HCMC Keep the big picture in mind

[ScottThuy 140]

Here is a link to a PDf that may help those about to interview at any stage of the process... http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/USCIS_Fraud_Referral_Sheet.pdf

[Tuanv 2]

WOW! THANK!@!

[BinhJerome 14]

Looks like frontloading might be a no no if this is what they use.......... And it clearly looks like the proximity of your marriage ending and the engagement is a factor for you still being in AP. Jerome

Edited June 15, 2010 by jeromebinh

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Looks like frontloading might be a no no if this is what they use.

Considering the number of people who have frontloaded their petitions and not been referred to FPU, on what do you base this assumption?

Edited June 15, 2010 by JimVaPhuong

[BinhJerome 14]

Considering the number of people who have frontloaded their petitions and not been referred to FPU, on what do you base this assumption?

Jim, I base this assumption on the PDF link where it says “Other general fraud indicators guide” and then you look down the third row on the left it states Over-Submissions. I also base it on the fact that Scott was an avid front loader about every single red flag that he deemed as a red flag. Most people that I have talked with that did front load, did not seem to go to the extreme that Scott was going to, with letters of how he and his fiancée met from other people (a professor or someone) then he frontloaded about his reasoning for his divorce not happening until after they met, even though it had been filed previously just not finalized. This to me would be considered “Over-Submissions” since it is bringing light to something that could be considered badly, something that serious I would have simply made sure I had the evidence at the interview, and confronted it there instead of making such a big deal of it pre interview. Especially when the PDF also states “Divorce / new marriage dates close” I know I am bending this one a bit since he did not and has not gotten married, and this is also for the I-130 and not necessarily the K1 visa that he applied for. Granted we all knew already that this would be an issue for him in this process, but I have always thought why give them something to doubt, just prepare for it “IF” it comes up. Other people besides me have said and thought front loading was a bad idea, and it clearly states that “over-submission” is a fraud indicator, and that has ALWAYS been my argument to front loading. This is why I have said I feel that over front loading is not good, I feel that if you think your petition lacks something to front load why, but if you feel there is a problem with your petition DO NOT front load that, but instead have the proof why it should not be an issue and submit it at the interview instead, this is my opinion, and since this is a forum that people ask advice for, I figured I would add my opinion especially since what Scott has posted in my view proves that front loading can be considered a bad thing, now if you have a reason why after reading the PDF that contradicts the statement of frontloading being bad please do so, as I would like to know your take on it Jim since I truly do value your opinion, but like I said I keep getting hung up on the general clause “Over-Submissions” being a fraud indicator, and also, clearly if you simply do exactly what the petition states as the requirements for, then you should not get put in AP at the NVC, because after all, they only look at what you submit and deem you eligible to proceed or not, based on the requirements, and if you give them something extra that could be considered bad, even though you have proof it should not be looked upon in a bad way, it still starts your petition off with doubt. Once again simply my opinion, and I welcome your opinion. Jerome

[sachinky 464]

Over-submission or front-loading can, I suppose, be taken as 'over-compensating' which I read somewhere is usually a 'fraud indicator.'

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Jim, I base this assumption on the PDF link where it says “Other general fraud indicators guide” and then you look down the third row on the left it states Over-Submissions. I also base it on the fact that Scott was an avid front loader about every single red flag that he deemed as a red flag. Most people that I have talked with that did front load, did not seem to go to the extreme that Scott was going to, with letters of how he and his fiancée met from other people (a professor or someone) then he frontloaded about his reasoning for his divorce not happening until after they met, even though it had been filed previously just not finalized. This to me would be considered “Over-Submissions” since it is bringing light to something that could be considered badly, something that serious I would have simply made sure I had the evidence at the interview, and confronted it there instead of making such a big deal of it pre interview. Especially when the PDF also states “Divorce / new marriage dates close” I know I am bending this one a bit since he did not and has not gotten married, and this is also for the I-130 and not necessarily the K1 visa that he applied for. Granted we all knew already that this would be an issue for him in this process, but I have always thought why give them something to doubt, just prepare for it “IF” it comes up. Other people besides me have said and thought front loading was a bad idea, and it clearly states that “over-submission” is a fraud indicator, and that has ALWAYS been my argument to front loading. This is why I have said I feel that over front loading is not good, I feel that if you think your petition lacks something to front load why, but if you feel there is a problem with your petition DO NOT front load that, but instead have the proof why it should not be an issue and submit it at the interview instead, this is my opinion, and since this is a forum that people ask advice for, I figured I would add my opinion especially since what Scott has posted in my view proves that front loading can be considered a bad thing, now if you have a reason why after reading the PDF that contradicts the statement of frontloading being bad please do so, as I would like to know your take on it Jim since I truly do value your opinion, but like I said I keep getting hung up on the general clause “Over-Submissions” being a fraud indicator, and also, clearly if you simply do exactly what the petition states as the requirements for, then you should not get put in AP at the NVC, because after all, they only look at what you submit and deem you eligible to proceed or not, based on the requirements, and if you give them something extra that could be considered bad, even though you have proof it should not be looked upon in a bad way, it still starts your petition off with doubt. Once again simply my opinion, and I welcome your opinion. Jerome

Ok, I figured that was the one you were referring to.

"Over-Submissions" is kind of vague, so it's difficult to tell exactly what to infer from that. If I had to guess (and that's all it would be), I'd say they are referring to submitting more evidence than a normal person would likely be able to accumulate unless they were specifically focusing on generating evidence for a visa interview. For example, if someone made two trips to their fiancee's country, a week each time, and then their fiancee went to the interview with a collection of more than 1000 photographs, I'd say that was pretty damn suspicious. They'd have to be doing nothing else but posing for photographs for all the time they were together. I'd say the same thing if, given the same scenario of two visits a week at a time, they managed to come up with signed affidavits from two dozen people. How the heck would two dozen people know their relationship was valid in only two weeks?

Anyway, frontloading isn't about piling a truckload of evidence into your petition. It's about pinpointing the things that you think might be red flags to a consular officer, and providing evidence to reasonably explain them. This doesn't require a bazillion pictures or a stack of affidavits or anything like that. A red flag can often be explained in a few sentences, or covered with a few photos. Personally, I wouldn't consider explaining a red flag with a reasonable amount of evidence to be an "over-submission".

[BinhJerome 14]

Ok, I figured that was the one you were referring to.

"Over-Submissions" is kind of vague, so it's difficult to tell exactly what to infer from that. If I had to guess (and that's all it would be), I'd say they are referring to submitting more evidence than a normal person would likely be able to accumulate unless they were specifically focusing on generating evidence for a visa interview. For example, if someone made two trips to their fiancee's country, a week each time, and then their fiancee went to the interview with a collection of more than 1000 photographs, I'd say that was pretty damn suspicious. They'd have to be doing nothing else but posing for photographs for all the time they were together. I'd say the same thing if, given the same scenario of two visits a week at a time, they managed to come up with signed affidavits from two dozen people. How the heck would two dozen people know their relationship was valid in only two weeks?

Anyway, frontloading isn't about piling a truckload of evidence into your petition. It's about pinpointing the things that you think might be red flags to a consular officer, and providing evidence to reasonably explain them. This doesn't require a bazillion pictures or a stack of affidavits or anything like that. A red flag can often be explained in a few sentences, or covered with a few photos. Personally, I wouldn't consider explaining a red flag with a reasonable amount of evidence to be an "over-submission".

Jim, I do agree with your assumption on having 1000 pictures for 2 weeks worth of visits or 12 affidavits, but I still get stuck on over-submission, if the packet asks for specific things, meaning proof of meeting at least once within a 2 year period, proof both of you can be legally married, or proof of divorces, ect. Ect. If you then start to address things that you feel are red flags, this goes above and beyond what they are wanting, and giving more evidence than is required, meaning “over-submission” Likely this debate will continue on and on with no clear proof of what is right and what is wrong, my friend the CO clearly stated that when he gets a petition that has things not required “meaning addressing problems (red flags)” that he then gets suspicious, which is a clear link to the statement of over-submission, granted this is what he feels, maybe it is because this PDF that Scott came up with is in fact the guidelines that they do in fact go by to determine fraud. I have made a copy, and plan on showing him to get his two cents worth the next time we go and have lunch. He has also said numerous times that a person ruined the visa when they brought things for them to look into. As a matter of fact the last time we had lunch he said he was about to give a woman a visa when he looked through what she brought one last time, and saw a document that was addressing a previous marriage that had recently ended from the American who was sponsoring the petition, and he thought that it would be strange for him to have a letter from him and letters from a couple of his friends stating that they knew his current relationship was real. So instead of giving her the pink he changed it to a blue requesting evidence of where his ex wife lived. To make the long story short he said when he called to investigate the evidence they later submitted had discrepancies of when she actually had moved out. Basically through this evidence that was submitted prior to the interview and what the beneficiary had with her at the time of the interview and what was later submitted, he determined it was fraudulent, and they got a fraud marker on both the petitioner and the beneficiary. Granted this was their mistake because what was front loaded did not match with what was at the interview, and then what was submitted later was different from both, but my point is that it all started off by having something not required submitted prior to the interview. If they had not frontloaded, and she had what she had, then it would have gone through if the question came up.

I also agree with you that frontloading isn’t about piling a truckload of evidence into the petition, but the way people view frontloading of “any and all red flags” to many means giving them a truck load of evidence. I say if they ask for two photos that proved you have recently met, send them 4 or 6, not 20 or 30, and if they want proof of income, give them that then a few recent pay stubs or a bank statement, but when it comes to anything that is not required, I feel that is better left for an interview, and to be prepared at that time, and not any sooner. The main reason for this is that we truly do not know what a red flag is, at least until reading the PDF, but even in other cases it is clear that they do not go entirely by this. The way I see it is that we already know they are over worked, and they are human (meaning they can miss something) so why give them a heads up prior to the interview, clearly the decision is made prior to the interview in many (probably most if not all) cases, and the interview just confirms their decision or it makes them look at it again and in a deeper level. So I say let’s see what they miss, and don’t give them any more ammunition than they already have, but what we feel is a red flag, must be addressed, and proof must be had of the reason for something not quite right in our petition, and have it at the interview and use it only if we need to. Once again it is simply my opinion on this matter. Jerome

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Ok, before we get too deep into this conversation, the first thing that should be pointed out is that the document Scott posted is from USCIS, and not Department of State. There's no reason to conclude that the consulate will use the same form, nor the same criteria. Since the document appears to be for adjudicating I-130's, and includes criteria that could only be determined at an interview, I'd have to presume it was meant for an AOS interview for an I-130 submitted for a beneficiary who was in the US at the time the petition was submitted.

But, for the sake of argument, let's presume that the consulate has a form similar to the one Scott posted, and it contains essentially the same criteria...

I don't doubt that frontloading can be a double edged sword. As you pointed out, you could just be telling the consular officer that there's a potential problem that he wouldn't have known about if you hadn't told him about it. My point is that the potential problem exists, whether you tell him about it or not. If you don't tell him about it, and he discovers it on his own, then he's certainly going to use it to deny you. If you do tell him about it (by frontloading), and you botch the disclosure so that it conflicts with the actual facts or other evidence, then he's going to use THAT as a reason to deny you.

I'll add that I believe frontloading is only of value if the red flag might be a sign to the consular officer that a problem exists, but the reality is that there is no problem, and you frontload evidence to PROVE that there is no problem. Example: You are introduced by a family member of the beneficiary. To the CO, this smells like the family of the beneficiary is arranging a quick and easy way for the beneficiary to immigrate. You can counter this suspicion by frontloading evidence that makes it clear that this isn't the case. Maybe you knew the beneficiary's family member for years, and saw the beneficiary in a family photo. After asking about her, the beneficiary's family member offered to introduce you, but had no other active role in the development of the relationship. On the other hand, if the family member is someone you only knew casually at work, and one day out of the blue he asks if you want to meet his Vietnamese niece, that DOES sound like a family member trying to set up an American to help his niece immigrate. Frontloading this evidence would only confirm what the CO is suspecting. In other words, the problem is there and it's REAL. Frontloading isn't going to fix this.

Now, if the red flag exists, and there's a good chance the CO will discover it on his own, then you can bet it's going to come up at the interview. If no evidence was provided in advance to counter the SUSPICION that the red flag generates, then the CO needs no other reason to deny the visa. If the suspicion is baseless, and you save your evidence that proves this for the interview, the CO isn't obligated to accept your evidence. If you include that evidence with the petition then the CO can't claim the evidence doesn't exist.

Just a side note - I've never heard of a visa being denied because the applicant presented too much evidence. I personally watched a young girl enter the consulate with a collapsible shopping cart containing at least 50 pounds of evidence (this was a CR1 interview after a previous failed K1). Bernie and I talked with her husband for a couple of hours at the restaurant across the street from the consulate. She wasn't asked to present any of the evidence she brought, but the CO certainly knew she had it. Jeez, the cart was practically bigger than she was. Her visa was approved.

[lindal24 1]

Wow...that was alot of words...of which I only took away: over compensating information = fraud ...lol!

[lindal24 1]

nice document though!

[ScottThuy 140]

As Jim noted, the document is created for use at USCIS for 130's... I would not be surprised if there is a similar doc or policy being used at the consular level...

My intent of posting this was to give insight to those going to inteviews.. I like the fact that it is broken down into each thing they consider s flag.. such as

Over interaction

Eye contact

Evasive or general answers

lack of interaction..

Over submission

and consistent use of same notary...

There has been a common ideology that when asked, try to be brief and to the point, no extra commentary.(what are you going to do when you get to the US?... Marry my darling within 90 days). its been said to also submit as much evidence as can be had to avoid lack of bonafide... these things dont appear to be a fine line between one or the other.. As Jim said they are looking for extremes.. but the notary thing could unknowingly be an issue for many.. we use what is convenient... now we know, use a variety of notaries... (go to different bank branches over a period of time rather than one one day)

Each case is different and cant be compared to one another... all that can be done is look at the big picture and try to develope a well organized package that is clear and concise.. If I were a CO or anyone going over a case file I would wonder what the deal was if a whole bunch of #######/evidence was lumped together...

In many ways, this checkilst is counterintuitive.. those commiting fraud are well aware of the ins and outs and are not likely to throw a bunch of evidence at the CO as a shotgun approach.. the ones that will get stuck up in this evaluation method in many cases are those that are freaked out by the complexity and confusion of the entire process... If the applicant goes to the interview affraid they will be kept apart from thier SO because its one of the most F'd up consulates out there.. the applicant could trigger several of these flags just by being nervous... or trying to be sure they show the CO its areal relationship.

I didnt use our petition or what has happened to us in any way regarding this checklist or this topic.... So there is no reasonable cause for anyone to be evaluating our specific case in regards to this checklist... as I would not disect anyone elses case when it comes to what a reviewer was thinking as it applies to this document.. that would be inappropriate unless they initiated the comparison ..

[BinhJerome 14]

I didnt use our petition or what has happened to us in any way regarding this checklist or this topic.... So there is no reasonable cause for anyone to be evaluating our specific case in regards to this checklist... as I would not disect anyone elses case when it comes to what a reviewer was thinking as it applies to this document.. that would be inappropriate unless they initiated the comparison ..

Scott, you did post this topic, and in the past you have been an avid supporter of frontloading any and all red flags, that is why I have made reference to your case, this was never an attack on you or what you did, as this is a public forum people are entitled to their opinions, and I am giving my opinion on your post. Luckytxn was said to have had major red flags by many and he choose not to frontload and was approved. You are still in limbo, and have not yet been denied or approved, so maybe you will eventually be able to add to the topic I started about frontloading so that people can make their choice based on past experience rather than people sole opinions.

Jim, now back to your post, I agree that a CO does not have to accept any evidence you bring to the interview, but they DO HAVE to accept it if you submit it after the interview. I also know in my personal petition that the CO even with evidence can lie and still give you a denial even when the evidence is in his file, proof of this point is one of our reasons for denial, the CO stated that I only made one trip, when in fact I was the one that brought over by hand our notarized timeline, and I was at the Consulate a third time 10 days prior to our denial, so the only way for him to have denied us for one trip is that when the interview was done they made our denial and it sat on a desk collecting dust from July on and they never waited for us to resubmit what they wanted. In out specific case I was able to obtain ALL of our papers including the CO's personal notes on our case, and It was denied 6 days prior to my leaving 4 days after I came for a follow up with a note stating to email the results on the day they knew I was leaving. My point from this is that everything we did submit later on was in our file, so even if the CO does not take or accept it from you at the time of interview you still have a chance to get it into the file. I still think that submitting things they do not ask for is over submitting. And as Linda said and the PDF states

Over-submitting = fraud indicator

If it is in the instructions for you to submit it, then put it in, and maybe put a bit more than what they require, but if it is not mentioned in the petition instructions, I still say save it for the interview, and if the CO will not take it then, walk outside, come back in and give it all to them to put into your case, this is your right, and one they cannot refuse you, and any possible red flags should be addressed (in your interview package) if the CO asks, and try to give it to them at that point in time, not sooner. And once again, we all know they refuse to look at things, that are fine, just submitting it later, and you know it will be in your file. Again my opinion on front loading is not to do it, Jerome

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

I understand your point, Jerome, but I don't think that submitting a pile of evidence at or after the interview accomplishes the intended goal, which is to get the evidence into the APPROVED petition package. I know you're probably sick of looking at this policy cable from DoS, but here it is again:

http://travel.state.gov/visa/laws/telegrams/telegrams_1388.html

Where Congress has placed responsibility and authority with DHS to determine whether the requirements for status which are examined in the petition process have been met, consular officers do not have the authority to question the approval of petitions without specific evidence, generally unavailable to DHS at the time of petition approval, that the beneficiary may not be entitled to status (see 9 FAM 41.53, Note 2, 41.54 Note 3.2-2, 41.55 Note 8, 41.56 Note 10, 41.57 Note 6, and 42.43 Note 2) due to fraud, changes in circumstances or clear error on the part of DHS in approving the petition. Conoffs should not assume that a petition should be revoked simply because they would have reached a different decision if adjudicating the petition.

If the evidence is included in the petition package; i.e., "frontloaded", and the petition is approved, then the consular officer has little authority to challenge it. If it's submitted after the petition is approved then he can challenge it any way he sees fit. He can openly accuse the beneficiary and/or petitioner of outright fraud, and declare the evidence to be fake, regardless of how much additional evidence you provide. It doesn't matter if your evidence is placed in the case file because the consular officer has the discretion to determine how much weight to give to the evidence. The consular officer is not bound by the presumption that the evidence is valid, which he would be if the evidence had been screened and approved by USCIS.

the consular officer''s role in the petition process is to determine if there is substantial evidence relevant to petition validity not previously considered by DHS, and not to merely readjudicate the petition

One of the reasons this cable was sent in 2004, and the FAM subsequently updated, was because Department of State was being sued, along with Department of Homeland Security, in cases involving returned petitions.

The Department is regularly named as a co-defendant with DHS in cases involving the return of immigrant or nonimmigrant petitions to DHS. Therefore, it is particularly important that consular petition adjudications are well documented and clearly state the basis for the petition return.

Obviously, this cable does not make an inadmissibility disappear. If a beneficiary was clearly inadmissible, and evidence of that inadmissibility were provided with the petition, then USCIS is not supposed to approve the petition. If they do, then the consular officer has clear evidence that USCIS erred when they approved the petition. The cable makes it clear that the consular officer would be correct in denying the visa. However, it DOES mean that the consular officer can't fabricate accusations of misrepresentation citing reasons that were clearly explained in the petition unless he's willing to ALSO accuse USCIS of screwing up when they approved the petition.

Using the example you cited, if the petition contained a description of multiple trips to Vietnam, along with supporting evidence, then the consular officer MAY NOT claim that the petitioner made only one trip to Vietnam. The evidence to counter the consular officer's claim was ALREADY APPROVED by USCIS. However, if this evidence is not submitted with the petition, then the consular can claim anything he likes, regardless how much evidence you submit at or after the interview.

[ScottThuy 140]

To have that info in the initial petition would not require a a boat load of evidence... a sigle page that had copies of ticket stubs on it submitted with the initial petition would not be considered too much being submitted... and they may not ignore that evidence... it all boils down to the context of the info being provided... most of what is frontloaded can be done in a few pages which should not raise flags about the amount being submitted... its how the info is frontloaded that is more important...

a few hundred photos in the initial filing compared to a few pages of ticket stubs... one is extreme one is not... If the CO wants to deny the case.. they will find a reason... if they cite something that was documented in the initial filing it wont happen a second time as the case will be reaffirmed since the policy is clear.... if they lie, it should be no problem to document the fact that they lied in the rebuttal...