Will visit fiance a second time in a couple weeks...should I wait to send K1 petition?

[baron555 934]

and how can anyone say "it should be fine" with knowledge or authority?

It should be fine is a lot different than It will be fine. They know the extent of their relationship and many many couples are approved with only one visit.

[Stephen + Elisha 92]

My petition was approved after only one visit. I think you can go ahead and send your petition. It should be fine.

Good for this poster, but the advice may be perilous... and how can anyone say "it should be fine" with knowledge or authority? Do people really take the consular phase of the process so lightly -- or, worse, ignore or dismiss it completely?

Everyone here is focusing on what USCIS requires -- which the original poster can obviously meet -- yet the long-range view should include the possible reaction of the embassy. Multiple visits are always a PLUS in the eyes of consular officers -- and there is a world of difference between multiple visits versus just one visit in terms of strength of evidence.

As stated, a little considered restraint now can avert months of delay later. OP, hold off until you can front-load the I-129F petition with extra evidence of relationship from your upcoming trip. (You probably realize the sense in this already, or you wouldn't have posed your question in the first place, si man? )

A lot of the people who have posted "go ahead and file, you've met the USCIS requirements" are people who dealt with consulates (London, Kiev, etc.) that do not look at every family-based visa application with an a priori assumption of "sham relationship entered into for immigration benefit." But many of the consulates in high-fraud countries (GUZ, HCMC, most Latin American consulates, and MNL and BKK to a lesser extent) do seem to approach these applications with exactly this presumption. When dealing with these consulates, I think it's best to follow the advice of Marc Ellis, Esq. and front-load the initial I-129F submission to USCIS to preemptively address any possible red flags—and lack of evidence of a bona fide relationship would be a big red flag. You can't simply assume that such evidence brought to the interview will be accepted or considered. Considered in this light, the advice of some posters in this thread to "submit now and bring the relationship evidence to the interview" is rather cavalier.

Edited September 25, 2009 by Stephen + Elisha

[TBoneTX 45,329]

You can't simply assume that such evidence brought to the interview will be accepted or considered.

SI, MAN.

Considered in this light, the advice of some posters in this thread to "submit now and bring the relationship evidence to the interview" is rather cavalier.

Si, man.

[baron555 934]

My petition was approved after only one visit. I think you can go ahead and send your petition. It should be fine.

Good for this poster, but the advice may be perilous... and how can anyone say "it should be fine" with knowledge or authority? Do people really take the consular phase of the process so lightly -- or, worse, ignore or dismiss it completely?

Everyone here is focusing on what USCIS requires -- which the original poster can obviously meet -- yet the long-range view should include the possible reaction of the embassy. Multiple visits are always a PLUS in the eyes of consular officers -- and there is a world of difference between multiple visits versus just one visit in terms of strength of evidence.

As stated, a little considered restraint now can avert months of delay later. OP, hold off until you can front-load the I-129F petition with extra evidence of relationship from your upcoming trip. (You probably realize the sense in this already, or you wouldn't have posed your question in the first place, si man? )

A lot of the people who have posted "go ahead and file, you've met the USCIS requirements" are people who dealt with consulates (London, Kiev, etc.) that do not look at every family-based visa application with an a priori assumption of "sham relationship entered into for immigration benefit." But many of the consulates in high-fraud countries (GUZ, HCMC, most Latin American consulates, and MNL and BKK to a lesser extent) do seem to approach these applications with exactly this presumption. When dealing with these consulates, I think it's best to follow the advice of Marc Ellis, Esq. and front-load the initial I-129F submission to USCIS to preemptively address any possible red flags—and lack of evidence of a bona fide relationship would be a big red flag. You can't simply assume that such evidence brought to the interview will be accepted or considered. Considered in this light, the advice of some posters in this thread to "submit now and bring the relationship evidence to the interview" is rather cavalier.

You know if there is this much big disparity between consulates then I'd advise you to advise the mods (I think you are one.) to suggest that this language be put into the Guides, since all of the cavalier advice is right out of the Guides here on VJ. Knowing this "little trick" up front will help folks in these certain consulates how to conduct their life prior to filing. Just a suggestion so VJ is helpful to all.

[Stephen + Elisha 92]

You know if there is this much big disparity between consulates then I'd advise you to advise the mods (I think you are one.) to suggest that this language be put into the Guides, since all of the cavalier advice is right out of the Guides here on VJ. Knowing this "little trick" up front will help folks in these certain consulates how to conduct their life prior to filing. Just a suggestion so VJ is helpful to all.

Guides are just that—guides. They do not and cannot address every situation or every consulate. There are entire websites dedicated to family-based visas from certain high-fraud or otherwise difficult countries. Moreover, the VJ reviews for certain consulates are chock full of horror stories from people who "followed the guides" and got dumped into a 221(g) process or were denied outright.

Bottom line: people need to do their homework before filing. And other people should try to refrain from assuming that their individual experience is universally valid and represents fail-safe, one-size-fits-all advice.

[TBoneTX 45,329]

Bottom line: people need to do their homework before filing. And other people should try to refrain from assuming that their individual experience is universally valid and represents fail-safe, one-size-fits-all advice.

True, si man. I have just floated baron555's suggestion to Captain Ewok for feedback.

[baron555 934]

You know if there is this much big disparity between consulates then I'd advise you to advise the mods (I think you are one.) to suggest that this language be put into the Guides, since all of the cavalier advice is right out of the Guides here on VJ. Knowing this "little trick" up front will help folks in these certain consulates how to conduct their life prior to filing. Just a suggestion so VJ is helpful to all.

Guides are just that—guides. They do not and cannot address every situation or every consulate. There are entire websites dedicated to family-based visas from certain high-fraud or otherwise difficult countries. Moreover, the VJ reviews for certain consulates are chock full of horror stories from people who "followed the guides" and got dumped into a 221(g) process or were denied outright.

Bottom line: people need to do their homework before filing. And other people should try to refrain from assuming that their individual experience is universally valid and represents fail-safe, one-size-fits-all advice.

But then again, if the posting is in the general K-1 forum, how are we other posters to know all these details?

We can't and all the advice given is solid advice, except for some consulates.

Maybe the mods should move these to the region specific forum, away from us others, who do not have the knowledge.

Like you said, everyone has to do their homework.

Maybe on the Guides there can be some language directing folks to also check out the regional forums since the Guide guides are for the non-troublesome consulates?

[Stephen + Elisha 92]

You know if there is this much big disparity between consulates then I'd advise you to advise the mods (I think you are one.) to suggest that this language be put into the Guides, since all of the cavalier advice is right out of the Guides here on VJ. Knowing this "little trick" up front will help folks in these certain consulates how to conduct their life prior to filing. Just a suggestion so VJ is helpful to all.

Guides are just that—guides. They do not and cannot address every situation or every consulate. There are entire websites dedicated to family-based visas from certain high-fraud or otherwise difficult countries. Moreover, the VJ reviews for certain consulates are chock full of horror stories from people who "followed the guides" and got dumped into a 221(g) process or were denied outright.

Bottom line: people need to do their homework before filing. And other people should try to refrain from assuming that their individual experience is universally valid and represents fail-safe, one-size-fits-all advice.

But then again, if the posting is in the general K-1 forum, how are we other posters to know all these details?

We can't and all the advice given is solid advice, except for some consulates.

Maybe the mods should move these to the region specific forum, away from us others, who do not have the knowledge.

Like you said, everyone has to do their homework.

Maybe on the Guides there can be some language directing folks to also check out the regional forums since the Guide guides are for the non-troublesome consulates?

I think it would be a great idea to include a statement in the guides advising people to look into the consulate that will be handling their interview prior to filing their I-129F.

[D&R 0]

Hi, I finished the fiance K1 petition, and my fiance is from Argentina. I already met her once and am able to prove it.

I plan to meet her a second time in 4 weeks. I am wondering if I can show them more evidence of our relationship, the evidence from our second visit AFTER I send in the petition (so I can it in the UCIS building earlier, rather than later)?

Thanks!

No need to wait. 2 photos is enough to prove you've met in the last two years. I take it you have other evidence too? You only have to have met ONCE in the last 2 years. Having met twice won't make any difference... you already met the requirements. Just make sure you get loads more photos and evidence on this next visit to prove ongoing relationship further down the line

[Stephen + Elisha 92]

Hi, I finished the fiance K1 petition, and my fiance is from Argentina. I already met her once and am able to prove it.

I plan to meet her a second time in 4 weeks. I am wondering if I can show them more evidence of our relationship, the evidence from our second visit AFTER I send in the petition (so I can it in the UCIS building earlier, rather than later)?

Thanks!

No need to wait. 2 photos is enough to prove you've met in the last two years. I take it you have other evidence too? You only have to have met ONCE in the last 2 years. Having met twice won't make any difference... you already met the requirements. Just make sure you get loads more photos and evidence on this next visit to prove ongoing relationship further down the line

Did you bother to read anything else in the thread, or did you just decide to chime in based on your experience—which involved the London consulate, which is worlds away from Latin America in distance and consular attitudes.

Once again: yes, one meeting is enough—for the USCIS, the first arbiter that must be satisfied in the K-1 process. It may not be enough for the consulate, and they may not be willing to look at additional relationship evidence brought to the interview. For a consulate in a high-fraud country, a fiancee petition based on a single meeting may well constitute a huge red flag—and noted immigration attorneys advise addressing red flags in the initial petition to USCIS.

The OP is going to see his fiancee again very soon. Given that, a few extra weeks before filing the I-129F to get that second meeting into the initial package is a sound investment. It has the potential to preempt the heartbreak of a brutal interview capped off by a 221(g) process or an outright refusal.

[TBoneTX 45,329]

Did you bother to read anything else in the thread, or did you just decide to chime in based on your experience—which involved the London consulate, which is worlds away from Latin America in distance and consular attitudes.

Bingo #1, si man. Nothing is more irritating than someone who is too (pick your favorite negative adjective) to read a thread to see if his thought has already been offered by others.

...a few extra weeks before filing the I-129F to get that second meeting into the initial package is a sound investment. It has the potential to preempt the heartbreak of a brutal interview capped off by a 221(g) process or an outright refusal.

Bingo #2, si man.

It should also be reiterated that even consulates that are now considered "easy" can undergo changes in personnel. Without notice, the Department of State can transfer new COs -- or, worse, new Section Chiefs -- into the Immigrant Visa units, and attitudes and policies can change 180 degrees without warning. Rather than risk going into an interview with evidence that may not be accepted by the CO (who can then, with complete impunity, throw the interviewee out with the claim of "not enough relationship evidence"), stack the deck in your favor ahead of time, by front-loading the I-129F package. In this way, the CO can never claim that such evidence was not submitted -- because you and he and USCIS know that USCIS has seen it! This advice makes so much sense that I can't believe that anyone would recommend anything less.

The consular interview is an integral part of the process that we must all go through. To view the process solely from the standpoint of "what satisfies USCIS in the beginning of the process" is short-sighted -- and, some people will be lucky if they guess wrong and are able to get out of the bedpan situation that they landed themselves in.