sending $

[Tero 105]

It may not be required, it may not be looked at, even some of your photos, chats, and emails are not looked at, but showing money-transfer receipts CANNOT hurt. I have a hard time seeing what the OP has done as a fraud. This whole immigration process has to do with providing ENOUGH evidence to CONVINCE an IO or a CO. It is your duty to present your case beyond doubt, and gathering evidence to PROVE is what is expected. They can recycle whoever's money back and forth, it is not fraud. It shows something between them as you would not recycle money with a stranger.

[cedwards001 18]

It may not be required, it may not be looked at, even some of your photos, chats, and emails are not looked at, but showing money-transfer receipts CANNOT hurt. I have a hard time seeing what the OP has done as a fraud. This whole immigration process has to do with providing ENOUGH evidence to CONVINCE an IO or a CO. It is your duty to present your case beyond doubt, and gathering evidence to PROVE is what is expected. They can recycle whoever's money back and forth, it is not fraud. It shows something between them as you would not recycle money with a stranger.

That is correct but it is also wrong. Money transfer receipts can be helpful if the persons involved decided to go for the CR1 visa. For the CR1, an ongoing marital union is expected to be proven at the petition stage and this should qualify as such. If, however, the persons went for the K1 visa, the story changes. Unfortunately, the OP has not made it clear which petition he submitted or which Embassy/Consulate the interview will take place at. If it will occur at a high visa fraud country such as Nigeria or Vietnam, I can promise you all bets are off.

[wendy&tamer 10]

My husband and I both sent money back and forth to each other....when I needed a little extra to pay for my kids passports or I was a little short on a utility he would send me some. I would send some when he needed it for unexpected computer repair or to buy something for his family (from me). I sent money to him in the slow months of his work, since it was driven by high traffic tourist months and low ones. It is about love and helping each other, but not sure how I feel about her giving you money to send to her to show a relationship. If you do for any reason send any or she sends you any then you can submit it, but I would concentrate on other types of proof like some others have suggested.

Best wishes

[Tero 105]

That is correct but it is also wrong. Money transfer receipts can be helpful if the persons involved decided to go for the CR1 visa. For the CR1, an ongoing marital union is expected to be proven at the petition stage and this should qualify as such. If, however, the persons went for the K1 visa, the story changes. Unfortunately, the OP has not made it clear which petition he submitted or which Embassy/Consulate the interview will take place at. If it will occur at a high visa fraud country such as Nigeria or Vietnam, I can promise you all bets are off.

I understand your logic but here is another angle. If it is a high visa fraud country, then it is most likely a third world country. It is not uncommon to not expect a person from a third world country (when they are not already rich) to be able to pay for the medicals, the international passport, the police reports, flight cost, and all the rest of the expenses. Money transfers to a fiance(e) in a third world country is understandable. So, how can a CO pull up a pile of evidence, go through them and see a money-transfer receipt, and pull it out to say "for this, I sense a fraud"?

[joyjohn 18]

That is correct but it is also wrong. Money transfer receipts can be helpful if the persons involved decided to go for the CR1 visa. For the CR1, an ongoing marital union is expected to be proven at the petition stage and this should qualify as such. If, however, the persons went for the K1 visa, the story changes. Unfortunately, the OP has not made it clear which petition he submitted or which Embassy/Consulate the interview will take place at. If it will occur at a high visa fraud country such as Nigeria or Vietnam, I can promise you all bets are off.

i have to agree with you.....i send mine in because we are married filing for a CR-1, and have to show a strong bond even after the marriage, plus a host of all the other papers.........the problem is when you are just married, most dont have property, cars, band acct, creditcards in both names.....so its other evidence...so i send some western union...

[cedwards001 18]

I understand your logic but here is another angle. If it is a high visa fraud country, then it is most likely a third world country. It is not uncommon to not expect a person from a third world country (when they are not already rich) to be able to pay for the medicals, the international passport, the police reports, flight cost, and all the rest of the expenses. Money transfers to a fiance(e) in a third world country is understandable. So, how can a CO pull up a pile of evidence, go through them and see a money-transfer receipt, and pull it out to say "for this, I sense a fraud"?

That is a good question. The answer is simple: That is how fraud happens in most 3rd world countries (Vietnam, Nigeria, etc.) Let me use Vietnam as an example. There have been thousands of cases where Vietnamese girls get into arranged marriages with American men to use them to send money to their family back in Vietnam. This happens in Vietnam ALL the time. There is a reason that Vietnam, Nigeria, China, etc are tough to get visas from because most of the fraud revolves around.....you guessed it: money

But until we know what country the OP is dealing with, we won't know how HE will deal with this

Edited February 13, 2011 by cedwards001

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

If the relationship is legit, how is it fraud? Genuine relationships and genuine evidences have been deemed to not be convincing by many COs. Couples present tonnes of legit photos and other documents and still get denied because a CO is not convinced. OP knows he has a legit relationship but it does not end there, he has to convince the CO. A fraud would be trying to show a relationship when there is none. Whether the money is the beneficiary's to begin with or not, they are simply trying to show some interraction between themselves. Unless he is sending thousands, I do not see how it shows one buying the other. This is not much different from saving your chats for the purpose as it is ok to chat with your spouse but why do you need to save them? And everytime you send that 3 letter email saying "I love you" which you did in order to print out as part of the proof of your relationship, it's all fraud. The money transfer purpose is to show some interraction between the two and not to stage a business transaction. After all said and done, I dont see any fraud in gathering evidence to show interractions between couples in order to convince a CO. A fraud would be trying to show a relationship when there is none or falsifying documents, which neither applies in this case.

A fraud is when you perpetrate a lie and hold it out to be the truth, with the specific intention to deceive. The lie in this case is not the relationship but the evidence presented to help prove that relationship.

There is a huge difference between documenting events that naturally happen in your relationship and fabricating events specifically for the purpose of documenting them. A typical couple involved in a long distance relationship would have chat sessions or phone calls. A typical couple might not save those chat sessions or phone records, whereas someone who is going to petition for a visa probably would save those things as evidence. Saving the evidence is an extraordinary but understandable measure for someone who is going to have to deal with immigration. The point is that those chat sessions would have occurred in any case - they are not fabricated events. The only extraordinary factor is that they're collecting evidence of those events.

What the OP is talking about is fabricating an event that would not normally have happened - sending the beneficiary's own money back to them - and representing this event as him sending his own money to the beneficiary - the lie - with the specific intention of deceiving the consular officer into believing he is sending gifts to his fiancee. This is fraud.

By your argument, if you have a genuine relationship then it should be perfectly acceptable to manufacture any sort of false evidence, as long as it results in getting a visa approved. Fiancee doesn't have a job? No problem, we'll just make up a good paying job and write it on the forms because our relationship is real. Introduced by a relative of your fiancee's who lives in the US, and worried that might raise red flags at the consulate? No worries, we'll just say we met on YanksAndSkanks.com because our relationship is real. This attitude is called "the end justifies the means", meaning as long as you succeed then it doesn't matter what you had to do in order to succeed. This is not only morally wrong, it's not legal.

If you are caught doing this then the consequences are going to be worse than simply a denied visa.

[SuperDuper! 230]

I think some folks here are over thinking on the topic. If one has a SO that is also an LDL, then sending a bit of money now and then is as natural as what happens when the two finally get together in person.

By sending NO money, never, now THAT looks suspicious, inauspicious and uncaring.

[Tero 105]

That is a good question. The answer is simple: That is how fraud happens in most 3rd world countries (Vietnam, Nigeria, etc.) Let me use Vietnam as an example. There have been thousands of cases where Vietnamese girls get into arranged marriages with American men to use them to send money to their family back in Vietnam. This happens in Vietnam ALL the time. There is a reason that Vietnam, Nigeria, China, etc are tough to get visas from because most of the fraud revolves around.....you guessed it: money

But until we know what country the OP is dealing with, we won't know how HE will deal with this

You do have a point. There is no question about what different reasons people can marry for. Money, fame, favor, love, etc. The CO just wants to be sure there is a legitimate relationship between the two and adequate interaction, not the morals behind the relationship. Of course it is easy to understand why a lady from a humble background and third world country would want to marry someone in the States. The COs don't investigate the reason the two want to marry as long as they are convinced that it is a legit relationship.

[Tero 105]

I think some folks here are over thinking on the topic. If one has a SO that is also an LDL, then sending a bit of money now and then is as natural as what happens when the two finally get together in person.

By sending NO money, never, now THAT looks suspicious, inauspicious and uncaring.

Big Thanks!!!

[cedwards001 18]

I think some folks here are over thinking on the topic. If one has a SO that is also an LDL, then sending a bit of money now and then is as natural as what happens when the two finally get together in person.

By sending NO money, never, now THAT looks suspicious, inauspicious and uncaring.

I think you are misunderstanding what the OP was trying to do.

The OP did not just want to send money to his fiance. The OP wanted to use money the fiance sent him and pass it off to the CO as HIS own money that he is sending to the foreign fiance. THAT is the problem here, not just sending money out of nowhere. But then again who would ever find out right? Hey, the OP is risking visa denial/jail time not me so I just hope that whatever he does do, he does it legally

[Tero 105]

A fraud is when you perpetrate a lie and hold it out to be the truth, with the specific intention to deceive. The lie in this case is not the relationship but the evidence presented to help prove that relationship.

There is a huge difference between documenting events that naturally happen in your relationship and fabricating events specifically for the purpose of documenting them. A typical couple involved in a long distance relationship would have chat sessions or phone calls. A typical couple might not save those chat sessions or phone records, whereas someone who is going to petition for a visa probably would save those things as evidence. Saving the evidence is an extraordinary but understandable measure for someone who is going to have to deal with immigration. The point is that those chat sessions would have occurred in any case - they are not fabricated events. The only extraordinary factor is that they're collecting evidence of those events.

What the OP is talking about is fabricating an event that would not normally have happened - sending the beneficiary's own money back to them - and representing this event as him sending his own money to the beneficiary - the lie - with the specific intention of deceiving the consular officer into believing he is sending gifts to his fiancee. This is fraud.

By your argument, if you have a genuine relationship then it should be perfectly acceptable to manufacture any sort of false evidence, as long as it results in getting a visa approved. Fiancee doesn't have a job? No problem, we'll just make up a good paying job and write it on the forms because our relationship is real. Introduced by a relative of your fiancee's who lives in the US, and worried that might raise red flags at the consulate? No worries, we'll just say we met on YanksAndSkanks.com because our relationship is real. This attitude is called "the end justifies the means", meaning as long as you succeed then it doesn't matter what you had to do in order to succeed. This is not only morally wrong, it's not legal.

If you are caught doing this then the consequences are going to be worse than simply a denied visa.

With due respect Jim, I see your point, but you are broadening it to encompass unrelated scenarios. A fraud is basically deception. The money transfer receipt on its own does not say one side is supporting the other, or whose money it is to begin with. The sender could have sent the money for the receiver to help them buy something, put in some account for them, pay off the senders debt somewhere, show an interaction (in this case), redeliver to the sender's friend, or as most often interpreted, support the receiver. If the sender and the receiver tell the CO that the money was sent to support the receiver or that it was the senders money, then it would be a fraud. Money transfer services hardly make you write down the reason you are sending the money, and the receiver's receipt does not show that either. The only fraud would be if the receipt states that the money was to support the receiver when it is not. The receipt only shows a dealing between the sender and the receiver, which is in no way a deception unless they said the transaction was to support the receiver. Even if the money was the receiver's in the first place, this only shows a dealing between them and does not mean one is supporting the other. When a CO looks at a receipt and interprets it another way, the fault is theirs.

Edited February 13, 2011 by Tero

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

With due respect Jim, I see your point, but you are broadening it to encompass unrelated scenarios. A fraud is basically deception. The money transfer receipt on its own does not say one side is supporting the other, or whose money it is to begin with. The sender could have sent the money for the receiver to help them buy something, put in some account for them, pay off the senders debt somewhere, show an interaction (in this case), redeliver to the sender's friend, or as most often interpreted, support the receiver. If the sender and the receiver tell the CO that the money was sent to support the receiver or that it was the senders money, then it would be a fraud. Money transfer services hardly make you write down the reason you are sending the money, and the receiver's receipt does not show that either. The only fraud would be if the receipt states that the money was to support the receiver when it is not. The receipt only shows a dealing between the sender and the receiver, which is in no way a deception unless they said the transaction was to support the receiver. Even if the money was the receiver's in the first place, this only shows a dealing between them and does not mean one is supporting the other. When a CO looks at a receipt and interprets it another way, the fault is theirs.

The fraud is not in the sending of the money, nor in the reason the money is being sent. The fraud is in representing the money as being sent from the petitioner to the beneficiary, when in fact it's the beneficiary's money being sent. Further, the OP suggested he was doing this specifically to have evidence of money transfers. The intention here is clear - to persuade the consular officer that the petitioner is providing funds to the beneficiary, for WHATEVER reason, when the petitioner is actually not providing anything. The intent is to deceive the consular officer. There is no way this isn't fraud.

[Tero 105]

The fraud is not in the sending of the money, nor in the reason the money is being sent. The fraud is in representing the money as being sent from the petitioner to the beneficiary, when in fact it's the beneficiary's money being sent. Further, the OP suggested he was doing this specifically to have evidence of money transfers. The intention here is clear - to persuade the consular officer that the petitioner is providing funds to the beneficiary, for WHATEVER reason, when the petitioner is actually not providing anything. The intent is to deceive the consular officer. There is no way this isn't fraud.

Of course the money was sent by the petitioner - does not mean he owns it. You don't always own what you send and whatever you send does not mean you own. Your mail gets in my mailbox and I resend it to you does not mean I own it. Why else would the OP want to do this? It is to help in showing an ongoing relationship (not an ongoing provision of funds).

Evidence of money tansfer does not mean evidence of sender's money. A transfer simply shows movement and not necessarily the original owner of the object.

Financially supporting a foreign fiance(e) while they are abroad is not a requirement for a visa. It is simply proofs of a relationship/interaction that matters. If financially supporting a foreign fiance(e) while they are abroad was a criterion, then you can call this a fraud as he is not really financially supporting her.

Edited February 13, 2011 by Tero

[Dan and Judy 614]

I think some folks here are over thinking on the topic. If one has a SO that is also an LDL, then sending a bit of money now and then is as natural as what happens when the two finally get together in person.

By sending NO money, never, now THAT looks suspicious, inauspicious and uncaring.

could you elaborate a little on what is supposed to happen when the two finally get together in person? I got the sending money part down pat. I want to be sure I do everything right.