Linds&Youssef

I understand your frustration, but there are a few things to keep in mind here:
1) The goal for processing times is 5 months. It's not a guaranteed time frame.
2) The timelines you see here on VisaJourney are not necessarily completely accurate representations of all processing times for all visas of your specific type (they only reflect the visa applications of the members of this site... who fill out their time lines.
3) The VCS received a higher than normal volume of applications this winter and spring.
All that said, I know it's hard to be patient (sometimes I'm so anxious about the progress of our case that I could scream!) But the reality of the situation is that USCIS will not respond to any questions of progress that come before the 30-day period directly following the USCIS-stated processing time frame that applies to your case. So if USCIS posts 5 months, they won't even speak to you until after 6 months have passed from NOA1.
I'm sure this probably doesn't make you feel any better, but at least maybe it'll clarify what's going on a bit for you.

I understand your frustration, but there are a few things to keep in mind here:
1) The goal for processing times is 5 months. It's not a guaranteed time frame.
2) The timelines you see here on VisaJourney are not necessarily completely accurate representations of all processing times for all visas of your specific type (they only reflect the visa applications of the members of this site... who fill out their time lines.
3) The VCS received a higher than normal volume of applications this winter and spring.
All that said, I know it's hard to be patient (sometimes I'm so anxious about the progress of our case that I could scream!) But the reality of the situation is that USCIS will not respond to any questions of progress that come before the 30-day period directly following the USCIS-stated processing time frame that applies to your case. So if USCIS posts 5 months, they won't even speak to you until after 6 months have passed from NOA1.
I'm sure this probably doesn't make you feel any better, but at least maybe it'll clarify what's going on a bit for you.

I understand your frustration, but there are a few things to keep in mind here:
1) The goal for processing times is 5 months. It's not a guaranteed time frame.
2) The timelines you see here on VisaJourney are not necessarily completely accurate representations of all processing times for all visas of your specific type (they only reflect the visa applications of the members of this site... who fill out their time lines.
3) The VCS received a higher than normal volume of applications this winter and spring.
All that said, I know it's hard to be patient (sometimes I'm so anxious about the progress of our case that I could scream!) But the reality of the situation is that USCIS will not respond to any questions of progress that come before the 30-day period directly following the USCIS-stated processing time frame that applies to your case. So if USCIS posts 5 months, they won't even speak to you until after 6 months have passed from NOA1.
I'm sure this probably doesn't make you feel any better, but at least maybe it'll clarify what's going on a bit for you.

Could you please fill out your timeline?? Those of us who are still waiting on NOA2 would love to see your updates to get a little boost in hope that our own cases are actually moving along. Thanks and congratulations!!!

Just for sharing's sake, I have heard of a single case in which the petitioner was granted access to the interview area. If I recall correctly, it was a very special circumstance, and the couple had already been denied once. During the second attempt's interview, the CO asked why the petitioner wasn't there with the applicant, and he responded that she was, in fact, right across the street waiting for him at the cafe. The petitioner was then summoned to enter the interview. From the description, it sounded as though the CO was skeptical that the applicant was telling the truth and made an exception expecting to catch him in a lie. But in the end, the petitioner was able to answer several questions and (from her story) turn the case around. Their visa was granted. I tell this story because if you feel like spending the time to find it in the consulate reviews section, you can verify for yourself, and also to say that even if the rule is not to let petitioners in it's always a good idea to be there as a show of support and as evidence of a legit relationship. I've even heard of the consulate sending representatives to the hotel where the petitioner was supposed to be staying to verify her presence in the country (in other cases). Although it's not the norm, you never can tell in a high fraud country like Morocco... I'd go for the interview if I were in your shoes. Good luck!

Just for sharing's sake, I have heard of a single case in which the petitioner was granted access to the interview area. If I recall correctly, it was a very special circumstance, and the couple had already been denied once. During the second attempt's interview, the CO asked why the petitioner wasn't there with the applicant, and he responded that she was, in fact, right across the street waiting for him at the cafe. The petitioner was then summoned to enter the interview. From the description, it sounded as though the CO was skeptical that the applicant was telling the truth and made an exception expecting to catch him in a lie. But in the end, the petitioner was able to answer several questions and (from her story) turn the case around. Their visa was granted. I tell this story because if you feel like spending the time to find it in the consulate reviews section, you can verify for yourself, and also to say that even if the rule is not to let petitioners in it's always a good idea to be there as a show of support and as evidence of a legit relationship. I've even heard of the consulate sending representatives to the hotel where the petitioner was supposed to be staying to verify her presence in the country (in other cases). Although it's not the norm, you never can tell in a high fraud country like Morocco... I'd go for the interview if I were in your shoes. Good luck!

Just for sharing's sake, I have heard of a single case in which the petitioner was granted access to the interview area. If I recall correctly, it was a very special circumstance, and the couple had already been denied once. During the second attempt's interview, the CO asked why the petitioner wasn't there with the applicant, and he responded that she was, in fact, right across the street waiting for him at the cafe. The petitioner was then summoned to enter the interview. From the description, it sounded as though the CO was skeptical that the applicant was telling the truth and made an exception expecting to catch him in a lie. But in the end, the petitioner was able to answer several questions and (from her story) turn the case around. Their visa was granted. I tell this story because if you feel like spending the time to find it in the consulate reviews section, you can verify for yourself, and also to say that even if the rule is not to let petitioners in it's always a good idea to be there as a show of support and as evidence of a legit relationship. I've even heard of the consulate sending representatives to the hotel where the petitioner was supposed to be staying to verify her presence in the country (in other cases). Although it's not the norm, you never can tell in a high fraud country like Morocco... I'd go for the interview if I were in your shoes. Good luck!

It's not about being right. It's just different. What's right for you may or may not be right for my fiance who's also Moroccan. Just as what's right for me may not be what's right for someone else who's American. And certainly there's a difference in what's right for someone from the Moroccan culture versus the American culture because it's all about your own perspective, your culture, and so many other factors. I'm not saying it's a bad thing for there to be a difference in how the use of a single word works. It's not good or bad. It's just different.

Not sure what country the fiance is from, but let's just assume for argument's sake that we're possibly talking about someone from the Philippines (since that's where your own situation appears to be based and we might reasonably assume this is a friend from your home country). You said the man gets $3K - $5K per month from his ex wife... I can't imagine that he couldn't live on that in the Philippines. So what could possibly be the problem with him going there? Okay, so he won't make as much money in the Philippines as he can here in the US. He's got the money from the previous marriage plus whatever he can make there. There must be something else going on here. Either way, it's unfortunate that he's letting his ex-wife rule his life even after divorce. It also seems likely (at least from my limited perspective) that your friend is dealing with a situation in which the man is more worried about his money than the woman that he "loves". Unfortunate. In any case, using the K1 to come to the US with the intent to not marry within the 90 days is a blatant misuse of the visa and its intended purpose--which is to help those of us who really do want to get married, rather than to offer a way into the US for people who otherwise can't get here on other merits. IMHO, this couple should have respect enough respect for the system and those of us suffering through it for the right reasons to not take up the consular office's time with their misrepresentation.

Not sure what country the fiance is from, but let's just assume for argument's sake that we're possibly talking about someone from the Philippines (since that's where your own situation appears to be based and we might reasonably assume this is a friend from your home country). You said the man gets $3K - $5K per month from his ex wife... I can't imagine that he couldn't live on that in the Philippines. So what could possibly be the problem with him going there? Okay, so he won't make as much money in the Philippines as he can here in the US. He's got the money from the previous marriage plus whatever he can make there. There must be something else going on here. Either way, it's unfortunate that he's letting his ex-wife rule his life even after divorce. It also seems likely (at least from my limited perspective) that your friend is dealing with a situation in which the man is more worried about his money than the woman that he "loves". Unfortunate. In any case, using the K1 to come to the US with the intent to not marry within the 90 days is a blatant misuse of the visa and its intended purpose--which is to help those of us who really do want to get married, rather than to offer a way into the US for people who otherwise can't get here on other merits. IMHO, this couple should have respect enough respect for the system and those of us suffering through it for the right reasons to not take up the consular office's time with their misrepresentation.

Not sure what country the fiance is from, but let's just assume for argument's sake that we're possibly talking about someone from the Philippines (since that's where your own situation appears to be based and we might reasonably assume this is a friend from your home country). You said the man gets $3K - $5K per month from his ex wife... I can't imagine that he couldn't live on that in the Philippines. So what could possibly be the problem with him going there? Okay, so he won't make as much money in the Philippines as he can here in the US. He's got the money from the previous marriage plus whatever he can make there. There must be something else going on here. Either way, it's unfortunate that he's letting his ex-wife rule his life even after divorce. It also seems likely (at least from my limited perspective) that your friend is dealing with a situation in which the man is more worried about his money than the woman that he "loves". Unfortunate. In any case, using the K1 to come to the US with the intent to not marry within the 90 days is a blatant misuse of the visa and its intended purpose--which is to help those of us who really do want to get married, rather than to offer a way into the US for people who otherwise can't get here on other merits. IMHO, this couple should have respect enough respect for the system and those of us suffering through it for the right reasons to not take up the consular office's time with their misrepresentation.

Not sure what country the fiance is from, but let's just assume for argument's sake that we're possibly talking about someone from the Philippines (since that's where your own situation appears to be based and we might reasonably assume this is a friend from your home country). You said the man gets $3K - $5K per month from his ex wife... I can't imagine that he couldn't live on that in the Philippines. So what could possibly be the problem with him going there? Okay, so he won't make as much money in the Philippines as he can here in the US. He's got the money from the previous marriage plus whatever he can make there. There must be something else going on here. Either way, it's unfortunate that he's letting his ex-wife rule his life even after divorce. It also seems likely (at least from my limited perspective) that your friend is dealing with a situation in which the man is more worried about his money than the woman that he "loves". Unfortunate. In any case, using the K1 to come to the US with the intent to not marry within the 90 days is a blatant misuse of the visa and its intended purpose--which is to help those of us who really do want to get married, rather than to offer a way into the US for people who otherwise can't get here on other merits. IMHO, this couple should have respect enough respect for the system and those of us suffering through it for the right reasons to not take up the consular office's time with their misrepresentation.

Not sure what country the fiance is from, but let's just assume for argument's sake that we're possibly talking about someone from the Philippines (since that's where your own situation appears to be based and we might reasonably assume this is a friend from your home country). You said the man gets $3K - $5K per month from his ex wife... I can't imagine that he couldn't live on that in the Philippines. So what could possibly be the problem with him going there? Okay, so he won't make as much money in the Philippines as he can here in the US. He's got the money from the previous marriage plus whatever he can make there. There must be something else going on here. Either way, it's unfortunate that he's letting his ex-wife rule his life even after divorce. It also seems likely (at least from my limited perspective) that your friend is dealing with a situation in which the man is more worried about his money than the woman that he "loves". Unfortunate. In any case, using the K1 to come to the US with the intent to not marry within the 90 days is a blatant misuse of the visa and its intended purpose--which is to help those of us who really do want to get married, rather than to offer a way into the US for people who otherwise can't get here on other merits. IMHO, this couple should have respect enough respect for the system and those of us suffering through it for the right reasons to not take up the consular office's time with their misrepresentation.

Hi everyone,
I've been seeing a significant amount of comments about the K-1 process that I thought were strange and posed interesting questions. For example, I've seen several people mention that they had the feeling their case was already decided even before the interview occurred and that they felt like the CO's were unnecessarily hard on them during the interview. Because these are potential situations that we all face (and more selfishly, because I wanted peace of mind for myself in Youssef's and my own case), I asked my immigration attorney. Here are some things that he shared with me that I wanted to share with the group. I hope some of this information is useful to you! Here are some nuggets of information that the attorney imparted to me:
* Often, couples will petition for the K-1 visa and literally submit the mandatory documents and proofs, and send one or two small pieces of evidence in support of the authenticity of the relationship. It's incredibly important to submit as many different kinds of evidence as possible (i.e. phone records, emails, screen captures of facebook conversations between couple and relationship status, facebook interactions between each partner and significant other's friends/family, IM and Skype logs, photos of you together that show a date within the past two years, evidence of travel to visit the beneficiary fiance(e), videos--uploaded to a website and easily accessible by internet, and notarized affidavits from friends and family). The lawyer said you don't have to submit every single piece you have, because the CO actually has to read every single thing you submit and you don't want to frustrate them by overwhelming them since this can slow your process significantly. It's important, however, to include significant events and show time span across your evidence. Interactions with friends and family/affidavits/public relationship status postings are important because if your relationship were not legitimate you probably wouldn't be sharing about your relationship publicly. When USCIS gives you an RFE during the NOA processes, it's really important that you supply them with enough evidence to prove beyond any question that your relationship is legitimate, and not just send one individual piece of evidence to answer the concern. Also, he said that while you're in NOA phase they're basically looking at the legitimacy of your relationship from the petitioner's standpoint. They want to see that you're not being paid to bring someone over, in other words. That's why if you can provide several first hand testimonials on your behalf from American friends and family, it'll be very helpful.
* When the officers are going through your paperwork during NOA, they're basically marking a checklist of questions that need to be answered before they're satisfied of the relationship's authenticity on the petitioner's side. Don't misunderstand, they're still looking at whether the relationship seems legit from the beneficiary side, too. But the most important part of that will come during the interview. So if there are several questions or red flags that still need to be addressed or things about your relationship that seem suspect to the CO reviewing your file during NOA, these will be marked in red on the outline that accompanies your file to the consulate in the beneficiary's country (in our case, Morocco) for further probing during the interview--this is why some people have long, grueling, brutal interviews... because the CO has a list of things that look suspicious in your case sitting in front of them, and their protocol is to assume the relationship is fraudulent until proven beyond any doubt that it's legit. If the USCIS officer reviewing during NOA doesn't see anything that makes him suspicious about the relationship then that's when you generally will have very short interviews that seem more like a formality than anything else.
* Things that make the officers suspicious might include: significant age difference (particularly if it's the female who's older and outside of child-baring years), significant differences in attractiveness--I know this seems harsh, but the reality is that particularly in "high fraud posts" it's easy to understand that if the non USC party is very attractive and the USC partner is pretty homely that it might be a possible fraud attempt. This alone won't be a factor, but if it's paired with a large age difference, disabilities, previous marriages/children, etc., then it's a suspicion point. Disabilities are another one because a disabled petitioner might seem like an easier target if the beneficiary partner were in fact trying to trick the USC petitioner into thinking the relationship was legit. They also look at previous marriages and children. All the above factors are things that could be construed to make an easy target by just showing a little attention to someone who may not get much attention elsewhere. Again, I know it's harsh, but it's a reality that this is possible. The marriage/children thing is big in Arabic countries because divorce is frowned upon and, I'm sure, for other reasons as well. Other red flags might be multiple K-1 attempts or applications in previous relationships by either party or multiple failed attempts by beneficiary party to enter the US on other long-term visas. Think of it as relationship profiling. Once the officer is confident that the USC doesn't have an ulterior motive, the next thing to rule out is the possibility that the USC is being misguided or tricked by the beneficiary party. So if you have red flags in your case, it's best to minimize the possibility of the officer being suspicious from the very beginning by making sure you include enough of the various types of relationship proof.
* The next big hurdle is proving that you're in a relationship that has a chance of lasting. So especially if you're from different cultural or religious backgrounds, you need to be able to show not only that you've talked about these differences, but how you handle misaligned beliefs and behaviors as they arise. For example, you need to be able to show that you can communicate effectively--this one's particularly big if your native languages are not the same. It also helps to show that you're actively working on improving your communication (maybe by taking language courses in the other partner's language). It's also important to show the officer reviewing your case that you are willing to be open-minded about your cultural and religious differences and that you're able to deal effectively with the differences or that you have discussed how to handle them (i.e. raising children, dealing with finances, family matters, religion, etc.). Basically, they're trying to protect the USC from getting into a situation that's supposed to (ideally) be a lifetime commitment before the person really understands the added difficulty of an intercultural marriage (since marriage is difficult enough even when you come from the same backgrounds).
Again, I know some of this is a bit harsh to read, but this came straight from the attorney. And I wanted to put the info to everyone here with hopes that it might help some of you better prepare throughout the process. Best of luck to you all!

Hi everyone,
I've been seeing a significant amount of comments about the K-1 process that I thought were strange and posed interesting questions. For example, I've seen several people mention that they had the feeling their case was already decided even before the interview occurred and that they felt like the CO's were unnecessarily hard on them during the interview. Because these are potential situations that we all face (and more selfishly, because I wanted peace of mind for myself in Youssef's and my own case), I asked my immigration attorney. Here are some things that he shared with me that I wanted to share with the group. I hope some of this information is useful to you! Here are some nuggets of information that the attorney imparted to me:
* Often, couples will petition for the K-1 visa and literally submit the mandatory documents and proofs, and send one or two small pieces of evidence in support of the authenticity of the relationship. It's incredibly important to submit as many different kinds of evidence as possible (i.e. phone records, emails, screen captures of facebook conversations between couple and relationship status, facebook interactions between each partner and significant other's friends/family, IM and Skype logs, photos of you together that show a date within the past two years, evidence of travel to visit the beneficiary fiance(e), videos--uploaded to a website and easily accessible by internet, and notarized affidavits from friends and family). The lawyer said you don't have to submit every single piece you have, because the CO actually has to read every single thing you submit and you don't want to frustrate them by overwhelming them since this can slow your process significantly. It's important, however, to include significant events and show time span across your evidence. Interactions with friends and family/affidavits/public relationship status postings are important because if your relationship were not legitimate you probably wouldn't be sharing about your relationship publicly. When USCIS gives you an RFE during the NOA processes, it's really important that you supply them with enough evidence to prove beyond any question that your relationship is legitimate, and not just send one individual piece of evidence to answer the concern. Also, he said that while you're in NOA phase they're basically looking at the legitimacy of your relationship from the petitioner's standpoint. They want to see that you're not being paid to bring someone over, in other words. That's why if you can provide several first hand testimonials on your behalf from American friends and family, it'll be very helpful.
* When the officers are going through your paperwork during NOA, they're basically marking a checklist of questions that need to be answered before they're satisfied of the relationship's authenticity on the petitioner's side. Don't misunderstand, they're still looking at whether the relationship seems legit from the beneficiary side, too. But the most important part of that will come during the interview. So if there are several questions or red flags that still need to be addressed or things about your relationship that seem suspect to the CO reviewing your file during NOA, these will be marked in red on the outline that accompanies your file to the consulate in the beneficiary's country (in our case, Morocco) for further probing during the interview--this is why some people have long, grueling, brutal interviews... because the CO has a list of things that look suspicious in your case sitting in front of them, and their protocol is to assume the relationship is fraudulent until proven beyond any doubt that it's legit. If the USCIS officer reviewing during NOA doesn't see anything that makes him suspicious about the relationship then that's when you generally will have very short interviews that seem more like a formality than anything else.
* Things that make the officers suspicious might include: significant age difference (particularly if it's the female who's older and outside of child-baring years), significant differences in attractiveness--I know this seems harsh, but the reality is that particularly in "high fraud posts" it's easy to understand that if the non USC party is very attractive and the USC partner is pretty homely that it might be a possible fraud attempt. This alone won't be a factor, but if it's paired with a large age difference, disabilities, previous marriages/children, etc., then it's a suspicion point. Disabilities are another one because a disabled petitioner might seem like an easier target if the beneficiary partner were in fact trying to trick the USC petitioner into thinking the relationship was legit. They also look at previous marriages and children. All the above factors are things that could be construed to make an easy target by just showing a little attention to someone who may not get much attention elsewhere. Again, I know it's harsh, but it's a reality that this is possible. The marriage/children thing is big in Arabic countries because divorce is frowned upon and, I'm sure, for other reasons as well. Other red flags might be multiple K-1 attempts or applications in previous relationships by either party or multiple failed attempts by beneficiary party to enter the US on other long-term visas. Think of it as relationship profiling. Once the officer is confident that the USC doesn't have an ulterior motive, the next thing to rule out is the possibility that the USC is being misguided or tricked by the beneficiary party. So if you have red flags in your case, it's best to minimize the possibility of the officer being suspicious from the very beginning by making sure you include enough of the various types of relationship proof.
* The next big hurdle is proving that you're in a relationship that has a chance of lasting. So especially if you're from different cultural or religious backgrounds, you need to be able to show not only that you've talked about these differences, but how you handle misaligned beliefs and behaviors as they arise. For example, you need to be able to show that you can communicate effectively--this one's particularly big if your native languages are not the same. It also helps to show that you're actively working on improving your communication (maybe by taking language courses in the other partner's language). It's also important to show the officer reviewing your case that you are willing to be open-minded about your cultural and religious differences and that you're able to deal effectively with the differences or that you have discussed how to handle them (i.e. raising children, dealing with finances, family matters, religion, etc.). Basically, they're trying to protect the USC from getting into a situation that's supposed to (ideally) be a lifetime commitment before the person really understands the added difficulty of an intercultural marriage (since marriage is difficult enough even when you come from the same backgrounds).
Again, I know some of this is a bit harsh to read, but this came straight from the attorney. And I wanted to put the info to everyone here with hopes that it might help some of you better prepare throughout the process. Best of luck to you all!

Hi everyone,
I've been seeing a significant amount of comments about the K-1 process that I thought were strange and posed interesting questions. For example, I've seen several people mention that they had the feeling their case was already decided even before the interview occurred and that they felt like the CO's were unnecessarily hard on them during the interview. Because these are potential situations that we all face (and more selfishly, because I wanted peace of mind for myself in Youssef's and my own case), I asked my immigration attorney. Here are some things that he shared with me that I wanted to share with the group. I hope some of this information is useful to you! Here are some nuggets of information that the attorney imparted to me:
* Often, couples will petition for the K-1 visa and literally submit the mandatory documents and proofs, and send one or two small pieces of evidence in support of the authenticity of the relationship. It's incredibly important to submit as many different kinds of evidence as possible (i.e. phone records, emails, screen captures of facebook conversations between couple and relationship status, facebook interactions between each partner and significant other's friends/family, IM and Skype logs, photos of you together that show a date within the past two years, evidence of travel to visit the beneficiary fiance(e), videos--uploaded to a website and easily accessible by internet, and notarized affidavits from friends and family). The lawyer said you don't have to submit every single piece you have, because the CO actually has to read every single thing you submit and you don't want to frustrate them by overwhelming them since this can slow your process significantly. It's important, however, to include significant events and show time span across your evidence. Interactions with friends and family/affidavits/public relationship status postings are important because if your relationship were not legitimate you probably wouldn't be sharing about your relationship publicly. When USCIS gives you an RFE during the NOA processes, it's really important that you supply them with enough evidence to prove beyond any question that your relationship is legitimate, and not just send one individual piece of evidence to answer the concern. Also, he said that while you're in NOA phase they're basically looking at the legitimacy of your relationship from the petitioner's standpoint. They want to see that you're not being paid to bring someone over, in other words. That's why if you can provide several first hand testimonials on your behalf from American friends and family, it'll be very helpful.
* When the officers are going through your paperwork during NOA, they're basically marking a checklist of questions that need to be answered before they're satisfied of the relationship's authenticity on the petitioner's side. Don't misunderstand, they're still looking at whether the relationship seems legit from the beneficiary side, too. But the most important part of that will come during the interview. So if there are several questions or red flags that still need to be addressed or things about your relationship that seem suspect to the CO reviewing your file during NOA, these will be marked in red on the outline that accompanies your file to the consulate in the beneficiary's country (in our case, Morocco) for further probing during the interview--this is why some people have long, grueling, brutal interviews... because the CO has a list of things that look suspicious in your case sitting in front of them, and their protocol is to assume the relationship is fraudulent until proven beyond any doubt that it's legit. If the USCIS officer reviewing during NOA doesn't see anything that makes him suspicious about the relationship then that's when you generally will have very short interviews that seem more like a formality than anything else.
* Things that make the officers suspicious might include: significant age difference (particularly if it's the female who's older and outside of child-baring years), significant differences in attractiveness--I know this seems harsh, but the reality is that particularly in "high fraud posts" it's easy to understand that if the non USC party is very attractive and the USC partner is pretty homely that it might be a possible fraud attempt. This alone won't be a factor, but if it's paired with a large age difference, disabilities, previous marriages/children, etc., then it's a suspicion point. Disabilities are another one because a disabled petitioner might seem like an easier target if the beneficiary partner were in fact trying to trick the USC petitioner into thinking the relationship was legit. They also look at previous marriages and children. All the above factors are things that could be construed to make an easy target by just showing a little attention to someone who may not get much attention elsewhere. Again, I know it's harsh, but it's a reality that this is possible. The marriage/children thing is big in Arabic countries because divorce is frowned upon and, I'm sure, for other reasons as well. Other red flags might be multiple K-1 attempts or applications in previous relationships by either party or multiple failed attempts by beneficiary party to enter the US on other long-term visas. Think of it as relationship profiling. Once the officer is confident that the USC doesn't have an ulterior motive, the next thing to rule out is the possibility that the USC is being misguided or tricked by the beneficiary party. So if you have red flags in your case, it's best to minimize the possibility of the officer being suspicious from the very beginning by making sure you include enough of the various types of relationship proof.
* The next big hurdle is proving that you're in a relationship that has a chance of lasting. So especially if you're from different cultural or religious backgrounds, you need to be able to show not only that you've talked about these differences, but how you handle misaligned beliefs and behaviors as they arise. For example, you need to be able to show that you can communicate effectively--this one's particularly big if your native languages are not the same. It also helps to show that you're actively working on improving your communication (maybe by taking language courses in the other partner's language). It's also important to show the officer reviewing your case that you are willing to be open-minded about your cultural and religious differences and that you're able to deal effectively with the differences or that you have discussed how to handle them (i.e. raising children, dealing with finances, family matters, religion, etc.). Basically, they're trying to protect the USC from getting into a situation that's supposed to (ideally) be a lifetime commitment before the person really understands the added difficulty of an intercultural marriage (since marriage is difficult enough even when you come from the same backgrounds).
Again, I know some of this is a bit harsh to read, but this came straight from the attorney. And I wanted to put the info to everyone here with hopes that it might help some of you better prepare throughout the process. Best of luck to you all!