Where is requirement for proof of relationship?

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

To anyone considering adding a notarized document to their collection of evidence that they have met their fiancee, I say go for it. I defy anyone to provide any evidence whatever that it's ever harmed anyone's case.

I haven't been able to find 3 legged pants for sale--not even online. Where can we get them?

At Immigrants-R-Us.

I think it's a secret weblink. But some people here know it.

[baron555 934]

to see if it was possible to streamline the process for future VJ members.

The process is already streamlined. TJM what you don't seem to understand is that from the verbiage of your post one would tend to get the idea that you are advocating the use of a notarized document signed by both parties as the definitve proof of having met together. As Gary has been stating, the sum total of many many successful petitions has already been stated......passport stamps, boarding passes, hotel receipts.....and NOW add a new one to that mix...the notarized signed letter. But it should only be ADDED to the mix; it alone may not be enough. The process has already been streamlined for us. And from what I'e read, there have been very few denials based on not providing the proper proof of the meeting; virtually all who have been RFEd or denied are due to blatant omissions of the basic documents

unless the USCIS would formally take that position.

They don't now and I don't see them doing it in the future. I don't see this requirement as being so difficult.

They ask for certain important transactions to be notarized

During my K-1 process so far, none of the documents have been required to be notarized (I do believe?)!!!

Edited February 12, 2010 by baron555

[TJM 0]

When Gary is talking about 'no notarized documents from petition to green card', I believe he's talking only about USCIS, and primarily if the case is relatively routine. At the consulate stage, it's a whole 'nother ball game. Many consulates routinely require notarized documents before they'll approve a visa application. The one nearly all consulates would need to have notarized is the 'quit claim' required for derivative minor children. The consulate in my wife's home country routinely asks for a "timeline of relationship", signed and notarized by the petitioner.

As I said before, the subject of using notarized documents as proof of meeting has come up before on this forum, and it's always resulted in a debate. I've never really understood why it causes so much contention, and frankly find some of the arguments against it to be laughable. I understand and agree completely with the argument that a notarized document is insufficient as sole evidence, but I think the same is true of virtually ANY single piece of evidence. What I don't understand are arguments that including a notarized document along with the 'regular' evidence is somehow bad, or might actually make things worse.

For example, the argument that a USCIS adjudicator might presume the relationship is a setup because the couple went to the extraordinary length to get a document notarized - something they say no 'normal' couple would do in the course of a legitimate relationship. This is completely ludicrous. In Gary's interview, the VSC director actually suggested submitting a ransom-style photograph of the couple holding a dated newspaper! Does this sound like something a 'normal' couple would do if they weren't specifically thinking of evidence for a visa petition?

The same applies at the consulate stage. Anyone who has dealt with a high fraud consulate knows you are already expected to submit evidence that goes far beyond what any 'normal' couple would do, including preparation and submission of notarized documents. I think it's delusional to believe you're going to get a visa out of one of these consulates if you aren't thinking about the visa process while you're together with your fiancee, and still have an opportunity to collect the evidence you'll need. I've seen too many cases where US citizens went to meet someone in person, had a whirlwind romance and got engaged, and didn't start looking into a visa petition until after they returned to the US. They're stunned when their fiancee gets slapped down at the interview for lack of evidence.

I also can't fathom how anyone could contend that a notary stamp is easy to forge without also acknowledging that a rubber visa stamp is probably even easier to forge, especially when a photocopy of the visa stamp is being submitted. At least with the notarized document you would be submitting the original, since USCIS generally requires originals of signed documents. I think it's also a stretch to imply that a notarized document wouldn't be trusted because it may be possible to find a notary who is willing to risk their license, and possibly even criminal charges, for applying their stamp to a document when they didn't actually witness the signature. Why would a notary stamp be universally accepted as proof that a signature is valid for nearly every type of document where such proof is required, but would be suspect for something as mundane as proving two people actually met each other? And yet, photocopies of boarding passes, visa stamps, and photos (which don't require a signature of any kind, and cannot be reliably verified) are more reliable evidence? Give me a break!

To anyone considering adding a notarized document to their collection of evidence that they have met their fiancee, I say go for it. I defy anyone to provide any evidence whatever that it's ever harmed anyone's case.

Thanks for your support on this issue. Just one more thing that I think you will appreciate. When someone suggests that it is easy to "forge" or create a phony notarized document consider a copy of a visa/passport stamp .... unless my experience is unique the copy of the passport pages with the stamp does not even contain the persons name. I could provide a copy of my passport ID page along with someone else's stamp that appears on another page.

[baron555 934]

I could provide a copy of my passport ID page along with someone else's stamp that appears on another page.

Exacto-mundo.....and this is why there is not just one proof that should be sent (be it a passport stamp copy or some notarized document).

VJ suggests sending multiple different proofs, the whole sum add up to "tell your story".

Doing this, you have streamlined your process. The notarized letter is a good addition to the mix.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Is it just me, or is there now enough hot air in this thread to remake "Around the World in Eighty Days"?

You could always hop on over to one of the "Will I get my visa faster if I am pregnant?" Threads where there is considerably less hot air from considerably less knowledgeable people. There is no need for non-participants in this thread.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

When Gary is talking about 'no notarized documents from petition to green card', I believe he's talking only about USCIS, and primarily if the case is relatively routine. At the consulate stage, it's a whole 'nother ball game. Many consulates routinely require notarized documents before they'll approve a visa application. The one nearly all consulates would need to have notarized is the 'quit claim' required for derivative minor children. The consulate in my wife's home country routinely asks for a "timeline of relationship", signed and notarized by the petitioner.

As I said before, the subject of using notarized documents as proof of meeting has come up before on this forum, and it's always resulted in a debate. I've never really understood why it causes so much contention, and frankly find some of the arguments against it to be laughable. I understand and agree completely with the argument that a notarized document is insufficient as sole evidence, but I think the same is true of virtually ANY single piece of evidence. What I don't understand are arguments that including a notarized document along with the 'regular' evidence is somehow bad, or might actually make things worse.

For example, the argument that a USCIS adjudicator might presume the relationship is a setup because the couple went to the extraordinary length to get a document notarized - something they say no 'normal' couple would do in the course of a legitimate relationship. This is completely ludicrous. In Gary's interview, the VSC director actually suggested submitting a ransom-style photograph of the couple holding a dated newspaper! Does this sound like something a 'normal' couple would do if they weren't specifically thinking of evidence for a visa petition?

The same applies at the consulate stage. Anyone who has dealt with a high fraud consulate knows you are already expected to submit evidence that goes far beyond what any 'normal' couple would do, including preparation and submission of notarized documents. I think it's delusional to believe you're going to get a visa out of one of these consulates if you aren't thinking about the visa process while you're together with your fiancee, and still have an opportunity to collect the evidence you'll need. I've seen too many cases where US citizens went to meet someone in person, had a whirlwind romance and got engaged, and didn't start looking into a visa petition until after they returned to the US. They're stunned when their fiancee gets slapped down at the interview for lack of evidence.

I also can't fathom how anyone could contend that a notary stamp is easy to forge without also acknowledging that a rubber visa stamp is probably even easier to forge, especially when a photocopy of the visa stamp is being submitted. At least with the notarized document you would be submitting the original, since USCIS generally requires originals of signed documents. I think it's also a stretch to imply that a notarized document wouldn't be trusted because it may be possible to find a notary who is willing to risk their license, and possibly even criminal charges, for applying their stamp to a document when they didn't actually witness the signature. Why would a notary stamp be universally accepted as proof that a signature is valid for nearly every type of document where such proof is required, but would be suspect for something as mundane as proving two people actually met each other? And yet, photocopies of boarding passes, visa stamps, and photos (which don't require a signature of any kind, and cannot be reliably verified) are more reliable evidence? Give me a break!

To anyone considering adding a notarized document to their collection of evidence that they have met their fiancee, I say go for it. I defy anyone to provide any evidence whatever that it's ever harmed anyone's case.

I was replying to the statement that USCIS puts a high regard on notarized documents. USCIS doe not require any notarized documents at any point in this process. I do not know about appeals, I have never had to appeal a case, I have never had a question asked on any petition I ever submitted, visa interview I attended or AOS interview. I wouldn't have the first clue how to respond to an RFE. maybe that means something, having done a few of these things and helping quite a few others. Maybe it is just speculation and who would want to listen to that? The notarized docuemt you refer to is needed for some consulates, which is not USCIS, and is consulate specific. Our "permission" letter for our youngest son was notarized. Nothing else was notarized.

Also, Jim, I think you will notice I have said repeatedly there is absolutely no penalty for sending unnecessary, facetious or redundant information or evidence, in fact it is recommended for some consulates. I really do not see why anyone would feel I am being diasagreeable. I spoke with officials at USCIS, they say it is not advisable to try to qualify a petition on this ALONE. They never said they would reject a petition that included a notarized statement in addition to other proof.

Yes, passport stamps can be faked. We even had a Pinay here a while back asking people to send her copies of their passport stamps because her "fiance's passport is so full of stamps he cannot tell which one is correct for Phillipines" As I recall, Jim, you were the first to call her on that. It does not matter what you or I think about that. Doesn't matter. USCIS accepts passport stamps and boarding passes as "proof" and will approve a petition based on such (and at least one photo) There is a long and consistent history of that. The word on notarized documents is not so rosie.

I have said repeatedly, include your letter. Together with the other proof you have, you will get approved (or at least not denied for not meeting) what's the problem? it will never happen that I will recommend you or anyone else attempt to qulaify a petition on a notarized statement alone. At least not until a few dozen other people offer themselves and their fiancee's as guinea pigs.

Anyway, good luck

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Thanks for your support on this issue. Just one more thing that I think you will appreciate. When someone suggests that it is easy to "forge" or create a phony notarized document consider a copy of a visa/passport stamp .... unless my experience is unique the copy of the passport pages with the stamp does not even contain the persons name. I could provide a copy of my passport ID page along with someone else's stamp that appears on another page.

I really have nothing else to add to this "debate" and not sure what we are debating. A supervisor at the VSC and his wife, and adjudicator at the VSC say not to rely on this document without other evidence. Period. I do not say that (though it was my first "gut response") I was specifically asked, in a PM by the OP, to look into this. I did. The facts didn't fit the theory but why not change the facts? Or ignore the facts? Or we can shoot the messenger. All logical responses, yes? I mean, next time PM Johnny Quest or something.

There is no point in US debating if they are unreasonable or illogical because a passport stamp can also be forged. It has now devolved into how many spirits can dance on the head of a pin with no one being able to prove their point. It is not even a point that bears proving. Is the letter evidence? YES. Is it sufficient on it s own? NO. Are passport stamps sufficent on their own? NO. Photos? NO. How is it in any way different than passport stamps or photos? I mean I may as well say 16 pancakes can fit in a doghouse because a car has 4 doors.

The OP has my permission, nay, my blessing, to send in his petition with ONLY the notarized document and to send them back an indignant letter when he gets an RFE. Go for it. Let us know how it works for you.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

I mean, next time PM Johnny Quest or something.

[TJM 0]

I really have nothing else to add to this "debate" and not sure what we are debating. A supervisor at the VSC and his wife, and adjudicator at the VSC say not to rely on this document without other evidence. Period. I do not say that (though it was my first "gut response") I was specifically asked, in a PM by the OP, to look into this. I did. The facts didn't fit the theory but why not change the facts? Or ignore the facts? Or we can shoot the messenger. All logical responses, yes? I mean, next time PM Johnny Quest or something.

There is no point in US debating if they are unreasonable or illogical because a passport stamp can also be forged. It has now devolved into how many spirits can dance on the head of a pin with no one being able to prove their point. It is not even a point that bears proving. Is the letter evidence? YES. Is it sufficient on it s own? NO. Are passport stamps sufficent on their own? NO. Photos? NO. How is it in any way different than passport stamps or photos? I mean I may as well say 16 pancakes can fit in a doghouse because a car has 4 doors.

The OP has my permission, nay, my blessing, to send in his petition with ONLY the notarized document and to send them back an indignant letter when he gets an RFE. Go for it. Let us know how it works for you.

I guess what rubs me wrong (and apparently some others) is that you seem to take a confrontational approach in your responses. For the 5th time in this post I must point out that I stated from the very beginning that I was submitting my package with passport stamps, photos and airline docs along with the notarized documents. As soon as you said that you asked the supervisor and he said that a notarized document alone would not be sufficient I had my answer. The question I posed was for future VJ members and it was not an attempt on my part to save time or take short cuts.

At any rate I totally agree with you ... there is no point in us debating the issue. Thanks for taking the time to ask the USCIS supervisor.