Proof of Having Met in Last 2 Years and an Ongoing Relationship

[JimVaPhuong 4,864]

The concept of frontloading (as it has come to be called) is that an unreasonable consulate will refuse to look at recent evidence at the interview, yet this same unreasonable CO will then reverse his decision because of (by that time) "old" evidence of an ongoing relationship that was sent to the consulate by USCIS. This assumes that an unreasonable CO who, as TBoneTx points out, "answers to no one" including the USCIS, will ignore current evidence and qualify you on what amounts to ancient history. The concept seems kind of preposterous to me.

There is a common misconception that front loading is intended primarily to get some "proof of relationship" into the packet with the hopes that the CO will actually see it. Maybe there is some benefit to that - who knows for certain - but that isn't the reason that the idea of front loading was originally proposed.

A particularly difficult consulate will look for any excuse to deny a visa, but they are severely restricted in what reasons they can use. Assuming they could not conduct an interview or do any investigations on their own, if the only evidence they had to go by was the evidence provided with the original petition, they would be forced to issue the visa. They are forbidden by statute and Department of State memoranda from attempting to re-adjudicate an approved petition. They have to find evidence which USCIS did not know about when the petition was approved, and which they believe would have resulted in the petition being denied. Once they find this evidence, they send the petition back to USCIS with a recommendation that either the visa be denied or the original petition be revoked.

This is where front loading comes in. The idea is for the petitioner to address the "red flags" that the CO could potentially use as evidence to deny under the statute. If the red flags are sufficiently revealed and addressed, then the consulate cannot use them to deny the visa because they can't claim USCIS was not aware of them when the petition was approved. Front loading is intended to take ammunition away from the CO.

I first read about front loading in an article by Marc Ellis:

http://www.ilw.com/articles/2006,0323-ellis.shtm

Read the section "I. The Burden a Consular Officer Must Meet to Recommend Revocation of an Approved Family Petition".

PRACTICE TIP #1 - What the words generally unavailable to DHS at the time of petition approval should mean to skilled immigration practitioners, is that they should inform DHS in advance, at the time of filing the petition, of any potential red flags a consular officer might spot in the case. If DHS approves the petition anyway, a consulate is not supposed to deny a petition for that same reason.

[Stephen + Elisha 92]

Gary, you're essentially asking people to prove a negative. I think it would be very rare for a consular officer to come out and say, "The relationship evidence you provided in your I-129F package was really helpful." And unlike federal acquisitions, you can't request a post-award debrief to find out what you did right after a successful interview and visa issuance.

What is indisputable is that certain difficult consulates do refuse to look at relationship evidence people bring to the interview. What is also indisputable is that the consular officer is prohibited from re-adjudicating the approved petition. They can initiate a 221(g) process for insufficient evidence, but they cannot refuse to look at evidence that comprises part of the approved petition.

So, while there will probably never be enough evidence to satisfy you that front-loading is beneficial, the facts above will persuade reasonable people that front-loading is a good idea when facing a difficult consulate with a documented history of refusing to consider evidence brought to the interview.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The concept of frontloading (as it has come to be called) is that an unreasonable consulate will refuse to look at recent evidence at the interview, yet this same unreasonable CO will then reverse his decision because of (by that time) "old" evidence of an ongoing relationship that was sent to the consulate by USCIS. This assumes that an unreasonable CO who, as TBoneTx points out, "answers to no one" including the USCIS, will ignore current evidence and qualify you on what amounts to ancient history. The concept seems kind of preposterous to me.

There is a common misconception that front loading is intended primarily to get some "proof of relationship" into the packet with the hopes that the CO will actually see it. Maybe there is some benefit to that - who knows for certain - but that isn't the reason that the idea of front loading was originally proposed.

A particularly difficult consulate will look for any excuse to deny a visa, but they are severely restricted in what reasons they can use. Assuming they could not conduct an interview or do any investigations on their own, if the only evidence they had to go by was the evidence provided with the original petition, they would be forced to issue the visa. They are forbidden by statute and Department of State memoranda from attempting to re-adjudicate an approved petition. They have to find evidence which USCIS did not know about when the petition was approved, and which they believe would have resulted in the petition being denied. Once they find this evidence, they send the petition back to USCIS with a recommendation that either the visa be denied or the original petition be revoked.

This is where front loading comes in. The idea is for the petitioner to address the "red flags" that the CO could potentially use as evidence to deny under the statute. If the red flags are sufficiently revealed and addressed, then the consulate cannot use them to deny the visa because they can't claim USCIS was not aware of them when the petition was approved. Front loading is intended to take ammunition away from the CO.

I first read about front loading in an article by Marc Ellis:

http://www.ilw.com/articles/2006,0323-ellis.shtm

Read the section "I. The Burden a Consular Officer Must Meet to Recommend Revocation of an Approved Family Petition".

PRACTICE TIP #1 - What the words generally unavailable to DHS at the time of petition approval should mean to skilled immigration practitioners, is that they should inform DHS in advance, at the time of filing the petition, of any potential red flags a consular officer might spot in the case. If DHS approves the petition anyway, a consulate is not supposed to deny a petition for that same reason.

Thank you Jim. Certainly the best explanation I have seen and it explains at least a plausible use for the additional documents. It also explains why there may never be a case where one can say "front loading did the trick" as in the scenario you provide it would never be known to anyone but the CO.

Again I have never had anything against the concept (why would I care how many copies you make and pay to send with a petition?) just wondered if there is anything to it.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Gary, you're essentially asking people to prove a negative. I think it would be very rare for a consular officer to come out and say, "The relationship evidence you provided in your I-129F package was really helpful." And unlike federal acquisitions, you can't request a post-award debrief to find out what you did right after a successful interview and visa issuance.

What is indisputable is that certain difficult consulates do refuse to look at relationship evidence people bring to the interview. What is also indisputable is that the consular officer is prohibited from re-adjudicating the approved petition. They can initiate a 221(g) process for insufficient evidence, but they cannot refuse to look at evidence that comprises part of the approved petition.

So, while there will probably never be enough evidence to satisfy you that front-loading is beneficial, the facts above will persuade reasonable people that front-loading is a good idea when facing a difficult consulate with a documented history of refusing to consider evidence brought to the interview.

No, not really. Jim provided a very good explanation of how it could be helpful.

Your explanation is less plausible. Again it supposes the CO will approve on old evidence and not on new. I would contend it is impossible (in any consulate, even a "cakewalk" like Kiev) to provide enough frontloaded evidence to be approved for a fiancee visa without providing recent evidence after the petition is filed. Silly. It is perfectly feasible to present enough front loaded evidence to dispell any imagined "red flags" known at the time of filing the petition. No, Jim's explanation is satisfyingly sensible and plausible. Thanks.

[toddandhien 2]

Gary, you're essentially asking people to prove a negative. I think it would be very rare for a consular officer to come out and say, "The relationship evidence you provided in your I-129F package was really helpful." And unlike federal acquisitions, you can't request a post-award debrief to find out what you did right after a successful interview and visa issuance.

What is indisputable is that certain difficult consulates do refuse to look at relationship evidence people bring to the interview. What is also indisputable is that the consular officer is prohibited from re-adjudicating the approved petition. They can initiate a 221(g) process for insufficient evidence, but they cannot refuse to look at evidence that comprises part of the approved petition.

So, while there will probably never be enough evidence to satisfy you that front-loading is beneficial, the facts above will persuade reasonable people that front-loading is a good idea when facing a difficult consulate with a documented history of refusing to consider evidence brought to the interview.

Well said, Stephen.

In our case, we were going through the HCM consulate, a well-known difficult consulate from which to get visa approval. I was quite aware that in many cases, the CO did not ask to see any evidence of a couple's relationship, but issued a blue slip for more evidence.

I did two things with our case. And bear in mind that I had been with Hien for 10 months when we filed and I had been to VN many, many times so we had a lot of documentation.

1. I front-loaded our petition with absolutely everything I had. Hotel receipts, airline tix for both of us, etc. The packet was an inch thick and just about everything had both of our names on it. I also included a 3-page summary of our relationship, very similar to the now-infamous "timeline."

2. I also included known blue-slip generators in the packet Hien delivered on interview day (timeline, proof of ex-wife's address, etc).

So, did this approach get the visa? We will never know. But I do know that they only asked for our pictures and nothing else. The CO asked questions from my "front-loaded" timeline but if they had not looked at the package of information I had submitted in advance I'm not sure how they could have ascertained that we had an on-going relationship. Hien walked out of the first interview with a pink slip so that's all that matters at the end of the day.

I remain a strong supporter of providing as much information as possible as early as possible.

[Stephen + Elisha 92]

No, not really. Jim provided a very good explanation of how it could be helpful.

Your explanation is less plausible. Again it supposes the CO will approve on old evidence and not on new. I would contend it is impossible (in any consulate, even a "cakewalk" like Kiev) to provide enough frontloaded evidence to be approved for a fiancee visa without providing recent evidence after the petition is filed. Silly. It is perfectly feasible to present enough front loaded evidence to dispell any imagined "red flags" known at the time of filing the petition. No, Jim's explanation is satisfyingly sensible and plausible. Thanks.

Jim's post and cited article certainly explained more fully, but it wasn't really different than what I said. Front-loaded evidence of bona fide relationship anticipates and addresses what may well be the CO's a priori assumption of a sham relationship entered into for immigration purposes—the "red flags" referred to in the article. And since the front-loaded evidence is part of the approved petition, which the CO is not allowed to re-adjudicate, it makes it much harder for the CO to establish a lack of evidence for the bona fides of the relationship.

Oh, and I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from quoting me out of context. I said that Kiev was a relative cakewalk—primarily based on your descriptions of how smoothly things went. Relative is key. Omitting it changes the meaning entirely. Relative to some other consulates, Kiev is (from everything I've read) a cakewalk. Of course you have to be properly prepared, but they're not looking for a reason to deny you like many other consulates are. If you bring everything they asked for and arrange it properly, odds are good that you'll sail through. Contrast this to places like HCM, Guangzhou, Guayaquil, etc. where the COs seem to have an a priori assumption of fraud that requires significant effort to overcome.

Well said, Stephen.

In our case, we were going through the HCM consulate, a well-known difficult consulate from which to get visa approval. I was quite aware that in many cases, the CO did not ask to see any evidence of a couple's relationship, but issued a blue slip for more evidence.

I did two things with our case. And bear in mind that I had been with Hien for 10 months when we filed and I had been to VN many, many times so we had a lot of documentation.

1. I front-loaded our petition with absolutely everything I had. Hotel receipts, airline tix for both of us, etc. The packet was an inch thick and just about everything had both of our names on it. I also included a 3-page summary of our relationship, very similar to the now-infamous "timeline."

2. I also included known blue-slip generators in the packet Hien delivered on interview day (timeline, proof of ex-wife's address, etc).

So, did this approach get the visa? We will never know. But I do know that they only asked for our pictures and nothing else. The CO asked questions from my "front-loaded" timeline but if they had not looked at the package of information I had submitted in advance I'm not sure how they could have ascertained that we had an on-going relationship. Hien walked out of the first interview with a pink slip so that's all that matters at the end of the day.

I remain a strong supporter of providing as much information as possible as early as possible.

Thanks for sharing this, toddandhien, and congratulations on making it through a notoriously difficult consulate on the first go-around. I agree with your impression that front-loading was beneficial to your case, and I suspect that other reasonable people would agree as well.

Edited September 20, 2009 by Stephen + Elisha

[JimVaPhuong 4,864]

I suppose there is one scenario where proof of relationship submitted with the petition might be beneficial at the consulate stage. In some countries (my fiancee's being one of them) a rapid progression from first meeting, to formal engagement, and then to filing of the petition, would be a "red flag". It doesn't give sufficient time for the family of the beneficiary to get to know the petitioner, and to ultimately approve of the union, and this is contrary to local customs. Likewise, skipping some of the customary formalities, like the engagement ceremony, would be considered a "red flag". These are things that would presumably happen before the petition was submitted, so providing evidence of this with the petition could potentially take away the argument that the relationship is contrary to local social customs.

In the event that the couple did not follow the normal customs of the beneficiary's country, addressing this in the petition with plausible reasons might also avoid a consular denial for them.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

No, not really. Jim provided a very good explanation of how it could be helpful.

Your explanation is less plausible. Again it supposes the CO will approve on old evidence and not on new. I would contend it is impossible (in any consulate, even a "cakewalk" like Kiev) to provide enough frontloaded evidence to be approved for a fiancee visa without providing recent evidence after the petition is filed. Silly. It is perfectly feasible to present enough front loaded evidence to dispell any imagined "red flags" known at the time of filing the petition. No, Jim's explanation is satisfyingly sensible and plausible. Thanks.

Jim's post and cited article certainly explained more fully, but it wasn't really different than what I said. Front-loaded evidence of bona fide relationship anticipates and addresses what may well be the CO's a priori assumption of a sham relationship entered into for immigration purposes—the "red flags" referred to in the article. And since the front-loaded evidence is part of the approved petition, which the CO is not allowed to re-adjudicate, it makes it much harder for the CO to establish a lack of evidence for the bona fides of the relationship.

Oh, and I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from quoting me out of context. I said that Kiev was a relative cakewalk—primarily based on your descriptions of how smoothly things went. Relative is key. Omitting it changes the meaning entirely. Relative to some other consulates, Kiev is (from everything I've read) a cakewalk. Of course you have to be properly prepared, but they're not looking for a reason to deny you like many other consulates are. If you bring everything they asked for and arrange it properly, odds are good that you'll sail through. Contrast this to places like HCM, Guangzhou, Guayaquil, etc. where the COs seem to have an a priori assumption of fraud that requires significant effort to overcome.

Well said, Stephen.

In our case, we were going through the HCM consulate, a well-known difficult consulate from which to get visa approval. I was quite aware that in many cases, the CO did not ask to see any evidence of a couple's relationship, but issued a blue slip for more evidence.

I did two things with our case. And bear in mind that I had been with Hien for 10 months when we filed and I had been to VN many, many times so we had a lot of documentation.

1. I front-loaded our petition with absolutely everything I had. Hotel receipts, airline tix for both of us, etc. The packet was an inch thick and just about everything had both of our names on it. I also included a 3-page summary of our relationship, very similar to the now-infamous "timeline."

2. I also included known blue-slip generators in the packet Hien delivered on interview day (timeline, proof of ex-wife's address, etc).

So, did this approach get the visa? We will never know. But I do know that they only asked for our pictures and nothing else. The CO asked questions from my "front-loaded" timeline but if they had not looked at the package of information I had submitted in advance I'm not sure how they could have ascertained that we had an on-going relationship. Hien walked out of the first interview with a pink slip so that's all that matters at the end of the day.

I remain a strong supporter of providing as much information as possible as early as possible.

Thanks for sharing this, toddandhien, and congratulations on making it through a notoriously difficult consulate on the first go-around. I agree with your impression that front-loading was beneficial to your case, and I suspect that other reasonable people would agree as well.

Ok, yours was good too, Stephan

I think the explanation of how easy our interviews went (absolutely true) owes something to the fact that my application and evidence was maticulously prepared and I had great advice from VJ here. Heck, I didn't know what a fiancee visa WAS when I proposed to Alla or that it even existed. I never referred to any source except VJ for information (and consulate websites, etc, which I learned about here)

Another is that Ukraine lacks any unusual customs such as those in VietNam, Thailand etc. So there are no "pre-requisite" ceremonies to complete. It is perfectly normal and accepted for couples to meet and marry quickly in Ukrainian culture. "Dating" sites are unabashedly referred to as "marriage agencies". There is a cultural taboo against women marrying men younger than they are (or shorter) but not so strong as to be a "red flag", but strong enough that my guess is it rarely happens. 22 year old women marrying 52 year old men is common among marriages within Ukraine and Russia, and has been for centuries. There is also no large amount of visa fraud from Ukraine, not the way it is in other countries and certainly not the way it was immediately after Perestroika.

Kiev is not a pushover, yes it is easier than other consulates for regional and cultural reasons (and maybe also due to the political situation and the desire to maintain good relations with Ukraine, there are no Gestapo like tactics in the consulate) but they will not tolerate sloppiness or incomplete documents. You need to come "full circle" and provide the bona fides. There are no trick questions or hidden agendas, it is true.

If Viet Nam looks for things like an engagement ceremony (I know they do) and will not allow you to present this at the interview, then I guess it is prudent to provide this with the petition. Why not?

Really appreciate the academic discussion and information. I was never against providing additional information and am appreciative for the additional information.

[SuperDuper! 230]

Bogota, like any other Latin American consulate, is not the relative cakewalk that Kiev apparently is. Front-loading with evidence of ongoing relationship can't be a bad thing.

Si, man. USCIS will not care about the evidence of ongoing relationship, but your consulate certainly might (or definitely will), and the consulate is obliged to acknowledge the existence of anything that USCIS has first seen.

I think sending as much evidence as you can when sending in your initial petition would be wise, whether required or not. I major front loaded because I wanted them to be aware of how strong our relationship was. I sent 122 picture, chats, phone records, letters, emails, copies of train receipts, bus receipts, flight itenerary, money conversion receipts... anything I could get my hands on. If you get a rfe for not providing enough information then it will only slow your case down. Best to avoid asking questions and just show them what you got upfront. I think if you spend exstensive time together when you met, and you only show someone 4 pictures.... it would make them think of the validity possible. I know I certainly might think... but then again not allppl like to take as much pictures either. So I guess that cant be a valid point. I took over 950 pictures. But they will want to see pictures of you both together, and not just statue like pics, but pics that show feeling for each other. Happiness, romance, and even pics with family members to show everyone elses happiness. Front load the heck out of it to avoid road blocks and doubt I say.

It is really refreshing to see that "you get it" regarding the importance of pics. Not just the quantity, but the QUALITY showing love, life, family. NOt statue or newspaper pics, hehe.

Too many folks here like to poo-poo or discount pics, saying, "Not really important in the approval process of the visa because pictures are just secondary evidence."

Bull roar! It is said that "a picture is worth a 1000 words." Heck, why not send 10 pics instead of saying 10,000 words trying to convince 'em you are bonafide?

Cheers.

Edited September 20, 2009 by itzallgood

[katraska78 6]

Front load the heck out of it to avoid road blocks and doubt I say.

Si, man -- and again, this is not for the USCIS requirements, but for the (tough, poor-country, or high-fraud-country) embassy or consulate later in the process. The consulates answer to nobody.

Totally agree with T and Stephen. SEND EVERY LITTLE SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE YOU CAN THINK OF, INCLUDE LETTERS OF PEOPLE WHO KNOW YOU BOTH AND CAN TESTIFY YOU HAVE A RELATIONSHIP, anything: tickets of grocery bought together, sign in dancing classes together, ANYTHING!!! you will thank this piece of advice later.

KataandFreddy :star: :star:

[MouadsWife 161]

Bogota, like any other Latin American consulate, is not the relative cakewalk that Kiev apparently is. Front-loading with evidence of ongoing relationship can't be a bad thing.

Si, man. USCIS will not care about the evidence of ongoing relationship, but your consulate certainly might (or definitely will), and the consulate is obliged to acknowledge the existence of anything that USCIS has first seen.

I think sending as much evidence as you can when sending in your initial petition would be wise, whether required or not. I major front loaded because I wanted them to be aware of how strong our relationship was. I sent 122 picture, chats, phone records, letters, emails, copies of train receipts, bus receipts, flight itenerary, money conversion receipts... anything I could get my hands on. If you get a rfe for not providing enough information then it will only slow your case down. Best to avoid asking questions and just show them what you got upfront. I think if you spend exstensive time together when you met, and you only show someone 4 pictures.... it would make them think of the validity possible. I know I certainly might think... but then again not allppl like to take as much pictures either. So I guess that cant be a valid point. I took over 950 pictures. But they will want to see pictures of you both together, and not just statue like pics, but pics that show feeling for each other. Happiness, romance, and even pics with family members to show everyone elses happiness. Front load the heck out of it to avoid road blocks and doubt I say.

It is really refreshing to see that "you get it" regarding the importance of pics. Not just the quantity, but the QUALITY showing love, life, family. NOt statue or newspaper pics, hehe.

Too many folks here like to poo-poo or discount pics, saying, "Not really important in the approval process of the visa because pictures are just secondary evidence."

Bull roar! It is said that "a picture is worth a 1000 words." Heck, why not send 10 pics instead of saying 10,000 words trying to convince 'em you are bonafide?

Cheers.

You the bomb!!! lol Im glad to see that some people recognize the importance of "proof"...

[MouadsWife 161]

In most fiancee visas there is little to "frontload" much of it (if not all) occuring before the couple even met in person. Then we have many months AFTER the petition is filed and any proof of relationship during that time is not possibly available to "frontload" . How does proof of a relationship which does not even qualify for a petition, assist with the issuance of a visa? There is no qualifying "relationship" TO prove until after the couple meets in person.

Not everyone files immediately after first meeting in person. We had to wait just over 2 months. Some couples wait for many other reasons - some for many months, or even years. Also, some couples meet more than once, as we did.

Even if we had filed after my first trip there, we had quite a bit to send by that time - pics, email, phone calls, etc. To us, meeting was just a continuation of a relationship that had already started. Some couples get engaged during the first meeting in person, so they'd have quite a bit to send. Some lucky people spend much more than a week or so on their first trips.

That said, and with all this speak of front loading, is there any cases we know of here at VJ where front loading benefitted the issuance of a visa? I mean the theory is cast about often enough, though I begin to wonder if it isn't just one parroting another. "Frontloading...frontloading" "Must front load for difficult consulates" "Must frontload for maybe any consulate" Which is it? Who benefits? Who HAS benefitted? Cetainly there must be examples here. Someone who can say "Yeah, you bet, I would never have gotten my visa if I hadn't included those emails from BEFORE we filed the petition. They were about to deny us, no question, then we pointed out the emails and two photos from when we filed the petition and they changed their mind and gave us the visa!" Anyone? Someone?

We didn't discover VJ until after we sent our packet, so we just did what we thought was best - never heard of "frontloading" at that time.

There's no way to really know WHY it goes more smoothly for some couples than others, but we can all have our theories. Morocco is notorious for being a pain, and many couples get denied, or have to wait forever, or get 221g...whatever. The lady who interviewed my SO acted like there was NO WAY she was going to give him (or anyone else) the visa, but he got it a few days later. Not exactly sure what "did it" for us. All I can do is tell the facts in our case, and my theories about it.

Facts: I am 11 years older, divorced, with 3 children, raised Catholic, didn't know any French or Arabic, and had some money from the divorce settlement (wasn't even working at the time). We met - online - only 4 months before sending our k-1 petition. I did go to see him twice in that time. I met him during my divorce, and sent the packet the day I got the divorce decree. So, basically, just about ALL of the red flags possible. Yes, the lady was practically interrogating him during his interview (while I paced around outside for hours). But he got the visa, and was here less than three months after I sent the petition.

I hired a lawyer, thinking it was necessary. For the petition, we sent tons of photos, IM chats, email, phone records, boarding passes, etc. He also took several thick binders to his interview with more - and some of it might have hurt more than helped, I don't know - receipts from the laptop I bought him (so we could talk more often), evidence of sending him money through agencies, bank statements for the account I opened for him (gave him an ATM card - fewer fees, more convenient, faster, etc) - things that might have made it look like he was using me. We included receipts for and pictures of the engraved wedding bands we ordered between sending the petition and the interview date. And tons more pictures, etc. Both proof of meeting in person and of our ongoing relationship.

Opinion: whether or not others agree, I strongly feel that all the things we provided in the k-1 packet and at the interview really helped us out. I'm not so sure about the lawyer - I think that was a waste of money. At the time we thought it would at least show that we were serious about the whole thing. I would say that it can't hurt if you can swing it financially, but I've heard of it slowing things down in some cases, and totally screwing things up in others. I think for straightforward cases, it's a bad idea.

I really think that it helped that he remained calm during the interview and just kept answering the questions, even though some were asked repeatedly. We also made sure he was really prepared - well rested, we reviewed all the information he might need to know, etc.

So, I can't say 100% that 'front-loading' was THE reason that we had such a quick and 'easy' time of the visa part of the process, but I really do think that it helped tremendously. If nothing else, sending all that you can might give you some peace of mind. I'd rather "waste my time" gathering and sending too much than worrying during the wait and/or kicking myself for not sending enough. But like all things, everyone has to make their own decisions.

Best of luck to all during their journeys!

venusfire

The key to this is...would he have been or was he, allowed to submit more evidence of relationship at the interview? Did they accept from him the evidence of relationship (since the filing of the petition) that he brought to the interview?

The concept of frontloading (as it has come to be called) is that an unreasonable consulate will refuse to look at recent evidence at the interview, yet this same unreasonable CO will then reverse his decision because of (by that time) "old" evidence of an ongoing relationship that was sent to the consulate by USCIS. This assumes that an unreasonable CO who, as TBoneTx points out, "answers to no one" including the USCIS, will ignore current evidence and qualify you on what amounts to ancient history. The concept seems kind of preposterous to me.

In your case, you front loaded, and have no indication it hurt or helped. I am sure you would change nothing, just as I would change nothing in our case, because you were successful. If there was an instance of front loading being the deciding factor, I would not be surprised to see it come from Casa Blanca or a similar consulate.

I am also told if you cut off a rattlesnakes head it can still bite you until sun-down. I cutoff plenty of buzzbottom's heads and they can be downright creepy in what they will do after being skinned and gutted, but that head ain't bitin' anyone without serious provocation (like stickin' your fingers in there) but it makes a good sounding story.

I am just curious if there is any truth to this rumor or if it is an oft repeated wive's tale followed by people going through difficult consulates becaue they "aren't taking chances" But it may be as effective to tie chicken's feet around your neck or something, garlic cloves, etc.

Personally we are going for the garlic and chicken feet routine... and we're thinking about wearing a sign around our necks saying 'pick me pick me pick me pick me!" lol Just kidding....

[TBoneTX 47,265]

It's refreshing to experience the thoughtfulness and literacy of everyone who has posted in this thread. This is the kind of intellectual discussion that we need more often and in more places on VJ, si man.

[baron555 934]

It's refreshing to experience the thoughtfulness and literacy of everyone who has posted in this thread. This is the kind of intellectual discussion that we need more often and in more places on VJ, si man.

I front end-loaded my petition because some of the evidence had dual purpose, it both satisfied the proof of meeting and ongoing relationship.

I included a copy of the engagement ring and included a photo of her standing in our apartment balcony with St. Sophia's Cathedral (Kiev) in the background.