I'm  not sure the law is so simple.  In addition to the sex offender  check and providing criminal and marital information, the law requires  the agency to collect documentation to support the information being  provided.  Merely providing a form may not be enough.

yeah;  there is much more: because the agnecy has to - before releasing  Natasha's address to Joe - A: translate Joe's back ground search info  in Latvian?Russian?Ukranian? -- send to Natasha, then explain the IBM  act to a shcoked Natasha and then wait for Natasha's authrorization etc  etc.. {chcking records from th sex offender DB being the easiest part] !
While, I whole heartdely believe that the legislation/law -  ie. the IMB act, has some draconian implications { also mentioned on : http://www.corante.com}  Pleaseeeee : two entities/groups: have ruined any  respect/credibility for this whole "process":
      ·          Our famed agencies {AM _ good. AW -no good: RW; Angel,  never mind naked:)]
      ·          Men, mostly AM: {alebit a minor % of us indluge in such  nefarious acts] through their : A: Actions while in FSU; B: what they write  here on these *baords* and C: drom rolls please: even the freaking names of the  agencies are unspeakable: submissiverussianwomen.com - well, it WAS mentioned  by the Senator in her report!
     
IF anyone here doesnt feel that these names are not an issue - and believes :  "whats there in a name"? -- try this:
Try to imagine a conversation:  which goes something like:

"hey Joe: great to see you happy and all smily - may I ask which agency  you found your Natasha, coz I am looking for one too"

Can anyone really say " submissiverussianwomen.com" ???? can u ?  really? how about  - "loveme.com" - doesnt it smell desperation?  how about marry model quality women - Ok thats not as big compared to the  previous ones

my 2 cents
       
   

[Adel]

http://praguepost.com/P03/2006/Art/0216/news2.php

 

Law to protect 'mail-order brides'

class=head2But agencies offering Czech spouses aren't much concerned

class=author1By Brandon Swanson
Staff Writer, The Prague Post
February 15, 2006

class=body




VLADIMÍR WEISS/The Prague Post

class=vsm10Former Miss Czech Gabriela Justinová wants to 'put a face' on her agency, Flying Hearts, to earn clients' trust.
class=bodyA new law in the United States aimed at regulating international marriage agencies could hamper those operating in the Czech Republic, slowing down a market that agents say has been booming here in recent years.

That is, if agencies obey it; some hint they may not.

U.S. President George W. Bush signed the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act Jan. 5, which starting next month will place heavy restrictions on how so-called mail-order bride agencies do business with American clients.

It is hard to say how many agencies -- legitimate or otherwise -- are operating in this country. The Prague Post found six in Prague alone, but only three agreed to talk.

The new law comes in response to several highly publicized crimes against mail-order brides in the United States in recent years -- most notably the 2000 murder of Anastasia King, a 20-year-old Kyrgyzstani bride killed by her abusive husband near Seattle after she threatened to divorce him.

The new regulations apply to all marriage agencies that do business with U.S. clients, regardless of whether they are based there.

American men will soon have to provide agencies with a sex offender background check, as well as criminal and marital questionnaires. The agencies will then have to translate those documents into the native language of every potential bride a man wants to contact before they can allow contact.

"That's a lot of work," says Gary Bala, an immigration lawyer in the United States. "One has to keep in mind the nature of this industry for the broker. They have signed up hundreds, or thousands, or even hundred of thousands of women. If you multiply that out, it's a commercially prohibitive task."

Agency owners, often known as brokers, could face up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $20,000 (476,200 Kč) for each offense in U.S. Federal Court if they violate the law.

But the new regulations, which the U.S. Department of Homeland Security will oversee, seem murky on several key points, not least of which is how local authorities will figure in their enforcement.



Buy-a-bride

Bala said that when the law takes effect March 7, it would likely drive many agencies out of business and significantly alter how the rest operate with U.S. clients.

As many as 6,000 American men find brides through international marriage brokers each year, according to the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service.

It estimates that between 100,000 and 150,000 women are currently advertising themselves in such agencies, the majority of whom are from Russia, former Soviet republics and Southeast Asia.

Marriage brokers say the industry has been booming in the Czech Republic over the past few years.

"Since the Czech Republic has gone into the European Union, things have gotten better for our company," says Joe Weiner, founder and owner of Hand in Hand, an agency that offers Czech women.

There are several thousand Czech women listed on his Web site alone.

It's difficult to determine how much money the industry is worth here and worldwide: Agencies in the Czech Republic are quiet about how much money they make, and there are no reliable global estimates.

But agencies here charge as much as $5,000 for date packages with multiple Czech women.

Weiner has a list of reasons why the Czech mail-order bride market has improved in recent years.

"No visas are needed for Czech and Slovak ladies in Western Europe," he says. "The Czech Republic is embracing the West even more. More women are speaking English and the divorce rate in the Czech Republic is 63 percent."



A question of rights

The new regulations are the first legislative attempt to limit communication between potentially dangerous men and prospective brides.

"The whole justification for this law is protection from abuse for immigrant women," Bala says. "It's an intrusion of privacy, but is it justified? That is the question."

The law is creating controversy.

Bala says he has already heard from at least a half-dozen brokers and clients of brokers in the United States who are ready to challenge it as soon as it goes into effect. He said they could have a case that the law violates free speech and equal rights.

"If I am a U.S. gentleman citizen and I want to communicate with a lady abroad, this law says that I have to cough up all of these documents just to say, 'hi,' " he says.

"Whereas, if I decide to marry a local lady, I don't have to cough up any documentation. Those two sets of individuals are not equal."



Secrets

Olga Slámová, a 37-year-old prospective Czech bride, says she assumed that agencies already screened their clients to make sure they were not dangerous.

"That was one of the reasons why I joined an agency and did not try to meet someone through the public server," she says.

Brokers that operate in the Czech Republic say they are already safe, and are not worried about the law.

Simon Harris, the British founder and financial backer of Romantic Future, an agency in Prague, says his company does not focus on U.S. clientele, but it hopes to enter that market unless the law makes it untenable.

"There's no way we are going to try to break the law," he says. "If the countries have to be wiped out of our market, then fine."

Harris says he doesn't see the law affecting how other brokers work.

"This is a multi-, multimillion-pound operation, which is being run by unscrupulous criminals," he says. "You can take any business like this and you can't just shut it down by passing a bill. It's not going to happen."

Weiner says that the law will in no way affect the way Hand in Hand does business. When asked why he was unconcerned when other agencies were promising legal action, he says, "Perhaps their legal setup is different than mine."

When asked how Hand n Hand's legal setup differed from other agencies, Weiner was equally concise.

"That is my secret," he said.


[align=right]
class=authorBrandon Swanson can be reached at bswanson@praguepost.com
[/align]

[dorogoyroberto]

A Foreign Affair has posted on its website that an Temporary  Restraining Order against the implementation of IMBRA has been issued  by a federal judge: http://www.loveme.com/

An associate and I have taken the liberty of asking Messrs. John Roth and Gary Bala if they have any information on this.

Roberto
Kiev, Ukraine

[dorogoyroberto]

...and here is a link to a text version of the "play-by-play" to date: http://www.russianladies.com/imbra.cfm

Roberto
Kiev, Ukraine

[Journeyman]

Three cheers for European Connections!

Journeyman

(Edit:  With respect to the link in the post above.)

[BradSTL]

Only men commit crimes in the US?�  Will US citizens now be given access to a foreign applicant's police report (translated it to my native language, please).�  Most important, why don't US citizens marrying other US citizens also receive this information?�  Domestic violence doesn't happen between WM/WW couples?

BRAVO!

[catzenmouse]

Came across this today doing some research online:

http://new.petitiononline.com/imbra05/petition.html

Don't know if it will actually make any difference but it is interesting.

Ken

[BC]

As long as we're posting links try this one:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13205