Martin

Hi,

Given that the law makes a man wait 2-years before filing another
fiancee visa application, how does this effect spousal visas? Must you
wait for2-years and is this limited to 3 lifetime as well. TIA.

Martin

Noorah101

Hi Martin,

Can you provide a link to where you are getting this information? I was not aware of either the 2-year wait, nor the 3 in a lifetime rule. Please provide your source.

Thanks!
Rene

Martin

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 06:48:22 +0000, Noorah101 <[email protected]>
wrote:

Here are some links:

http://www.1st-international.com/IMBRA.html
http://www.arctec.com/restrictions.html

It is scary stuff.

Martin

    >Hi Martin,
    >Can you provide a link to where you are getting this information? I was
    >not aware of either the 2-year wait, nor the 3 in a lifetime rule.
    >Please provide your source.
    >Thanks!
    >Rene

Just Jenney

I did a quick Google.

IMBRA = International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005, passed as part of the reauthorization of the Violence against Women Act or VAWA under HR 3402

You can read the text of the legislation here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=s108-1455

And here: http://usaimmigrationattorney.com/images/IMBRA2005.pdf (PDF)

This article breaks it down into basic English: http://www.murthy.com/news/n_vicdom.html


I found that 99% of the Google results I got were for websites and organizations which promote the "mail order bride" business -- and are completely biased against this legislation.

From reading through the information on the links above (which were as impartial as I could find), it basically is saying that certain international marriage broker organizations are required, by this law, to divulge the criminal background information on the US client to the foreign client. It also requires the US consulate to inform K1 fiance(e) visa applicants of their rights under VAWA, and that international marriage brokers are required to divulge the US fiance(e)s' criminal history to them, but that information is not necessarily accurate or truthful.

Sounds good to me!

I did find reference to limitations on the number of visa petitions someone could file. However, the different websites offer varying information. One says, "A United States citizen or a legal permanent resident may not file more than 1 application for a visa under section 101(a)(15)(K)(i) in any 1-year period" -- but this doesn't say which visas. LPRs can't file K1 visas, anyway. It doesn't say anything about a lifetime limit.

Another says, "‘‘(2)(A) Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), a consular officer may not approve a petition under paragraph (1) unless the officer has verified that—‘‘(i) the petitioner has not, previous to the pending petition, petitioned under paragraph (1) with respect to two or more applying aliens; and H. R. 3402—108 ‘‘(ii) if the petitioner has had such a petition previously approved, 2 years have elapsed since the filing of such previously approved petition."

Still another says, "The law also prohibits the filing of multiple, simultaneous fiancée petitions. Each petitioner is limited to a lifetime cap of three fiancée petitions."

So..... ???

This is the sort of thing where it would be helpful to hear from the resident attorneys for clarification.

~ Jenney

Just Jenney

What's so scary about it?

~ Jenney

Folinskyinla

Hi Rene:

Its pretty new and is an amendment to the renewal of VAWA. From discussions with my colleagues who do VAWA work, it is a pretty good thing.

Just Jenney

After reading some of the links about this new law -- including the ones the OP provided -- I have no idea why there is such an uproar about this. It clearly was set up to help protect foreign fiance(e)s, and I don't see why anyone would have a problem with it. I mean, seriously -- what's wrong with the USC petitioner having to provide their own criminal background information as part of the visa process? The US government requires the foreign fiancees to provide theirs, so why not the other way around??

As my mother always says, you have nothing to worry about if you have nothing to hide.

And as for the new limitations on the numbers of fiancee visas a USC can file petitions for, or the two-year wait between I-129F petitions for the K1 visa, again... WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL?! In most states you have to be separated for AT LEAST six months before your divorce can be finalized; in some states the separation period is a year. You can't even file a I-129F petition until you are available to marry anyway. I have a hard time believing that many people will go through the entire K1 process, marry, separate, divorce, meet someone ELSE in another country and get to know them well enough to want to marry them and need to petition another K1 visa IN UNDER TWO YEARS.

I mean, really, give me a break.

Plus, I think it says a lot that so many people (esp. men) are pissed off by this legislation because it will limit them to ONLY three foreign fiancees in their LIFETIME. That means they're already expecting to meet, get engaged, do the K1 process, separate and divorce AT LEAST three times and they STILL want the opportunity to keep going. How sad.

~ Jenney

Rete

Perhaps some people make a career out of bringing foreign brides into the US for green cards. They divorce them after the green card is received and then go on to the next one earning up to $10,000 or more a bride. Nice pin money for someone if they live in an area where they can get the green card issued inside of 12-16 months.

Of perhaps they are one of those people who only favor foreign spouses and rather than spending long periods in courtship to determine that they might have a long and happy married life together, they marry quickly and when it doesn't work out go on the next one until they find the right one.

Perhaps they have criminal records of abuse and don't want it known to the foreign spouse. Who knows but much better that someone is looking out for the welfare of innocents.

J Moreno

In article <[email protected]> ,
Jenney & Mark <member2595@british_expats.com> wrote:

    > Plus, I think it says a lot that so many people (esp. men) are pissed
    > off by this legislation because it will limit them to ONLY three foreign
    > fiancees in their LIFETIME. That means they're already expecting to
    > meet, get engaged, do the K1 process, separate and divorce AT LEAST
    > three times and they STILL want the opportunity to keep going. How sad.

I've only had the one fiance, and won't have another, and I'm not
"pissed" but I do think it's potentially unfair (depends upon whether
it is limited to foreign fiances or fiances and spouses).

Say someone was working mainly outside of the US -- they meet, they get
married, they decide to come to the US after a couple of years for a
couple of years. After arriving they divorce, the USC again goes
abroad to work, rinse, lather and repeat.

If this were to happen in the US, then the USC could be married 4 or
more times, and while that be considered a bit strange, it wouldn't be
impossible or fraudulent.

Why should someone be limited to just 3 spouses from outside the US,
when they can have as many as they want from inside it?

--
J. Moreno

Folinskyinla

Hi:

The limits are NOT cast in stone, so to speak. The limits can be waived for "good cause" -- and based upon past experience, I don't think this will be a problem.

I'm referring a case involving VAWA and I asked TWO colleagues who do VAWA work and both thought IMBRA was a good thing -- when I told them about the complaints, they both started laughing. Both of them wish VAWA wasn't necessary.

Martin

I think we have have departed from the original question that I posed
to this NG. Does this affect only K-1 visas or does this affect
spousal visas as well.

I am member of the RUSSIAN-WOMEN-L mailing list at
http://www.listserv.icors.org/ where this law has recieved very bad
reviews . The speculation is that only fiancee visas are affected and
spousal visas are not. If so this is a huge loophole in this law. Is
this the case? I agree that 3 visas lifetime is a reasonable limit. I
have had one woman come here on fiancee visa and it did not work out.
Does this count against the 3 in a lifetime limit? is the law
retroactive? Many of the men so opposed to this are older men seeking
younger women who think they may have to go through a few before one
sticks. This is not the case with me. I am 35 years old.

In other words if one can marry as many foriegn women as one wants
then this is a huge loophole in this law and this is exactly what the
listers on the RWL plan to do. In other other words marry women abroad
and file the I-130 (petition for an alien relative). Can anyone
address thiis?

Martin

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 01:44:56 +0000, Folinskyinla
<member4043@british_expats.com> wrote:

    >> In article <[email protected]> ,
    >> Jenney & Mark <member2595@british_expats.com> wrote:
    >> > Plus, I think it says a lot that so many people (esp. men) are
    >> > pissed
    >> > off by this legislation because it will limit them to ONLY three
    >> > foreign
    >> > fiancees in their LIFETIME. That means they're already expecting
    >> > to
    >> > meet, get engaged, do the K1 process, separate and divorce AT
    >> > LEAST
    >> > three times and they STILL want the opportunity to keep going.
    >> > How sad.
    >> I've only had the one fiance, and won't have another, and I'm not
    >> "pissed" but I do think it's potentially unfair (depends upon whether
    >> it is limited to foreign fiances or fiances and spouses).
    >> Say someone was working mainly outside of the US -- they meet, they
    >> get
    >> married, they decide to come to the US after a couple of years for a
    >> couple of years. After arriving they divorce, the USC again goes
    >> abroad to work, rinse, lather and repeat.
    >> If this were to happen in the US, then the USC could be married 4 or
    >> more times, and while that be considered a bit strange, it wouldn't be
    >> impossible or fraudulent.
    >> Why should someone be limited to just 3 spouses from outside the US,
    >> when they can have as many as they want from inside it?
    >> --
    >> J. Moreno
    >Hi:
    >The limits are NOT cast in stone, so to speak. The limits can be waived
    >for "good cause" -- and based upon past experience, I don't think this
    >will be a problem.
    >I'm referring a case involving VAWA and I asked TWO colleagues who do
    >VAWA work and both thought IMBRA was a good thing -- when I told them
    >about the complaints, they both started laughing. Both of them wish
    >VAWA wasn't necessary.

Folinskyinla

Hi:

The K-1 is a "hybrid" visa meant for the ultimate immigration of a person who will become the spouse of a US citizen. So, in that sense, it is a "spousal" visa. That can lead to confusion in answering the question.

There is also a common misconception as to the purpose of the K-1 visa. It was created in 1970 just before the advent of cheap international travel. [I remember getting discharged from Army active duty in 1971 and United Airlines actually asked if I wanted to take a flight 4 hours later in order to experience a 747! I felt a DC-8 was just fine, thank you.] The idea was that the US citizen would be spared a second trip abroad to actually get married.

The K-1 has NEVER been intended a "trial period" in order to "sample the goods" so to speak.

I will agree that IMBRA was AIMED at the Russian/Ukrainian "market" although the are several other "markets" that have developed the same pattern. And it does not surprise me one whit.

JEff

Jenny,

I agree with your mother, but a lot of people do not. Many people seem
to feel that protecting their own personal privacy, whether or not
there is anything to be revealed, is more important than the public
good even in situations where it's clear that there is a lot of public
damage being done.

Anyway, my sense is more individuals are concerned about the time,
effort, and cost involved with disclosure than about the issue of
limiting the number or frequency of marriage to foreigners.

And a lot of people do have things to disclose, things that are minor
and might easily be understood and accepted when the two people have
gotten to know each other a bit, but that could easily put a stop to a
potential relationship if it's the first thing known.

This law will reduce, but not eliminate, bad or fraudulent
relationships. It will also reduce, but not eliminate, relationships
that would have been good had they not been deterred by the law.
Estimating what percentage of either will possibly make a good thesis
subject for a lot of PhD candidates.

Regards, JEff

Jenney & Mark wrote:
    > > Hi Rene:
    > >
    > After reading some of the links about this new law -- including the ones
    > the OP provided -- I have no idea why there is such an uproar about
    > this. It clearly was set up to help protect foreign fiance(e)s, and I
    > don't see why anyone would have a problem with it. I mean, seriously --
    > what's wrong with the USC petitioner having to provide their own
    > criminal background information as part of the visa process? The US
    > government requires the foreign fiancees to provide theirs, so why not
    > the other way around??
    > As my mother always says, you have nothing to worry about if you have
    > nothing to hide.
    > ....
    > Plus, I think it says a lot that so many people (esp. men) are pissed
    > off by this legislation because it will limit them to ONLY three foreign
    > fiancees in their LIFETIME. ...
    >
    > ~ Jenney