Ready to file I-129F

[vietazn 1]

Sounds like the evidence of successful frontloading is based on:

if you do frontload and get approved, you correctly addressed red flags

and if you frontlaod and do not get approved, then you must not have addressed red flags.

Too circular to mean much...

[ScottThuy 140]

One huge plus for frontloading IMO is to get evidence in the file that the CO my not accept at the interview and then use as cause for denial. Once it's there they can't deny That it exists. I have been thinking of starting a hindsight topic to discuss things that we wish we had done

[BinhJerome 14]

One huge plus for frontloading IMO is to get evidence in the file that the CO my not accept at the interview and then use as cause for denial. Once it's there they can't deny That it exists. I have been thinking of starting a hindsight topic to discuss things that we wish we had done

The problem with that Scott, is that we do not know what the consulate gets from America. I know in theory they are supposed to get everything that we sent, but do they really? I front loaded about my ex wife and her current residence, yet they still asked for that when we were put into AP. I think the biggest benefit is that if they deny your case and you DID front load that when it gets back to the US they look at and don’t see the real reason for denial then just automatically reaffirm even though the time limit may or may not have expired. And also as you said when you front load it makes their reason for denial much harder, but as in many cases, they still just lie about the denial reasons all together. Jerome

[luckytxn 2,264]

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."

Visa's can be denied for anything that the USCIS knew about beforehand. The USCIS's job is to insure that the petitioner has met the minimum needed to even apply for a visa. The consulate's job is to interview and either give or deny the visa. Two of my possible red flags were brought up but my wife handled the answers well and I am guessing satisfied the interviewer enough that we eventually received the visa. We had gotten to know each other well enough that the interview part about us and our relationship was strong but we knew and went over some possible red flags and discussed this and what to do if it came up. The one red flag that may have come up she couldn't take care of was waiting back home with me to send her to take back with the requested info from a blue slip. It was not brought up and we were ok.

She had the infamous Korean lady interview and she was tough and tried to trip my wife up and get her to break but my wife did well. The two red flags they asked about was expected because it came from the part of the initial petition and the part where we said how we met. The other was the evidence we submitted showed I only made on trip. From the initial also I expected a third and that was we had evidence of knowing each other for about 4 months before I made my only trip and during that trip I proposed and became engaged and had the party. This didn't seem to bother them for some reason. Nor did it seem to bother them that I was introduced by her Aunt in the states who lived nearby.

What bothers me is everyone is told to front load any red flag stuff to everyone here and that may be damaging as they may be doing it wrong and giving their selves grief that is not needed. I could have front loaded more stuff explaining about how and why her Aunt introduced us but kept it low key. I could have sent a letter explaining why I only made one trip but did not. I also could have sent a lot of stuff to explain the 4 month and then going to meet her and becoming engaged at that time but did not. I was on here and from the beginning told everyone what I had done and was very forth right and was told by many that I was dead meat.

Theory or not and that is what it all is. I know about Ellis the attorney and that you hired him and maybe that is why you got a pink and not the front loading. It is all moot as each and everyone of us here are different. I have noticed many here have been getting blue slips and getting AP and they have front loaded heavily as per advice here. Instead of acting like we are all such experts and know slam dunk ways of getting a pink we should just help out and explain how we got the visas and answer questions and not seem like we know it all.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Sounds like the evidence of successful frontloading is based on:

if you do frontload and get approved, you correctly addressed red flags

and if you frontlaod and do not get approved, then you must not have addressed red flags.

Too circular to mean much...

Exactly. Theories are very circular. Trying to out guess the consulate is insane. Just do what most have been doing way before any of us ever came here and send in the petition with the needed proof to make USCIS forward the petition as we satisfied the requirements. Then get as much evidence needed to establish that we have a great ongoing relationship. Prepare as well as possible about getting to know each other very well as we know they are going to ask who knows what questions about what the interviewee knows about the petitioner. It is very important to know what questions the ones that goes before us are being asked. It is important to know what they are trying for. (K1, Cr1, etc.) What evidence they are looking at. These are the things that helps us the most and unfortunately most here does not help out the others and tell us. They are very willing to come here and take that info and use it but are not willing to come in after and do the same favor.

It is very ironic that some who are saying to front load the loudest are the ones that will not do the one main thing we do need here and that is help out and say how the interview went and what the questions were and so on. The will go on and suggest to do something that may hurt people.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Visa's can be denied for anything that the USCIS knew about beforehand. The USCIS's job is to insure that the petitioner has met the minimum needed to even apply for a visa. The consulate's job is to interview and either give or deny the visa.

Actually, if they follow their own policies, they cannot deny a visa for something which was known to USCIS when the petition is approved. This comes from the Department of State's Foreign Affairs Manual.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/87852.pdf

9 FAM 42.43 N2.1 "Reason to Believe"

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.

Consulates do not have the authority to kill a visa case. That authority begins and ends with USCIS. When a consulate refuses to issue a visa, all they can do with the petition is send it back to USCIS with the recommendation that the petition's approval be revoked or denied. In all fairness to the consulates, the FAM doesn't address the possibility that grounds for inadmissibility may have been available to USCIS when the petition was approved, and that USCIS may have overlooked that evidence. Consulates can, and sometimes do, deny visas based on evidence that was included with the petition, and which USCIS should have used as a basis to deny the petition approval. I think it would be unusual for a DOS policy manual to specifically address the possibility of incompetence in DHS handling of the petition, and I think the consulates would be reluctant to accuse USCIS of bungling the petition approval, and would only do so if they are certain that's what happened.

That said, the consulate in HCM sometimes does deny visas citing evidence that was included with the petition. Unless they can add something new to that evidence that fits the requirements of 9 FAM 42.43 N2.1, USCIS will probably reaffirm the petition, and the CO is going to be facing that visa applicant again several months down the road.

What bothers me is everyone is told to front load any red flag stuff to everyone here and that may be damaging as they may be doing it wrong and giving their selves grief that is not needed. I could have front loaded more stuff explaining about how and why her Aunt introduced us but kept it low key. I could have sent a letter explaining why I only made one trip but did not. I also could have sent a lot of stuff to explain the 4 month and then going to meet her and becoming engaged at that time but did not. I was on here and from the beginning told everyone what I had done and was very forth right and was told by many that I was dead meat.

I think you're making the mistake of presuming that your case is typical, and somehow proves that the red flags in your case are not actually red flags at all. I think all it proves is that the red flags were not enough to persuade that particular CO on that particular day that your wife's visa should be denied, based on your specific case. Others have been denied with the CO having cited exactly the same reasons you mentioned. I think it's dangerous to tell people not to address these things in advance, given that they have the opportunity to do so with the petition, and that they should just deal with them at the interview. Your statement sort of presumes that the petitioner is going to screw it up, in spite of having plenty of time to prepare the evidence, but the beneficiary is going to nail it at the interview. You said the Korean lady did try to get your wife to break down or give a contradictory answer. Would she still have tried to do this if the red flags had been addressed thoroughly in the petition?

Theory or not and that is what it all is. I know about Ellis the attorney and that you hired him and maybe that is why you got a pink and not the front loading. It is all moot as each and everyone of us here are different. I have noticed many here have been getting blue slips and getting AP and they have front loaded heavily as per advice here. Instead of acting like we are all such experts and know slam dunk ways of getting a pink we should just help out and explain how we got the visas and answer questions and not seem like we know it all.

I didn't hire Mr. Ellis, though I did ask him for advice. He generally doesn't get involved unless a case runs into problems. I did hire his associate in HCM, Mr. Nam, for interview prep. As it turned out, the hours he spent drilling my wife with questions weren't necessary, since the CO only asked 3 very simple questions, none of which could have led to a reason to deny no matter how my wife answered them. It was abundantly clear that the visa was approved before the interview started.

For those people who frontloaded evidence and were still denied, we don't have the benefit of seeing the evidence they included, nor anything else the CO saw before the interview. If we presume that the CO is following their own policies, then we have to assume that they managed to find new evidence that wasn't included with the petition, which either means the petitioner didn't adequately address it in the evidence, or the beneficiary bungled the interview. The only other option is that the evidence needed to deny was in the petition package, and the CO is accusing USCIS of having screwed up when they approved the petition.

Obviously, everyone needs to look carefully at their own case and decide the best way to prepare their petition package. Nobody should base their decision solely on any one person's experience with this consulate.

BTW, I did post about Phuong's interview experience. However, since the interview was so short and the questions were superficial, I doubt it will be of much use to most people. I can only speculate as to why her interview was so easy with the hope that knowing what we did might help someone else to have an easy interview.

[luckytxn 2,264]

It seems that to heavily front load as I have seen so often here is pretty much to ensure a blue slip and being sent back but forcing them to resend it back to be processed again as the front loading had the red flag info. I guess that is a plan after all. Lets all acknowledge our red flags that WE deem we have. Then heavily front load the petition to answer the red flags that WE seem to have so we can make sure that the consulate sends it back and then we can have USCIS resend the package and we drag it on. This way maybe then we can win by outlasting the consulate and they just get tired of messing with the same case.

From the blues I have been seeing and the asking for additional info wanted is the same I had and I sent mine and got the pink right away. Now with all this heavy front loading I see the same blues requesting the same things but now they are in AP. Twice someone received a blue asking for the same two things I had to send in but they get into AP when they return and give the additional info. Is there a connection?

[BurningFinger 5]

It seems that to heavily front load as I have seen so often here is pretty much to ensure a blue slip and being sent back but forcing them to resend it back to be processed again as the front loading had the red flag info. I guess that is a plan after all. Lets all acknowledge our red flags that WE deem we have. Then heavily front load the petition to answer the red flags that WE seem to have so we can make sure that the consulate sends it back and then we can have USCIS resend the package and we drag it on. This way maybe then we can win by outlasting the consulate and they just get tired of messing with the same case.

From the blues I have been seeing and the asking for additional info wanted is the same I had and I sent mine and got the pink right away. Now with all this heavy front loading I see the same blues requesting the same things but now they are in AP. Twice someone received a blue asking for the same two things I had to send in but they get into AP when they return and give the additional info. Is there a connection?

You visa was approved without front-loading the petition. Jim's visa was approved with a heavily front-loaded petition. What does this teach us? No 2 case are alike. Like I said before in a previous post, there is a member in this VN sub-forum that got his visa approved with just the bare minimum. It is also worth nothing that he had NO red flags. He and his fiance had never been married before, did not have any kids, were not introduced by family members, held high income jobs and the fiance had no family living in the US. The only thing that resembled a red flag in his case was that he got engaged to his fiance 1 month after meeting on a dating website. This meeting on short notice almost completely defies the conventional wisdom of having a lengthy pre-nuptial relationship.....but it was approved anyways. This is an example of where I would agree with you 100%: The lower the amount of red flags, the less necessary it becomes to front-load.

luckytxn, maybe you just got lucky at the interview. Maybe you didn't and it was meant to be. We will never know the answer to this. I do however see your point that front-loading can cause problems at the interview stage. The thing about front-loading is that IF you are going to do it, you better be sure you do it 100% correct. Because you know what's going to happen next. You front-load, go to the interview and it gets denied and this creates the perception that it was front-loading that caused it to happen.

To front-load or not to front-load is the question. Unfortunately there is no right or wrong answer. Both ways have proven to be successful. Both ways have proven to be unsuccessful. The interesting thing is that if you do NOT front-load, you basically leave it up to the Consulate and the CO to try to find things to deny you with. Its a gamble: Will they find something or will they find nothing? 50/50 chance. If you DO front-load, you basically show all your red-flags to the CO and now you better pray to whatever invisible man you pray to at night, that the documents you front-loaded are enough to overcome these admitted red-flags.

I decided to front-load because I wanted to be on offense not defense. I will find out if it worked or not in due time. I just felt that my red flags were TOO red to ignore in my petition. If they were more like yellow flags, I would not have front-loaded. The best advise anyone can give others who are thinking about going down this lengthy and annoying immigration process through the HCMC Consulate is to get real. Would my case really look fraudulent in the eyes of a complete stranger? If so, how do I convince them that I am not fraudulent? Then you must choose to front-load or not to front-load