sending $

[Dan and Judy 614]

Of course the money was sent by the petitioner - does not mean he owns it. You don't always own what you send and whatever you send does not mean you own. Your mail gets in my mailbox and I resend it to you does not mean I own it. Why else would the OP want to do this? It is to help in showing an ongoing relationship (not an ongoing provision of funds).

Evidence of money tansfer does not mean evidence of sender's money. A transfer simply shows movement and not necessarily the original owner of the object.

Financially supporting a foreign fiance(e) while they are abroad is not a requirement for a visa. It is simply proofs of a relationship/interaction that matters. If financially supporting a foreign fiance(e) while they are abroad was a criterion, then you can call this a fraud as he is not really financially supporting her.

If you visited your fiance in their country and forgot to take pictures, then photoshopped pictures together to make it look like you were standing with your fiance in front of the eiffel tower, and showed it to the CO that would be fraud even if you had

stood in front of the eiffel tower with your fiance. You can play word games and say well it realy is me and it really is her and it really is the eiffel tower and it really is a picture. But it really is fraud.

If you show the CO the evidence of money going both ways then it's not fraud but I don't think it helps your case any.

[SuperDuper! 230]

could you elaborate a little on what is supposed to happen when the two finally get together in person? I got the sending money part down pat. I want to be sure I do everything right.

+1

Dan gets the Great Sense of Humor Award of the day!

Dan, in case you were serious, it is ALL about one set of glands urgently calling out to another! There, I humored back.

I love people like Dan. I can tell he does not take himself or life too seriously.

Hey Dan, spread the word around here. The forums have been WAY too serious lately, and folks just seemed to forget how to have harmless fun.

Rather, trying to sound superior and glib is the order of the day.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Of course the money was sent by the petitioner - does not mean he owns it. You don't always own what you send and whatever you send does not mean you own. Your mail gets in my mailbox and I resend it to you does not mean I own it. Why else would the OP want to do this? It is to help in showing an ongoing relationship (not an ongoing provision of funds).

Evidence of money tansfer does not mean evidence of sender's money. A transfer simply shows movement and not necessarily the original owner of the object.

Financially supporting a foreign fiance(e) while they are abroad is not a requirement for a visa. It is simply proofs of a relationship/interaction that matters. If financially supporting a foreign fiance(e) while they are abroad was a criterion, then you can call this a fraud as he is not really financially supporting her.

Of course the money transfer receipt doesn't prove the petitioner is actually sending their own money. This is why the OP asked if they could get away with it. I already explained in a previous post, there are circumstances where a consular officer will suspect something exactly like this is going on. For example, if the petitioner's income is borderline, and the beneficiary submits money transfer receipts showing regular remittances, the consular officer is going to wonder where the heck the petitioner got the money. This is a classic indicator of a very specific form of visa fraud, where the beneficiary or a member of the beneficiary's family is bankrolling the petitioner to help the beneficiary immigrate. They would also suspect the petitioner is being paid for their efforts.

In the OP's case, is the beneficiary going to go to the interview, hand over the money transfer receipts, and then explain to the consular officer that this was really their own money, and the petitioner was only sending it back to them? Of course not! They're going to allow the consular officer to presume that the petitioner is committed enough to the relationship that they want to help support the beneficiary. No matter how you dance around the details, this is clearly an attempt to deceive the CO.

[Tero 105]

Of course the money transfer receipt doesn't prove the petitioner is actually sending their own money. This is why the OP asked if they could get away with it. I already explained in a previous post, there are circumstances where a consular officer will suspect something exactly like this is going on. For example, if the petitioner's income is borderline, and the beneficiary submits money transfer receipts showing regular remittances, the consular officer is going to wonder where the heck the petitioner got the money. This is a classic indicator of a very specific form of visa fraud, where the beneficiary or a member of the beneficiary's family is bankrolling the petitioner to help the beneficiary immigrate. They would also suspect the petitioner is being paid for their efforts.

In the OP's case, is the beneficiary going to go to the interview, hand over the money transfer receipts, and then explain to the consular officer that this was really their own money, and the petitioner was only sending it back to them? Of course not! They're going to allow the consular officer to presume that the petitioner is committed enough to the relationship that they want to help support the beneficiary. No matter how you dance around the details, this is clearly an attempt to deceive the CO.

If I understand you correctly, it is the frequency of remittance while having a borderline income that can raise a flag, not the money transfer by itself. This is true. It is also true that if he can initiate a petition with all the associated cost in the process, sending a couple of hundreds once or twice should not seem out of the ordinary. Frequent remittance and amount, compared with income definitely could arouse suspicion.

It does not hurt a CO to issue a visa but would hurt me dearly if mine was denied (then why should I worry about what they presume in my favor?). Whatever presumption the CO makes out of a receipt, is not the OP's fault and does not show deceit in my opinion. When the beneficiary is there for an interview, the onus is on the CO to understand every document presented and not presume. I wish COs could feel as bad when they make wrong presumptions and deny visas for legit couples.

[Tero 105]

I'm not sure how to pose this question, so i hope VJ users understand what i'm trying to ask.

Has anybody heard about that if the petitioner sending money via western union or something like that to your fiance in the foreign country, for the purpose of the consulate can see that petitioner and fiance has an ongoing relationship would help somewhat and validate the relationship.

Now before everybody jump the gun, its fiance money to begin with. I'm just sending it back for that purpose only.

OP, if that is your purpose, you are good and run no risk at all. But if your purpose is to show financial support, which is not required in this form anyway, then the other argument is true!

Edited February 13, 2011 by Tero

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

If I understand you correctly, it is the frequency of remittance while having a borderline income that can raise a flag, not the money transfer by itself. This is true. It is also true that if he can initiate a petition with all the associated cost in the process, sending a couple of hundreds once or twice should not seem out of the ordinary. Frequent remittance and amount, compared with income definitely could arouse suspicion.

It does not hurt a CO to issue a visa but would hurt me dearly if mine was denied (then why should I worry about what they presume in my favor?). Whatever presumption the CO makes out of a receipt, is not the OP's fault and does not show deceit in my opinion. When the beneficiary is there for an interview, the onus is on the CO to understand every document presented and not presume. I wish COs could feel as bad when they make wrong presumptions and deny visas for legit couples.

I'll say it again - intentional fraud does not become justified just because you can get away with it. You can't justify it by saying that CO's sometimes deny legitimate couples. By that whacked out moral compass it would be ok to cheat on your taxes because the IRS sometimes denies legitimate deductions, or that it's ok to shoplift because the store sometimes overcharges people. Fraud is fraud. There is no justification for it.

[iampatricias 17]

I'm with JimVaPhuong on this one - it sounds like the OP's intention is to make it look like he is providing financial resources to his fiancee so that the consulate will believe their relationship is genuine when in fact, the OP is not providing financial resources.

We've established the money is not his, his relationship is the real deal, and that financially supporting our SOs abroad is perfectly legal and records of such support may or may not validate our relationship in the eyes of the consulate, depending on the interviewing country.

At this point, the examination of a sensitive conscience should alert you to the immorality of making things look different for your own purposes than what they are regardless of whether or not anyone has 'gotten away with it' in the past. The very use of this as an excuse suggests the very thing he US government calls fraud and your conscience knows as a lie.

[VinhBao MyTam 3]

If the intent is truly to only show an 'interaction' and not a 'support' then you would submit the records of the money going both ways.

The fact that you are "concealing" the one side, "reveals" your true intention, which is deception: also known as fraud.

Obviously the fiancee does not need the support, or she wouldn't be providing her own funds. So unless it is a specific requirement for your consulate, don't even think about money transfers.

Now, if for some reason in this culture and therefore to this consulate, it would be a significant expectation that the man support his fiancee, and thus would raise a red flag if not done, then & only then would you need to come up with a better, legal solution.

(For example, she doesn't want you to use your money. But if you actually do have plenty of money, send it anyway... you can always share it when you get married anyway.)

[love100 0]

I think u should send her some money every month, and then wait until you get packet 3 and read what kind of evidence of relationship they will request..I am from Argentina, and in the Argentina website I found the instructions of packet 3, This is what they ask for as evidence of my relationship with my fiance.

EVIDENCE OF RELATIONSHIP: We prefer to see many photos of the petitioner and the beneficiary at varying times throughout their life or relationship. Receipts of money sent from the petitioner to the beneficiary is also good proof of relationship, as well as cards and letters with the original post marked envelopes, and phone records.