Where is requirement for proof of relationship?

[pushbrk 12,569]

I want to thank everyone for their input on this subject.

The reason I think this is important is that since a notarized document (using a US notary) is so “conclusive”, I think it is possible that the USCIS would confirm that this is all that is necessary to prove that the petitioner and fiancée were together in the last two years. (That is all they are asking for during the petition phase).

IF that were the case … and … IF the foreign fiancée can confirm that their US embassy would only focus on the evidence presented to them during the interview phase … then in the future people can have many additional months to worry about collecting the “relationship” evidence.

I don’t see why the notarized document is “overkill”. It is extremely easy and inexpensive to get a document notarized. It actually takes less time and it is less expensive to have a notary witness two signatures than taking photos to a copy center and having copies made. I realize that photos and passport stamps will be important during the interview phase but that takes place many months after the petition is submitted.

As JimVaPhuong suggested I will see if I can contact Gary about approaching his USCIS contact about this issue. Maybe we can make the process easier for some folks in the future.

Evidently, we're not getting through to you. USCIS doesn't suggest using a notarized document because it isn't practical for most people. For example, there is no US Notary within a 14 hour train ride from my wife's hometown. They consider boarding passes, passport stamps and in-country receipts to be primary evidence of meeting. People who have met in person have at least one of those in nearly all cases. Often they don't get engaged and start thinking about I-129F requirements until the US Citizen is back in the USA. People can only provide evidence they actually have.

Relationship evidence is an entirely different matter. The way in which passport stamps and boarding passes serve as both kinds of evidence is to the extent they indicate the duration and/or frequency of visits. Alone, they don't say much about the relationship though, so other evidence and the interview itself are far more important.

In short, it is neither "our" or the USCIS's first rodeo. If you want to bring along a new fangled bull rope to use in addition to the usual boots, spurs, gloves and chaps, nobody is going to mind. On the other hand, if all you have is a rope, don't be surprised if you bare feet fail to grip, and you bare hands get burned and your jeans get ripped.

[SunDrop 59]

Since no one has actually asked you the question, why are you fighting so hard to NOT submit any evidence of relationship with your I-129F?

Yes, they don't need it for the initial decision making, but how well have you researched the US Embassy in S.A.'s attitude towards evidence introduced at interview, especially when not one drop of it was presented with the initial filing?

Gary's now wife interviewed in Kiev. It's notoriously easy to get through Kiev, by his own admission. Ask anyone interviewing in Casablanca and they'd laugh you out of town for not submitting any evidence of relationship.

[brightskte 18]

Since no one has actually asked you the question, why are you fighting so hard to NOT submit any evidence of relationship with your I-129F?

Yes, they don't need it for the initial decision making, but how well have you researched the US Embassy in S.A.'s attitude towards evidence introduced at interview, especially when not one drop of it was presented with the initial filing?

Gary's now wife interviewed in Kiev. It's notoriously easy to get through Kiev, by his own admission. Ask anyone interviewing in Casablanca and they'd laugh you out of town for not submitting any evidence of relationship.

This is what I've been wondering all along.

Why fight it? Why not just go with what has worked for everyone else? It's NOT hard to send a few pictures, some plane tickets, etc. Everyone else seems to do it, even if it's a minimum.

Is your fiance not important enough to you to want to do things the right way??? This may not be in the instructions, but if it's worked for everyone so far then I would consider that "the right way".

[TJM 0]

Evidently, we're not getting through to you. USCIS doesn't suggest using a notarized document because it isn't practical for most people. For example, there is no US Notary within a 14 hour train ride from my wife's hometown. They consider boarding passes, passport stamps and in-country receipts to be primary evidence of meeting. People who have met in person have at least one of those in nearly all cases. Often they don't get engaged and start thinking about I-129F requirements until the US Citizen is back in the USA. People can only provide evidence they actually have.

Relationship evidence is an entirely different matter. The way in which passport stamps and boarding passes serve as both kinds of evidence is to the extent they indicate the duration and/or frequency of visits. Alone, they don't say much about the relationship though, so other evidence and the interview itself are far more important.

In short, it is neither "our" or the USCIS's first rodeo. If you want to bring along a new fangled bull rope to use in addition to the usual boots, spurs, gloves and chaps, nobody is going to mind. On the other hand, if all you have is a rope, don't be surprised if you bare feet fail to grip, and you bare hands get burned and your jeans get ripped.

You seem to be resistant to new ideas ... why? For any foreign fiancee who visits the US to be with the petitioner there are notaries all over the place ... like every bank. For instance in the US there are more notaries than copy centers. For any foreign fiancee who lives near a US embassy or consulate they can certainly have easy access to a US notary. In South Africa for instance there are three notaries at the consulate locations in the three major cities which serve probably 80% of the population.

Keep in mind that someone other then the USCIS had to bring a newfangled bull rope to the first rodeo because the USCIS did not define that a passport stamp or photos or emails were evidence of meeting. I also have only been addressing the petitioner phase of the K1 process. I fully understand (and have stated so) that all of the other bull ropes are needed for the interview phase. If you don't have access to a notary then this is obviously not a good idea for you but it may help many future petitioners.

[TJM 0]

Since no one has actually asked you the question, why are you fighting so hard to NOT submit any evidence of relationship with your I-129F?

Yes, they don't need it for the initial decision making, but how well have you researched the US Embassy in S.A.'s attitude towards evidence introduced at interview, especially when not one drop of it was presented with the initial filing?

Gary's now wife interviewed in Kiev. It's notoriously easy to get through Kiev, by his own admission. Ask anyone interviewing in Casablanca and they'd laugh you out of town for not submitting any evidence of relationship.

As I stated in my initial post and repeated twice ... I AM submitting photos, passport stamps, boarding passes, etc. along with the notarized documents. My stated intention was to try to determine if the USCIS would confirm that a notarized document proving that the petitioner and the foreign fiancee were together was all that was needed for the petition phase then future VJ members could elect to use this simple technique for the petition package and then take an additional many months to collect what they needed for the interview phase.

This has nothing to do with saving me time or trying to hide anything ... I am trying to help others.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

As I stated in my initial post and repeated twice ... I AM submitting photos, passport stamps, boarding passes, etc. along with the notarized documents. My stated intention was to try to determine if the USCIS would confirm that a notarized document proving that the petitioner and the foreign fiancee were together was all that was needed for the petition phase then future VJ members could elect to use this simple technique for the petition package and then take an additional many months to collect what they needed for the interview phase.

This has nothing to do with saving me time or trying to hide anything ... I am trying to help others.

You may never get a definitive answer on this. As I suggested earlier, post in Gary's pinned topic about his chat with the VSC director and see if you can get him to direct that question to the director. I'm guessing the director is going to say "It's up to the adjudicator".

Personally, I would never recommend that anyone attempt to use a notarized letter as their sole evidence of meeting. I'm more inclined to side with pushbrk on this. I think it's solid primary evidence. In fact, I believe it's more compelling than any other more "conventional" primary evidence. But it's still only one piece of evidence. An adjudicator could easily say "This ain't enough", and send an RFE for more evidence. I wouldn't count on them calling the notary to confirm whether the stamp was authentic, just like they don't call foreign immigration officials to verify passport stamps, or airlines to verify passenger manifests. However, if you present them with a good selection of primary and secondary evidence, I think the notarized letter would give substantial weight to the overall evidence, the so-called "final nail".

[pushbrk 12,569]

As I stated in my initial post and repeated twice ... I AM submitting photos, passport stamps, boarding passes, etc. along with the notarized documents. My stated intention was to try to determine if the USCIS would confirm that a notarized document proving that the petitioner and the foreign fiancee were together was all that was needed for the petition phase then future VJ members could elect to use this simple technique for the petition package and then take an additional many months to collect what they needed for the interview phase.

This has nothing to do with saving me time or trying to hide anything ... I am trying to help others.

It's one possibility. It's not a new idea. For most petitioners, it isn't an option because, as I said before, most don't know about the need for such evidence until after the US Citizen is back in the USA or the foreigner has returned home. Most folks can copy their passport stamps at home or at work, so no inconvenience at all.

People who become informed before meeting, keep their boarding passes and receipts then copy them at home or at work.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

This is a follow up to my question about using notarized documents to prove we have met and intend to get married.

I am submitting the 129f petition this week and I am intrigued about the various suggestions people make regarding the evidence that is required to prove we met and intend to get married. I will submit photos and passport stamps as suggested but it seems to me that the use of notarized documents is indisputable proof that cannot be contested.

Photos can easily be doctored with today's technology.

Airline tickets and passport stamps only show that the parties were probably in the same country at the same time ... they do not prove conclusively that the two people were together.

I can easily create emails with whatever dates I want to show. None of these are absolute proof that we were together.

In my opinion there is nothing easier and less expensive than using notarized documents. It costs less than $10 to have a document notarized. In our case we are submitting a Letter stating our intent to get married that contains both of our signatures that has been notarized. This proves conclusively that we were together in front of the notary. The notary is an authorized representative of the government and the notary cannot stamp the document unless they have been presented with the necessary information (passport, photo ID, etc) that proves the people who are signing the document are who they claim to be. The notary also records the information in a logbook so that one simple call to the notary can be made by anyone who needs confirmation that we met by talking to the notary.

We also are submitting a notarized letter from the person who will be performing our marriage ceremony stating that we met TOGETHER with him and that he is planning to perform the marriage ceremony. The letter is on his stationary (in our case this is a mayor of my town).

Those two documents would seem to me to prove exactly what is asked for. I cannot find anything in an official document that states they need to understand the nature of the relationship.

I am intrigued about this issue and I am wondering if there is any way to get an "official" opinion from the USICS about the use of notarized documents. IF these prove conclusively that we met it is a lot easier than printing emails and taking photos, etc that can still be challenged as to their validity.

A notary notarizes a signature, they can do this whether anyone is present or not. My secretary notarizes my signature several times a week thoug I see her maybe one time a month.

You have passport stamps and photos. There is no penalty for sending additional, unneeded information. Send in your notarized letters if you want. But the person at CSC or VSC had no way of knowing if the letter or stamp is legit. They trust a government passport stamp, they do not trust a letter someone wrote at your request and notarized at your request. As I mentioned in my PM, if the notary keeps a log (some states require this) and your fiancee and this other person signed a log...then send a copy of the log page. that is much more evidence than a self generated letter and notary.

In the USA notaries are not official anything, they are only witnessing signatures either proven by ID or "known to them". I promise you, if I brought this letter to my secretary, she would notarize it on my word. to do so.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

You may never get a definitive answer on this. As I suggested earlier, post in Gary's pinned topic about his chat with the VSC director and see if you can get him to direct that question to the director. I'm guessing the director is going to say "It's up to the adjudicator".

Personally, I would never recommend that anyone attempt to use a notarized letter as their sole evidence of meeting. I'm more inclined to side with pushbrk on this. I think it's solid primary evidence. In fact, I believe it's more compelling than any other more "conventional" primary evidence. But it's still only one piece of evidence. An adjudicator could easily say "This ain't enough", and send an RFE for more evidence. I wouldn't count on them calling the notary to confirm whether the stamp was authentic, just like they don't call foreign immigration officials to verify passport stamps, or airlines to verify passenger manifests. However, if you present them with a good selection of primary and secondary evidence, I think the notarized letter would give substantial weight to the overall evidence, the so-called "final nail".

Unofficially, officially...

Don't try it. At least not as the only means of proof. Simply not enough for them to rely on. They like uninfluenced third party evidence. You may be able to get a notary to do what you want, or even borrow their stamp when they aren't looking, but you will have a much more difficult time to get hold of a proper passport stamp.

They will not call anyone to verify anything...except the FBI to do background checks. It is your duty to prove you meet the criteria, not theirs. On this he is pretty adamant. No, they do not call people.

that said...he states that these decisions are typically made only by the adjudicator and if the adjudicator signs off on it without asking the supervisor...

As an aside, his wife is Russian and an adjudicator. Sometimes people bring her Russian language documents that have not been sent with a translation and she approves it and no RFE is sent. Other times the adjudicator is too lazy to get off their fat @ss and walk through the cube farm over to her cube to let her look at it and they just toss it in the RFE pile. I would be giving bad advice to say "If you use VSC don't worry about translating Russian documents"

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Since no one has actually asked you the question, why are you fighting so hard to NOT submit any evidence of relationship with your I-129F?

Yes, they don't need it for the initial decision making, but how well have you researched the US Embassy in S.A.'s attitude towards evidence introduced at interview, especially when not one drop of it was presented with the initial filing?

Gary's now wife interviewed in Kiev. It's notoriously easy to get through Kiev, by his own admission. Ask anyone interviewing in Casablanca and they'd laugh you out of town for not submitting any evidence of relationship.

True enough, though I will clarify that Kiev cuts no one any slack, on the other hand, they do not make up their own rules (as best I can tell) and it takes some really suspicious things to get them suspicious. But you better have your documents in order. I do not know about the consulate the OP is using. I am simply not wanting anyone to get the impression that Kiev is in some way sloppy or doesn't follow the rules, they certainly do. They just do not make up their own rules (so far) and there are not many (if any) social taboos in the former Soviet Union as there are in other cultures.

Up front realtionship evidence is NOT NEEDED for the PETITION. It has no affect on approving the PETITION and is sorted as "extra stuff" and passed on to the consulate. At difficult consulates, anything that is already "behind the glass" when you get there COULD end up being to your benefit. So if you have it and are dealing with a difficult consulate...why not? Your notarized letters would probably have more weight as "proof of realtionship" which is much more nebulous and flexible as to requirements.

If I didn't know, I would tend to be cautious and send more than needed. No harm, no foul. I read your question as...can we present it later? The answer to that question is YES. If you are asking for What is best, now or later?" The answer is BOTH.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I don't agree that a notarized document can be faked. The contents of the document is not the point ... it doesn't matter what the document says. The point is that the document is signed by the petitioner and his fiancee and in order for a notary to acknowledge the document they must see proof of who the persons are ... including a photo ID. In the case of a foreign fiancee the requirement is that they show their countries identity document and/or passport ... both which contain the necessary photo ID.

If two people signed the document in front of a notary (that is the requirement ... the documents cannot be signed before presented to the notary) then they obviously have met. The document could be a blank piece of paper.

The document is then stamped and logged in so that the notary can be contacted to confirm the information. Any important financial document ... for instance ... must be notarized. It is the accepted standard way to prove the validity of the people involved in the transaction.

Notarized documents can be easily faked. I can have you a fake one tomorrow morning, no problem. The NOTARY LOG is another matter actually, and I noted that. (notary logs are not required in all states) The document is easy to fake. The LAW requires the documents be signed in front of the notary OR the signature be known to the notary (varies by state) but that does not mean anything. Any notary can notarize anything they want to. Is it illegal? YES. And what? I promise you I can mail my secretary your document and ask her to sign this for "my friends" and she will. Then mail it back to you wherever you are (in the pre-addressed stamped envelope I send with it) and you can tell everyone you had lunch at the capital in Montpelier.

[TJM 0]

You may never get a definitive answer on this. As I suggested earlier, post in Gary's pinned topic about his chat with the VSC director and see if you can get him to direct that question to the director. I'm guessing the director is going to say "It's up to the adjudicator".

Personally, I would never recommend that anyone attempt to use a notarized letter as their sole evidence of meeting. I'm more inclined to side with pushbrk on this. I think it's solid primary evidence. In fact, I believe it's more compelling than any other more "conventional" primary evidence. But it's still only one piece of evidence. An adjudicator could easily say "This ain't enough", and send an RFE for more evidence. I wouldn't count on them calling the notary to confirm whether the stamp was authentic, just like they don't call foreign immigration officials to verify passport stamps, or airlines to verify passenger manifests. However, if you present them with a good selection of primary and secondary evidence, I think the notarized letter would give substantial weight to the overall evidence, the so-called "final nail".

Jim: I like the way you are thinking about this. It seems to me that the notarized letter along with just a few other things like a passport stamp would be sufficient to prove that the couple were together. The couple would then have many more months to prepare the evidence for the relationship. If I put myself in the place of a adjudicator I would not want to face my supervisor if someone appealed or objected to an RFE triggered by evidence that included a notarized document showing that the couple were together.

I am having fun thinking about this topic ... maybe its because I am snowed in with this blizzard. I think the title of the document I would have notarized would be "Testimony that we appeared together in front of a Notary".

[TJM 0]

Notarized documents can be easily faked. I can have you a fake one tomorrow morning, no problem. The NOTARY LOG is another matter actually, and I noted that. (notary logs are not required in all states) The document is easy to fake. The LAW requires the documents be signed in front of the notary OR the signature be known to the notary (varies by state) but that does not mean anything. Any notary can notarize anything they want to. Is it illegal? YES. And what? I promise you I can mail my secretary your document and ask her to sign this for "my friends" and she will. Then mail it back to you wherever you are (in the pre-addressed stamped envelope I send with it) and you can tell everyone you had lunch at the capital in Montpelier.

Gary ... Does your secretary know that she is breaking the law when she acknowledges signatures for your friends that she does not know? Why would you subject her to that? Notaries have gone to prison for this ... in addition to paying fines and losing their job.

Do you realize that if a friend of yours asked you to arrange for your secretary to sign a deed for him with the wrong date that someone could be losing their house or property because she did not witness the signature on the proper date?

My notary is one of my good friends ... she will not acknowledge even my signature unless I am in front of her.

[pushbrk 12,569]

Jim: I like the way you are thinking about this. It seems to me that the notarized letter along with just a few other things like a passport stamp would be sufficient to prove that the couple were together. The couple would then have many more months to prepare the evidence for the relationship. If I put myself in the place of a adjudicator I would not want to face my supervisor if someone appealed or objected to an RFE triggered by evidence that included a notarized document showing that the couple were together.

I am having fun thinking about this topic ... maybe its because I am snowed in with this blizzard. I think the title of the document I would have notarized would be "Testimony that we appeared together in front of a Notary".

You don't have to rely on what seems to you would be sufficient. You're correct. You're equally correct if you remove "the notarized letter" from the sentence. It really adds no value. A single passport stamp is sufficient primary evidence of meeting in person.

[TJM 0]

You don't have to rely on what seems to you would be sufficient. You're correct. You're equally correct if you remove "the notarized letter" from the sentence. It really adds no value. A single passport stamp is sufficient primary evidence of meeting in person.

I guess my experience is very unique and that is why I see a notarized document as so much more reliable than passport stamps. In our case my fiance traveled to the US all the time on business ... every month for years. She has many passport stamps that she could show from about 1 to 2 years ago that were in fact from a time before we met. The passport stamp proves that she traveled to the US. Now I can see that if I were a adjudicator that I would assume that we met but to me the notarized document is more substantial evidence.

I can also see why 99% of those petitioning would look at a passport stamp as very strong evidence because it is rare for most people to know of anyone who travels that many times in and out of the US. My finacee has a 10 year visa that expires in September. That's how long she has been traveling back and forth.