About ready to file

[Larry / Angelina 0]

My Fiancees annulment should be done this month , Then we are ready to file.. Here is what we have to submitt, do you think we have it covered ??

Meeting in past 2 yrs..

My boarding passes to Manila

My itenerary to Manila

Recipt from hotel we were at , it has both names on it

Reciept from another hotel with both names on it

Pictures of us together and pics with us and her kids

Both boarding passes on a trip we took to another location , both hers and mine ( to location and back to manila)

Itinerarie of our trip together ( has both names)

My passport stamps for Philippines

Ongoing Relationship

Phone Bills. ( approx 60 calls in 3 months)

Moneygrams (4 in 2 months)

Western union

P.O. reciept

copies of cards sent and recieved ( 16 of them)

Emails ( 40)

Chat logs ( 2 times a day everyday)

Just wondering if others thought I have everything covered ..

[payxibka 10,045]

My Fiancees annulment should be done this month , Then we are ready to file.. Here is what we have to submitt, do you think we have it covered ??

Meeting in past 2 yrs..

My boarding passes to Manila

My itenerary to Manila

Recipt from hotel we were at , it has both names on it

Reciept from another hotel with both names on it

Pictures of us together and pics with us and her kids

Both boarding passes on a trip we took to another location , both hers and mine ( to location and back to manila)

Itinerarie of our trip together ( has both names)

My passport stamps for Philippines

Ongoing Relationship

Phone Bills. ( approx 60 calls in 3 months)

Moneygrams (4 in 2 months)

Western union

P.O. reciept

copies of cards sent and recieved ( 16 of them)

Emails ( 40)

Chat logs ( 2 times a day everyday)

Just wondering if others thought I have everything covered ..

Save the ongoing for the interview...

[Larry / Angelina 0]

Ok ,,But do you think we have what they are looking for ???

[Devkpaik 1]

Did you double check everything with the guides? If you checked the guides, and you provided all the needed documents, then yes you have enough hopefully.

Good luck

[Dakine 26]

As fwaguy said:

No need all of these. Save them for the interview!

Ongoing Relationship

Phone Bills. ( approx 60 calls in 3 months)

Moneygrams (4 in 2 months)

Western union

P.O. reciept

copies of cards sent and recieved ( 16 of them)

Emails ( 40)

Chat logs ( 2 times a day everyday)

[TBoneTX 45,064]

As fwaguy said:

No need all of these. Save them for the interview!

Ongoing Relationship

Phone Bills. ( approx 60 calls in 3 months)

Moneygrams (4 in 2 months)

Western union

P.O. reciept

copies of cards sent and recieved ( 16 of them)

Emails ( 40)

Chat logs ( 2 times a day everyday)

Oh, I vehemently disagree -- include them! If you include them now, to USCIS, the embassy cannot (well, is not SUPPOSED to) question the information with an eye toward what it might consider the "invalidity" of your relationship. Embassies and consulates are not supposed to "readjudicate" a petition that has been passed by USCIS -- however, they ARE "permitted" to use "information not considered by USCIS/DHS" when deciding to refuse a visa. This power is not to be underestimated, and the embassy's decision to refuse a visa is just about final! Therefore, cut them off at the pass by providing the above NOW.

At interview time, you may be very happy that you did. If you omit it from this package, you could well end up repenting at leisure, regretting the hundreds or thousands of dollars and many months lost because ONE consular officer wasn't convinced.

The only alteration that I would suggest is to include a LOG of your 40 e-mails (dates, times, subject lines) rather than all of the actual e-mails.

The above advice comes from one who wishes like a b@st@rd that he had included incontrovertible "proof of relationship" in the I-129f package to USCIS. And, certainly, bring more of the same to your K-1 interview... which you, the U.S. petitioner, would do well to be on the premises for, even if you're not allowed in the actual interview.

[pushbrk 12,822]

As fwaguy said:

No need all of these. Save them for the interview!

Ongoing Relationship

Phone Bills. ( approx 60 calls in 3 months)

Moneygrams (4 in 2 months)

Western union

P.O. reciept

copies of cards sent and recieved ( 16 of them)

Emails ( 40)

Chat logs ( 2 times a day everyday)

Unless you have red flags to worry about, I'd skip all this until the interview. Even then, I'd skip the moneygrams and Western union. Those don't help and can hurt you.

[payxibka 10,045]

As fwaguy said:

No need all of these. Save them for the interview!

Ongoing Relationship

Phone Bills. ( approx 60 calls in 3 months)

Moneygrams (4 in 2 months)

Western union

P.O. reciept

copies of cards sent and recieved ( 16 of them)

Emails ( 40)

Chat logs ( 2 times a day everyday)

Oh, I vehemently disagree -- include them! If you include them now, to USCIS, the embassy cannot (well, is not SUPPOSED to) question the information with an eye toward what it might consider the "invalidity" of your relationship. Embassies and consulates are not supposed to "readjudicate" a petition that has been passed by USCIS -- however, they ARE "permitted" to use "information not considered by USCIS/DHS" when deciding to refuse a visa. This power is not to be underestimated, and the embassy's decision to refuse a visa is just about final! Therefore, cut them off at the pass by providing the above NOW.

At interview time, you may be very happy that you did. If you omit it from this package, you could well end up repenting at leisure, regretting the hundreds or thousands of dollars and many months lost because ONE consular officer wasn't convinced.

The only alteration that I would suggest is to include a LOG of your 40 e-mails (dates, times, subject lines) rather than all of the actual e-mails.

The above advice comes from one who wishes like a b@st@rd that he had included incontrovertible "proof of relationship" in the I-129f package to USCIS. And, certainly, bring more of the same to your K-1 interview... which you, the U.S. petitioner, would do well to be on the premises for, even if you're not allowed in the actual interview.

If you read the post from the former USCIS adjudicator you will soon discover that not only is all this information ignored but is the basis of lunchroom talk. It goes something like "You will never believe what I saw in this hunny bunny application I reviewed today........."

[TBoneTX 45,064]

If you read the post from the former USCIS adjudicator you will soon discover that not only is all this information ignored but is the basis of lunchroom talk. It goes something like "You will never believe what I saw in this hunny bunny application I reviewed today........."

The information from the former USCIS adjudicator is, what -- 5 years old now? And, in his position, he didn't (and couldn't) know the inner workings of embassies, or the uneasy interplay between DHS & DOS, or the 100% unaccountability of consular officers. To hell with what USCIS employees think is extraneous -- read the advice of Marc Ellis concerning the necessity of covering actual or potential red flags at the I-129f stage.

Bear in mind also that some embassies will automatically issue visa applicants a 221g, because "proof of relationship" is the embassy's chosen "red flag." And, even if your embassy has typically handed out visas like popsicles, policies and attitudes can change OVERNIGHT. Finally, remember that visa-refusals by an embassy are just about final.

Does any applicant REALLY want to take the chance of months of delay/thousands in expense/outright refusal at the consular level, at the risk of incurring "lunchroom talk" among our truly industrious USCIS worker-bees? Send the incontrovertible "proof of relationship."

Agree with Pushbrk that the MoneyGrams & Western Union receipts are potentially questionable.

Edited August 12, 2008 by TBoneTX

[payxibka 10,045]

Marc Ellis's experience and expertise is predominantly HCMC. As it relates to HCMC, I would seriously consider his opinions. The OP is not HCMC.

[TBoneTX 45,064]

Marc Ellis's experience and expertise is predominantly HCMC. As it relates to HCMC, I would seriously consider his opinions. The OP is not HCMC.

Please read THE LAW (which is independent of any attorney's experience; Marc Ellis was simply the one to quote it):

http://www.ilw.com/articles/2006,0323-ellis.shtm

[payxibka 10,045]

Amazingly as interpreted by Marc Ellis.

The law says that the CO is not to readjudicate the petition as to eligibility. If you look at the I-129F ,eligibility is defined as....

1) petitioner is USC

2) both are free to marry

3) met in person within two previous years

4) IMBRA compliant

says nothing about bonafide relationship being considered in the eligibility phase....

[TBoneTX 45,064]

says nothing about bonafide relationship being considered in the eligibility phase....

Perhaps true on its face, yet if the embassy tries to pull monkeyshines about validity of relationship, the petitioner has some ammunition that has been reviewed by DHS. Otherwise, trust that there is almost zero.

These next words are not at all to diminish your truly helpful comments to so many people, so please avoid misunderstanding. If you can offer the OP 100% assurance that, at the time of his interview, his embassy and interviewer will not have decided about visa issuance/refusal in advance, and will accept evidence that is brought there, and that it will be looked at, and that it will not be questioned or dismissed, and that there is zero risk of being issued a 221g, then let him exclude from his I-129f filing any material that relates to validity of relationship from the embassy's standpoint.

Although YOU (meaning any VJ reader of this post) may have had an uneventful interview, and although OTHERS have typically experienced the same to this point, and although there is no indication NOW that consular procedures or standards will ever change, conditions CAN change -- sometimes overnight, and perhaps dramatically. If I choose to drive my car without a seatbelt despite the cautions of others, then I also assume the increased risk. The OP is free to include what he wants in his I-129f filing, but I urge in the strongest terms that he avoid tempting fate.

[payxibka 10,045]

Of course people are free to include what they want. The OP asked for opinions, and I provided mine, you provided yours.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

I really don't know what the current strategy is, but when I filed about 3 years ago, I included lots of evidence of relationship, emails, phone bills, phone cards, cards, affidavits from family and friends etc. When my fiance went for her interview, she was not even asked for proof of relationship. When she went for her visa after the waiver was approved, she brought evidence that the relationship was ongoing while the wavier was pending. Again, it was not looked at.

This probably varies from consulate to consulate. And perhaps today the evidence is more frequently presented at the interview. This is stated in the I-129F instructions:

B. Provide original statements from you and your fiancé(e) whom you plan to marry within 90 days of his or her admission, and copies of any evidence you wish to submit to establish your mutual intent;

I guess technically emails, cards etc wouldn't prove mutual intent unless they specifically talked of marriage. My package was done by a lawyer as I knew a wavier was going to be necessary and at that time I wasn't educated about waivers and all that was entailed. We didn't provide intent to marry statements with our initial package, the lawyer said it was not necessary with all the information that I provided. He was correct, my petition was approved. An intent to marry statement was not requested until she went for her visa after the waiver was approved.

Again, this is what my expreience was and it was a few years ago, and I want to make that clear so that it won't be suggeted that I am providing information that is not accurate. I wouldn't hesitate to include plenty of proof with the initial package. YMMV.