feelinglucky

Merillz, after observing countless attacks in regards to the integrity of your mindset, I, feelinglucky have came to the descision that the above situation posted by you is infact true, i find no evidence supporting members claim that OP is trolling. I have note responses, when members have tried to attack you at a personel level, basing their opioion not with facts, but emtions accquired during the heat of battle. But your replies to rebut their statements have been infact based on actual rules and regulations under immigration law. Therefore, On this day 17th of June 2009, i have concured with OP statements, my findings are you have made a sincere attempt at posting. There appears to be no missrepresentation of the facts. I hearby, deny the motion that the OP is posting with ill will. Effective immediatly, you know can post with out any futhur prejudace. My freinds the line has been drawn in the sand. Which side will you stand with.
Plantiff: Knight, rebecca,len...
Defendant: Merillz
Case Name: Accused of trolling with the intent to provoke an emtional response (is there a penal code for trolling ????)
Verdict: Not guilty, but by no means innocent
p.s. Merillz that thing you metioned early on with regards to farting......(whispering softly) didnt help your case.
Signed, Lucky

Jim, you are basing this on what? The fact is that even if it is in the petition when you file, this does not make it a truth, it does not force them any more than having it submitted after the interview. I know this from my personal case, we had photos of our engagement ceremony with the front and rear shot with over 100 guests in the photos, and that was still one of the reasons for denial. The fact is that I feel you are basing frontloading on the assumption that if it is in there prior to the CO getting it that they cannot deny you for that reason. This is a false hope. My friend who is a current CO in HCMC even agrees with this because they don’t have to accept ANY front loaded evidence, and in fact they only use what was submitted to ask questions, but they do not consider it fact, it is just as I have said, “more ammo for them to use.” What is required for the initial petition is just that, proof that you are eligible to “FILE” for a petition, and that is what happens, when they deem you eligible to proceed with the petition it is approved, and that is where it stops, they cannot approve a visa, just as the CO cannot actually deny your visa. This is because of the previous lawsuits. What they base their “request for denial” on is the interview, and what investigation the CO has had initiated, and nothing more, then when it goes back to the US they do not look at what you filed with your petition, they look at what the CO has submitted, and then based on that information they will reaffirm/deny/let expire. This is what I was told through my lawyer, not just things I am grabbing from he said she said, this is my personal experience. So to try and justify front loading stating that the CO cannot use those reasons you addressed against you is very untrue, as well as unfounded. Maybe the CO accepts it as truth, maybe not, again the guessing game, but one thing is for sure, what you submit they will have and then be able to use in the interview (ammunition against you) This will likely be a long running debate with conflicting points of view, but in my personal experience and what was told to me completely contradicts your above statements. To make my point, how can the CO have said our engagement ceremony was small and inconsequential when they had 3 specific photos with Binh and me, and in the background 100 guests? Why did they outright call her out on it? How could that be one of the reasons for denial? We frontloaded those photos, and based on your assumption they should not have been able to do that, and also based on your assumption (sorry Scott) why has Scott been put in AP he frontloaded the proof of his divorce. These are facts that you cannot argue against, and your key statement “The consular officer is not bound by the presumption that the evidence is valid” I know I stopped your quote short, but the evidence that is submitted early is only to deem you eligible to apply for a visa, and nothing more, and with that said even with it being screened, it still does not bound the interviewing CO to accept it as proof. Once again this is just my opinion on the matter, with real life personal experiences affecting my personal opinion. Jerome

Interview may be in June... you can look to see if you have messenger set to archive.. click contacts on your messenger window and then message archive to see if anything has been saved... have you had a Dinh Hon or Dam Hoi? They will consider the speed of your relationship as a huge red flag... along with the one trip meeting/engagement...