Questions on form I129-F / K1

[KimandRuss 0]

As previously stated, HCMC can be an extremely difficult Consulate to deal with.

Be sure to visit the Regional forums here on VJ to learn from others how best to prepare yourself and your fiance for what's to come.

[Andrew D 0]

You can use FOIA to have Homeland Security give you the file they have on your travels.

Article on this

They will show you travelled, time, where, when -

Thanks Bobby and everyone else.

These information are priceless.

Bobby, did you went through this process with FOIA? Do you know how long it takes? I've read somewhere that it could take up 1 year for the report. Your input is sincerely grateful.

Edited April 21, 2009 by Andrew D

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

HELLO ALL !!!

I'm so thrill to have found this site. I don't feel so lost and alone now.

I'm preparing paper works and gathering evidence for K1 - I129 F. I have 3 questions:

1. In I129 F form, Part B (Info about your fiance): Question 2 (Address) & Question 15 (Your Fiance address abroad): Can I use my fiancee's work address for both questions because it locates in HCMC and it's easier to find and more permanent or does it have to be her current living address? (She's currently living in an appartment in a hard-to-find-small-town outside of HCMC which she's RENTING and uncertain of possibly relocating). Her entire family is in Quy Nhon City.

2. I've visited her twice in 2007 but I was too stupid/naive to collect any boarding pass, airplain tickets, or anything other proofs of these flights and for some reason my passport did not get stamped when I entered/exit Vietnam and US. I do have alot of photos with date stamped though. What to do in this situation? Why didn't my passport get stamped?

3. I'm also planing on sending in a timeline with my I129F application; should I send it in at this early stage or wait til interview? I'm also planing on sending about 36 photos with I129 F, is it too much?

Please help, your advices & wisdom would be greatly appreciated.

Andrew

A little farther down this thread you say you were there in March 2009 for engagement. You have documets from that trip? That is all you will need for thr I-129f. You only need to demostrate meeting one time in the last two years. Keep everything regarding your relationship for the interview from now on.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I've seen others post the same thing about not having their passports stamped by VN customs, and I'm confused by it. I've been to VN three times in the past year, and my passport was stamped with both entry and exit stamps every time. They also stamp the visa itself with a stamp that says "HET GIA TRI - USED". Is it because I always get the 30 day visa? Dunno.

Andrew, you need positive proof of some sort that you actually met your wife in person sometime in the past two years. Pictures alone aren't going to do it. Now that you are engaged, and you know what kind of evidence you're going to need going forward, perhaps it's time to make another trip. After all, you haven't been back since 2007.

I decided to get smart on my last trip. My fiancee and I had our letters of intent notarized at the US Citizens Services in the US Consulate in HCMC. There's no way either USCIS or the US Consulate could deny THAT as positive proof! Of course, I'm still sending tons of other stuff too. I'm going way overboard on the "proof", not because it's needed to prove a visit within two years, but because the CO's in HCMC are famous for not looking at stuff that wasn't included in the original I-129F filing. Marc Ellis calls this "frontloading" the application. I've read too many stories in 5 months of lurking this forum where fiancees walked into the consulate with a suitcase full of evidence, and they got the blue or white slip, even though they had the evidence that would have countered the reasons for not getting the visa. The CO's never ask for the evidence unless they're already inclined to approve, it seems.

Hi Jim,

You've mentioned that you had your financee's letter of intent notarized: Is that a requirement? Since mine fiancee's letter of intent were originally written in Vietnamese, and she signed and had it translated in English only. Mine however will be notarized in the US. Please advice.

Letters of intent do NOT need to be notarized

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I concur with the other posters. You do not seem to have enough hard evidence of when you last met.

Sorry but just being honest (and just my opinion).

Also, will you be able to financially support your fiancee? Don't forget about all the future AOS, etc. filing fees.

Thanks all for your advice. I wish I had found this site years ago. But again, I never intended to fall in love in Vietnam, let alone being engaged 2 years later.

I just made a trip back in March 2009 for our engagement. The March trip, I did kept all my paper work, receipts,..etc.

Beside for photos, I have phone bills, emails, chat log, money transfer receipt, letters via USPS I've send to her.

I will try again to push my travel agent to find any paper work out there regards to my 2007 trips. I was optimistic before but not so much any now.

OK, am I in the twilight zone? (distinct possibility) You have your travel documents from March? You are good to go! You only need to meet one time within the last two years! You got it, man! Photos are good also, the rest of the stuff is for later, it doesn't show meeting in person. Send COPIES of your travel documents for March 2009, some photos and the explaination of how you met. It doesn't matter you met in 2007 and send documents for 2009. As long as you can show meeting at least one time...no worries

You can use FOIA to have Homeland Security give you the file they have on your travels.

Article on this

They will show you travelled, time, where, when -

Thanks Bobby and everyone else.

These information are priceless.

Bobby, did you went through this process with FOIA? Do you know how long it takes? I've read somewhere that it could take up 1 year for the report. Your input is sincerely grateful.

Forget the FOIA if you have your March travel documents. File your petition.

[ellis-island 6]

Hi. Conserning front-loading the petition, I mean informing USCIS in advance of conceivable problems about a case.

Why? (emphais added)

9 FAM 42.43 (n2.1)

In general, knowledge and reason to believe must be based upon evidence

that USCIS did not have available at the time of adjudication and that such

evidence, if available, would have resulted in the petition being denied. This

evidence often arises as a result of or during the interview of the beneficiary.

Reason to believe must be more than mere conjecture or speculation—there

must exist the probability, supported by evidence, that the alien is not

entitled to status.

9 FAM.

OK. So if USCIS has information at the time of approval, a consulate is not supposed to deny,

based on that information. LINK

That's why advise clients to front-load petitions to USCIS with any potential problem issues that may

arise at the consulate.

#2. Concerning making an oath at USC Services at a consulate, I recommend it.

I hae a client recently, not HCMC, who spoke to a USC Services officer for awhile and

the officer told him, I think your relationship is real. I'm going to put a note in the database

about that for you."

So that note in the data base may be quite helpful down the road when beneficiary has another interview.

Oaths at USC Services offices - I recommend them.

Front-loading petitions to USCIS Service Centers - I recommend it.

Edited April 24, 2009 by ellis-island

[TBoneTX 45,284]

9 FAM 42.43 (n2.1)

In general, knowledge and reason to believe must be based upon evidence that USCIS did not have available at the time of adjudication and that such evidence, if available, would have resulted in the petition being denied. This evidence often arises as a result of or during the interview of the beneficiary. Reason to believe must be more than mere conjecture or speculation—there must exist the probability, supported by evidence, that the alien is not entitled to status.

9 FAM.

OK. So if USCIS has information at the time of approval, a consulate is not supposed to deny,

based on that information. LINK

That's why advise clients to front-load petitions to USCIS with any potential problem issues that may

arise at the consulate. [...] Front-loading petitions to USCIS Service Centers - I recommend it.

Thank you for reaffirming this wisdom, Mr. Ellis. And, please: someone needs to shine a floodlight on the rogue U.S. consulate in Guayaquil, Ecuador for its consistent, willful disregard of 9 FAM 42.43. What will it take for you to do this?

[KimandRuss 0]

Front-loading petitions to USCIS Service Centers - I recommend it.

Thank you Mr. Ellis. This is good information, especially for folks dealing with high fraud post.

It might also be worth it to mention that although the 'requirement' is not there to supply evidence of an on-going relationship in the instructions, and no matter what you hear from the so-called 'experts', VJ recently had a I-129f filer who received an RFE for proof of on-going relationship. And yes, I did ask them to clarify that it was for proof of on-going and not proof of having met.

I would also recommend sending some proof of on-going relationship no matter what Embassy you are dealing with but even moreso for those who will apply for their visa in a high fraud Country.

[ellis-island 6]

Thank you for reaffirming this wisdom, Mr. Ellis. And, please: someone needs to shine a floodlight on the rogue U.S. consulate in Guayaquil, Ecuador for its consistent, willful disregard of 9 FAM 42.43. What will it take for you to do this?

Is it a K-1? Or a CR/IR-1/K-3?

Usually, lawyers can't change the minds of Chiefs of Visa Sections. Sometimes we can.

Most of the time, we have to beat them at the Service Centers.

When the case comes back, the 42.43 issues that caused the return

have been decided and to refuse again, the consulate has to dig up something new.

Consulates use databases and do basic internet searches on petitioners and sometimes Beneficiaries.

Quite often the database information is out of date. It is not double checked by anyone. The Chief signs off on the

officer's refusal, based on obsolete information. It happens hundreds of times at consulates all over the world.

I had an interesting case this week. We pointed out the consulate's conclusions were based on badly out of date

information it had dug up in a database. I was able to point out the errors in the consular information. That along with

an extremely irate letter from Senator Mary Landrieu...very...very...irate. I've never seen a Senator's letter like it,

allowed us to turn the case around at the consulate. Beneficiary got her visa.

I've seen good letters from Senator Landrieu and from Senator Kent Conrad's offices. I wish more congressional

liaisons would get on board. They have power. DHS has power. Neither congressional liaisons nor DHS seem to be

aware of the power they have to change procedures at consulates.

And Senator Landrieu's liaison was kind enough to forward my information about visa refusals based on out-of-date

information to Washington. It may be a black hole. Or maybe one of these days, we may hear something about it.

[TBoneTX 45,284]

Thank you for reaffirming this wisdom, Mr. Ellis. And, please: someone needs to shine a floodlight on the rogue U.S. consulate in Guayaquil, Ecuador for its consistent, willful disregard of 9 FAM 42.43. What will it take for you to do this?

Is it a K-1? Or a CR/IR-1/K-3?

One K-1 was denied, and a CR-1 & a K-1 were 221(g)'d (without any such number appearing on the letter) because the U.S. citizen wasn't present at the first interview. I know of FIVE other K-1 petitioners whose fiancees received the same treatment: kicked out of interview after 3 minutes, evidence brought was not accepted, 221(g), U.S. citizen "suggested" to appear at the consulate for a "joint" "marriage" interview that turned out to be a Stokes interrogation... and with a FSN, not a consul. Then, the consulate would not even make a decision on the spot. The upshot of the first interview was "not enough evidence -- go away!" and the upshot of the second interview was "too much evidence -- go away!"

The Section Chief of the Immigrant Visa Unit in Guayaquil is Philip Linderman, who had consular assignments earlier before spending years with the OAS in D.C., where he lectured worldwide about anti-human-trafficking. I don't imagine that he appreciated being dragged from a cushy Washington job to an unsafe city in a third-world country. Google him.

I wish more congressional liaisons would get on board. They have power. DHS has power. Neither congressional liaisons nor DHS seem to be aware of the power they have to change procedures at consulates.

(1)The excellent Congressman Nick Lampson, who was defeated in the last election, had a wonderful liaison staff, but they said that the Congressman could not get personally involved in visa cases because it would violate House Ethics rules. Is the Senate different?

(2) One of the K-1 rejectees that I mention above lives in Arkansas. After his denial, he consulted with many people, including a close confidante of Bill Clinton. This confidante said that Pres. Clinton once told him (the confidante) that "the consulates are practically untouchable, even by a President." I would like to hear your reaction to this.

I do know that Ecuador applicants need serious help now. Furthermore, it's wrong and vaguely obscene that U.S. citizens are blackmailed into traveling on their own time & own dime to be blindsided by an interview format that was falsely advertised. The link to ALL of the refusals & 221(g)s is that THE PETITIONER DID NOT ATTEND THE FIRST INTERVIEW -- which is a requirement that appears NOWHERE on the consulate's website or other instructions.

[Anh map 2,098]

Andrew, acouple of questions: are you Viet or not? You say that your sister went with you on the trips. Did she introduce you to you fiance? Someone else paying for the trips can be a flag.

[Andrew D 0]

Andrew, acouple of questions: are you Viet or not? You say that your sister went with you on the trips. Did she introduce you to you fiance? Someone else paying for the trips can be a flag.

Again, thank you all for your wisdom. I can't believe the amount of support and information from this forum's members.

Answering your questions: I am Vietnamese. I met my fiancee in April 2007 at a surprise party my old class mates threw for me. She was a guest of one of my class mate. I returned to visit her in Dec 2007 with my sister. My sister has never met my fiancee before nor introduce us. She offered to paid for the airfare since she is financially well off. I have a stable professional job in the construction field & a decent salary over $45K (I've only mentioned that to illustrate that I'm qualify to support my fiancee). However, I did paid for the Mar.2009 trip for our engagement ceremony.

I'm in the process of gathering and sorting through all the evidence. Any advice is greatly appreciated.

[Andrew D 0]

Hi. Conserning front-loading the petition, I mean informing USCIS in advance of conceivable problems about a case.

Why? (emphais added)

9 FAM 42.43 (n2.1)

In general, knowledge and reason to believe must be based upon evidence

that USCIS did not have available at the time of adjudication and that such

evidence, if available, would have resulted in the petition being denied. This

evidence often arises as a result of or during the interview of the beneficiary.

Reason to believe must be more than mere conjecture or speculation—there

must exist the probability, supported by evidence, that the alien is not

entitled to status.

9 FAM.

OK. So if USCIS has information at the time of approval, a consulate is not supposed to deny,

based on that information. LINK

That's why advise clients to front-load petitions to USCIS with any potential problem issues that may

arise at the consulate.

#2. Concerning making an oath at USC Services at a consulate, I recommend it.

I hae a client recently, not HCMC, who spoke to a USC Services officer for awhile and

the officer told him, I think your relationship is real. I'm going to put a note in the database

about that for you."

So that note in the data base may be quite helpful down the road when beneficiary has another interview.

Oaths at USC Services offices - I recommend them.

Front-loading petitions to USCIS Service Centers - I recommend it.

"Oaths at USC Services offices " - What is this? I have not read anything regarding to this? Mr. Ellis, can you please explain in details? Thanks

[ellis-island 6]

"Oaths at USC Services offices " - What is this? I have not read anything regarding to this? Mr. Ellis, can you please explain in details? Thanks

US Citizen Services Offices in Consulates. You can swear affidavits there for a fee.

Concerning consulates being untouchable, the doctrine of Consular Non-Reviewability is limited to

visa decisions. However, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Sections 402 & 428)

put DHS --- not DOS in charge of thee visa process. And lawyers have had success

reaching DOS through suing DHS.

DHS/USCIS is suable. They are essentially DOS's boss as far as supervising the

visa process. There have been a few district court cases where a Federal Judge

orders DHS to order a consulate to do something.

Brar vs. DHS is a fun read. It's a 2004 case from Seattle.

A US District Judge orders USCIS to instruct a consulate to take

certain actions and to follow certain guidelines.

There are others out there, mostly Mandamus actions.

The Judge wrote:

'The court orders CIS to reinstate approval of Plaintiffs’ I-600 visa

petition and grant Plaintiffs all relief they would have been entitled to had their petition

not been revoked. See Paunescu v. I.N.S., 76 F. Supp. 2d 896, 903 (N.D. Ill. 1999). CIS

shall return Plaintiffs’ approved visa petition to the Embassy for a new determination

which must be completed within 60 days of this order. CIS must instruct the consular

officials reviewing Plaintiffs’ approved visa petition to follow the guidelines established

by the State Department in the Foreign Affairs Manual. Finally, CIS must instruct the

consular officials that denying Ms. Kaur’s visa based on her residence with her surviving

mother, or her lack of a court order when she has an adoption deed, is an abuse of

discretion and contrary to law.

Dated this 22nd day of December, 2004

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

AMARJIT S. BRAR, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TOM RIDGE, Secretary of the Department

of Homeland Security, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. C04-1401JLR

ORDER

[TBoneTX 45,284]

the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Sections 402 & 428) put DHS --- not DOS in charge of thee visa process. And lawyers have had success reaching DOS through suing DHS.

Fascinating... and without being branded as subversives?

DHS/USCIS is suable. They are essentially DOS's boss as far as supervising the visa process.

Mr. Ellis, this is the first that I had heard of this, despite months of deep Internet-searching last year as a result of having been hosed in Guayaquil. Can you please approach Captain Ewok with the idea of creating a pinned thread, in which you present some of this enlightenment and provide links or references?

Brar vs. DHS is a fun read.

Probably one of the few in this dreary process... how strongly does it serve as precedent? Is it under challenge for potential reversal?