I-129F Evidence

[meauxna 15]

kaydee, the other issue that arises is one of responsibility.Our initial visa was approved in Sept 2002; I have been reading immigration discussions since the beginning of that year on a fairly regular basis.

I personally would not feel comfortable telling a stranger to do just what the instructions say; I have seen people have delays for that.

I personally would recommend to a stranger that they read other successful cases and follow what worked in the past.

I personally have a responsibility to direct people to the 'safest' choice. How much or little research they do is up to them. I have little opinion either way on the quantity of evidence to include/not, but I am not willing to give someone a 'hey, you'll be fine'; the only person who can say that is the AO who OKs the petition.

The information is out there; it is up to the individual to choose their method. While yours was right for you, I'd suggest that it might not be right for someone else.

[zyggy 9]

By way of observation only---I have never filed an I-129f myself-- I'll add that the FAQs, and later the Guides, were compiled from user's experiences of what made their cases successful. Many handy tips have been added to the official instructions over the years in the spirit of users helping other users through the sometimes arcane and confusing langugage of USCIS.

Wherein this discussion becomes very subjective. There's no proof that adding relationship materials to ones submittal helps in any way. In fact, in most cases it's probably ignored. Unfortunately, this isn't always true.

There have been RFE's generated as a result of adding relationship materials that would otherwise would not have been issued if these materials were omitted.

Further, in the matter of adjudicating the I-129F and any RFE's issued as a result; I personally have never seen an RFE specifically citing the lack of: emails, phone records, photos, etc.

My contention once again is that if it wasn't asked for it isn't required.

You are looking too closely at only the first phase of the process. You state that the submission of relationship information has resulted in RFE... which is likely true due to the petitioner including evidence that could prove detrimental to their case. This is easy to quantify. However, what is not as easy to quantify is how the addition of this information may have assisted a petitioner at the subsequent phase of the process. That is at the consular phase, and how the inclusion of this evidence may have been the breaking point between either how the bebeficiary was treated at the interview or if the inclusion of evidence was the breaking point in the CO's mind on whether or not to send a petition back to the SC. Ancedotes from CO's who have posted on this board and attorney's who have posted on this board have stated that the inclusion of this information has assisted a CO in making their decisions. In addition, in the past attorneys and other users have stated that the inclusion of this information has assisted them when making their appeals to the SC when a petition has been sent back to the SC which in many cases resulted in a case being returned to the Consulate.

I ask you what is worse... Having your case delayed a month because of a RFE due to some confusion over the evidence presented... or having your case dalayed several months to a year because a CO sent your case back where it could have been a different story if the additional evidence was included.

There is also a recommendation that petitoners include a long-form BC for the beneficiary. While it is not required, many people have included it. Who knows how many of those people avoided an RFE because it was included due to the off chance that their beneficiaries name came up on a IBIS hit.

Again, as I and other have been preaching for some time, far too often members look at the process only one phase at a time. They only focus on the I-129F petition, when they finish that, they focus on the interview, then AOS, etc.. This is one long process where all the pieces are interconnected. We need to get our heads out of the sand and look more at the entirety of the process and how what one does in one phase can impact the others.

Edited February 8, 2006 by zyggy

[kaydee457 13]

Kaydee,

I agree that most cases are very similar, but they are nevertheless unique because 'very similar' does not mean the same thing as 'identical'.

The risk that D-I-Yers run is that everyone talks about the similarities among situations, few identify or search for the often hidden dis-similarities that can be the critical difference.

Yodrak

...

I don't agree that each case is unique but rather that most all cases are very similar with the exception of the few that have extraordinary circumstances.

Yodrak.

In the context of developing a process and the forms that go along with it they are "very similar", and hence the forms, process, and adjudication of those similar cases service the majority. I'll not argue for the few that have unique circumstances as most of the time they themeselves know they have special circumstances and if they don't they are oftentimes offered up advise to seek legal assistance.

[kaydee457 13]

However, what is not as easy to quantify is how the addition of this information may have assisted a petitioner at the subsequent phase of the process. That is at the consular phase, and how the inclusion of this evidence may have been the breaking point between either how the bebeficiary was treated at the interview or if the inclusion of evidence was the breaking point in the CO's mind on whether or not to send a petition back to the SC.

We finally agree on something. There is no way to quantify that submissions of superfluous information has done anything at all, anecdotal or not. In most cases you can only deduce that it caused no harm if the case is approved, but you cannot say it had any positive benefit at all. Hey, you could include a sack of potatoes with every petition and declare you were successful because you, and others have done so.

You once again bring up your theory about relationship evidence that is somehow evaluated by USCIS (during the I-129F adjudication) and summarily passed to the DOS C.O. at your consulate.

You conclude that somehow the C.O. is to understand, or believe that since this relationship evidence was in the USCIS possession earlier that they (the Consulate C.O.) has to somehow be careful not to send a petition back to the USCIS for reasons I do not understand?

Where ever did you come up with this idea? Is it once again anecdotal conclusions bantered about in these forums?

Whatever makes you think that they (the USCIS) evaluated the "relationship evidence" for quality in the context of validating the relationship? It's not their job.

Why would they ne rummaging around through that stuff other than to extract whatever information that might be bundled in the package to support the evidence that was asked for; the proof of having met, the proof of citizenship, and proof of eligibility to marry.

Edited February 8, 2006 by kaydee457

[kaydee457 13]

I personally would not feel comfortable telling a stranger to do just what the instructions say; I have seen people have delays for that.

I personally would recommend to a stranger that they read other successful cases and follow what worked in the past.

I personally have a responsibility to direct people to the 'safest' choice. How much or little research they do is up to them. I have little opinion either way on the quantity of evidence to include/not, but I am not willing to give someone a 'hey, you'll be fine'; the only person who can say that is the AO who OKs the petition.

The information is out there; it is up to the individual to choose their method. While yours was right for you, I'd suggest that it might not be right for someone else.

Well, with all due respect do you not see the absurdity in what you're saying? You don't feel comfortable in telling someone to follow the instructions?

The fact is that what's bee doled out here in the Guides in based on innuendo and opinion and anecdotal casual conclusions.

Let's just leave this where it is and agree to disagree, adamantly disagree.

[gcox457 0]

I personally would not feel comfortable telling a stranger to do just what the instructions say; I have seen people have delays for that.

I personally would recommend to a stranger that they read other successful cases and follow what worked in the past.

I personally have a responsibility to direct people to the 'safest' choice. How much or little research they do is up to them. I have little opinion either way on the quantity of evidence to include/not, but I am not willing to give someone a 'hey, you'll be fine'; the only person who can say that is the AO who OKs the petition.

The information is out there; it is up to the individual to choose their method. While yours was right for you, I'd suggest that it might not be right for someone else.

Well, with all due respect do you not see the absurdity in what you're saying? You don't feel comfortable in telling someone to follow the instructions?

The fact is that what's bee doled out here in the Guides in based on innuendo and opinion and anecdotal casual conclusions.

Let's just leave this where it is and agree to disagree, adamantly disagree.

I agree with most of what you've said Kaydee..but it is true that blind adherence to the strict letter of the I-129F instructions will guarantee an RFE. The instructions state to send 3/4-view passport photos even though the accepted standard has been full-frontal for some time now. So, since the instructions have been proven to be fallible, I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that the in-practice requirements might differ somewhat from what is printed in the I-129F instructions. So, in that light, meauxna's statement makes perfect sense.

Why would they ne rummaging around through that stuff other than to extract whatever information that might be bundled in the package to support the evidence that was asked for; the proof of having met, the proof of citizenship, and proof of eligibility to marry.

Further, the instructions do request evidence of "mutual intent to marry", not simply eligibility to marry. That, unfortunately, leaves a lot of room for interpretation and is probably where the ongoing relationship snowball got started for the initial I-129F submissions...however a simple signed statement by both parties should be more than sufficient.

[kaydee457 13]

I agree with most of what you've said Kaydee..

Thanks!

but it is true that blind adherence to the strict letter of the I-129F instructions will guarantee an RFE. The instructions state to send 3/4-view passport photos even though the accepted standard has been full-frontal for some time now. So, since the instructions have been proven to be fallible, I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that the in-practice requirements might differ somewhat from what is printed in the I-129F instructions. So, in that light, meauxna's statement makes perfect sense.

Perhaps but this discussion is not about whether or not your photo is of the correct size, or you use the correct color ink to fill out and sign the forms, or to use paper clips vs. ACCO fasteners.

It's about submitting evidence. The evidence that was asked for to secure an approval.

It is also about the downside of submitting more than was asked for and to rebut the "more/bigger is better" theory.

It's about following the instructions and providing what was asked for, no more, no less.

I find myself in the very curious position of having to defend following "instructions" as though that would be a detrimental thing to achieving success in this process.

Further, the instructions do request evidence of "mutual intent to marry", not simply eligibility to marry. That, unfortunately, leaves a lot of room for interpretation and is probably where the ongoing relationship snowball got started for the initial I-129F submissions...however a simple signed statement by both parties should be more than sufficient.

The instructions say that you should:

(paraphrasing)

"You and your fiancee should provide statements of your intent to marry"

" and any evidence of your mutual intent"

I don't see any ambiguity in these instructions. If you have: engagement ring receipts, engagement invitations that have been printed, or other "evidence" demonstrating your intent to marry would be acceptable as "evidence".

All of which, as we know by empirical experience, are not necessary for the succesful approval of a K1 Petition in its initial stages.

I fail to see how emails, phone records, photos and the like meet the burden of proof to establish "intent".

Heck, some 12 year olds have this "evidence" and have no intent to marry.

Wherein we are now.

I'm letting this go as some of these threads become full time jobs to respond to and I don't have the time to argue endlessly the simple concept that one should follow the instructions, and provide what's asked for.

Nothing hard here.....

Edited February 9, 2006 by kaydee457

[gcox457 0]

Further, the instructions do request evidence of "mutual intent to marry", not simply eligibility to marry. That, unfortunately, leaves a lot of room for interpretation and is probably where the ongoing relationship snowball got started for the initial I-129F submissions...however a simple signed statement by both parties should be more than sufficient.

The instructions say that you should:

(paraphrasing)

"You and your fiancee should provide statements of your intent to marry"

" and any evidence of your mutual intent"

I don't see any ambiguity in these instructions. If you have: engagement ring receipts, engagement invitations that have been printed, or other "evidence" demonstrating your intent to marry would be acceptable as "evidence".

All of which, as we know by empirical experience, are not necessary for the succesful approval of a K1 Petition in its initial stages.

I fail to see how emails, phone records, photos and the like meet the burden of proof to establish "intent".

Heck, some 12 year olds have this "evidence" and have no intent to marry.

Wherein we are now.

I'm letting this go as some of these threads become full time jobs to respond to and I don't have the time to argue endlessly the simple concept that one should follow the instructions, and provide what's asked for.

Nothing hard here.....

The ambiguity comes from the fact that the "evidence of mutual intent" is not specified as to the exact type being sought. It is left as an exercise to the reader to determine what evidence is needed to satisfy the adjudicator, as the things that you have listed are not specifically mentioned in the instructions. Common sense would dictate that those listed items would probably be what is being asked for...but just like in a contract, anything not spelled out is open to interpretation (for better or worse). Some decide that the signed letters of intent are sufficient (I'm in that camp). Others read more into the statement, and determine that the adjudicator will want to see a second-by-second recreation of the relationship via phone records, emails, etc in order to believe the argument of "intent". While I'm not endorsing that approach...that is what is happening with many people. It's still "following the instructions"...but vague instructions lead to a huge variation in responses when read by a huge cross-section of people. You have to be able to see things from varying points of view before the actions of others can make sense to you, and not assume that everyone will read the same vague sentence and come to precisely the same conclusion as you.

Also, since the evidence of intent by

empirical experience, are not necessary for the succesful approval of a K1 Petition in its initial stages.

in contradiction to the verbiage of the I-129F instructions...how can you stand on the pulpit preaching that there's nothing hard about simply following the instructions? We've already discovered one case where following the instructions strictly will result in an automatic RFE (the passport photos), and now another where it's "ok" to ignore a line item in the instructions without repercussions. Without the anecdotal evidence based on experiences of those who have both succeeded and failed, we wouldn't know which instructions to follow, which ones to ignore, and which ones need "tweaking" in order to pass muster with respect to regulations listed elsewhere.

I don't know about you, but that seems fairly ambiguous and difficult (for the average newbie) to me....

Edited February 9, 2006 by gcox457

[aussiewench 9]

aussiewench,

What you said was,

"* Second is evidence of the intention to marry which supports the 'letter of intent' which is also a requirement of the I-129F."

It is not a requirement.

I am not discussing the possible benefits, or dangers, of providing information beyond that which is explicitly required, I am only commenting on whether it's required or is optional.

Yeah I said that didn't I Thank you for correcting Will teach me also to not type up something at 4am in the morning and not proof read. I am fully aware of it being 'you wish to submit'. The point however that I was intending to make is of the two things regarding evidence that ARE stated on the I-129F as opposed to 'evidence of an ongoing relationship.

As for 'ongoing relationship' being the same as or different from 'intent to marry', I see them as being one and the same - intent to marry is the definition of the relationship that we identify by the term 'finace(e)'. Beyond that, what has to be proved is that said relationship is bona fide, i.e. not for the purpose of evading US immigration law. I find it interesting how so many people talk about so many aspects of the issue of relationship without ever mentioning this one essential element.

Perhaps it the essential element was kept in mind rather than all the other side issues, it would be easier to determine what would be helpful to provide and what is excessive and not helpful.

I see them as two seperate issues whilst in part one may merge with the other. IMO evidence to support intent to marry would include such things as 'receipt for engagement ring, evidence of engagement celebration, wedding preperations such as contact with a minister perhaps. In general specific evidence to support the intention to marry without the adjudicator given the chance to second guess or question the petitions eligibility which can be wide open with such evidence as personal emails etc being submitted to proove the relationship as opposed to the intention. Two seperate angles of the relationship IMO. In doing so it also would support other evidence submitted at interview of the bona-fide relationship, which is of the utmost.

I'm out of here for a while, as have things to do the next day or so. But I will be back

Lorelle