Evidence for I-129F petition

[TimsDaisy 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.

Hi. It's me. You can say it. I don't mind.

You're just selectively addressing the issue. If I left out the "within the two years language" in my initial reaction to the bad info that photos alone can cut it, then I left it out, but the message is the same.

The requirement has been and remains proving you met in person within the last two years. That's a two part requirement. The former alone gets you nowhere.

So you're right - we're both right. But your being right won't help a newbie compile the right evidence. Like you listed - those plane tickets are the key to making your secondary-evidence photos take flight.

Edited May 2, 2007 by TimsDaisy

[TimsDaisy 0]

This came up in the progress report subforum - seems relevant to the discussion here:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...st&p=877302

[Fandango 1,440]

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.

The point that was raised was a photo doesn't necessarily prove meeting within a certain timeframe. No one's disputing that pictures prove you've met.....it's met within 2 years that's the issue. I have pics of me and my boo from 2000. While it certainly proves we've met, it does nothing for the reqs of 'met within 2 years'. More hard evidence would best prove that....plane ticket stubs, cc receipts...things of that nature. Now, to be ridiculously technical, I'd say that receipts and whatnot don't prove really anything either...if there was a case of visa faud...a passport stamp showing entry into the petitioner's area doesn't neccessarily prove that the beneficiary was visiting the petitioner.

I had a hard time actually putting together the evidence because I was overthinking things. Like 'ok, so this shows he was in Orlando, and here's a piccie of us in Orlando, but how do I put a provable time on it?' I even had a piccie of him in my car...one which I bought in 2005, so I was like 'ok, if I send the bill of sale for my car, and the piccie, that places him in Orlando, in my car, within the 2 year timeframe'. But D told me tha I was overthinking things because it's not just one piece of evidence which proves the req...it's the entire body of evidence, much like pieces in ajigsaw puzzle.

I don't know what a 'proof of life' photo would be classified as. It's still just a photo at the end of the day.

VJers tend to be very technical about the reqs because many noobs to the process can easily misunderstand. It's not to insult noobs, cos when we first started, we thought we could get married on a carribbean cruise, lol. And yes, the information here is almost bordering on ####### retentive...but that's only because this is such an important process, and v important to understand following the directions to the letter of the law. Everyone here takes it seriously & not all willy nilly, so that's a good thing!

This whole issue of photos being 'secondary' evidence was not summat that someone here just pulled out of his/her backside...them's the rules as required.

Good luck to you!

[no name 1]

Has anyone gotten approved with NO PHOTOS supplied? I doubt it.

[TimsDaisy 0]

Has anyone gotten approved with NO PHOTOS supplied? I doubt it.

And? No one here ever said don't send any. (though I think I did say to a newbie VJer once that they shouldn't delay submitting the I-129F just because they had everything BUT photos together - given the time and expense and impossibility of the petitioner flying right back to get some pix.)

The point LisaD and I are making is don't send just them and think it will be enough. And don't argue that they prove anything that the government requires proved because on their own They Do Not.

As for the primary/secondary discussion - here's the text from an RFE received by Jake&Ali (and a common one, I believe, from what I remember reading in the RFE thread:

"The petitioner and the beneficiary must have met in person between [X DATE] and [X DATE]. Submit evidence of meeting the meneficiary in person within the two-year period preceding the filing of the petiition. The primary evidence may include airline ticket stubs and receipts (that indicate month, day, and year), copies of passport pages taht show the identification page and admission stamps, military order(s), letter from Commanding Officer, or any evidence that will help the USCIS to determine that the petitioner has met the beneficiary within the two years. The secondary evidence may be film dated photographs of the petitioner and the beneficiary together. The following DOES NOT constitue evidence of meeting: disc, videos, emails, letters, phone bills, and greeting cards."

(emphasis added)

USCIS should be taken out behind the woodshed for not including those few illuminating sentences in the damn instruction form - there's no excuse for leaving them out. None! But they aren't in the instructions. Fortunately, people who stumble upon VJ have a shot at heading off problems at the pass because we've seen what RFEs say. And to be of any help, we really shouldn't confuse the matter with an academic discussion about this threshold issue. Other stuff, fine, but not this basic stuff.

The words "primary" and "secondary" have a plain English meaning that backs up that photos are less important than passport stamps, etc, in proving what needs to be proved.

Edited May 2, 2007 by TimsDaisy

[no name 1]

Has anyone gotten approved with NO PHOTOS supplied? I doubt it.

The point LisaD and I are making is don't send just them and think it will be enough. And don't argue that they prove anything that the government requires proved because on their own They Do Not.

The words "primary" and "secondary" have a plain English meaning that backs up that photos are less important than passport stamps, etc, in proving what needs to be proved.

Wow, I can distinguish primary & secondary as well. Why must you put words in my mouth in EVERY SINGLE reply to me? Photos are needed, as are other primary evidence....end of story. I NEVER said only photos are enough.

[Caladan 19]

The way I thought of the distinction between primary and secondary evidence is "third-party certified." Receipts, plane tickets, hotel, ATM usage, passport stamps. It's something that's hard (though not impossible) to fake, that some other organization has a paper trail of, and automatically comes with a date. Pictures don't come with a date automatically.

They're evidence of having met, but they're not very *good* evidence of having met. And USCIS counts them as secondary, and secondary evidence alone won't get you approved.

OP, we were in a similar position. We have lots of solo shots of each other, and many of the Canadian Rockies, but not a whole lot of posed shots. There are probably about ten photographs in existence of me and C. together, and we've been together long enough that three of them were too old for our petition window. Three of them were the sort we took by ourselves (smushed faces in the camera, that sort of thing). I sent in one of the photos that was outside the "window" (and labelled it as such), and two of the smushy face once, and one Hallowe'en one. Four pics total, none of them "film dated",no RFEs, no hiccups.

Remember that you're trying to create a picture of the relationship that says to the adjudicating officer: "is this couple legit? have they met?" So, you have one lonely photo. That's a start. Do you have lots of ticket stubs and passport stamps? Receipts from his hometown? Credit card statements showing you made purchases there? If you have all of that and one photo, it sounds like you're in decent shape, especially if you've both made several visits.

[no name 1]

The way I thought of the distinction between primary and secondary evidence is "third-party certified." Receipts, plane tickets, hotel, ATM usage, passport stamps. It's something that's hard (though not impossible) to fake, that some other organization has a paper trail of, and automatically comes with a date. Pictures don't come with a date automatically.

They're evidence of having met, but they're not very *good* evidence of having met. And USCIS counts them as secondary, and secondary evidence alone won't get you approved.

OP, we were in a similar position. We have lots of solo shots of each other, and many of the Canadian Rockies, but not a whole lot of posed shots. There are probably about ten photographs in existence of me and C. together, and we've been together long enough that three of them were too old for our petition window. Three of them were the sort we took by ourselves (smushed faces in the camera, that sort of thing). I sent in one of the photos that was outside the "window" (and labelled it as such), and two of the smushy face once, and one Hallowe'en one. Four pics total, none of them "film dated",no RFEs, no hiccups.

Remember that you're trying to create a picture of the relationship that says to the adjudicating officer: "is this couple legit? have they met?" So, you have one lonely photo. That's a start. Do you have lots of ticket stubs and passport stamps? Receipts from his hometown? Credit card statements showing you made purchases there? If you have all of that and one photo, it sounds like you're in decent shape, especially if you've both made several visits.

Good points Caladan but the OP has only met her fiance once (this last trip where they got engaged).

[Caladan 19]

Yeah, I misread her post as "first time to the UK" and thought maybe he'd been here.

In that case, what I would do would depend on when I was going to see my fiancé again. If it were soon, I'd make sure to take lots of pictures and send it when I returned. If it were longer, I'd send it off with the primary evidence I had, sending along some e-mails and phone bills to establish that the relationship is valid.

Has there ever been an RFE that just asked for pictures?

[pushbrk 13,172]

Has anyone gotten approved with NO PHOTOS supplied? I doubt it.

And? No one here ever said don't send any. (though I think I did say to a newbie VJer once that they shouldn't delay submitting the I-129F just because they had everything BUT photos together - given the time and expense and impossibility of the petitioner flying right back to get some pix.)

The point LisaD and I are making is don't send just them and think it will be enough. And don't argue that they prove anything that the government requires proved because on their own They Do Not.

As for the primary/secondary discussion - here's the text from an RFE received by Jake&Ali (and a common one, I believe, from what I remember reading in the RFE thread:

"The petitioner and the beneficiary must have met in person between [X DATE] and [X DATE]. Submit evidence of meeting the meneficiary in person within the two-year period preceding the filing of the petiition. The primary evidence may include airline ticket stubs and receipts (that indicate month, day, and year), copies of passport pages taht show the identification page and admission stamps, military order(s), letter from Commanding Officer, or any evidence that will help the USCIS to determine that the petitioner has met the beneficiary within the two years. The secondary evidence may be film dated photographs of the petitioner and the beneficiary together. The following DOES NOT constitue evidence of meeting: disc, videos, emails, letters, phone bills, and greeting cards."

(emphasis added)

USCIS should be taken out behind the woodshed for not including those few illuminating sentences in the damn instruction form - there's no excuse for leaving them out. None! But they aren't in the instructions. Fortunately, people who stumble upon VJ have a shot at heading off problems at the pass because we've seen what RFEs say. And to be of any help, we really shouldn't confuse the matter with an academic discussion about this threshold issue. Other stuff, fine, but not this basic stuff.

The words "primary" and "secondary" have a plain English meaning that backs up that photos are less important than passport stamps, etc, in proving what needs to be proved.

I agree. It's also quite humorous to read about the USCIS denials, nearly all of which stem from the issue of proof of meeting. Real proof, in my mind would consist of "proof of life" type photos AND passport stamps, plane tickets etc.

This allows the USCIS to compare the photos with those in the passport or passports. A common proof of life photo for China is to have the bank guard take your picture in front of the money exchange rate board inside a Bank of China branch. The board shows the date and time as will as the location. Combine that with passport and boarding passes and the meeting and time frame cannot be questioned. The foresight to do this is pretty uncommon.

[TimsDaisy 0]

Has anyone gotten approved with NO PHOTOS supplied? I doubt it.

The point LisaD and I are making is don't send just them and think it will be enough. And don't argue that they prove anything that the government requires proved because on their own They Do Not.

The words "primary" and "secondary" have a plain English meaning that backs up that photos are less important than passport stamps, etc, in proving what needs to be proved.

Wow, I can distinguish primary & secondary as well. Why must you put words in my mouth in EVERY SINGLE reply to me? Photos are needed, as are other primary evidence....end of story. I NEVER said only photos are enough.

No, but you are elevating them back to primary status by implying that some may have been denied for having no photos at all and by lumping them in with "other primary evidence." I don't know that anyone has. Don't recall reading that. But that RFE thread is giant, so I certainly didn't memorize it.

And posts here are written for the benefit of all - so I certainly don't spend a lot of time trying to get you on what you write (oh, except yesterday when you questioned my ability to read). The whole argument here started because I wanted to make things more clear for people will less exposure to the process who might get confused.

[ramos96 1]

Has anyone gotten approved with NO PHOTOS supplied? I doubt it.

The point LisaD and I are making is don't send just them and think it will be enough. And don't argue that they prove anything that the government requires proved because on their own They Do Not.

The words "primary" and "secondary" have a plain English meaning that backs up that photos are less important than passport stamps, etc, in proving what needs to be proved.

Wow, I can distinguish primary & secondary as well. Why must you put words in my mouth in EVERY SINGLE reply to me? Photos are needed, as are other primary evidence....end of story. I NEVER said only photos are enough.

No, but you are elevating them back to primary status by implying that some may have been denied for having no photos at all and by lumping them in with "other primary evidence." I don't know that anyone has. Don't recall reading that. But that RFE thread is giant, so I certainly didn't memorize it.

And posts here are written for the benefit of all - so I certainly don't spend a lot of time trying to get you on what you write (oh, except yesterday when you questioned my ability to read). The whole argument here started because I wanted to make things more clear for people will less exposure to the process who might get confused.

making friends and influencing people i see....

Ramos

[KarenCee 3]

VJ Sheesh

[Yodrak 7]

devilette,

Photos are not necessarily needed - people have had their petitions approved without having submitted any photos.

I personally would include a few photos, and people have received RFEs asking for photos or for dated photos, but photos are not essential if the non-photo evidence provided is sufficient to make the point.

Yodrak

..... Photos are needed, as are other primary evidence....end of story. .....

[cellarlily 0]

Has anyone gotten approved with NO PHOTOS supplied? I doubt it.

Uh. *raises hand*

We never submitted a single photo (besides the required passport-style photos, of course) during K-1 or at the interview (and didn't send any with AOS, either). They never asked for them and we never had a problem proving we've spent a significant amount of time together because we had plenty of primary evidence to prove this...which is what they want in the first place.