K-1 denied at Guangzhou, CR-1 is approved and in NVC

[Guest jin979]

you say your k-1 is still being reveiwed on return to USCIS ? therefore it has not expired, have you heard anything? did you respond? if i read marc ellis correctly you need to concude this or if you dont you will have a "fruad" stamp on you when it is revolked. which will be seen by GUZ at CR-1 interview.

does it make a difference if still waiting review when getting new interview?

[david_dawei]

one needs to be responsive to the times...

 

In Carl's time, front loading wasn't needed;

 

In my time, english wasn't needed;

 

Now, both appear to be a benefit

*Sigh* -

 

That's your observation, alas. Do you remember all the bickering between ME AND YOU about this very topic ? I am in shock that you would say one needs to be responsive to the times - sure, in general - that's a nice sentiment, and I don't mean to personally attack you - but....

 

My observation is that the front loading benefit started from OCT 2007, as that's when the I-130 instructions changed. (I'll suggest to you that with this bit, you were not observed to be responsive to the times)

 

My observation is that anyone will get tripped up by the 'english' bit IF AND ONLY IF the casefile seems scant.

 

But, this is not something worth bickering about, today (cause IME, prior bickering with you was fruitless) - except to blatantly note that it's taken you longer to 'catch on' - and I had hoped you'd get the FAQs changed to reflect, AT LEAST, the front-loading bits - hint hint, nudge nudge...

 

( Mei - my deepest apologies for hijaaking yer thread - I bow in the dust to you )

I left out that common sense should prevail... I think Randy's trying to address that a bit...

 

'front-loading' is just a catch-word without much definition or focus; One should focus the additional information on purposeful reasons.

 

I tend to also follow Randy's point, that if you know of an potential issue, particularly one which shows trends of denials, or refiling yourself, you should deal with that in the original petition. It's always a case by case basis issue; one has to be smart about their filing.

 

Finally... to set the record straight.. many members will come and go and be shocked by various observations without having a long term view of the consular issues and member filing here.

 

In fact, back in 2005, myself and another guy who comes back once in a while, were two who applied this general idea and we both did 'front load', on a minimal level to benefit our individual case... both of us flew through interviews; my SO was not even asked for a single piece of evidence for anything... not even pictures...

 

so, I consider myself as part of the original [common sense] crowd who foresaw this... at the time and since, we have both written up and advocated it for many years; again, one needs to do it based on their case needs. Shocking, isn't it, after we get the facts straight.

[Sebastian]

Yo Yo David - Comments in line below. But - they are addressed to DavidZ The Moderator, and DavidZ the Keeper of the FAQs, not DavidZ the 'member' here at CFL.

 

'front-loading' is just a catch-word without much definition or focus; One should focus the additional information on purposeful reasons.

- na - it's defined - for some reason - you're purposefully NOT acknowledging it's existence and usage. I challenge your opinion about what it is.

 

Finally... to set the record straight.. many members will come and go and be shocked by various observations without having a long term view of the consular issues and member filing here.

thankfully, i do have that long term view. Back from 1999, to present date. If there is a record to be set straight - I challenge you to 'set it straight' with a revamp of the FAQs to handle 'currrent' conditions on the I-130.

 

so, I consider myself as part of the original [common sense] crowd who foresaw this... at the time and since, we have both written up and advocated it for many years; again, one needs to do it based on their case needs. Shocking, isn't it, after we get the facts straight.

 

nothing shocking at all - but the concepts and facts and methods are totally different for today, and YOUR PETITION TYPE is NOT the TYPE I am discussing here - MOST of the front loading HAS to occur for an I-130 - which you did not file.

 

So with those points in mind, I challenge you, DavidZ, the Mod and Keeper of the FAQs - to CHANGE the FAQs to reflect CURRENT conditions on the I-130 and front-loading. If you won't PERSONALLY do it, perhaps there is someone else IN THE MOD TEAM that will, or perhaps the MOD TEAM can find a suitable volunteer for the revamp of the FAQs.

 

My shock solely comes about from how YOU (DavidZ the moderator and keeper of the FAQs) have addressed the Change Up on the I-130 (OCT 2007) here at CFL. Nothing to do with how YOU, DavidZ the Member here at CFL, personally handled yer own K-1 petition in 2005.

 

Mei - again - my apologies for the thread drift.

Edited May 16, 2009 by Sebastian (see edit history)

[Sebastian]

 

Several of us (including David) are from the Class of 2005, when the thinking here was to NOT volunteer any additional information that might raise a VO' s curiosity and trigger a blue slip.

 

Randy - I'm dead sorry, but this is one of those 'apples and oranges' comparisons - you filed a K-1 - I'm talking specifically about the I-130. The instructions are different, and in FACT, were changed in OCT 2007 to cover a list of evidentiary items to be included as proof of a bonafide relationship, to be submitted WITH the I-130 petition.

 

To Reiterate - In the I-130, there is a list of things to provide for evidence of a bonafide relationship. The K-1 does not currently have this list.

 

It's not an examination of one's OPINION - the list is clearly printed in the instructions. Front Loading is required for an I-130. The CFL FAQs do not cover this.

 

I'm not trying to downplay what you did, or how you feel. There is a serious omission in the FAQs section regarding the front-loading of an I-130 petition.

 

Warmest Regards...

 

Mei - again - my apologies for the thread drift.

Edited May 16, 2009 by Sebastian (see edit history)

[Randy W]

 

Several of us (including David) are from the Class of 2005, when the thinking here was to NOT volunteer any additional information that might raise a VO' s curiosity and trigger a blue slip.

 

Randy - I'm dead sorry, but this is one of those 'apples and oranges' comparisons - you filed a K-1 - I'm talking specifically about the I-130. The instructions are different, and in FACT, were changed in OCT 2007 to cover a list of evidentiary items to be included as proof of a bonafide relationship, to be submitted WITH the I-130 petition.

 

To Reiterate - In the I-130, there is a list of things to provide for evidence of a bonafide relationship. The K-1 does not currently have this list.

 

It's not an examination of one's OPINION - the list is clearly printed in the instructions. Front Loading is required for an I-130. The CFL FAQs do not cover this.

 

I'm not trying to downplay what you did, or how you feel. There is a serious omission in the FAQs section regarding the front-loading of an I-130 petition.

 

Warmest Regards...

 

Mei - again - my apologies for the thread drift.

 

 

If you don't meet the requirements, your petition is not approved. To me, front-loading means NOT just meeting the requirements, but loading additional evidence beyond what is called for in the requirements. This would be done for two reasons - to have it approved by the USCIS in advance (this is what Marc Ellis advocates), and to have it in your folder and in the hands of the VO at the time of the interview.

 

This can be done for K-1's and K-3's just as easily as for CR-1.

 

The ONLY disagreement can be whether to include any evidence above and beyond what the requirements call for.

 

The "old-timers" who have advocated ONLY addressing what is required would be called 'front-loaders' under your definition.

 

Now what David puts in the FAQ's is another matter altogether.

Edited May 16, 2009 by Randy W (see edit history)

[Sebastian]

If you don't meet the requirements, your petition is not approved. To me, front-loading means NOT just meeting the requirements, but loading additional evidence beyond what is called for in the requirements.

 

I can understand your POV about this, but IMO, it's an apples and oranges comparison. The list in the I-130 is specific - there is NOT a list for the K-1.

 

Sure, putting in ADDITIONAL stuff to handle specific issues is useful as well, regardless of the petition type - as:

 

1. USCIS sees it and

2. GUZ ConOff sees it for up to 2 months prior to the interview date.

 

My only reason for slamming on DavidZ is that it's not covered in the FAQs - and I've been re-reading them the last two months - MANY ITEMS are outdated and as such, non-applicable to current 'stuff' - but 'front loading' for the I-130 is not even covered.

 

It should be.

 

I don't care about anyone's OPINION about front-loading - what I do care about is the lack of 'coverage' about it, in the FAQs.

 

(Mei - again - my apologies for the thread drift )

Edited May 16, 2009 by Sebastian (see edit history)

[xyz1000]

If you don't meet the requirements, your petition is not approved. To me, front-loading means NOT just meeting the requirements, but loading additional evidence beyond what is called for in the requirements.

 

I can understand your POV about this, but IMO, it's an apples and oranges comparison. The list in the I-130 is specific - there is NOT a list for the K-1.

 

Sure, putting in ADDITIONAL stuff to handle specific issues is useful as well, regardless of the petition type - as:

 

1. USCIS sees it and

2. GUZ ConOff sees it for up to 2 months prior to the interview date.

 

My only reason for slamming on DavidZ is that it's not covered in the FAQs - and I've been re-reading them the last two months - MANY ITEMS are outdated and as such, non-applicable to current 'stuff' - but 'front loading' for the I-130 is not even covered.

 

It should be.

 

I don't care about anyone's OPINION about front-loading - what I do care about is the lack of 'coverage' about it, in the FAQs.

 

(Mei - again - my apologies for the thread drift )

 

Hi Sebastian,

 

I have been quite busy at work so I haven't noticed that this thread is starting to be active again.

 

This is my take on the topic and it seems works very well.

On the I-130 application, I wrote down that the K-1 was denied at Guangzhou.

I also front-loaded a lot of evidence. My case was approved very quickly, around 2 months. CIS doesn't seems to care a lot of the previous K-1 denial.

 

The case is on the way to Guanzhou now. It's out for more than a week now. Called DOS, they said the it might take a while for the Chinese custom to process the mails.

 

Thanks.

 

 

Mei and Steve

[Guest jin979]

Rob front loaded our K-1 . we thought why not give them everything we have . my houshold registry,ID. passport. photos. emails. receicts all at the start.

[NUWORLD]

If you don't meet the requirements, your petition is not approved. To me, front-loading means NOT just meeting the requirements, but loading additional evidence beyond what is called for in the requirements.

 

I can understand your POV about this, but IMO, it's an apples and oranges comparison. The list in the I-130 is specific - there is NOT a list for the K-1.

 

Sure, putting in ADDITIONAL stuff to handle specific issues is useful as well, regardless of the petition type - as:

 

1. USCIS sees it and

2. GUZ ConOff sees it for up to 2 months prior to the interview date.

 

My only reason for slamming on DavidZ is that it's not covered in the FAQs - and I've been re-reading them the last two months - MANY ITEMS are outdated and as such, non-applicable to current 'stuff' - but 'front loading' for the I-130 is not even covered.

 

It should be.

 

I don't care about anyone's OPINION about front-loading - what I do care about is the lack of 'coverage' about it, in the FAQs.

 

(Mei - again - my apologies for the thread drift )

 

 

There is NO! documented prof that FRONT LOADING helps any case.

May it be K1,K3 or CR1.

 

I'm not saying it doesn't help or hurt a case.

My K3/CR1 was only what they asked for nothing more nothing less.

 

IMO: adding FRONT LOADING in the FAQs is no help at all.

[Sebastian]

You filed your I-130 in 2006. The new list o evidence came up in OCT 2007, with the new I-130 form.

 

Must I use the metaphor of a sledgehammer to make the point?

 

Oh well...

 

I differ with your opinion, greatly.

 

(Mei - My apologies for yet again, another thread drift)

[david_dawei]

You filed your I-130 in 2006. The new list o evidence came up in OCT 2007, with the new I-130 form.

 

Must I use the metaphor of a sledgehammer to make the point?

 

Oh well...

 

I differ with your opinion, greatly.

 

(Mei - My apologies for yet again, another thread drift)

how about stop the BS arguments, confrontations, and sappy apologies which you refuse to end. And not just in this thread. Once more and your gone.

[Guest jin979]

front loadings is good for all in putting household registry, passports, photos etc for all. can do no harms.

if have red flags then you need to think and prepare carefully, dont ignore it/them.

[Dan-Juan]

Read this post in the Ellis' Island thread. http://candleforlove.com/forums/index.php?...st&p=492032 It is the most convincing argument I have read to date in favor of front loading petitions. Something in the past I've been skeptical of but now am reconsidering my position.

 

 

Oh well I have been worried about not frontloading. My lawyer prepared the i-13o and it was approved no problem with nothing but the minimum, as more advice was to not give them ammunition to hang you, and follow instructions exactly type thinking, dont guess dont interpret, read instructions follow exactly

. I guess moving from what if should have to how to move forward with interview material is an important question.

[xyz1000]

Just an update to our case.

Called DOS, the paper files left Guangzhou custom and was

received by the consulate today on June 8.

It took about a month inside Chinese custom for clearing. The file left NVC on May 6.

 

Mei

[nandj]

If your wife has children, you also need to make sure you have PLENTY of evidence showing her relationship to the children. We got the "blue"s", and were asked to supply evidence such as pictures of my wife and son together because they had doubts that her son was hers.

 

You should also prepare phone records and emails of you communicating together. It does not hurt to bring more than you need. If you are lucky they will not even ask for this addition proof, but at least you will have it if asked...

 

Best of luck,

Ning and Jim...