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

[Voyager36]

I have the same belief and it is not because I am "hiding something". I do not believe in warrentless searches either.

My thought on IMBRA is that the USCIS does the background check and tells the visa petitioner at the embassy interview what her/his fiancee/fiance background is. Of course the visa sponsor should tell his/her fiancee/fiance before the interview what it is. I just wonder how many people here would not be married to the women they are if they disclosed everything about their background on some form their possible future wives would read? Suppose a guy in his fourties had a DUI when he was 19. The woman that would have been his wife had a terrible divorce from an alcoholic husband. He goes to meet her and it is apparent after they have spent time together that he has no drinking problem. But if he disclosed his youthful indiscretion on a IMBRA form they may never have met. 

Interesting point Maxx.
Question for the lawyers out there:
Suppose in the situation that maxx mentioned, the guy goes out and gets a pardon, will his record be sealed?
would it still have to be disclosed under IMBRA?

[BC]

Interesting point Maxx.
Question for the lawyers out there:
Suppose in the situation that maxx mentioned, the guy goes out and gets a pardon, will his record be sealed?
would it still have to be disclosed under IMBRA?

Not a lawyer, but the form itself is quite clear...

Three or more convictions for crimes relating to a controlled substance or alcohol not arising from a single act.

So no, one or two instances of a DUI wouldn't need to be reported or documented whether under seal or not.  Three DUI's.. hmm.. yeah probably better she know about it anyway.  Ditto with other factors.

http://www.visapro.com/US-INS-Forms/Form-I-129F.asp  You can download the forms and instructions here...

7. What Documents Do You Need to Comply With the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act?

A. If you have ever been convicted of any of the following crimes, submit certified copies of all court and police records showing the charges and dispositions for every such conviction. This is required even if your records were sealed or otherwise cleared or if anyone,including a judge, law enforcement officer, or attorney,told you that you no longer have a record.

The term "domestic violence" includes felony or misdemeanor crimes of violence committed by a current or former spouse of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabitating with or has cohabitated with the victim as a spouse, by a person similarly situated to a spouse of the victim under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction receiving grant monies, or by any other person against an adult or youth victim who is protected from that person's acts under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction.
1. Domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse and neglect, dating violence, elder abuse, and stalking.
2. Homicide, murder, manslaughter, rape, abusive sexual contact, sexual exploitation, incest, torture,trafficking, peonage, holding hostage, involuntary servitude, slave trade, kidnapping, abduction,unlawful criminal restraint, false imprisonment, or an attempt to commit any of these crimes.
3. Crimes relating to a controlled substance or alcohol on three or more occasions, and such crimes did not arise from a single act.

[Faux Pas]

I really fail to see what the fuss in this thread is all about..

First, IMBRA does not prohibit anyone with a criminal record from marrying a woman from FSU, it only requires disclosure.  You can be convicted of being a serial rapist and your application will still go through.  The only limitation is that a serial rapist can try only a couple of times and with three strikes will probably not be able to get a waiver like the rest of those without violent/abuse criminal records. The woman will have to submit her police record also - why is it that WM declare some theoretical injustice for themselves but will not step up for their women?  Injustice is when someone is harmed by a law and not when someone thinks the law has harmed him/her in some intangible way.  TG is the perfect example with multiple back to back K's and an approved waiver... where's the harm there?  Is there anyone here with a criminal record that had their K application denied due to their record?  Till then it's a non issue.

Second, statistics have nothing to do with YOU!  If tomorrow all flights to FSU are canceled indefinitely, the number of K-1's will drop significantly, maybe down to 5% of last years figure.. but does that mean you only have a 5% chance of getting married to a FSU woman?.. certainly not.

So.. that said, what in the world is this thread really all about?  Where's the beef?

From the latest posts it seems it's all about external matters not even worthy of being posted here.

It appears that the thread is splintering in many different directions. What IMBRA would represent to me personally if I were searching right now would be absolutely nothing. I wouldn't have a problem with it but, the future dangers it represents is quite scary on a number of fronts. IMBRA is another example of our constitutional rights being eroded and big government interfering with inter-personal relationships. Do we have a "right" to date abroad? Specifically, no. But, we do have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and IMBRA is an infringement on that right.

Currently, IMBRA has no teeth to do anything other than forced disclosure. The dangers are once it  gets traction it's likely to morph into something entirely different that tramples on more civil liberties. The process is "throwing the baby out with the bath water" so to speak. Labeling all men in this pursuit as guilty until proven innocent. IMO

[BC]

It appears that the thread is splintering in many different directions. What IMBRA would represent to me personally if I were searching right now would be absolutely nothing. I wouldn't have a problem with it but, the future dangers it represents is quite scary on a number of fronts. IMBRA is another example of our constitutional rights being eroded and big government interfering with inter-personal relationships. Do we have a "right" to date abroad? Specifically, no. But, we do have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and IMBRA is an infringement on that right.

Currently, IMBRA has no teeth to do anything other than forced disclosure. The dangers are once it  gets traction it's likely to morph into something entirely different that tramples on more civil liberties. The process is "throwing the baby out with the bath water" so to speak. Labeling all men in this pursuit as guilty until proven innocent. IMO

Faux,

I understand your concern, but that's why a balance of power exists.. the judicial branch will get involved when a party is harmed.  Until then it's intangible, thus a mute cause.

IMBRA does not interfere with personal relationships at all and only deals with immigration.  Date and marry anyone, anywhere, of your choosing, even via a non IMBRA compliant agency.. the government does not care at all and does nothing to prohibit such.  I don't see anything in the constitution that prohibits the government from exercising power as to whom is allowed to immigrate and under what conditions.  Immigration is not an entitlement, you ask for permission instead and may or may not receive the benefit. 

Also can't find anything in the constitution that prohibits regulation of businesses that provide commerce to/from the US.  Just fill out the forms correctly and even if your agency did not comply with IMBRA nothing will happen to you.  Far worse is if some disgruntled agency employee passes on records and correspondence of their clients to immigration officials and someone finds that the application was not truthful...  I see no penalties or adverse actions whatsoever for clients in IMBRA regulation.  All penalties and actions apply to non compliant agencies.

Digging deeply, IMBRA is written in a manner that protects all your constitutional rights, so no need for the common man to even worry about it.

[Admin]

I think y'all are at the heart of the IMBRA debate. In my mind, the core issue is one of its violation of fundamental liberties and rights. FP wrote; "Do we have a "right" to date abroad? Specifically, no. But, we do have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and IMBRA is an infringement on that right." Actually, I think the right to associate *is* a fundamental right and while not explicitly written into the US Constitution (though it is explicitly written into some other Democratic countries' Constitutions), the Supreme Court has made rulings based on 'freedom of association' as underpinning the explicitly protected Freedom of Speech (ref -- http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-01/26-right-of-association.html). Moreover, the right/freedom of intimate association holds an even stronger position in case law, and is more directly on-point addressing some of the restrictions created by IMBRA.

In the end, when this issue is raised for adjudication (post-prosecution/conviction), the Court will either apply a balancing test or strict scrutiny to this question of impinging on personal liberties. I doubt IMBRA will successfully pass either - though the balancing test at least has some merit in that IMBRA seeks to protect others from harm.

- Dan

[Faux Pas]

BC

IMHO, invaribly, IMBRA will fail to do as it was intended. Some wife murderers and wife beaters will still unsurp the system that it intends to put in place and the further outreaching arm of Big Brother will extend even further. To what degree who knows? But the door is open

I certainly do not know what the answer is and don't pretend to. However, the disclosures are a presumption of guilt, not innocence and that is alarming

[Boethius]

Some will slip through, others won't. 

It's far less onerous than many employees require in screening job applicants.

[GQBlues]

Strangely mystifying to me....

The regulation is levied unto the for-profit agencies, SPs, etc...; which FWIW, are the very same agencies demonized by the same crowd to be less than credible but are now screaming 'foul/unfair', LOL.

It's a business, thus the goverment have an obligation to regulate it anyway they see fit. It is not a regulation for any wishful thinking, wife-seeking, private individual.

You don't like the law, use a free site....folks rally against agencies anyway   

[Jack]

You don't like the law, use a free site....folks rally against agencies anyway   

yea, but then you have some agencies, like me, who direct clients to effecient free sites and Russian personal sites and they do meet many ladies from these sources as well as ladies from agencies, parties, etc.   Today our parties have reached about the 50% mark. 50% of the women are from agencies, 50% are from friends, friends of friends, free sites and Russian personal sites.

[GQBlues]

Yes, and I do understand the point and merit you make Jack. Largely, your compliance to the law had not hurt you (business) thus far and so your client complied and in return, likely had benefited in the exchange.

At least that's what I gathered from your OP, am I correct? If so, had any of your clients felt they were somehow 'violated' or denied the opportunity?

[Jack]

To answer your last question, no, I don't think any clients have felt 'violated' or denied the opportunity?  But their could be a good reason for that.

When IMBRA first came out I had the guys do the IMBRA forms, we had ladies sign the IMBRA forms before entering the party. Then I realized the law was not in effect and could not be enforced so stopped with the IMBRA forms. Few clients had to go thru the IMBRA procedure.

Even today the IMBRA law cannot be enforced but they are getting close. Once our US Government has translated the IMBRA pamphlet into Russian, into Ukrainian (as well many other foreign languages), and I am given the pamphlets, or have access to the translated version, now the IMBRA law can be enforced.

I recall one guy who decided not to get involved with the pursuit, can't say he was ever a client, he wasn't. He thought he would be denied the visa so he did not pursue a Russian bride. He would not go into details as to why he thought he would be denied. I figured he must have done something really bad. But this was right after the law had passed and a lot of people, including myself, did not fully understand everything.  If I were to be able to talk to that same man today I would tell him their is very good chance a foreign lady he has met, and would like to bring to the states, would get the K-1.  It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that one and two time wife beaters can still get the K-1. Third time wife beater, well, that person will need an attorney to get a K-1 but probably will.  

[Admin]

Even today the IMBRA law cannot be enforced but they are getting close. Once our US Government has translated the IMBRA pamphlet into Russian, into Ukrainian (as well many other foreign languages), and I am given the pamphlets, or have access to the translated version, now the IMBRA law can be enforced.

Not quite correct - and a small point, but still . . .

IMBRA enforcement cannot commence till 30 days AFTER the Information Pamphlet is made available in the native language(s) of the foreign national client. Now, there is some room for interpretation of IMBRA paragraph (d)(3)(A)(iii)(III) (reference this link -- http://www.goodwife.com/index.php?pid=14#par_d_3_A), which might allow for prosecution based on failure to disseminate the English version of the Information Pamphlet 30 days after it is/was made available - but since paragraph (a)(4)(A) explicitly defines the initial group of translations mandated, it seems MOST likely that enforcement will not begin until those first 14 translations are made available and the 30-day clock has run.

FWIW

- Dan

[Jack]

I think you missed your calling Dan.  You would have been a very good attorney.

[Daveman]

So speaking about the "enforcement", does anyone know if the current plan is to retroactively enforce proof of disclosure for meetings prior to the decision to enforce? or begin with meetings after the pamphlet arrival? 

[Admin]

So speaking about the "enforcement", does anyone know if the current plan is to retroactively enforce proof of disclosure for meetings prior to the decision to enforce? or begin with meetings after the pamphlet arrival? 

Based on discussions with those who are motivated to initiate enforcement, they tell me they are not going to press matters till 30-days after the Information Pamphlet is translated and disseminated.

No guarantees, however, as mentioned earlier - there is some room for interpretation.

- Dan

[Admin]

I think you missed your calling Dan.  You would have been a very good attorney.

You must be assuming I know what I am talking about. Don't rely on my comments - especially if you have any risk or liability, as I am NOT an attorney and no-one should rely on my opinions on these matters.

- Dan

[Faux Pas]

So speaking about the "enforcement", does anyone know if the current plan is to retroactively enforce proof of disclosure for meetings prior to the decision to enforce? or begin with meetings after the pamphlet arrival? 

Just a guess on my part but, I can see this filtering down into the K visa applications process and that won't be beneficial to the applicants.

[Admin]

Just a guess on my part but, I can see this filtering down into the K visa applications process and that won't be beneficial to the applicants.

It's already there - reference the attached I-129F Form and Instructions. The I-129F asks about the IMB in block 19 - and the instructions (revised just two months ago) contain a variety of references to IMBRA.

- Dan

[Jack]

Dan, I take your advice and comments, with high regard, as your expressed, non legal, opinion.

Just a guess on my part but, I can see this filtering down into the K visa applications process and that won't be beneficial to the applicants.

FP, it is my opinion that our government officials through out the world who are in charge of doing K-1 visa interviews will not ask IMBRA related questions until such time that they know the law is enforceable.  

Now as all these individuals are different, some person may being having a bad day, these officials surely can ask any IMBRA related question anytime they want, but they will also all probably know when the IMBRA law will be in effect.  I think it is safe to "assume", I know, sometimes dangerous to do, that these officials know IMBRA is not enforceable today.  

In talking with some people in the government and others knowledgeable of IMBRA what I believe will happen is something like this.  Your lady is at her interview, the official is looking over all her paperwork making sure everything is in order. The interviewing official  looks at question number 19 on the I-129F form and see's you have checked the block as  "No",  you did not meet through a marriage agency.  The official doing the interview might ask "How did you meet Mr. Smith. What were the circumstances that led to your meeting?"   The lady being interviewed might say the two of you met while she was working as a waitress in an Italian restaurant.  Hey, it has happened before!     Or she might say the two of you meet on a Russian internet site called Free Personals. Or a site called Mamba. Or on a site called E-Harmony, or Match.com.  Or the two of you met at the club Mista, or Opera, or Avalon, or Caribbean, etc. Or the two of you first met when you saw each other at an outside market and he began talking to you and the two of you set a time to meet for dinner. Or the two of you met sitting next to each other at an outside cafe in Nikoleav, or Volgograd. Or she may say she met you thru a friend of a friend in which case the interviewer might ask about the friend and the meeting.  All of these examples, and of course their are hundreds more just like this, would all be IMBRA exempt. IMBRA would not be a factor in these cases (as the current IMBRA law is written).  

Or, the lady being interviewed has checked box number 19 with a "Yes". And now this official doing the interview might ask if she signed an IMBRA form.  She say's yes.  The interview proceeds.

Or, the lady being interviewed might have checked the box on question 19 as "No" and the official doing the interview ask's how did she meet Mr. Smith and she say's the two of you met through the marriage agency Charming Brides, or Elena's Model, or the Cindy agency, or AFA, etc.  Now we have a glitch in the interview.

Or, the lady being interviewed has checked box number 19 with a "Yes".  And this official doing the interview might ask if she signed an IMBRA form and she say's  "what's that",  or  "no",   or "I'm not sure",   ahhhh, we again have a glitch in the interview.  Now the official might ask a little more about this agency, where is it located, who is manager/owner, does she happen to know address or phone number of this agency, how long had she been with this agency, etc, etc.  

With the last two examples, what would happen, what will happen with the interview at this point?  It's up to the official.  He can proceed with the interview and give her the visa. He can tell this lady she needs to come back at a later date as the official needs to consult with others, wants to contact the agency, maybe officials in America will contact Mr. Smith and ask Mr. Smith if he knows why IMBRA was not offered to the lady. Or the official might deny the visa or indicate the visa is on hold until such time that she has seen, read and signed this man's IMBRA form.   The truth is, as of today, we don't know what any official will do if, when, he is interviewing a lady who met a man through a marriage agency and IMBRA was not applied.

If it was an American owned marriage agency officials could contact this agency, could fine this agency.  If it was a Russian or Ukraine or Colombian or Philippine owned marriage agency it is not clear what will happen. Some foreign owned agencies will comply with IMBRA, some foreign owned agencies are not going to comply with IMBRA.   What is the American government going to do to that one Russian agency owner in Novosibirsk who does not comply with an American law?   And again their are all types of scenarios surrounding this situation.

The American government can put this owner on it's "watched" list and should this person ever enter America they could be held. But to me, my opinion only, for this to happen this Russian citizen and marriage owner in Novosibirsk should have been served  documents, papers, by the American government notifying them that they are being sued and are to appear in an American court, etc.  Then we will have the International Law community getting involved and having to say if this Russian citizen has to appear in an American court for violating an American law. And if so, at whose expense? This International legal body may say that if the American government wants to pursue this Russian citizen from Novosibirsk for not compiling with an American law they, the American government, must pay for this Russian's citizen, and their attorney, travel and living expense to be tried in an American court.  

Or the American government can proceed with a trial against this Russian citizen from Novosibrsk who is not present, not in the court, and find this Russian citizen guilty of violating this American law. The American government can now contact Interpol, as an example, and request this person be held should they ever cross over into Germany, or France, or Italy.   And is the International legal body going to stand behind this ruling and agree that Interpol can hold this Russian citizen from Novosibirsk for not compiling with an American law?

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.

[Faux Pas]

FP, it is my opinion that our government officials through out the world who are in charge of doing K-1 visa interviews will not ask IMBRA related questions until such time that they know the law is enforceable.  

Now as all these individuals are different, some person may being having a bad day, these officials surely can ask any IMBRA related question anytime they want, but they will also all probably know when the IMBRA law will be in effect.  I think it is safe to "assume", I know, sometimes dangerous to do, that these officials know IMBRA is not enforceable today.  

 

I'm glad you mentioned this Jack. They can and do this already now. IMBRA is going to give them (USCIS) another bullet to deny or prolong and have yet another excuse for their own incompetence.

Whether the law is actually enforceable in the field really won't matter as long as they can nail the end user which is those who file K visas

[GQBlues]

....Or, the lady being interviewed has checked box number 19 with a "Yes". And now this official doing the interview might ask if she signed an IMBRA form.  She say's yes.  The interview proceeds....

So now we're starting to wade through the trees, Jack.

I had spoken with someone who seemed versed with IMBRA and he mentioned an aspect of the law WHICH was/is never discussed anywhere everytime this subject had been tabled. Maybe you and/or Dan can touch more on this segment if either of you can confirm the validity of the information.

A scenario as quoted above.

Once a woman accepts to communicate with a man through an agency (for profit, etc..) and she acknowledged the information provided to her by the man, through the agency (full IMBRA compliance), and thus submitted to a relationship despite the man having had a history of DV, etc..eventually leading to a K-visa and marriage; she had in essence 'been told of the possibility of what can happen and had shown assumption of responsibility. Akin to obtaining a signed release/waiver of liability.

(Please confirm this info as I was simply told of this)

If at anytime after marriage and obtaining legal residency in the US, the beneficiary suddenly reports abuse (within a set amount of time), whether proven or otherwise - The authorities can 'more freely' exercise it's authority to immediately revoke residency to the beneficiary, criminial charges made (if warranted - man/woman), divorce levied, and beneficiary will soon be heading directly back home.

The point to this was she knew the entire time 'what she was getting into'. There will be leverage for the authorities to exercise deportation.

NOTE: I am not spreading rumors, nor am I inciting anything that may prove to be misleading in posting this other than trying to see if there's any validity to this 'info'. There seem to be a proverbial can of worms in this scenario so I'm not quite sure if this can actually happen.

[acctBill]

So now we're starting to wade through the trees, Jack.

I had spoken with someone who seemed versed with IMBRA and he mentioned an aspect of the law WHICH was/is never discussed anywhere everytime this subject had been tabled. Maybe you and/or Dan can touch more on this segment if either of you can confirm the validity of the information.

A scenario as quoted above.

Once a woman accepts to communicate with a man through an agency (for profit, etc..) and she acknowledged the information provided to her by the man, through the agency (full IMBRA compliance), and thus submitted to a relationship despite the man having had a history of DV, etc..eventually leading to a K-visa and marriage; she had in essence 'been told of the possibility of what can happen and had shown assumption of responsibility. Akin to obtaining a signed release/waiver of liability.

(Please confirm this info as I was simply told of this)

If at anytime after marriage and obtaining legal residency in the US, the beneficiary suddenly reports abuse (within a set amount of time), whether proven or otherwise - The authorities can 'more freely' exercise it's authority to immediately revoke residency to the beneficiary, criminial charges made (if warranted - man/woman), divorce levied, and beneficiary will soon be heading directly back home.

The point to this was she knew the entire time 'what she was getting into'. There will be leverage for the authorities to exercise deportation.

NOTE: I am not spreading rumors, nor am I inciting anything that may prove to be misleading in posting this other than trying to see if there's any validity to this 'info'. There seem to be a proverbial can of worms in this scenario so I'm not quite sure if this can actually happen.

GQBlues, that would never happen.  Deporting a victim of DV even if she was previous knowledge of her husband's previous DV would be political suicide for the administration in power when it happened.  Women's rights groups and human rights groups and ACLU and many other groups would all be after the government and Homeland Security, ICE and any other government agency involved in the deportation of the woman. 

[GQBlues]

You may well be right, Bill, and that would actually make more sense to me, too.

[Admin]

So now we're starting to wade through the trees, Jack.

I had spoken with someone who seemed versed with IMBRA and he mentioned an aspect of the law WHICH was/is never discussed anywhere everytime this subject had been tabled. Maybe you and/or Dan can touch more on this segment if either of you can confirm the validity of the information.

A scenario as quoted above.

Once a woman accepts to communicate with a man through an agency (for profit, etc..) and she acknowledged the information provided to her by the man, through the agency (full IMBRA compliance), and thus submitted to a relationship despite the man having had a history of DV, etc..eventually leading to a K-visa and marriage; she had in essence 'been told of the possibility of what can happen and had shown assumption of responsibility. Akin to obtaining a signed release/waiver of liability.

(Please confirm this info as I was simply told of this)

If at anytime after marriage and obtaining legal residency in the US, the beneficiary suddenly reports abuse (within a set amount of time), whether proven or otherwise - The authorities can 'more freely' exercise it's authority to immediately revoke residency to the beneficiary, criminial charges made (if warranted - man/woman), divorce levied, and beneficiary will soon be heading directly back home.

The point to this was she knew the entire time 'what she was getting into'. There will be leverage for the authorities to exercise deportation.

NOTE: I am not spreading rumors, nor am I inciting anything that may prove to be misleading in posting this other than trying to see if there's any validity to this 'info'. There seem to be a proverbial can of worms in this scenario so I'm not quite sure if this can actually happen.

Superficially that makes some sense, however, the provisions of VAWA kick in and trump the other. I don't have time to respond in depth right now - but take a look at this article -- http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?pid=54 to gain a sense of the issue and process, and I will respond more fully later.

- Dan

[tim 360]

GQ,  I too think that once the media reported her being deported for her new husbands DV visited upon her that it would become a media circus with lawyers like Gloria Alred leading the way 24/7 which would quash any agency from even considering deporting her.

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.

Some laws also have unforseen and unintended consequences on down the line.