front loading

[Julian_Hien 0]

hello everyone, firstly thanks for all the help everyone has been as hien and i have started our journey, we are planning our marriage as we speak and have prepared all the docs and the wedding is on the 15th may, my question is, after the marriage, once we have the certificate, i want to start the next process for the c1 visa,can anyone give us any advice how and when you front loaded, we have been keeping a timeline and my wife has prepared a family tree, and names, address, phone numbers of her relatives living in us, what else do you suggest, and when to apply front loading again thank you for all your help

[hieumin 2]

all of your evidences, emails, snail mails, chat log phone bill,ticket stubs etc..May sure you make two copy, one for you and one for your spouse in case of losing by uscis. try to have a coversheet and table of contents when submitting, organize them as professional as you could.

Send all together with your I-130 application.

Edited March 20, 2010 by hieumin

[Anh map 2,098]

Yes, supply all the support for your relationship timeline as hieumin suggested. The listing of your spouse's family in the US is also a great idea.

The relationship timeline and family list are two of the more common requests when blue slips are issued.

[lindal24 1]

Everyone's petition is going to be different, and everyone's opinion on what to include is going to be different.

My opinion is that you should only include what is asked for that helps your petition and those evidence which helps proves your relationship. I didn't include the timeline or the list of relatives, but I did get a blue slip for the list of relatives. We submitted this later, when it was requested and was in AP a total of 91 days.

There are tons of other threads out there that have arguments for and against front loading and you can find those and read on your own and make up your own mind on whether to include one specific type of evidence or not. It's ultimately your petition and your reality that you have to deal with when the decision has been made.

Either way, I wish you luck and patience during this whole process!

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

My viewpoint on this subject is somewhat jaded. I don't think the CO's in HCM believe that ANY relationship is sincere, no matter how much juicy evidence you pile on to the contrary. I think they approach every case with the presumption that the applicant is a fraud, and they're just looking for the evidence they need to deny the visa on that basis.

This doesn't mean I think it's pointless to frontload evidence of a genuine relationship. On the contrary, I think it's essential. At the same time, I think you need to be pragmatic, and view your case like a CO would. Knowing what you've read about other people's interviews, if you were a CO looking at your case for the first time, what sort of red flags would you be digging for? What would you suspect based on those red flags? What sort of evidence would convince you that those red flags were not enough reason to deny the visa? Moreover, what if you knew, as a CO, that you could not cite a specific thing as a reason for denial if that specific thing were already declared and explained in the petition package? What would stop you dead from being able to deny that visa?

The following paragraph is purely conjecture on my part...

I also believe the CO's in HCM are determined to deny a certain percentage of applications. Yes, that means I believe they have a quota system. I believe the visa section chief will put heavy pressure on a CO who isn't finding enough evidence to deny enough visas because I think the visa section chief believes the CO is probably letting some frauds get through, just looking at it statistically. If I were a CO, I'd go for the low hanging fruit first - the cases that have obvious red flags which were not previously addressed, and which have proven to be sufficient grounds for a visa denial. I'd be a lot more likely to give a pass to any case where I had to do some serious digging to find a scrap of evidence. As a petitioner, I want my fiancee's case to be one of the latter. I want the CO to have to work hard, dig deep, and even then not come up with any solid evidence that will stick.

Frankly, I didn't care if the CO believed we were really in love. I would have been perfectly content if the CO was absolutely convinced that our relationship was a sham, but couldn't come up with a shred of evidence he could use to deny the visa. As long as Phuong walked out with a pink slip, I didn't give a hoot about the CO's personal opinion. When I prepared my frontloaded evidence, my goal was to win. In telling our "love story", I focused on addressing every possible red flag from every possible angle. I used the opportunity provided by question 18 on the I-129F to provide much of the evidence needed for this. I also included a timeline that answered every question on the blue slip, specifically addressing a number of potential red flags. I also included a list of her relatives in the US, explained when and where I'd met each one (if ever), and even drafted a family tree showing three generations of her family, and which specific members were in the US.

I don't know if I left any holes the CO could have exploited. If I did, he either didn't find them, or couldn't be bothered to look for them. As I said, I didn't want to make it easy for him. I also can't say for sure if frontloading had anything to do with our getting the visas (3 of them) with a very short and painless interview. I do know that I've seen other people shot down in flames for some of the same red flags we had. Even if frontloading wasn't the reason, at least it gave me an opportunity to feel like I was doing something constructive.

[luckytxn 2,264]

I am more of the type to think that the CO's are not so evil and want to give everyone a pink but the reality is they know that there is a huge amount of fraud attempts. I am also of the mind to send what is the least amount of evidence. The more evidence submitted the more ammo they have. Now this is not to say that if one has been there 3-4 times then just submit evidence of one time. No submit any and all evidence of the times went and the accompanying evidence. (Pics, tickets, etc.) Also a timeline that is pretty much detailed for the major points they want. No need to dwell on the supposed red flags that you see yourself as this may not be what the CO's see and then you may have inadvertently sent them more doubt. Just the facts is all that is needed. From there after the submission of the petition then start to get to know one another well and keep all proof that can show an ongoing relationship. Make sure the beneficiary knows you very well and your life and the area they will live in and especially the proper way to say the names. Then go and find the questions asked and go over these with them till they have it pat. After doing this then do it again and again and even come up with other questions that may be asked and so on and so on.

The main thing is enjoy each other and have fun too as you get to know each other. Probably 80 percent of the time was us goofing on each other and having fun. The other was answering anything we wanted to know. Each of us would write down something that came to us when we were not chatting as we went on with our lives and we would write down and ask later when we would chat.

[ScottThuy 140]

My viewpoint on this subject is somewhat jaded. I don't think the CO's in HCM believe that ANY relationship is sincere, no matter how much juicy evidence you pile on to the contrary. I think they approach every case with the presumption that the applicant is a fraud, and they're just looking for the evidence they need to deny the visa on that basis.

This doesn't mean I think it's pointless to frontload evidence of a genuine relationship. On the contrary, I think it's essential. At the same time, I think you need to be pragmatic, and view your case like a CO would. Knowing what you've read about other people's interviews, if you were a CO looking at your case for the first time, what sort of red flags would you be digging for? What would you suspect based on those red flags? What sort of evidence would convince you that those red flags were not enough reason to deny the visa? Moreover, what if you knew, as a CO, that you could not cite a specific thing as a reason for denial if that specific thing were already declared and explained in the petition package? What would stop you dead from being able to deny that visa?

The following paragraph is purely conjecture on my part...

I also believe the CO's in HCM are determined to deny a certain percentage of applications. Yes, that means I believe they have a quota system. I believe the visa section chief will put heavy pressure on a CO who isn't finding enough evidence to deny enough visas because I think the visa section chief believes the CO is probably letting some frauds get through, just looking at it statistically. If I were a CO, I'd go for the low hanging fruit first - the cases that have obvious red flags which were not previously addressed, and which have proven to be sufficient grounds for a visa denial. I'd be a lot more likely to give a pass to any case where I had to do some serious digging to find a scrap of evidence. As a petitioner, I want my fiancee's case to be one of the latter. I want the CO to have to work hard, dig deep, and even then not come up with any solid evidence that will stick.

Frankly, I didn't care if the CO believed we were really in love. I would have been perfectly content if the CO was absolutely convinced that our relationship was a sham, but couldn't come up with a shred of evidence he could use to deny the visa. As long as Phuong walked out with a pink slip, I didn't give a hoot about the CO's personal opinion. When I prepared my frontloaded evidence, my goal was to win. In telling our "love story", I focused on addressing every possible red flag from every possible angle. I used the opportunity provided by question 18 on the I-129F to provide much of the evidence needed for this. I also included a timeline that answered every question on the blue slip, specifically addressing a number of potential red flags. I also included a list of her relatives in the US, explained when and where I'd met each one (if ever), and even drafted a family tree showing three generations of her family, and which specific members were in the US.

I don't know if I left any holes the CO could have exploited. If I did, he either didn't find them, or couldn't be bothered to look for them. As I said, I didn't want to make it easy for him. I also can't say for sure if frontloading had anything to do with our getting the visas (3 of them) with a very short and painless interview. I do know that I've seen other people shot down in flames for some of the same red flags we had. Even if frontloading wasn't the reason, at least it gave me an opportunity to feel like I was doing something constructive.

Sadly enough, I agree 100% Jim.. its a shame that a quota system could exist when it comes to families, but thats the govt. I think that frontloading a case is agreat idea as long as it is done in a methodical way as has been stated in the past. not just dumping evidence to have it there... organization is the key... effective frontloading along with a well presented packet at the time of interview should be a great help to the CO when it comes to understanding the relationship..

As Jim said, question 18 should be looked at as an opportunity rather than just a spot on the form to meet some minimum requirement...

[BurningFinger 5]

I think the above posts pretty much sum it all up. Each case is unique and what worked for someone may or may not work for you. Just take a real honest look at your own case from the CO's point of view. What do you think would be considered red flags and would those red flags be enough to cause a potential visa denial? It is never going to be an easy decision to make since we have several members in this forum that have gotten their visas approved with heavily front-loaded petitions and several members have gotten their visas approved with just the bare minimums in the petition. If you feel that you have too many red flags, then you may need to consider front-loading the petition. If you feel that you do not have many red flags, then you may not have to consider front-loading your petition. Good luck!

[BinhJerome 14]

Each case is different, and I tend to agree more with Lucky than anyone else. There is not any forum that a CO has posted what a red flag is, we all assume it is this or that, and we base this on denials. In our case the CO lied, it was proven back in the US, so for us to say that the red flags had anything to do with the denial are false. Ulitmately the choice is yours to front load or not, I mean if you look at it like Lucky, and you think something is a red flag and you add proof that it shouldn't, the CO might look at your proof and go "hmm ok it looks fine" or "hmm why would they bring this up... what are they trying to distract me with or hide, is this evidence fake to give me the thought it isnt?" The facts are simple, we can only guess and speculate on what is or is not a red flag, I would frontload the heck out of any trips, or Dam Hoi photos, maybe throw in a timeline, but even after my denial I still feel that you need to give them what they ask for, and then double it at the least, meaning if they require two photos that prove you have met in the previous two years, dont just give two photos, give as many as you want. I think we put in 10, and then another 10 from our Dam Hoi with family in the background. No matter what anyone chooses to do, it may or may not be right, but as long as the person that is filing is okay with what they do or do not front load, then that is what counts. I think all the "red flag" theorys scare people, and they are not proven, HOWEVER I do like them because if 20 people think you have a red flag, it is better to be prepared for a possible question from the CO in confronting the red flag than to be blind sided by such a question. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of sanity. Jerome

[ScottThuy 140]

Jim you may not have read this, but The Former CO had a great deal of insight

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/140143-pink-but-making-us-wait/page__p__2037177__fromsearch__1entry2037177

Sound like a quota system of sorts?

[luckytxn 2,264]

I am positive that there is no quota system in place to deny a certain amount of visa's for just the hell of it. That would maybe make the denials here seem to have a special reason but no way that they have emplaced a quota system of denials. Wishful thinking.

[ScottThuy 140]

I am positive that there is no quota system in place to deny a certain amount of visa's for just the hell of it. That would maybe make the denials here seem to have a special reason but no way that they have emplaced a quota system of denials. Wishful thinking.

A quota of approvals.. or I should say a cap of a certain number.. and the rest get delayed or denied if they can find a reason... I suspect that they do need to have some denials or else they are running the risk of looking bad.. but based on the statements of the former CO.. they have plenty of fraud cases to deny... it just gets difficult to tell the difference since the frauds can spend so much $ getting the case prepared...

[luckytxn 2,264]

Total bunk then about them having to deny a certain amount to look good. These are bureaucrats and they have a certain criteria they have to follow. They are trained to look for certain things that may need to be looked at further. This is red flags. They do have a system then when they notice a red flag they have to follow. You had two major red flags if I remember right and they gave you hard time so I think you are lashing out and looking for excuse to blame other than what your case is showing. This is wrong and not helpful to others here.

Most are coming here for help and need guidance and we are here to help but to send out false info like this wrong and very confusing to newbies. It is tough enough to get a visa at this consulate for obvious reason that does not need unfounded accusations now thrown in. Now I doubt that the guy in the other thread was even a former CO at HCMC. Even if he was he never said that there are denial quotas that need to be made. The best way to help people seeking help is give the best info at our disposal that we have.

[BurningFinger 5]

Previous experiences from those that have gone before us shows that the HCMC Consulate is capable of just about anything. We make assumptions of what procedures the Consulate follows based upon the treatment some of those have been through at the interview. Without actually working or having worked inside the Consulate as an employee or personally knowing an employee inside the Consulate, nobody will ever really know if such a quota system exists or not. Perhaps due to the behavioral patterns the HCMC Consulate shows, some believe there is a quota in place. Maybe there is. Maybe there isn't. Fact is, none of us work inside the Consulate so we don't have the slightest idea what really goes on at the heart of their visa adjudication process or procedure.

Look, I understand the HCMC Consulate is one of the most difficult one's on the planet. Although I don't always like their ways of handling visa's, I do understand where it is coming from. Those visa fraud scamming morons are the ones that made things this way. And because it is so difficult for us to understand why the Consulate behaves the way they do, the natural thing to do is to try to find answers. Honestly guys, I don't think we will ever know what really goes on in there. I think the best thing anybody can do is to take ALOT of time learning the visa process and also learn from other people's mistakes and apply those lessons to your own case.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Total bunk then about them having to deny a certain amount to look good. These are bureaucrats and they have a certain criteria they have to follow. They are trained to look for certain things that may need to be looked at further. This is red flags. They do have a system then when they notice a red flag they have to follow. You had two major red flags if I remember right and they gave you hard time so I think you are lashing out and looking for excuse to blame other than what your case is showing. This is wrong and not helpful to others here.

Most are coming here for help and need guidance and we are here to help but to send out false info like this wrong and very confusing to newbies. It is tough enough to get a visa at this consulate for obvious reason that does not need unfounded accusations now thrown in. Now I doubt that the guy in the other thread was even a former CO at HCMC. Even if he was he never said that there are denial quotas that need to be made. The best way to help people seeking help is give the best info at our disposal that we have.

Sorry, I don't buy it. The consulate knows that a significant portion of the applicants are frauds. I'd be willing to bet my paycheck that they have a figure that they accept as a reasonably accurate percentage of the fraudulent applicants vs. the genuine applicants. I'd also bet that they watch the visa approval rate to see if it strays too far from that accepted percentage, especially if one consular officer is approving a much higher percentage of visas than another. I'd bet that the visa section chief would call that consular officer into his office to ask him why he's not catching as many of bad guys as the other consular officers. It's distinctly possible that the consular officer could just be lucky, and he's getting a disproportionate number of the sincere applicants at his window, but I doubt his boss would see it that way. Every CO's performance has to be judged against a known standard, and the same standard has to be applied to everyone. If the CO is told that, on average, half of the applications he sees are going to be frauds (for example), then he's going to set his red flag radar so that about half will get caught.

Of course, this is just my opinion. I could be completely wrong, but I'd be very surprised if I was. It makes sense, from a management perspective, and it's consistent with what I see happening.