Fiance Visa - K1 Questions HELP!! :(

[Mrsjackson 300]

8 minutes ago, EG&XY said:

This is incorrect. There is no requirement to submit pictures.

 

The requirement is to prove that you have physically been together in the same place within the last 2 years. Pictures are actually very weak proof. Things such as rental contracts, receipts, plane tickets, etc are much better evidence and pictures can help support those.

 

Pictures are recommended, but they only act as secondary supporting evidence to the other things that you provide.

You're right (and very technical). I should not have said that pictures were a requirement, what I meant was proof of having met is the requirement and the majority of applicants use pictures to do so. However, pictures are not "weak proof" of having met as you say. Even if they are supplementary evidence, it is still widely regarded as a necessity and an application without pictures might not go over well, so let's not encourage people to not include pictures. 

[EG&XY 144]

4 minutes ago, Mrsjackson said:

You're right (and very technical). I should not have said that pictures were a requirement, what I meant was proof of having met is the requirement and the majority of applicants use pictures to do so. However, pictures are not "weak proof" of having met as you say. Even if they are supplementary evidence, it is still widely regarded as a necessity and an application without pictures might not go over well, so let's not encourage people to not include pictures. 

It's not that I'm being very technical, what you said was factually incorrect. You stated it as a fact, and it was incorrect.

 

And pictures are in fact consodered to be weaker proof than the other forms of evidence. There is no way for the officer reviewing them to know for sure when it was taken. However the other forms of evidence would contain dates that actuall demonstrate when the even occurred.

[Mrsjackson 300]

7 minutes ago, EG&XY said:

It's not that I'm being very technical, what you said was factually incorrect. You stated it as a fact, and it was incorrect.

 

And pictures are in fact consodered to be weaker proof than the other forms of evidence. There is no way for the officer reviewing them to know for sure when it was taken. However the other forms of evidence would contain dates that actuall demonstrate when the even occurred.

That's not true. I included pictures from trips that were taken at events (for example we took one of those tourist pictures while visiting a city) and they provided us with a receipt with the date on it. This confirmed both the date and location. Also, I provided text logs that were dated and showed when I sent the pictures (taken on my phone) to my fiancé. The bottom line is pictures, while not technically a requirement, should absolutely be included if possible. The requirement is proof you have met in the last two years. Just because someone got on a plane doesn't mean they actually met their beneficiary face to face. A picture of the meeting will prove that, and therefore can be considered a requirement. 

Edited September 19, 2017 by Mrsjackson

[EG&XY 144]

20 minutes ago, Mrsjackson said:

That's not true. I included pictures from trips that were taken at events (for example we took one of those tourist pictures while visiting a city) and they provided us with a receipt with the date on it. This confirmed both the date and location. Also, I provided text logs that were dated and showed when I sent the pictures (taken on my phone) to my fiancé. The bottom line is pictures, while not technically a requirement, should absolutely be included if possible. The requirement is proof you have met in the last two years. Just because someone got on a plane doesn't mean they actually met their beneficiary face to face. A picture of the meeting will prove that, and therefore can be considered a requirement. 

Sure, that is fine, but 99% of the time those are not the types of pictures that people are talking about on here. And you are reinforcing my point that it is the receipt that matters, not necessarily any old picture of the two of you together. You could have had a hotel receipt with both of your names on it. Or plane/train tickets showing that you were on the plane/train together. As I stated, just providing a picture of the two of you together is not sufficient, it is the other documentation that is the stronger proof. And yes, I agree, photos should be included; however, you really need the other evidence as it is stronger proof of the dates, times, etc.

 

Similar to the picture argument is that some people think that having a baby together is sufficient proof of a bonafide relationship. It is not, it only proves that you were together one time and that your reproductive organs worked. There are plenty of people who can't or choose not to have children, and they still have bonafide relationships.

[Mrsjackson 300]

3 minutes ago, EG&XY said:

Sure, that is fine, but 99% of the time those are not the types of pictures that people are talking about on here. And you are reinforcing my point that it is the receipt that matters, not necessarily any old picture of the two of you together. You could have had a hotel receipt with both of your names on it. Or plane/train tickets showing that you were on the plane/train together. As I stated, just providing a picture of the two of you together is not sufficient, it is the other documentation that is the stronger proof. And yes, I agree, photos should be included; however, you really need the other evidence as it is stronger proof of the dates, times, etc.

 

Similar to the picture argument is that some people think that having a baby together is sufficient proof of a bonafide relationship. It is not, it only proves that you were together one time and that your reproductive organs worked. There are plenty of people who can't or choose not to have children, and they still have bonafide relationships.

I never said receipts don't matter. They matter a great deal. I said that pictures are not considered "weaker proof". Pictures on their own without any other evidence may make for a weak application, just like only including a boarding pass and evidence of a trip alone without pictures would make for a weaker application. Various forms of evidence work in conjunction here to create a strong application. One form is not weaker than the other. 

[geowrian 22,336]

58 minutes ago, Mrsjackson said:

However, pictures are not "weak proof" of having met as you say. Even if they are supplementary evidence, it is still widely regarded as a necessity and an application without pictures might not go over well, so let's not encourage people to not include pictures. 

Photos are secondary evidence of having met at least once within the past 2 years. By themselves, they don't meet the requirement in most cases. In conjunction with other evidence, they are useful.

 

I don't think anybody was encouraging to not send any photos...just pointing out that photos are not a technical requirement. Personally, because I am aware of USEM's processes, I only included one photo of us...and I 100% believe it didn't do anything meaningful for our case. We were approved for the I-129F and K-1 fine. For certain other embassies, doing this is fine for the I-129F but is otherwise visa suicide.

 

48 minutes ago, Mrsjackson said:

That's not true. I included pictures from trips that were taken at events (for example we took one of those tourist pictures while visiting a city) and they provided us with a receipt with the date on it. This confirmed both the date and location. Also, I provided text logs that were dated and showed when I sent the pictures (taken on my phone) to my fiancé. The bottom line is pictures, while not technically a requirement, should absolutely be included if possible.

Exactly - the photos corroborated the primary evidence (the dated receipt), which is very good.

The text logs likely yielded little to no consideration for this requirement.

 

Yeah, some photos are good to include...although what you should do is very different from a requirement.

[Mrsjackson 300]

12 minutes ago, geowrian said:

Photos are secondary evidence of having met at least once within the past 2 years. By themselves, they don't meet the requirement in most cases. In conjunction with other evidence, they are useful.

 

I don't think anybody was encouraging to not send any photos...just pointing out that photos are not a technical requirement. Personally, because I am aware of USEM's processes, I only included one photo of us...and I 100% believe it didn't do anything meaningful for our case. We were approved for the I-129F and K-1 fine. For certain other embassies, doing this is fine for the I-129F but is otherwise visa suicide.

 

Exactly - the photos corroborated the primary evidence (the dated receipt), which is very good.

The text logs likely yielded little to no consideration for this requirement.

 

Yeah, some photos are good to include...although what you should do is very different from a requirement.

"In conjunction with other evidence, they are useful". That's exactly what I just said. I have already stated that they are indeed not a technical requirement. 

 

Unless you were told by USCIS what helped your case and why it was ultimately approved (highly doubt it), you really have no way of knowing for sure what helped you and what was meaningful to who was reviewing your case. What you think doesn't really matter. What you know to be a fact does. Same goes for your statement about the text logs. Are you the officer reviewing my application? If not, how can you make statements about what is going to be considered and what isn't? 

 

It might not be actively encouraging people to not include photos by calling them "weaker proof", but it's about people's perception. Someone might read that and think "oh I don't have to bother with photos then since it's a weaker form of evidence" and that's not a good thing. Wording can be misinterpreted, especially if someone's first language is not English (and this is a site with visitors from many different countries). 

 

What you should do and what is required are clearly two different things, yes? 

Edited September 19, 2017 by Mrsjackson