Ongoing Evidence of Relationship after filing I-129F?

[mrs_sdp 0]

Hi

Let me see if I understand this correctly:

It would be better to include a letter stating that we will not be able to visit each other during the visa application process because of the reasons I have given?

And also to include letters from family etc to confirm that my previous marriage was well and truly over and that my fiance and I began our relationship after this had happened?

I had previously thought that our application was pretty straightforward! We have visited each other a total of 13 times in the last two years so have plenty of proof of a relationship in my mind. But, I certainly want to avoid those red flags if at all possible.

I will continue to talk to my fiance using YM calls, messenger, emails, cards etc over the whole visa process .. I thought this would have been enough along with our numerous visits to prove we have a bona fide relationship!!

Now, to find out that a recent divorce will throw up a red flag too .. aaarrrrgggghhhh !!!!

Deep breaths lol ....

[TBoneTX 44,672]

I don't understand fwaguy's last post; sorry.

The facts are that the OP has some potential red flags. I did, too, but didn't think to ask anyone on VJ until it was too late. Had appropriate evidence to handle those flags been included in our I-129f, the consul could not have raised those issues as flags, or he could have been gently prompted to please review the evidence submitted, which would have eliminated those flags as concerns. Two other couples faced this same situation. It would have taken only a few more pages of documentation beyond what was actually submitted in the I-129f, and a lot of time and heartache could have been saved.

If you doubt the advice of Marc Ellis, write to him -- seriously. If he (dis)agrees with your position, post it here!

Having seen your valuable posts on other matters here on VJ, I'm curious why someone so caring and helpful would not conclude, "Well, the additional evidence is not REQUIRED, but it won't hurt and could help."

[TBoneTX 44,672]

Sure! Get an official letter from your school and his employer that state plausible reasons why neither of you can visit during the next few months. Get a letter from family, and (even better) one from an attorney to explain your marital (non)situation -- the recentness of the divorce can be explained. The number of visits is a plus. Save the hard-copy cards/letters and the chat/IM/e-mail transcripts to bring to the interview. No need to sweat if you start off being smart.

Hi

Let me see if I understand this correctly:

It would be better to include a letter stating that we will not be able to visit each other during the visa application process because of the reasons I have given?

And also to include letters from family etc to confirm that my previous marriage was well and truly over and that my fiance and I began our relationship after this had happened?

I had previously thought that our application was pretty straightforward! We have visited each other a total of 13 times in the last two years so have plenty of proof of a relationship in my mind. But, I certainly want to avoid those red flags if at all possible.

I will continue to talk to my fiance using YM calls, messenger, emails, cards etc over the whole visa process .. I thought this would have been enough along with our numerous visits to prove we have a bona fide relationship!!

Now, to find out that a recent divorce will throw up a red flag too .. aaarrrrgggghhhh !!!!

Deep breaths lol ....

[payxibka 10,045]

I don't understand fwaguy's last post; sorry.

The facts are that the OP has some potential red flags. I did, too, but didn't think to ask anyone on VJ until it was too late. Had appropriate evidence to handle those flags been included in our I-129f, the consul could not have raised those issues as flags, or he could have been gently prompted to please review the evidence submitted, which would have eliminated those flags as concerns. Two other couples faced this same situation. It would have taken only a few more pages of documentation beyond what was actually submitted in the I-129f, and a lot of time and heartache could have been saved.

If you doubt the advice of Marc Ellis, write to him -- seriously. If he (dis)agrees with your position, post it here!

Having seen your valuable posts on other matters here on VJ, I'm curious why someone so caring and helpful would not conclude, "Well, the additional evidence is not REQUIRED, but it won't hurt and could help."

What about previous overstays that result in a re-entry ban? If you submitted information about this and the USCIS still approved the petition, are you telling us that because the of the USCIS approva,l the CO cannot refuse the visa? All you have to do is gently prompted them to review the evidence submitted and no 601 waiver is required?

Edited August 15, 2008 by fwaguy

[TBoneTX 44,672]

What about previous overstays that result in a re-entry ban? If you submitted information about this and the USCIS still approved the petition, are you telling us that because the of the USCIS approva,l the CO cannot refuse the visa? All you have to do is gently prompted them to review the evidence submitted and no 601 waiver is required?

What do YOU think?

[payxibka 10,045]

What about previous overstays that result in a re-entry ban? If you submitted information about this and the USCIS still approved the petition, are you telling us that because the of the USCIS approva,l the CO cannot refuse the visa? All you have to do is gently prompted them to review the evidence submitted and no 601 waiver is required?

What do YOU think?

I think a refusal is proper, despite the fact that the petition has been "readjudicated" This tells me that the CO is limited in his readjudicating authority to issues of eligibility to apply for a visa... NOT eligibility of the visa itself.

[TBoneTX 44,672]

Perhaps, but it tells me that it's apples & oranges. An overstay is a red flag -- a black flag, actually -- that petitioners would seek to conceal at all costs. Conversely, matters of information that clarify and dispel a potentially erroneous conclusion are things that petitioners can, and should, rightly bring up. Honest people are almost always eager to be identified as such. In fact, NOT confronting one's own potential red flags in advance could be construed as a sign of concealment, which lends the impression that someone has something to hide. An affirmative defense can therefore be a good thing. I learned this too late, from five attorneys and two former consular officers. As stated, I wish that someone had tipped me off in the beginning, but I didn't know enough to realize that I should ask.

Write Marc Ellis, and let us know what he says.

Edited August 15, 2008 by TBoneTX

[payxibka 10,045]

We all know that attorneys write articles and develop legal theory to be used as marketing tools to "drum" business into there respective offices. So writing to Marc Ellis and subsequently sharing what he says will essentially serve only as free advertising for his practice, because the opinion received will be biased..... Now ask me to write to a law professor who has nothing to gain......

Edited August 15, 2008 by fwaguy

[TBoneTX 44,672]

We all know that attorneys write articles and develop legal theory to be used as marketing tools to "drum" business into there respective offices. So writing to Marc Ellis and subsequently sharing what he says will essentially serve only as free advertising for his practice, because the opinion received will be biased..... Now ask me to write to a law professor who has nothing to gain......

I didn't know that Marc Ellis is lacking for business, so good idea! Please write to a law professor who has nothing to gain. Keep following up until you get an answer to post for us. Thanks!!!

[sweet_peach 0]

Once you file your I-129 it will not be that long for everything to be processed. Most people dont visit during that time so they just show emails, call records, IM, etc. when its time for the interview.

You should be fine so dont worry about it.

[payxibka 10,045]

We all know that attorneys write articles and develop legal theory to be used as marketing tools to "drum" business into there respective offices. So writing to Marc Ellis and subsequently sharing what he says will essentially serve only as free advertising for his practice, because the opinion received will be biased..... Now ask me to write to a law professor who has nothing to gain......

I didn't know that Marc Ellis is lacking for business, so good idea! Please write to a law professor who has nothing to gain. Keep following up until you get an answer to post for us. Thanks!!!

I don't need to prove your theory... you do...

[KimandRuss 0]

A recent divorce probably isn't going to throw up a red flag in Scotland.

The discussion here has turned into rhetoric for problems that are often seen at Consulates with a higher rate of fraud.

As long as he is legally able to petition you, you send the petition when you are both free to marry and have met in the last two years you have met the criteria for the petition at USCIS level.

There are many of us who have been married previously and even more who are unable to travel more as we wait out this process.

Hi

Let me see if I understand this correctly:

It would be better to include a letter stating that we will not be able to visit each other during the visa application process because of the reasons I have given?

And also to include letters from family etc to confirm that my previous marriage was well and truly over and that my fiance and I began our relationship after this had happened?

I had previously thought that our application was pretty straightforward! We have visited each other a total of 13 times in the last two years so have plenty of proof of a relationship in my mind. But, I certainly want to avoid those red flags if at all possible.

I will continue to talk to my fiance using YM calls, messenger, emails, cards etc over the whole visa process .. I thought this would have been enough along with our numerous visits to prove we have a bona fide relationship!!

Now, to find out that a recent divorce will throw up a red flag too .. aaarrrrgggghhhh !!!!

Deep breaths lol ....

Edited August 15, 2008 by KimandRuss

[TBoneTX 44,672]

[quote name='fwaguy' post='2119583'

I didn't know that Marc Ellis is lacking for business, so good idea! Please write to a law professor who has nothing to gain. Keep following up until you get an answer to post for us. Thanks!!!

I don't need to prove your theory... you do...

I'm not the one questioning his theory! Either write a law professor, or write Marc Ellis. To refresh our memories:

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

No readjudication of petitions

7. In general, an approved petition will be considered by consular officers as prima facie evidence that the requirements for classification - which are examined in the petition process - have been met. Where Congress has placed responsibility and authority with DHS to determine whether the requirements for status which are examined in the petition process have been met, consular officers do not have the authority to question the approval of petitions without specific evidence, generally unavailable to DHS at the time of petition approval, that the beneficiary may not be entitled to status (see 9 FAM 41.53, Note 2, 41.54 Note 3.2-2, 41.55 Note 8, 41.56 Note 10, 41.57 Note 6, and 42.43 Note 2) due to fraud, changes in circumstances or clear error on the part of DHS in approving the petition. Conoffs should not assume that a petition should be revoked simply because they would have reached a different decision if adjudicating the petition. …”

What does that language mean? It means an approved petition is prima facie evidence of eligibility for an immigrant visa, unless a consular officer finds substantial evidence of ineligibility. More importantly, this evidence must have been unknown and unavailable to DHS at the time it approved the petition. That is the nearly the whole game for your client right there, in a few words.

(end excerpt)

Ask Ellis what this really means, if you're doubtful. I don't question it, so no sense arguing with me about it. He could even answer you for free, whereas a law professor might charge you, if he'd even answer at all.

[TBoneTX 44,672]

Once you file your I-129 it will not be that long for everything to be processed.

How can you state this with surety?

Most people dont visit during that time

How can you state this with surety?

You should be fine so dont worry about it.

How can you state THIS with surety?

[TBoneTX 44,672]

A recent divorce probably isn't going to throw up a red flag in Scotland.

How can you state this with surety?

The discussion here has turned into rhetoric for problems that are often seen at Consulates with a higher rate of fraud.

True, and at any other consulate where personnel, attitudes, and conditions can change without forewarning.