Front loading Debate

[BinhJerome 14]

I want to start this topic because of all the recent and not so recent debate over front loading. So please anyone that has gone through an interview and if you have front loaded any red flags that you thought were red flags, please comment on this thread.

For those that did front load

1) What did you front load?

2) Did you get asked about any red flags you front loaded

3) Did you get a visa after the interview

4) Did you get a blue slip at the interview

5) If you got a blue slip at the interview did it ask for proof of the red flag you frontloaded

Questions for people that did not front load but did have evidence at the interview addressing what was thought of as a red flag

1) What did you feel were your red flags

2) Were you asked about your presumed red flags at the interview

3) Did the CO look at your evidence for the red flags

4) If the CO refused to look at your evidence were you given a blue slip requesting what you already had at the interview

5) After the interview if you were asked about the red flags and the CO looked at your evidence were you given a pink

6) If you were not asked about any red flags, and then still given a blue were the requests for evidence what you thought of as red flags, and did you have that evidence with you

I will be the first to add our experience with this post.

I did not front load. We were worried about my divorce with my wife being in prison so we had the evidence at the interview. We were asked by the CO about my ex wife, and where she lived, he refused to look at our proof where she was living (prison documents) The other red flag was my previous K1 petition filed almost two years prior, this never came up at the interview, and was not on our blue slip

Over all outcome of our case was denial, not based on any of our supposed red flags

Edited June 15, 2010 by jeromebinh

[Bob g 11]

I want to start this topic because of all the recent and not so recent debate over front loading. So please anyone that has gone through an interview and if you have front loaded any red flags that you thought were red flags, please comment on this thread.

For those that did front load

1) What did you front load?

2) Did you get asked about any red flags you front loaded

3) Did you get a visa after the interview

4) Did you get a blue slip at the interview

5) If you got a blue slip at the interview did it ask for proof of the red flag you frontloaded

Questions for people that did not front load but did have evidence at the interview addressing what was thought of as a red flag

1) What did you feel were your red flags

2) Were you asked about your presumed red flags at the interview

3) Did the CO look at your evidence for the red flags

4) If the CO refused to look at your evidence were you given a blue slip requesting what you already had at the interview

5) After the interview if you were asked about the red flags and the CO looked at your evidence were you given a pink

6) If you were not asked about any red flags, and then still given a blue were the requests for evidence what you thought of as red flags, and did you have that evidence with you

I will be the first to add our experience with this post.

I did not front load. We were worried about my divorce with my wife being in prison so we had the evidence at the interview. We were asked by the CO about my ex wife, and where she lived, he refused to look at our proof where she was living (prison documents) The other red flag was my previous K1 petition filed almost two years prior, this never came up at the interview, and was not on our blue slip

Over all outcome of our case was denial, not based on any of our supposed red flags

I think the inportant thing about front loading is that the Interview Officer can read the supplied information very easy, and that our SOs understand the information as well as possible.

Our case was denied, no supposed red flags, just a butt head interviewer.

My SO was asked, "What was my job title at my former job", (1994) which was "Supervisor". She answered "sales". She thought the interviewer asked what type work the Company did, which was "Manufacturing of Sales Posters", which I had showed her many times while shopping, and she knew I was a supervisor many years. The information the interviewer had was that I was a Supervisor, and the Company name. Maybe if I had front loaded, "Supervisor at XXXX Company, (Manufacturer of Sales Posters) the Interviewer would have a better understanding of my SO's answer, and that she was well aware of what I did for a living.

My SO was asked, 2 times,"How many times I had sent money to her". Her answer was 5, which was correct, wire transfer at Christmas, and 4 Western Unions. I had not front loaded these copies, but my So supplied the copies at the Interview. I believe the Interviewer did not see the Wire trasfer, only the 4 Western Unions. On my second petion, I front loaded a COVER DOCUMENT which shows a downsized version of "All" money sent, Wire transfer and Western Union all on 1 sheet, and attached to copies.

On my second petition, I have tried to make the front loaded information as easy as possible for the Interview Officer to read at a glance.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

I want to start this topic because of all the recent and not so recent debate over front loading. So please anyone that has gone through an interview and if you have front loaded any red flags that you thought were red flags, please comment on this thread.

For those that did front load

1) What did you front load?

Detailed description of 3 trips to Vietnam (at the time the petition was submitted), including supporting evidence. This was in an attachment for question 18.

Timeline of relationship, answering the questions normally asked in the timeline request from HCMC consulate, and specifically addressing how we met (introduced by fiancee's uncle in the US).

List of beneficiary's family in the US, including if/how/when petitioner had met them.

2) Did you get asked about any red flags you front loaded

No

3) Did you get a visa after the interview

Yes

4) Did you get a blue slip at the interview

No

5) If you got a blue slip at the interview did it ask for proof of the red flag you frontloaded

N/A

[Kevin and 10]

1) What did you front load?

For our reaffirmed we front loaded everything with our rebuttal.

Trip evidence, photos, letters, affidavits, money transfers, emails, time line, relatives list, etc.

2) Did you get asked about any red flags you front loaded

3) Did you get a visa after the interview

4) Did you get a blue slip at the interview

We got a White Sheet for an updated I-864 and passport sized photos. In the end we got a visa.

5) If you got a blue slip at the interview did it ask for proof of the red flag you frontloaded

Our first filing we did not front load and did not front load for the K3 we filed for.

[BinhJerome 14]

Okay, I guess this should be the new question what do people call front loading.

To me frontloading is not adding anything that the petition requires, meaning if you added chat logs, and emails, many photos, or how you met, because in the petition that is what’s required.

For me frontloading means going into detail on what people feel are red flags.

Does anyone have a list of what they consider red flags? From our denial, I think these would be considered red flags

Family members living in the same state where petitioner lives

Small or no engagement ceremony

Only one trip (which was a lie we had 3)

No concrete wedding plans once she got to America (even though they say make no plans until after you get the visa)

From others

Divorce close to new marriage/engagement

Divorce with ex-spouse in prison

Living with family members of the beneficiary

These are the only ones that come to mind, please add to the list if you can think of more

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Okay, I guess this should be the new question what do people call front loading.

To me frontloading is not adding anything that the petition requires, meaning if you added chat logs, and emails, many photos, or how you met, because in the petition that is what’s required.

Everything you just listed is not required with the petition, with the possible exception of some photos. You are required to prove you physically met each other within the previous two years. A single sentence explaining when and where this meeting took place, accompanied by some evidence to back up that description, is enough to meet this requirement. Depending on the adjudicator, you might be able to satisfy this requirement with a copy of a boarding pass and a single photo, though most people submit a bit more than this.

Chat logs and emails are not required with the petition. They don't prove you've ever met face to face, which is the only thing you have to prove with the petition. They are evidence of an ongoing relationship, which is what needs to be proved at the interview. Including these with the petition would be frontloading, though it's hard to say whether they would satisfy the objective of addressing any red flags.

There are a lot of things that could be considered red flags, but many depend on multiple circumstances. Something that might be a red flag in one case might NOT be a red flag in another. Rather than try to produce a list, I'll use your list and describe what I did or might have tried to frontload to address it:

Family members living in the same state where petitioner lives

I had this same red flag. Phuong has MANY family members living within 100 miles of me. I provided a list of every family member that Phuong and her relatives were aware of who lived anywhere in the US, their addresses and phone numbers, their relationship to Phuong, whether I'd ever met them and when/where that meeting took place, and I created a family tree to show their relationship to Phuong. The evidence showed I had only met one of her relatives before I was introduced to her (the same uncle that introduced us), and that I'd known him for years prior to the introduction, and that I'd met many of the other relatives only after Phuong and I had established a relationship.

Small or no engagement ceremony

This is one of those red flags that you can actually fix without having to frontload evidence to try to explain it. The obvious solution is to go back to Vietnam and have the engagement ceremony and party. Blow a lot of money, and hire a professional photographer to document the event. I knew about this being a potential red flag in advance, so we carefully planned our ceremony and party for months before I returned on the my 3rd trip, and I didn't submit the petition until a month or so after I returned.

Only one trip (which was a lie we had 3)

I described each trip in my response to question 18. The description of these trips was a total of two pages, and included dates, and a brief overview of what we did during my time there. There were 27 additional pages containing copies of boarding passes, various receipts, and photos.

No concrete wedding plans once she got to America (even though they say make no plans until after you get the visa)

This one has been coming up more frequently at interviews lately. This isn't a red flag that should be addressed in the petition because it doesn't actually become a red flag until the CO asks about it and the beneficiary doesn't have an answer. Phuong and I rehearsed her answer in case this question came up. The answer doesn't have to be detailed. "We're going to have a civil wedding at the courthouse, and then a party at XYZ restaurant." Make sure the restaurant actually exists and that they do wedding parties. The CO's do have access to the internet.

From others

Divorce close to new marriage/engagement

You'd need to explain as clearly as possible that the divorce had nothing to do with the new relationship, and document this with evidence if possible. For example, if you could prove that the divorce had been filed before you met or were introduced to your fiancee. The key thing to keep in mind when preparing your explanation is what the CO is thinking, and why this is a red flag. The CO will either be thinking the divorce was a matter of convenience so that the petitioner would be eligible to file the petition (likely to be suspected if the petitioner is still living with his ex-wife), or he'll be thinking that the beneficiary persuaded the petitioner to divorce his wife so that he could file a petition for her (likely to be suspected if the divorce was initiated after the petitioner was met or was introduced to the beneficiary). If neither of these circumstances are true, then prove it in the frontloaded evidence.

Divorce with ex-spouse in prison

My ex-wife was in prison, but we were divorced years before she was convicted. However, if the divorce was obtained while she was in prison then it would be similar to the above - you'd need to explain clearly that the divorce had nothing to do with the new relationship. I did frontload evidence of my wife's current address - an envelope from a letter she wrote to my daughter, with the prison's return address and red stamp from the state department of corrections.

Living with family members of the beneficiary

This is a red flag that should be fixed rather than explained by frontloading. Move out and set up your own household. Don't file the petition until you're on your own and stable.

A red flag is a warning sign to the CO. It is an indication that a problem might exist. Like I said in the other thread, frontloading is meant to explain that the problem the CO suspects does not really exist. If the problem they suspect really DOES exist, then no amount of frontloading is going to resolve that. You have to actually fix the problem.

[Bernie C 24]

I think the only red flag I had was that I was previously married 3 times (however the last was 10 years ago so I was not to concerned about it).

My idea of front loading was providing more than the required information.

I sent tons of evidence from my first two visits with my petition. Not so many emails or chats but lots of pictures and receipts from everything.

I also sent a detailed one page letter about our relationship and most importantly to explain the wedding photos. You see on my second visit we had a full blown Vietnamese Wedding Ceremony with over 350 guests. I felt it was important to explain why I wanted to (and did) do this. Since I sent photos from our picture day (with Doan in multiple wedding gowns) and from our ceremony and reception - I had to clearly state why we chose to do this yet not register the marriage.

Between the submittal of the petition and the interview I visited two more times (a total of 4 visits in one year for a total of three months - last visit at interview was a month and a half).

We had no real issues at the interview. The CO did say husband to Doan a few times to which she replied - "Bernie is my fiance - we will be married in the US if I am approved for a visa".

We received a pink and subsequently received a blue then a white when we went to pick up the visa but it was only because they could not read her fingerprints when they sent them to the US. It was a bit confusing but when I visited the consulate the staff member was very polite and explained everything. He said he was sorry for the confusion and that they just simply had no form to explain what had happened - they just have the canned responses they issue. Overall - they treated my very well and the CO that interviewed Doan was very polite too.

I know we did things a little different and I may have taken a big chance by using the wedding photos as proof of relationship but I felt if I explained everything up front that all would be fine. And as such - for us it was. I can't say I would recomend this path since there is so much inconsistency - and if we would have had a different CO it may have been a totally different outcome. Who can say why things happen the way they do - I certainly do not understand the system and how decisions are made.

However ours is a case that shows that things can work out. I think we were very well preparred and Doan answered the 20 or 30 questions she was asked with confidence and correctly. She was even asked what my bosses name was and got it right! After all - she heard of me talk of him quite frequently (especially since he paid for one of my trip tickets as a Christmas present when I visited the very first time).

Its wonderful to be surrounded by genuine and caring people - not only at work and home, but also here on VJ.

As we see every day - no two cases are the same even when they appear to be nearly identical.

Well thats enough blabbing from me for now - back to work!

Take Care Jerome and Everyone and Best Wishes to ALL.

[Haonie 0]

This is my red flag…

August -2006: Filed K-1

January - 2007: Requested close the K-1 at U.S Consulate due to our relationship didn’t work out

***

September – 2007: Filed second K-1, of course not the same person.

I frontloaded the letter that I requested to close my first K-1 and also the letter from U.S Consulate confirmed me that the case was closed per petitioner requested. During an interviewed, the CO questioned my wife if she was aware of I had previous fiancé, and she said yes. The next question was…did you know why their relationship was end up? and the answered was match with the letter that I wrote before…Anyway, she still received 2 blue slips, but it was not about the previous fiancé, it’s about timeline and birth certificate.

Haonie

[vietazn 1]

Frontloading might be a red flag. We didn't frontload, and provided what was specifically requested in the application.

No blue paper, received visa a week after the interview. It could be a good idea to keep the application and process simple, KISS.

[luckytxn 2,263]

I sent in pretty much the basic proof of having met to satisfy the requirement to get the petition OK'ed. I sent a copy of the airplane tickets and boarding passes and even some receipts from VN. I sent maybe too many pics of us together (about 30) where we were in different clothing and places. I did not send in a timeline but I did send a separate sheet to answer the question on one of the forms on how we met. It was not needed for proof of having met but it did ask that question on one of the forms. That is all the front loading I did. I did know that making only one trip was a huge red flag and knowing her so shortly by proof and getting engaged was another but decided that we had to try to satisfy that by the ongoing relationship proof at the consulate stage so I made sure to have as much as possible for that and to show that I was established financially at that stage also by overdoing what they asked for. (By sending copies of my several retirement plans and deeds to several pieces of land I own and a house I own.)

I have never said that front loading heavily is bad. I just noticed for a period that there became a big movement here to front load and heavily for red flags so petitions can't be denied. At that same time we had new people coming here and started noticing them taking this advice to heart and just wanted to temper their enthusiasm a bit and hopefully make them realize that maybe they didn't need to front load things always. It is nice to know that if it was mentioned at the beginning that they can't deny for that reason but why go into this just to get a blue and redo everything? Now us older hands understand what the front loading is for but the newer people may be making mistakes by thinking they needed to front load problems that were better left unsaid. Have no idea if addressing by front loading the red flags I perceived would have given me a different outcome actually. At her interview a couple of things were asked that I was concerned about and taken care of easily by my fiancee by us preparing for the question. A couple of what I believed big red flags were never mentioned. It is my thinking that if I had front loaded for those couple of what I perceived red flags that maybe it would have caused unneeded attention and possibly been fatal. It is hard to say.

I do know that this site has been very helpful for many by helping us prepare for what is to come. The consulate procedures and the questioning has been invaluable. Without that knowledge I am sure many would be doomed from ignorance. Over the time being here I also noticed sometimes the consulate seems to be zeroing in on new items. This is what I know to be bureaucracy. I understand bureaucracy well and know that they have to follow procedures in certain ways and can't vary much. They also can't just make decisions on their own but follow their leaders. A sure way for a bureaucrat to ruin their career is by being a maverick I. I also know that bureaucrats love meetings and have daily and also weekly meetings. I think understanding this bureaucrat mentality is important. This is my opinion only.

I thought great debate was the timeline. My very basic letter style timeline or the neat chronological to the frigging love story book style with gag enducing commentary was informative. Also the what is best ongoing relationship proof stuff. Nothing beats when the very few that actually comes in and tells us their interview and question and answers. Now this past year I have found out about the lexisnexis stuff and the info they have at their fingertips is a very priceless info that can only help us all. Since last year I have gone and taken care of a lot of things that I have found out even though I have my babe here.

We may never know satisfactory why some get beat down by certain things and others skate by but it helps us that we know what others are doing.(Like I can get away with one trip others NO)

[ScottThuy 140]

Agreed!!!

Last year there was the push to frontload to force info down the consulates throat... but IMO that does not happen since items that I had frontloaded.. were asked for in the blue slip... so the consulate will do what they want when it comes to evidence and documents...

If I had it to do over again, I would have requested the Lexis report before the initial petition... so I knew what to expect... I think the key to timelines as well as the rest is to be clear and concise... nobody wants to read a timeline that sounds like a lifetime channel mini-series...

I suspect that I was in AP at NVC because I frontloaded proof of my ex's domicle... so frontloading my file actually IMO cost me an extra month of waiting... at a minimum...

[vietazn 1]

The frontloading movement lost a lot of cred when the argument for frontloading started to become circular: If you frontloaded and were successful, then you addressed your red flags. If you frontloaded and were unsuccessful, then you must not have addressed your red flags enough. Then postings started coming out from posters who didn't frontload and were successful, as well as posters who frontloaded and were unsuccessful. The takeaway from this is to do what is appropriate for your situation.

Edited June 18, 2010 by vietazn

[clayr1 3]

The part that gets me is that on the state dept website it says do not make wedding plans because visas can take weeks or months to be issued so why make it a point to say no evidence of a wedding? This is a prime example of dealing with the government. I have made umpteen phone calls to USCIS and state dept and get no where. USA is the communist country.

The part that gets me is that on the state dept website it says do not make wedding plans because visas can take weeks or months to be issued so why make it a point to say no evidence of a wedding? This is a prime example of dealing with the government. I have made umpteen phone calls to USCIS and state dept and get no where. USA is the communist country.

The part that gets me is that on the state dept website it says do not make wedding plans because visas can take weeks or months to be issued so why make it a point to say no evidence of a wedding? This is a prime example of dealing with the government. I have made umpteen phone calls to USCIS and state dept and get no where. USA is the communist country.

The part that gets me is that on the state dept website it says do not make wedding plans because visas can take weeks or months to be issued so why make it a point to say no evidence of a wedding? This is a prime example of dealing with the government. I have made umpteen phone calls to USCIS and state dept and get no where. USA is the communist country.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

The part that gets me is that on the state dept website it says do not make wedding plans because visas can take weeks or months to be issued so why make it a point to say no evidence of a wedding? This is a prime example of dealing with the government. I have made umpteen phone calls to USCIS and state dept and get no where. USA is the communist country.

The part that gets me is that on the state dept website it says do not make wedding plans because visas can take weeks or months to be issued so why make it a point to say no evidence of a wedding? This is a prime example of dealing with the government. I have made umpteen phone calls to USCIS and state dept and get no where. USA is the communist country.

The part that gets me is that on the state dept website it says do not make wedding plans because visas can take weeks or months to be issued so why make it a point to say no evidence of a wedding? This is a prime example of dealing with the government. I have made umpteen phone calls to USCIS and state dept and get no where. USA is the communist country.

The part that gets me is that on the state dept website it says do not make wedding plans because visas can take weeks or months to be issued so why make it a point to say no evidence of a wedding? This is a prime example of dealing with the government. I have made umpteen phone calls to USCIS and state dept and get no where. USA is the communist country.

I think you're doin' it wrong. In order for your wish to come true you don't just repeat it several times. You have to wear the ruby slippers and click your heels.

When they ask about wedding plans, they aren't asking for dates and copies of your embossed invitations. They just want some evidence that you've actually discussed it, and have a reasonable idea what you're going to do. They advise you not to make any concrete plans, but they don't forbid you from discussing it. I think what the CO is looking for, more than anything else, is a beneficiary who is completely stumped by the question. Their thinking, which is admittedly somewhat oblique, is that a sincere couple are planning their future life together, and the wedding would be a major milestone they would have given some thought to, while a fraudster would be thinking primarily about the immigration process, and not giving much thought to minor details like getting married.

This is about bureaucracy, and not political systems. They probably pay some eggheads to think up these questions. When it becomes obvious that the majority of applicants have caught on, then they throw some new questions into the mix to stir things up. The key to getting what you want from a bureaucracy is to give them precisely what they want. They don't know how to deal with non-conformity.

BTW, communism runs the gamut from oligarchy to dictatorship. Our system of government is run by a group of people based on a legal framework (a republic), and those people are elected by majority vote (a democracy), so the US is a democratic republic. Bureaucracy is universal to all modern forms of government.

[BinhJerome 14]

I think you're doin' it wrong. In order for your wish to come true you don't just repeat it several times. You have to wear the ruby slippers and click your heels.

When they ask about wedding plans, they aren't asking for dates and copies of your embossed invitations. They just want some evidence that you've actually discussed it, and have a reasonable idea what you're going to do. They advise you not to make any concrete plans, but they don't forbid you from discussing it. I think what the CO is looking for, more than anything else, is a beneficiary who is completely stumped by the question. Their thinking, which is admittedly somewhat oblique, is that a sincere couple are planning their future life together, and the wedding would be a major milestone they would have given some thought to, while a fraudster would be thinking primarily about the immigration process, and not giving much thought to minor details like getting married.

This is about bureaucracy, and not political systems. They probably pay some eggheads to think up these questions. When it becomes obvious that the majority of applicants have caught on, then they throw some new questions into the mix to stir things up. The key to getting what you want from a bureaucracy is to give them precisely what they want. They don't know how to deal with non-conformity.

BTW, communism runs the gamut from oligarchy to dictatorship. Our system of government is run by a group of people based on a legal framework (a republic), and those people are elected by majority vote (a democracy), so the US is a democratic republic. Bureaucracy is universal to all modern forms of government.

Jim, at our interview when asked about our wedding plans, Binh had the state, the date, and the reason for it not being where I currently lived because Missouri was closer to my friends and family, and this was still a reason for our denial, they want something more than just basic plans, and others have had the same response with similar answers, one person said his fiancee knew the name of the church and the pastor, because they had discussed it in such detail, and it was on their denial as well. BTW not ALL of our officials are elected by majority, the main "Elected official (the President)" is not truly elected by the people at all, but in fact a governing body (electorial college) chooses him, it is supposed to be based on our vote, but in states like California, New York, and Florida they get the majority of the vote for the president because they have more citizens than any other state, so in theory, if only 1 person voted in each of those states, andif every person in Montana voted those 3 people would have more effect on the outcome of the President than all the people in Montana combined, so to me that is NOT an elected official but that is of course off topic, but I did want to throw in my two cents worth, and another fun fact is that arguably one of our greatest Presidents ever actually lost the popular vote and still won the election and not not the younger Bush, do you know who he was? Jerome