Help - Marriage Broker Act Rejection!

[milestogo]

The Moscow Embassy left me a message this morning saying my application has been sent back and our interview cancelled due to provisions in the Marriage Broker Act (whatever that means). The embassy won't give me any further information after I called them. Since we did not meet from an agency and met prior to the act being signed I did not expect this.

This almost certainly means a significant delay. Has anyone encounterd this or does anyone have advice? Also any recomendation for an immegration attorney in the New York that can help us through this?

We alreay had tickets post interview

[Admin]

The Moscow Embassy left me a message this morning saying my application has been sent back and our interview cancelled due to provisions in the Marriage Broker Act (whatever that means). The embassy won't give me any further information after I called them. Since we did not meet from an agency and met prior to the act being signed I did not expect this.

This almost certainly means a significant delay. Has anyone encounterd this or does anyone have advice? Also any recomendation for an immegration attorney in the New York that can help us through this?

We alreay had tickets post interview

I am really sorry to hear of your problems.

RWD has two members who are immigration attorneys, and perhaps they can help you. They are: Gary Bala (username: Gary Bala), and John Roth (username: johnroth).

Maybe drop one, or both, of those guys a message and ask for some insight and help.

Good luck to you - and please keep up informed of your status and developments.

- Dan

[milestogo]

Thanks.   I found the explanation. If your application for K-1 was approved after March 5th, you're affected. Your interview will be cancelled and you will recieve a request for additional information regarding criminal background. I feel sorry for anyopne else caught up in this.  I would like to be contacted by an immigration lawyer and appreciate the contacts.

travel.state.gov/visa/laws/telegrams/telegrams_2927.html

[Bruno]

Milestogo,

If i go read your link, it is a mistake of your USA administration who have no deliver new form in the needed time... Since the US is one country where people sue other for almost nothing, cannot you sue your government for moral damage !!!

Seriously, since you have meet/date outside the marriage agency lobby, i don't see how the "Marriage Broker Act" can have some influence on your case !!! Again some tactic used by extremist feminist for almost obligate US man to marry fatty US women filled with donuts and hamburgers 

If it continue, no more FSU women will wish marry US men due to the administrative difficulty...

[aikorob]

@#$%^#&#*&- Just another obstacle.
Our filing date is March 30, so I guess we are caught in this as well. I've already checked--a criminal background check takes about 20 minutes and $10 at the Sheriff's Dept. Guess I'll go ahead and get a couple of notarized copies.

[aikorob]

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13584

can you say "FUBAR"

I just checked USCIS site a few minutes ago. I-129F forms page was updated MAY 16-----still no mention of additional IMBRA requirements!!!!!!!!!! :noidea: :seething: :seething:

Letters to both senators, congressman, and DHS ombudsman are written and will go out FedEx on Tuesday

Recalling everything with NOA1 date after March 6 for further processing---when there has been no notice of said requirements smacks of ex post facto enforcement of law. I know all of us would be happy to jump through whatever hoops USCIS puts out there---as long as our cases kept moving forward--but we can't if we don't know where those hoops are or what they look like!!!!!!! :burnedup: :seething: :noidea: ???

OK, rant over; I've got to call N. and then finish painting the pool deck.
Y'all have a nice Memorial Day.

[bgreed]

I know a guy who just got his K-1 kicked back in Kiev along with about thirty others with no explanation. Stupid bureaucratic BS nothing but feel good legislation.

[DonAz]

Miles~ I am so sorry to hear that you are caught up in this mess my friend!
How is S taking it?

Don

[milestogo]

Don,

What can we do?  She is taking it OK but we had to cancel tickets and so forth.  This is very frustrating particularly since I really did not meet her through and agency I do not even think the law applies to us.  The good news is we had a fantastic time during my visit this week.  I can send pictures if you like.  I have tried to contact a lawyer but maybe they are overloaded by this.  Over 1000 interviews were canceled and approved applications returned.

[Vaughn]

Miles, good luck to you and your lady as DHS stumbles through compliance with this new law. It seems they are trying to come up with yet another form while a criminal records check by many employers is standard procedure.

Worse yet, the K-1 interview is forever changed for those approved after the cutoff date. Gary Bala has an excellent overview online. Particularly interesting was this section:

PROBLEM OF CONSULAR INTERVIEW: Another problematic issue for the foreign owner (or U.S. owner living overseas) is the Consular Interview for the visa. Under this law, the Officer is required to ask the lady if they met through an IMB (as broadly defined in that law to include a foreign-based IMB). IF the answer is YES....

Since you two met independently, she won't have to answer "yes", but for those who used agency services (even foreign-owned outfits) the line of questioning continues and can get dicey for the unprepared interviewee.
The whole text is at:
<http://usaimmigrationattorney.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=2>

Again, best wishes.    Vaughn

[aikorob]

http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/formsfee/for...-129f-draft.pdf

Draft for new I-129F

[milestogo]

I could really use a lawyer to help me answer this conundrum if anyone knows of one that would take my case (John Roth couldn't take it)  Instaed, here's a sort of "What would you do?" question for everyone.

Since scheduled interview was cancelled and now we evidently have to respond to a forthcoming RFE and fill out a new I-129F form. My fiance co-runs an agency and we met because of this but not through the agency. On the originally approved I-129F for how we met I answered we met during a trip to Russia where she acted as my guide and translator.

She is not listed on any agency nor was she seeking a foreign husband. So when the new form asks whether we met through an agency how do I answer so as not to unnecessarily delay the process as well as be answering truthfully? Further complicating this is my provided email correspondence has her agency name in the domain. Note that I do not have any criminal record.

[catzenmouse]

we met during a trip to Russia where she acted as my guide and translator.

Seems to me that this is the answer and it is the truth so its a win/win.

Ken

[Michelangelo]

Thanks.   I found the explanation. If your application for K-1 was approved after March 5th, you're affected.

Hey, I thoght it was the date you met the girl; not the date you requested a K-1.  If you met her via an agency BEFORE this law took effect, the law does not apply?  Correct?  In my case I met her in October of 2005.

[catzenmouse]

Michelangelo,

 Silly Wabbit! Laws/Rules/Regulations are for kids... They will apply this any way they want, when they want, and how they want. Remember, this is the USCIS we're talking about not an organization that has shown any consistency with how they do anything.

Ken

[Michelangelo]

Michelangelo,

 Silly Wabbit! Laws/Rules/Regulations are for kids... They will apply this any way they want, when they want, and how they want. Remember, this is the USCIS we're talking about not an organization that has shown any consistency with how they do anything.

Ken

Damn....

[BC]

From everything I have seen it has little to do with when/how you met but when they processed your paperwork.  Maybe by the time you do your K whatever the situation will be a little clearer than mud.

[ConnerVT]

Remember, this is the USCIS we're talking about not an organization that has shown any consistency with how they do anything.

They consistantly screw up your family's paperwork, don't they?   

[Gator]

The US Embassy in Moscow has added the following bold note to its fiancee visa webpage:

Attention: "The International Marriage Broker Regulation became law in January 2006 establishing a deadline for DHS to begin asking petitioners of K-1 Fiancee Visas for additional information. Approximately 1100 petitions filed after the March 5, 2006 deadline were approved in error and sent through the National Visa Center (NVC) to 95 Immigrant Visa issuing posts worldwide. American Embassy Moscow has been instructed to return its invalid cases to the NVC. Petitioners and beneficiaries should direct all inquiries to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services at the following number: 800-375-5283 or contact the Service Center where the petition was filed."

I do not read the forums closely, and I now notice that this is repetitive.  My apology.

[catzenmouse]

They consistantly screw up your family's paperwork, don't they?   

Connor,

 Just when I believe that, they will do "one" thing right just to keep me frustrated and confused...

 Of course, with me... being confused ain't too difficult.

Ken

[ronin308]

Having a reciept date of July 13 2005 means I probably shouldn't worry about this.

The IMBRA act covers more than just marriage agencies.  Actually there is only 1 provision in the whole act that pertains to marriage agencies and people who meet through them.

The rest of the act applies to all K-1 and K-3 applicants  This includes limitations on the number of K-1 and K-3 VISAs that can be filled and the requirement of a background check and releasing of that information to the potential spouse prior to the issuance of the visa.  Interestingly enough, this includes any women who are filing K-1s and K-3s as well.

Unfortunately I don't think a lawyer is going to help in this case.  You're going to have to wait until the application get's back to USCIS and they send out the RFI.

As to ex post facto enforcement, just like any law passed in the US, you are soley responsible for ensuring that you comply with all laws.  The only valid complaint in this case is that the USCIS has not acted fast enough to distribute the correct paperwork and inform all applicants of the requirements.

If you read the first line of my post you'll see I've been waiting since July of last year for USCIS to just look at my paperwork yet I have make all contact with them and have never recieved an RFI.   Consider yourselves lucky.

[milestogo]

Ronin,

How is it possible you would be waiting that long?  Did your paperwork get lost?  Have you tried sending in another complete application?  I really feel for you.  Good luck!

[Turboguy]

It does not appear that they are doing RFE's on these.   They seem to be sending them back to NVC, doing a background check and returning them to the Embassy for the interview.  The bad thing is there are some cases where the interview as successful but recalled before sending out the visa.  That has to be a heart breaker.

[ronin308]

milestogo I'm a USCIS horror story.  Unfortunately they haven't  lost my paperwork so I can't resend it.  Somehow between the 2nd and 3rd out of process requests that I made they sent my paperwork to the Vermont service center.  After filing the last out of process it got sent back to California and I'm currently on a 90 day timeout.

It's good news for me that the paperwork has only gone back to the NVCs for those who fell through the crack.  That means that the USCIS won't get flooded with the sendbacks, now I only have to worry if it's true they put a hold on all visa processing.

[milestogo]

It does not appear that they are doing RFE's on these.   They seem to be sending them back to NVC, doing a background check and returning them to the Embassy for the interview.  The bad thing is there are some cases where the interview as successful but recalled before sending out the visa.  That has to be a heart breaker.

This would be good news if it is true but I've heard conflicting information with some saying there will be a request for additional information coming.  What is your level of confidence in this?