Ready to file I-129F

[cedwards001 18]

4 copies of G325A from each person, sign each of the 8 pages.

Put the entire date of when she lived at address, from 1988 to present. Also put into question below that one concerning address outside the USA of more than 1 year.

If she lists her employment already, then she doesn't have to list it again because it clearly states only if not shown above.

Because of the number of trips and to different countries, recommend adding a line on each photo stating "Meeting #1, Meeting #2..." in addition to date and place. This will help clarify which photo is the initial meeting and which are followup meetings. Provide engagement photos with I-129F.

Would not submit notarized copy of letter stating no relatives in the USA because it would unnecessarily stick out. Wouldn't even provide one if she had relatives unless requested.

Can't hurt by submitting original photos. It's time-tested and has been done for many years. While having a variety of photos is good, make sure you can easily describe on the back of the photos where both of you are when submitting photos with other people present.

Are you sure I should list her address from 1988 to present? On the form it says "Applicant's residence last five years"

Carl

[Haonie 0]

Are you sure I should list her address from 1988 to present? On the form it says "Applicant's residence last five years"

Carl

It is not going to hurt you, put the dated she was born 'til' present... I did exactly with my fiancee. About the pictures, I was only frontloaded 8 pictures. BUT I recommend you frontload the picutures as much as you can, liked other members said, make 2 copies, 1 keep for yourself/fiancee, other send to USCIS.

[vietazn 1]

Are you sure I should list her address from 1988 to present? On the form it says "Applicant's residence last five years"

Carl

That is how you would answer the question. It's like a question and sub-question. First list all her residences of last 5 years, and then answer the sub-question of the time period when she lived at that residence. Since she was born there, then there should be only one address for that question, and the same for the next question on the form, and the time period should span her entire life.

[ScottThuy 140]

That is how you would answer the question. It's like a question and sub-question. First list all her residences of last 5 years, and then answer the sub-question of the time period when she lived at that residence. Since she was born there, then there should be only one address for that question, and the same for the next question on the form, and the time period should span her entire life.

We answered the same for Thuy.. same address for life.. frontloading evidence can get it in the case when the CO may not accept it at the interview as has happened many times... frontload...

[WeatherEmperor 21]

We answered the same for Thuy.. same address for life.. frontloading evidence can get it in the case when the CO may not accept it at the interview as has happened many times... frontload...

I was wondering what I should do with Thu since she has lived with her parents since birth but now I will do the same thing. Put the address she has lived in her entire life on the form. Scott is giving good advise. Be honest with yourself and list your red flags. Then address them thoroughly in your I-129F. Carl, I am also preparing my I-129F. I will file it in August though. Best of luck!

<CARRICK>

[luckytxn 2,264]

List the address she has lived at her entire life as I did for my wife.

I think the minimal needed should be sent as possible. Let them work to find reasons to deny. Listing red flags and/or acknowledging you have red flags shows them that you know you are in trouble. So why front load more than needed?

[BurningFinger 5]

List the address she has lived at her entire life as I did for my wife.

I think the minimal needed should be sent as possible. Let them work to find reasons to deny. Listing red flags and/or acknowledging you have red flags shows them that you know you are in trouble. So why front load more than needed?

Personally, I do not think it would serve the OP to submit just the minimums. The HCMC Consulate holds applicants to much higher standards then the average Consulate/Embassy does because of the patterns of fraud that they see coming through their offices on a daily basis. This is even more true for applicants that have red flags that fall into specific pattern categories that the Consulate sees going on. Filing with the bare minimums puts the ball in the CO's court, which is exactly what you are trying to avoid in the first place. Letting them work to try to find reasons to deny the visa is dangerous. You absolutely do NOT want to get in a situation where you are playing games with the Consulate. Remember, the CO's are trained professionals who adjudicate visa applications for a living. They do this every single day and they know how to detect fraud. It is not a good idea to mess around with a very difficult Consulate in this way. Granted there are members on this forum that have gotten approved with just the bare minimums, but what percentage of those had red flags consistent with the fraud patterns that the HCMC Consulate sees? How many divorced applicants were granted visas with submitting the bare minimums? How many beneficiaries that have Vietnamese family members living in the US were granted visas with submitting the bare minimums? These are serious questions that need to be answered seriously.

Listing and addressing your red flags with the petition realistically has 2 effects. It can make the CO more suspicious, or it can remove the CO's suspicions. I believe the dangers of front-loading to address your red flags are that if you do not front-load hard enough evidence to overcome the CO's suspicions, this same front loaded material could be used against you by the CO. On the other hand, if the front-loaded material was enough to overcome the CO's suspicions, then they have nothing left to deny you with. They must issue the visa. Based upon what I have seen from other members that were recently approved within the last 2-3 months, I believe the reasons to front-load your petition outweigh the reasons not to front-load. Not front-loading at all leaves you completely wide open to any attack the CO wishes to unleash on you. We have seen time and time again from members posting on VJ how their fiances/spouses were denied visas because their divorces or meeting between family members were not addressed correctly. We have seen time and time again that the CO's decision is made BEFORE the interview takes place. This leaves the CO with only the documentation from the petition to make a decision. If this is truly the case, then it would be in everybody's best interest to make sure the USCIS knows EVERYTHING that the CO will know.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Don't agree. I sent the minimum required and I got a red. This is not playing a game at all but turning in a visa for a fiancee and sending what they ask for. For the interview we then had a ####### load of ongoing relationship proof. People here had me convinced I was going to get a denied and all and panicked me unnecessarily. As for me I would never even have the mindset that this is a game and if others do then maybe we see why so many blues.

Sending the minimum on a front load to show what they are wanting is all that is needed. I knew though that I was legit and had nothing to worry about.

[vietazn 1]

People with few negatives should consider not frontloading.

People should also carefully consider whether to send in a timeline from the beginning because it might provide too much information for denial. Those in support of frontloading never say how the information can be used to give the CO reasons to deny, basing frontloading on theory and not real world common sense. The COs know how far the gray areas extend.

[BurningFinger 5]

Applicants with few to no red flags do not have to front-load. Why? Because front-loading is done to address red flags. That is the primary purpose behind front-loading. For example, there is a member in the Vietnam sub-forum who met his fiance on the internet and got engaged 30 days later in Vietnam. He and his fiance applied for the K1 visa and it was approved. Why? Because they did not have any of the red flags consistent with visa fraud: Neither of them had ever been married before, neither had any children, both were college educated and earned a healthy income, the beneficiary had no relatives living in the US, and they were not introduced to each other by any family members. Point is, they had NO red flags. Therefore, they submitted the bare minimums and got their visa approved. We have seen so many times where visa applicants tried to submit evidence at the interview but the CO refused to look at it which is solid proof that the decision to approve or deny could made before the interview. I cannot say that this happens 100% of the time, but it does happen.That is, the CO made the decision from what was submitted in the petition, thats all. Your case may have been approved with the bare minimums, but you have to understand that each case is different. Red flags that apply to somebody else may not have applied to you. Do you honestly believe that when the beneficiary tries to submit evidence of a divorce for example at the interview to the CO, that the CO is going to welcome it with open arms? Recent denials or AP from members on this same forum suggests otherwise. To me it is about the risk. Why risk having the CO deny you for evidence that you already HAVE with you at the interview? We know for a fact that CO's are doing this so why take the chance? It makes absolutely no sense.

Front-loading, when done, should be done properly. You cannot just throw documents into your petition and expect the CO to approve the visa. It needs to be carefully organized and it needs to prove a point. Jim (JimVaVuong) is an excellent example of how to accurately front-load a petition. He properly and convincingly addressed his red flags with statements/documentation and his fiance got the pink slip. Know this: The petition stage is your BEST opportunity to show the CO who you are and what your relationship is all about. Don't expect them to sit in their chairs and let you explain and try to prove yourself at the interview. If they feel like it, they will reject evidence you bring to the interview. Why? Because they can. When you front-load, don't try to prove you are innocent of guilt. Instead try to prove that your relationship is real. Find me anybody on VJ or elsewhere that was divorced, had kids and the fiance had family members living in the US and got approved with just the bare minimums.

Edited March 10, 2010 by BurningFinger

[cedwards001 18]

I am very new at all this but I am gonna take a shot at it:

I don't think front-loading creates a problem for the petition. I think the WAY the petition is front-loaded can create unnecessary problems. Take my case for example. I have made a total of 3 trips (so far) to visit my fiance. 2 trips were in Japan and the other was in Vietnam. I will take another trip to Vietnam in April this year which will make the grand total 4 trips. After this trip, I will file my petition. The I-129F requires you to submit proof of meeting in the last 2 years before filing the petition. Let me give 2 examples of how I could "front-load". One correct way and another incorrect way. These examples are just my opinion on my own case:

CORRECT: Submit proof (tickets, boarding passes, passport stamps, hotel receipts, restaurant receipts, pictures, etc.) from ALL 4 trips. I will put all 4 trips under the "meeting in the last 2 years" category.

WRONG: Submit proof of my 1st trip to satisfy the meeting in the last 2 years requirement. Create a special section in my petition entitled "Proof of Ongoing Relationship" or "Proof of Bonafide Relationship" or "Proof of Extra Trips" or whatever title you want to use, and put proof of the remaining 3 trips in this special section.

The WRONG portion shows you how the petition can potentially run into trouble at the Consulate stage: If you try to submit things with the petition that are not required, it could potentially be a problem with the CO. It may or may not, but you run the risk of getting the CO suspicious. If you do wish to front-load, try to do it as close to the requirements that are for your petition whether it be the I-129F or the I-130. For example, if you wish to front-load a I-129F and you took a total of 5 trips to meet your fiance, put proof of all 5 trips under the meeting in the last 2 years section (unless some of those trips happened outside the 2 year requirement). I assume there will be subsequent trips after the petition has been filed and proof of those can be taken to the interview for proof of bonafide relationship that the CO can review.....if the CO wishes to do so. The I-129F instructions do not specify an exact amount of trips necessary to satisfy the meeting in 2 years requirement. Therefore, in my opinion, you should put as many as you can. In my opinion it makes no sense to only put proof of 1 trip to satisfy the 2 year meeting requirement and then leave proof of all the remaining trips for the interview. Why risk having the CO reject evidence at the interview while it can easily and comfortably be included in the correct section with the I-129F? This is especially true if you know for a fact that you will have more trips after you filed the petition.

Another opportunity to front-load the correct way, in my opinion, is Question 18 on the I-129F which asks you to describe the circumstances under which you met. This is where you would describe in detail and in a convincing manner, how you met. Explain how your relationship was established and how it evolved. The redder your red flag is, the more detailed and convincing this statement should be. If, for example, the petitioner/beneficiary had a divorce, you can specify in detail how the marriage terminated and what caused you to look for and find love with your new fiance. What you should NOT do is create a special section in your petition called "Divorce Details" or whatever, and put all kinds of documents in their to show your divorce. Once again, that would put things in the petition that are not required. My line of thinking will not work for every single visa case, but I feel that it is good enough for MY case. If you decide to front-load, make sure you do it correctly or it will hurt you. Thanks guys,

Carl

Edited March 11, 2010 by cedwards001

[BinhJerome 14]

As with lucky, I feel that front loading is not the golden key that will get the visa approved. Jim would strongly disagree with me. Regardless of what I believe or you believe it is up to the applicant to make the ultimate choice, but to bicker back and forth truly detracts from the original post. I do know of many people that front load only to get put into AP and the CO requests the things that were front loaded, so there is not any proof that it truly works, however when a case gets denied more often than not those that did frontload lots of extra evidences tend to get reaffirmed. This might be the only truly significant advantage of frontloading besides piece of mind. Jerome

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

As with lucky, I feel that front loading is not the golden key that will get the visa approved. Jim would strongly disagree with me. Regardless of what I believe or you believe it is up to the applicant to make the ultimate choice, but to bicker back and forth truly detracts from the original post. I do know of many people that front load only to get put into AP and the CO requests the things that were front loaded, so there is not any proof that it truly works, however when a case gets denied more often than not those that did frontload lots of extra evidences tend to get reaffirmed. This might be the only truly significant advantage of frontloading besides piece of mind. Jerome

No, Jerome, I don't disagree with you at all. I don't believe front loading is any sort of "golden key". Luckytxn submitted the minimum required docs and evidence, and his fiancee was approved. I frontloaded the hell out of my petition, and my fiancee was approved. Would he have been denied if he had heavily frontloaded his petition? Would I have been denied if I had not? We'll probably never know the answer to this.

You already know that I believe frontloading was the primary reason we were approved, so I won't rehash that. I'll only say that I think frontloading is a tool that, if used correctly, can help you get the job done. This also implies that you can use frontloading incorrectly, and potentially even make things worse. However, I don't subscribe to the theory that no frontloading is a good option when you have red flags to address. The potential benefits, I believe, outweigh the risk of doing it wrong, since those red flags are going to exist whether you address them or not. Even if you don't have significant red flags, frontloading can be used to help prove a sincere relationship when the other evidence might not make this obvious.

I also think that when people frontload their petitions and still get denied, it's either because they didn't frontload the evidence that was needed to overcome their red flags, or the problems with their case were too big to be overcome with frontloaded evidence.

[luckytxn 2,264]

So when I see ones here saying to front load without the ones saying it knowing each and every circumstance is good advice? That is actually a bad idea. Of course what do I know as I got a pink and had quite a few red flags and a couple of them that should have gotten me denied. The only way they would have known was if I told them about them.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

So when I see ones here saying to front load without the ones saying it knowing each and every circumstance is good advice? That is actually a bad idea. Of course what do I know as I got a pink and had quite a few red flags and a couple of them that should have gotten me denied. The only way they would have known was if I told them about them.

If someone has red flags to address, I would personally advise them to frontload even without knowing much about their particular circumstances. I think that doing it right is far more important than why you're doing it, and I think that advising someone not to do it at all because there's a chance they'll screw it up and do it wrong is bad advise. Like I said, those red flags exist, whether you address them or not.

According to your account, your case was a time bomb. One question from the CO may have been all that was required to reveal one of those red flags. At that point, the interview could have deteriorated rapidly. I've read lots of cases on VJ where that is exactly what happened. Could the same thing have happened at your wife's interview if she was asked a question about one of those red flags? Would frontloading evidence to explain those red flags have been sufficient to prevent this? Well, since neither of these happened we'll never know the answer to these questions. However, we can look at the arguments for and against and see which makes the most sense.

The arguments in favor of frontloading include that explaining the red flags sufficiently in advance will make those red flags less suspicious. There's also DOS's own policy that a visa can't be denied for a reason which was known to USCIS at the time the petition was approved. Presuming the CO follows their own policy, frontloading can take away ammunition needed to deny the visa.

The arguments against frontloading include that a red flag won't be known to the CO if they aren't told about them, and that it's possible that frontloading may only serve to tell the CO about the red flags without actually addressing them, or even to explain the red flags in way that makes them even more suspicious. If you're presuming that the CO won't know about the red flags unless you tell them, then you're also presuming that you're going to get lucky at the interview and the CO won't ask questions that reveal them. Like I said, those red flags exist whether you address them or not. If you're presuming that the frontloaded evidence may do more harm than good, then my position would be that it's being done wrong, sort of like admitting to the murder without explaining why it was self defense. So basically, the arguments against frontloading are "If you're lucky, you won't need to.", and "If you're incompetent, you'll only make things worse."