Front Loading Link?

[Sebastian]

Appaullo - as aa quick follow up for searching ...

 

in the search box, if you use '+front +loading' , then select 'list as topics' - you'll have a better search experience here. I learned about using the plus signs , it's useful.

 

also, sometimes it's easier to use google site search - go to TheGoogle over at www.google.com , enter in the search box:

 

site:candleforlove.com front loading

 

and it'll return all the posts in the OPEN sections (no membership required) that deal with front loading.. You can vary this by using other search terms. Ya know, those 3 letter acronyms that we get stuck with here ? Google Site Search is GREAT for them, when the CFL portal search engine can't find them.

 

GOOD LUCK with your petition, I see that the time gap between NOA-1 and NOA-2 has lessened considerably over the last quarter and this quarter.. WHOOP!

[LeeFisher3]

I believe the term arrived at CFL from Marc Ellis's article

Denials Of Family-Based Immigrant Visas At Consulates And DHS Petition Revocations, that discusses denials at consulates.

 

Based on the behavior in GUZ and the large percentage of denials base with the stock reason "not a bona fide relationship", the suggestion by Marc to front load the evidence when filing the petition seems to be a good way to counter the bad behavior by GUZ.

 

While the article points to aiding K-1 and K-3 petitions this can also apply to I-130 filing, which GUZ has been treating as non bona fide relationships as they stretch the regulations and their authority to the limit.

 

Here is one of the main points of the article:

consular officers do not have the authority to question the approval of petitions without specific evidence, generally unavailable to DHS at the time of petition approval, that the beneficiary may not be entitled to status (see 9 FAM 41.53, Note 2, 41.54 Note 3.2-2, 41.55 Note 8, 41.56 Note 10, 41.57 Note 6, and 42.43 Note 2) due to fraud, changes in circumstances or clear error on the part of DHS in approving the petition. Conoffs should not assume that a petition should be revoked simply because they would have reached a different decision if adjudicating the petition.

 

The idea is to present any evidence on issues that might cause the dreaded NOID (white slip) with the petition so that the USCIS is fully aware of the evidence when it approves the petition and removes the authority of the consulate to adjudicate the evidence in the case that USCIS has previously reviewed.

 

So now that GUZ refuses to look at relationship evidence it appears the only way to force the issue is to prove the bona fides of the relationship with the petition as well as any of the standard issues that trigger a review by GUZ is to force the evidence into the case with the petition.

 

Marc offers a list of known items where front loading would apply from the petitioners side, the list for the beneficiary would be similar, but one thing that I haven't seen done yet would be a great candidate for this process is CCP membership.

 

While providing a large amount of evidence with a petition has the ability to delay the approval process by USCIS while they review the evidence the extra month or two in processing seems to be much more productive than being forced to re-file a new petition after a white slip.

 

One word of caution though, any time evidence is being provided with a petition it needs to be assembled and organized in an orderly and coherent manner to make it easy to review each of the items you wish to address. A cover letter should have a brief statement as to each bundle of evidence that is provided, yes use the ARCO fasteners to organize it. Anything a petitioner can do to make it easier for the USCIS to review what you have provided is a plus.

 

If someone just dumps hundreds of pages of evidence loosely with a petition the petitioner deservse the treatment they will receive by USCIS, which may include a lengthy review as they draw straws to see who must try to understand the filing.

 

Before the change in methods by GUZ I was recommending keeping the petition as simple as possible and only touching all the bases, unfortunately changes in GUZ make that no longer a good idea.

[rogerinca]

I believe the term arrived at CFL from Marc Ellis's article

Denials Of Family-Based Immigrant Visas At Consulates And DHS Petition Revocations, that discusses denials at consulates.

 

Based on the behavior in GUZ and the large percentage of denials base with the stock reason "not a bona fide relationship", the suggestion by Marc to front load the evidence when filing the petition seems to be a good way to counter the bad behavior by GUZ.

 

While the article points to aiding K-1 and K-3 petitions this can also apply to I-130 filing, which GUZ has been treating as non bona fide relationships as they stretch the regulations and their authority to the limit.

 

Here is one of the main points of the article:

consular officers do not have the authority to question the approval of petitions without specific evidence, generally unavailable to DHS at the time of petition approval, that the beneficiary may not be entitled to status (see 9 FAM 41.53, Note 2, 41.54 Note 3.2-2, 41.55 Note 8, 41.56 Note 10, 41.57 Note 6, and 42.43 Note 2) due to fraud, changes in circumstances or clear error on the part of DHS in approving the petition. Conoffs should not assume that a petition should be revoked simply because they would have reached a different decision if adjudicating the petition.

 

The idea is to present any evidence on issues that might cause the dreaded NOID (white slip) with the petition so that the USCIS is fully aware of the evidence when it approves the petition and removes the authority of the consulate to adjudicate the evidence in the case that USCIS has previously reviewed.

 

So now that GUZ refuses to look at relationship evidence it appears the only way to force the issue is to prove the bona fides of the relationship with the petition as well as any of the standard issues that trigger a review by GUZ is to force the evidence into the case with the petition.

 

Marc offers a list of known items where front loading would apply from the petitioners side, the list for the beneficiary would be similar, but one thing that I haven't seen done yet would be a great candidate for this process is CCP membership.

 

While providing a large amount of evidence with a petition has the ability to delay the approval process by USCIS while they review the evidence the extra month or two in processing seems to be much more productive than being forced to re-file a new petition after a white slip.

 

One word of caution though, any time evidence is being provided with a petition it needs to be assembled and organized in an orderly and coherent manner to make it easy to review each of the items you wish to address. A cover letter should have a brief statement as to each bundle of evidence that is provided, yes use the ARCO fasteners to organize it. Anything a petitioner can do to make it easier for the USCIS to review what you have provided is a plus.

 

If someone just dumps hundreds of pages of evidence loosely with a petition the petitioner deservse the treatment they will receive by USCIS, which may include a lengthy review as they draw straws to see who must try to understand the filing.

 

 

Before the change in methods by GUZ I was recommending keeping the petition as simple as possible and only touching all the bases, unfortunately changes in GUZ make that no longer a good idea.

 

 

No shit. I have a long memory and remember being mocked by some here, nearly two years ago, for being a strong advocate for front-loading. I reached my conclusions, based on the following factors: The clear direction in the USCIS webpage instructions for case file preparation, which speaks to this very point. Anecdotal information from carefully reading postings from those who had successfully completed their interview and had proactively front-loaded their case files. Then, what really convinced me was when the proof of bona fide relationship info was added to the format requirements for the I-130 package.

 

The majority feeling then (and I had some very sharply worded posts/comments directed at my position in that regard) was that if you did not keep it simple and only give ‘em only what they ask for, you were, in essence, a moron. The feeling also was that it was the kitchen sink approach at interview time, i.e., have your spouse lug 50 pounds of paper up to the interview area, in case the VO asked for something at interview time.

 

I went against all this advice and followed my gut instincts, as my own intellect coupled with my many years of professional experience, and training/education had taught me.

 

In our case, I fully front loaded and explained [everything] in both our I-129F and I-130 files which were submitted to the USCIS. My wife carried two very slim folders with her to the interview; one with photos, that had been taken since the time of our original filing date and one with my financial documents. The VO only asked for the financials and took a cursory look at them, asked two softball questions, and complimented Lao Po on her English, and on the work put into the case files.

 

This process is always in a state of flux, and those who can sense the change in the winds, so to speak, and not get locked into the preverbal… this is the way we have always done it… can then realize a greater chance of success. CFL was really great in this regard, because I was able to read and assess each and every one of the post-interview debriefing posts, which kept me up to speed on what was happening on the front lines, in near real-time.

 

And yes, it made me shake my head many times, when I was a newbie here, when those in the ‘know’, with their sometimes condescending attitudes would come crashing down on you if you did not pay homage to the current wisdom of those with the high post counts and/or moderator status… because they always knew how it ‘really’ was.

 

Today, however, there is a new wind blowing. A change has come.

 

 

Hey, I turn age 60 next month, so WTF.

Edited February 27, 2009 by rogerinca (see edit history)

[IllinoisDave]

Excellent post Roger! Clearly what GUZ deems necessary to prove a bona fide relationship and satisfy the requirements of an immigration-based visa is an ever-evolving dynamic. Ignore current trends in favor of past experience at your peril. They¡¯re both crucial to understanding what it takes to navigate the minefield GUZ lays down.

 

I remember when you were advocating for the ¡°more is more¡± approach to the initial filing over the conventional wisdom at the time of keeping it simple and worrying about bringing the big guns to the interview. And I may have even been one of those pooh poohing that idea at the time since we had gotten our visa using that CW of the time.

 

If I was, I owe you an apology. It¡¯s become pretty clear since that when it comes to using ¡°conventional wisdom¡± when dealing with GUZ, it¡¯s nearly impossible to know what¡¯s conventional or what¡¯s wisdom.

[amberjack1234]

I believe the term arrived at CFL from Marc Ellis's article

Denials Of Family-Based Immigrant Visas At Consulates And DHS Petition Revocations, that discusses denials at consulates.

 

Based on the behavior in GUZ and the large percentage of denials base with the stock reason "not a bona fide relationship", the suggestion by Marc to front load the evidence when filing the petition seems to be a good way to counter the bad behavior by GUZ.

 

While the article points to aiding K-1 and K-3 petitions this can also apply to I-130 filing, which GUZ has been treating as non bona fide relationships as they stretch the regulations and their authority to the limit.

 

Here is one of the main points of the article:

consular officers do not have the authority to question the approval of petitions without specific evidence, generally unavailable to DHS at the time of petition approval, that the beneficiary may not be entitled to status (see 9 FAM 41.53, Note 2, 41.54 Note 3.2-2, 41.55 Note 8, 41.56 Note 10, 41.57 Note 6, and 42.43 Note 2) due to fraud, changes in circumstances or clear error on the part of DHS in approving the petition. Conoffs should not assume that a petition should be revoked simply because they would have reached a different decision if adjudicating the petition.

 

The idea is to present any evidence on issues that might cause the dreaded NOID (white slip) with the petition so that the USCIS is fully aware of the evidence when it approves the petition and removes the authority of the consulate to adjudicate the evidence in the case that USCIS has previously reviewed.

 

So now that GUZ refuses to look at relationship evidence it appears the only way to force the issue is to prove the bona fides of the relationship with the petition as well as any of the standard issues that trigger a review by GUZ is to force the evidence into the case with the petition.

 

Marc offers a list of known items where front loading would apply from the petitioners side, the list for the beneficiary would be similar, but one thing that I haven't seen done yet would be a great candidate for this process is CCP membership.

 

While providing a large amount of evidence with a petition has the ability to delay the approval process by USCIS while they review the evidence the extra month or two in processing seems to be much more productive than being forced to re-file a new petition after a white slip.

 

One word of caution though, any time evidence is being provided with a petition it needs to be assembled and organized in an orderly and coherent manner to make it easy to review each of the items you wish to address. A cover letter should have a brief statement as to each bundle of evidence that is provided, yes use the ARCO fasteners to organize it. Anything a petitioner can do to make it easier for the USCIS to review what you have provided is a plus.

 

If someone just dumps hundreds of pages of evidence loosely with a petition the petitioner deservse the treatment they will receive by USCIS, which may include a lengthy review as they draw straws to see who must try to understand the filing.

 

 

Before the change in methods by GUZ I was recommending keeping the petition as simple as possible and only touching all the bases, unfortunately changes in GUZ make that no longer a good idea.

 

 

No shit. I have a long memory and remember being mocked by some here, nearly two years ago, for being a strong advocate for front-loading. I reached my conclusions, based on the following factors: The clear direction in the USCIS webpage instructions for case file preparation, which speaks to this very point. Anecdotal information from carefully reading postings from those who had successfully completed their interview and had proactively front-loaded their case files. Then, what really convinced me was when the proof of bona fide relationship info was added to the format requirements for the I-130 package.

 

The majority feeling then (and I had some very sharply worded posts/comments directed at my position in that regard) was that if you did not keep it simple and only give ¡®em only what they ask for, you were, in essence, a moron. The feeling also was that it was the kitchen sink approach at interview time, i.e., have your spouse lug 50 pounds of paper up to the interview area, in case the VO asked for something at interview time.

 

I went against all this advice and followed my gut instincts, as my own intellect coupled with my many years of professional experience, and training/education had taught me.

 

In our case, I fully front loaded and explained [everything] in both our I-129F and I-130 files which were submitted to the USCIS. My wife carried two very slim folders with her to the interview; one with photos, that had been taken since the time of our original filing date and one with my financial documents. The VO only asked for the financials and took a cursory look at them, asked two softball questions, and complimented Lao Po on her English, and on the work put into the case files.

 

This process is always in a state of flux, and those who can sense the change in the winds, so to speak, and not get locked into the preverbal¡­ this is the way we have always done it¡­ can then realize a greater chance of success. CFL was really great in this regard, because I was able to read and assess each and every one of the post-interview debriefing posts, which kept me up to speed on what was happening on the front lines, in near real-time.

 

And yes, it made me shake my head many times, when I was a newbie here, when those in the ¡®know¡¯, with their sometimes condescending attitudes would come crashing down on you if you did not pay homage to the current wisdom of those with the high post counts and/or moderator status¡­ because they always knew how it ¡®really¡¯ was.

 

Today, however, there is a new wind blowing. A change has come.

 

 

Hey, I turn age 60 next month, so WTF.

 

 

Excellent post Roger! Clearly what GUZ deems necessary to prove a bona fide relationship and satisfy the requirements of an immigration-based visa is an ever-evolving dynamic. Ignore current trends in favor of past experience at your peril. They¡¯re both crucial to understanding what it takes to navigate the minefield GUZ lays down.

 

I remember when you were advocating for the ¡°more is more¡± approach to the initial filing over the conventional wisdom at the time of keeping it simple and worrying about bringing the big guns to the interview. And I may have even been one of those pooh poohing that idea at the time since we had gotten our visa using that CW of the time.

 

If I was, I owe you an apology. It¡¯s become pretty clear since that when it comes to using ¡°conventional wisdom¡± when dealing with GUZ, it¡¯s nearly impossible to know what¡¯s conventional or what¡¯s wisdom.

Every single case is different it seems. I was very fortunate as MY WIFEdid all of our paperwork all I had to do was sign everything. She told me don't worry I have it under control. I know what I'm doing. By golly she did. Everything went way ahead of schedule except one snag. She was 8 months ahead of couples in our same time frame. Then when she received her green card it had that she was a Man on the card. It took one year to correct that mistake through the agency in Grapevine Texas.

 

Her approach (typical Chinese) was fill the forms out very accurately and not do, say or give them anything that they don't ask for. I won't say how long the process took for us as I have been sworn to secrecy but I will say that it was less than a year from the time the first forms was filled out until she arrived here in America permanently.

She had been here twice before on a B-2 visa and I had been to see her 3 times before she came here permanently.

 

I realize that it sounds a little confusing but that is the best that I can explain it and keep with her requirements.

 

Larry

Edited February 27, 2009 by amberjack1234 (see edit history)