Evidence for I-129F petition

[beng_and_carl 0]

hi guys. i have some questions while we're filling up electronically in pdf format the forms I-129F and G-325A.

In Form I-129F, in part A, there's the box for answering the question on the country on which the petitioner was born. my fiance was born in the philippines however, the spaces in the box are not enough to include all the letters of the word PHILIPPINES. so, it's only spelled as PHILIPPINE but with a "+" sign at the right bottom part of it. This is also the same with my address as the beneficiary. The spaces in the box for my street address are not enough to fully print my whole street address. so, the last part of it also includes the "+" sign.

so, my question is, do you think it's ok for the USCIS that we print these documents and submit it to them? i don't know if it's understood already from them that the address was really long so maybe it's ok to submit that document.

though, at the second part of part B, my complete address is listed there, so they will still get my complete address.

thanks. hope you can help me.

[ramos96 1]

Photos are secondary evidence and by themselves would not have been enough to prove your meeting.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Having a photo with one's fiance does not prove having met in person?????? That's absurd.

To assert that ... "Photos are secondary evidence and by themselves would not have been enough to prove your meeting ..." is not only false, it's ridiculous - and contradicts the assertion. A photograph certainly doesn't prove that a genuine relationship exists, nor does it prove that the the meeting took place within the previous two years. Other evidence will be needed for those issues.

Photographs prove at the very least that two people have met in person.

I have to agree, the strongest evidence for us was that Nancy came to see me 4 times during this process. We suck at pictures, we would talk about it but we didnt take very many . Photos are helpful but they (the government) want to see that you are both talking and spending time together when possible. They want to see that there is a relationship not a photoshoot, for the ENTIRE process we only had 5 pics. Just give them what they ask for, remember these are people too, how would you like it if someone brings you a box of stuff (evidence) and says "hey review this".

It was actually a pretty easy process, lots of waiting, but anything good in life takes time. As Nancy will tell you I was pretty ####### about re-reading the forms and giving them exactly what they want. Cause the more you give them the more they have that they could possibly ask you about which can mean an RFE. If you have more questions PM or make a post.

Humbly,

Ramos

Edited April 30, 2007 by ramos96

[TimsDaisy 0]

Photos are secondary evidence and by themselves would not have been enough to prove your meeting.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Having a photo with one's fiance does not prove having met in person?????? That's absurd.

To assert that ... "Photos are secondary evidence and by themselves would not have been enough to prove your meeting ..." is not only false, it's ridiculous - and contradicts the assertion. A photograph certainly doesn't prove that a genuine relationship exists, nor does it prove that the the meeting took place within the previous two years. Other evidence will be needed for those issues.

Photographs prove at the very least that two people have met in person.

You'd be right if we were required to prove merely that we were in the same place at the same time. But what is actually required is proof of having met in person within the last two years. A photo does not prove that. Neither to letters, emails, IM chat logs, or phone calls. For the I-129F, you ARE NOT proving an ongoing relationship. That gets proved at the interview. For the I-129F, you must prove meeting within the past two years, plus intent to marry (which is done with the signed statements from each partner). Photos are icing - secondary evidence - but they are very likely INSUFFICIENT on their own to support the entire petition.

If you read the RFE forum you'll find plenty of examples of couples who received RFEs because they only sent photos.

And I'm not just pulling the "primary evidence" and "secondary evidence" terms out of my #######. That's verbatim from RFE letters received by VJ members. It would be FABULOUS if USCIS would include that helpful, brief bit of information in the damn I-129F instructions. But they don't.

What you say is misleading here. I'm only relaying information from actual VJer experience.

Don't send just photos! You need more hard, primary evidence!!!!!

[Nancy and Ramos 0]

I just had my interview last monday. I was the last one and there were two girls who had stacks of photos but no other real evidence, they had only met their partner to be one or two times. They were grilled to death. I had all of 6 photos and i had to take some from the original packet as i was slightly worried as to what i was observing, but when it came to my turn she was impressed with how many times we were together and how much we talked, as we had spoken about 30 seconds before i entered the building and she wanted to know what was said in that conversation. I told her that i had talked to him 2 other times that morning as i live on an outlying island so we talked at home and on the ferry.....lol I told her that he was very excited. Don't be afraid to do the interview with a bit of humor. They also asked the girls what phone number they called their partner and i was really nervice as i have Ramos's numbers programmed into my phone so i have no idea what they are. But i didn;t get that iether. Just be honest and have plane tikets, cards that you both have sent each other. etc real evidence. Oh and make sure they can see your ears in your passport photos as i had 10 minutes to run down the block to a booth and get new ones done. (How great do you think my picture looks in the visa now?.....lol And my passport photo looked pretty good too for a change....lol ,,,,,,,,darn)

Hope this helps,

Nancy

[KarenCee 3]

Photos are secondary evidence and by themselves would not have been enough to prove your meeting.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Having a photo with one's fiance does not prove having met in person?????? That's absurd.

To assert that ... "Photos are secondary evidence and by themselves would not have been enough to prove your meeting ..." is not only false, it's ridiculous - and contradicts the assertion. A photograph certainly doesn't prove that a genuine relationship exists, nor does it prove that the the meeting took place within the previous two years. Other evidence will be needed for those issues.

Photographs prove at the very least that two people have met in person.

BUT....not necessarily within the two year time required. That's why photos are secondary. Photos alone will NOT convince an AO that the meeting occurred within the two year time frame. Photoshop programs abound and you can be sure an AO knows this....which is why boarding passes with dates and pages from passports that substantiate the boarding pass dates with stamps on entry/reentry are primary evidence.

Edited May 1, 2007 by KarenCee

[MM_MS 0]

Photos are secondary evidence and by themselves would not have been enough to prove your meeting.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Having a photo with one's fiance does not prove having met in person?????? That's absurd.

To assert that ... "Photos are secondary evidence and by themselves would not have been enough to prove your meeting ..." is not only false, it's ridiculous - and contradicts the assertion. A photograph certainly doesn't prove that a genuine relationship exists, nor does it prove that the the meeting took place within the previous two years. Other evidence will be needed for those issues.

Photographs prove at the very least that two people have met in person.

BUT....not necessarily within the two year time required. That's why photos are secondary. Photos alone will NOT convince an AO that the meeting occurred within the two year time frame. Photoshop programs abound and you can be sure an AO knows this....which is why boarding passes with dates and pages from passports that substantiate the boarding pass dates with stamps on entry/reentry are primary evidence.

I agree - absolutely. There are a number of ways to prove having met one's fiance(e) within the previous two years, as well as, to prove that a legitimate relationship exists. I'm with you 100%.

I was refuting the VJer's assertion that by submitting a photo of you and your fiance(e), the petitioner has not provided proof that the two people have met. At the very least, the two have met ... photoshop issues aside.

[TimsDaisy 0]

Photos are secondary evidence and by themselves would not have been enough to prove your meeting.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Having a photo with one's fiance does not prove having met in person?????? That's absurd.

To assert that ... "Photos are secondary evidence and by themselves would not have been enough to prove your meeting ..." is not only false, it's ridiculous - and contradicts the assertion. A photograph certainly doesn't prove that a genuine relationship exists, nor does it prove that the the meeting took place within the previous two years. Other evidence will be needed for those issues.

Photographs prove at the very least that two people have met in person.

BUT....not necessarily within the two year time required. That's why photos are secondary. Photos alone will NOT convince an AO that the meeting occurred within the two year time frame. Photoshop programs abound and you can be sure an AO knows this....which is why boarding passes with dates and pages from passports that substantiate the boarding pass dates with stamps on entry/reentry are primary evidence.

I agree - absolutely. There are a number of ways to prove having met one's fiance(e) within the previous two years, as well as, to prove that a legitimate relationship exists. I'm with you 100%.

I was refuting the VJer's assertion that by submitting a photo of you and your fiance(e), the petitioner has not provided proof that the two people have met. At the very least, the two have met ... photoshop issues aside.

And proving the two people have met is irrelevant! That's half the battle. The vital, second half, is proving the meeting within the two years. (And, of course, not to get too out-there with the conspiracies to defraud, but if you can photoshop a date, you can photoshop a face, blah blah blah). Photos alone do not prove the meeting requirement - because that requirement involves a two year time span. They are secondary evidence. That's factual information from the USCIS-horse's mouth. To argue the point based on leaving out the words "2 year" is just misleading to others who stumble upon this thread and pick the wrong posts to read. You're arguing non-issues. And, for that matter, you don't need to prove a "legitimate relationship" - as if anyone could define that to begin with. You just prove that you were together in person w/in the last two years and that you intend to marry. For the I-129F, that's it. That's the cut-off.

Photos alone don't cut it! There's a whole thread of RFEd VJers to prove it!

Edited May 1, 2007 by TimsDaisy

[MM_MS 0]

Photos are secondary evidence and by themselves would not have been enough to prove your meeting.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Having a photo with one's fiance does not prove having met in person?????? That's absurd.

To assert that ... "Photos are secondary evidence and by themselves would not have been enough to prove your meeting ..." is not only false, it's ridiculous - and contradicts the assertion. A photograph certainly doesn't prove that a genuine relationship exists, nor does it prove that the the meeting took place within the previous two years. Other evidence will be needed for those issues.

Photographs prove at the very least that two people have met in person.

BUT....not necessarily within the two year time required. That's why photos are secondary. Photos alone will NOT convince an AO that the meeting occurred within the two year time frame. Photoshop programs abound and you can be sure an AO knows this....which is why boarding passes with dates and pages from passports that substantiate the boarding pass dates with stamps on entry/reentry are primary evidence.

I agree - absolutely. There are a number of ways to prove having met one's fiance(e) within the previous two years, as well as, to prove that a legitimate relationship exists. I'm with you 100%.

I was refuting the VJer's assertion that by submitting a photo of you and your fiance(e), the petitioner has not provided proof that the two people have met. At the very least, the two have met ... photoshop issues aside.

And proving the two people have met is irrelevant! That's half the battle. The vital, second half, is proving the meeting within the two years. (And, of course, not to get too out-there with the conspiracies to defraud, but if you can photoshop a date, you can photoshop a face, blah blah blah). Photos alone do not prove the meeting requirement - because that requirement involves a two year time span. They are secondary evidence. That's factual information from the USCIS-horse's mouth. To argue the point based on leaving out the words "2 year" is just misleading to others who stumble upon this thread and pick the wrong posts to read. You're arguing non-issues. And, for that matter, you don't need to prove a "legitimate relationship" - as if anyone could define that to begin with. You just prove that you were together in person w/in the last two years and that you intend to marry. For the I-129F, that's it. That's the cut-off.

Photos alone don't cut it! There's a whole thread of RFEd VJers to prove it!

Good grief. My post sure seems to have ruffled your feathers.

[TimsDaisy 0]

Good grief. My post sure seems to have ruffled your feathers.

It has nothing to do with ruffled feathers. It has to do with keeping this board accurate for people who come here to find answers. Does anyone need to get an RFE? NO! And if we can help take out unnecessary weeks of processing then we should do so. We talk about evidence here all the darn time. And the same questions come up. And the same RFEs still get issued. A lot of the time they are issued because people submit 4 pictures of themselves and a letter saying they'll get married and they don't understand what the problem is.

The problem is fundamentally misunderstanding what the government wants. VJ has no point if we don't make things as crystal clear as possible based on the information VJers have received from USCIS.

[KarenCee 3]

Photos are secondary evidence and by themselves would not have been enough to prove your meeting.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Having a photo with one's fiance does not prove having met in person?????? That's absurd.

To assert that ... "Photos are secondary evidence and by themselves would not have been enough to prove your meeting ..." is not only false, it's ridiculous - and contradicts the assertion. A photograph certainly doesn't prove that a genuine relationship exists, nor does it prove that the the meeting took place within the previous two years. Other evidence will be needed for those issues.

Photographs prove at the very least that two people have met in person.

BUT....not necessarily within the two year time required. That's why photos are secondary. Photos alone will NOT convince an AO that the meeting occurred within the two year time frame. Photoshop programs abound and you can be sure an AO knows this....which is why boarding passes with dates and pages from passports that substantiate the boarding pass dates with stamps on entry/reentry are primary evidence.

I agree - absolutely. There are a number of ways to prove having met one's fiance(e) within the previous two years, as well as, to prove that a legitimate relationship exists. I'm with you 100%.

I was refuting the VJer's assertion that by submitting a photo of you and your fiance(e), the petitioner has not provided proof that the two people have met. At the very least, the two have met ... photoshop issues aside.

Technically you're right...it will show the couple together. That's irrefutable. Still, it's NOT primary evidence. We can all argue this point til the cows come home but it doesn't change anything....photos ARE secondary evidence. Those boarding passes with DATES and passport pages with corresponding DATES are the irrefutable evidence that helps the AO piece together things to prove to him or her that this couple did indeed fulfill the meeting within two years requirement.

[Fandango 1,439]

Some photos could prove a meeting within the past two years...if you both took a PROOF OF LIFE style photo. But that's neither here nor there. They still are only secondary evidence

[tmma 467]

n/m

Edited May 2, 2007 by tmma

[MM_MS 0]

Some photos could prove a meeting within the past two years...if you both took a PROOF OF LIFE style photo. But that's neither here nor there. They still are only secondary evidence

I think the issue many have raised is valid, e.g. the salient point about providing photos and evidence is to provide proof to US Immigration. We need to demonstrate that one has met his/her fiance(e) within the previous two years. I've agreed with this point from the start, repeatedly.

I took issue with someone's ridiculous assertion providing a photo of you and your fiance(e) doesn't prove you've met. That's what a VJer wrote and I took exception to it, as it's an absurd claim. The one who posted has brought up different issues wrt the K-1 requirements while ignoring what she wrote. The VJer tried to create arguments which simply don't exist. By calling attention to another argument, the VJer tried to avoid addressing my point based on what she wrote.

If one has a photo of the people intending to marry, then OF COURSE you've met in person. That was all I was trying to say. It's a requirement of the K-1, unless the couple has an arranged marriage ... which is equally acceptable. If a couple does not have an arranged marriage, then the next task is to demonstrate that the meeting has taken place within the previous two years. And people have provided many great suggestions to meet these requirements!!

I'm surprised by those who scream "fire" when no flame has been lit, and then assign blame. People are funny (and very odd) sometimes.

[bora bora 1]

We only sent 6 pictures with our I-129F. We sent a bit of everything: e-mails, letters, proof I worked in Brazil, copies of passport pages, visas, etc.

At the interview we told the CO that we lived together in Brazil - he seemed pleased with that answer. I had returned to Brazil 2 times and then was at the interview (making it my 3rd trip - not counting when I was living there).

IMHO, it's better to have a bit of everything to show you have a relationship.

Pictures don't prove everything but they're good to show you've met in person.

[MM_MS 0]

We only sent 6 pictures with our I-129F. We sent a bit of everything: e-mails, letters, proof I worked in Brazil, copies of passport pages, visas, etc.

At the interview we told the CO that we lived together in Brazil - he seemed pleased with that answer. I had returned to Brazil 2 times and then was at the interview (making it my 3rd trip - not counting when I was living there).

IMHO, it's better to have a bit of everything to show you have a relationship.

Pictures don't prove everything but they're good to show you've met in person.

MS and I did the same! A couple of photos, emails, calling card bills, and plane tickets demonstrating repeat visits. And I'm going back to see him next month!! My bank account will be depleted, but they'll get an earful from me based on the lovely experience at CSC. "Of course, time is of no consequence!"

I would rather see him every few months and have less in savings than wait at home for the K-2 and save lots of $$ as I slowly go more nuts as each day passes. I told people I'll be talking to lamp shades by June. CSC - good grief!