Minimalist, Front-loading, or 'Kitchen Sink'?

[Randy W]

. . . when submitting I-129F and I-130 petitions.

 

The 'kitchen sink' referred to in this article is not what you may have seen as referred to as 'kitchen sink' here on CFL. What we have referred to as 'kitchen sink' is having ALL possible documents carried to the interview by the applicant in order that they can be produced ON DEMAND. The article considers the practice of supplying ALL relationship documentation to the USCIS as relationship evidence in a 'kitchen sink' submitted with the original petition.

 

My own belief is that you SELECTIVELY provide evidence in order to paint a picture of a loving relationship. 'Red flag' disclosure can BACKFIRE, in that GUZ is REQUIRED BY LAW to DENY any relationship that the VO feels may not be bonafide.

 

No real new ground is broken here, except that it includes advice from a former Chief of Domestic Operations for the USCIS.

 

It applies to I-130's as well as I-129F's

 

Documenting a K-1 Visa Petition: Minimalist or Kitchen Sink?

He strongly advised the assembled attorneys not to follow a “kitchen sink” approach to assembling immigrant petitions, noting that internally the USCIS mantra is “approve only if you can’t deny,” so the fewer opportunities you give the USCIS to deny a petition, the better.

Many petitioners believe that the more they show the government, the less likely the government will be to deny their petition or ask for additional evidence. My view has always been that its best to give the government the minimum necessary documentation to create an approvable petition (including, in some cases documents carefully addressed to a discrete “red flag” issue), and nothing else, because each superfluous document contains the possibility of eventually creting the basis for a denial. . . . . A common example of this type of mistake is the petitioner who includes in his petition copies of the Western Union receipts showing money being regularly sent to his fiancée. The U.S. petitioner thinks this shows his commitment to his fiancée and seriousness in regard to the relationship. The U.S. consular officer, on the other hand, is more likely to view this financial support as something that undermines the fiancée's claim to be motivated solely by the desire for love and romance.

There is a more sophisticated argument for "frontloading" I-129F petitions, which is based on the notion that the U.S. consulate is not allowed to deny a petition based on a “re-adjudication" of facts already reviewed by the USCIS. The problem with his theory is that that U.S. consulates routinely disregard this constraint on their behavior. We've tried to argue it before the consulates many times and they simply ignore it based on their view that new facts have arisen during the consular interview and therefore they have every right to reassess the fiancé or petitioner’s qualification for the visa. The consular officers are especially emboldened by the fact that most of their judgments are subjective and that a consular officers decision may be challenged only based on mistakes in law, not on mistakes in facts or their evaluation.

 

 

[warpedbored]

Interesting read. Some attorneys such as Marc Ellis advocate front loading. A lot of his business though is white slips. If you have an issue you are sure is going to raise eyebrows, ie a prior marriage to a Chinese citizen who scammed you, then I think it wise to address it head on.

[Randy W]

Interesting read. Some attorneys such as Marc Ellis advocate front loading. A lot of his business though is white slips. If you have an issue you are sure is going to raise eyebrows, ie a prior marriage to a Chinese citizen who scammed you, then I think it wise to address it head on.

 

 

Yes - the author supports the Minimalist point of view - submit the Minimum amount of evidence necessary - but I think it only makes the case for the front loading approach. My feeling is to not submit EVERYTHING you have, but to pay attention to the picture you're painting.

 

Disclosure of 'red flag' issues as a means of wiping the slate clean is overblown since you MAY be providing ammunition for a denial. Yes, it DOES provide an opportunity to address those issues, but take care in how it is presented. In the case of a prior marriage to a Chinese citizen who scammed you, if you talk about how easily you were duped or how blind you were to obvious signs, that may raise a few eyebrows in the wrong direction.

 

It just seems like more of an art form than black and white legal issues.

[warpedbored]

And it depends on who adjudicates your petition. Luck of the draw. In cases of prior marriage there's no avoiding them noticing. It may be wise to paint a picture of a slower more common sense in developing a relationship.

[NUWORLD]

And it depends on who adjudicates your petition. Luck of the draw. In cases of prior marriage there's no avoiding them noticing. It may be wise to paint a picture of a slower more common sense in developing a relationship.

 

I find this to be interesting:

 

It may be wise to paint a picture of a slower more common sense in developing a relationship

Then again, this was the norm years ago.

Only send what was needed.

Nothing more nothing less.

 

This was my thinking years ago when i started this visa process.

No front loading and no kitchen sink.

Just the basic files what was needed.

 

Why give ammunition to something that could kill the process in the long run.

 

Maybe the old days are coming back.

Just fill out the papers and send them with a check$.

[tsap seui]

There is a more sophisticated argument for "frontloading" I-129F petitions, which is based on the notion that the U.S. consulate is not allowed to deny a petition based on a “re-adjudication" of facts already reviewed by the USCIS. The problem with his theory is that that U.S. consulates routinely disregard this constraint on their behavior. We've tried to argue it before the consulates many times and they simply ignore it based on their view that new facts have arisen during the consular interview and therefore they have every right to reassess the fiancé or petitioner’s qualification for the visa. The consular officers are especially emboldened by the fact that most of their judgments are subjective and that a consular officers decision may be challenged only based on mistakes in law, not on mistakes in facts or their evaluation.

Arguing their re-adjudication point makes some sense if you are appealing the case after it's been returned to the USCIS with a request for revocation. But the USCIS no longer allows appeals of K-1 petitions denied by the Consulate, instructing petitioners instead to re-file the I-129 petition, so this rationale for frontloading no longer exists for K visa cases. Even in you are preparing a spousal visa case, where an appeal of a consular denial is still possible, do you really want to take the risk of a USCIS or consular denial based on the very small possibility that some extra document thrown into the USCIS petition will be useful to you months or years later in an appeal of a denial of your fiancées case? Of course not, the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages.

 

 

 

 

 

First bold: The problem is this whole thing relies on arbitrary decisions by the consulate officers. Its a guessing game, or lucky ducky pick as if you are in some carnival's swirling water pond filled with plastic ducks The consulate officers can deny or approve any petition they feel like. They have no oversight (even by our puny congressmen), no one to answer to, they don't abide by their own rules, and speculation and conjecture rule the day. Plus, they will never tell you, or your congressmen what the problem is, to begin with. Even the VA writes out in detail why you are denied. But no, not a US consulate officer. With those clowns the subject of your denial is apparently a top military secret.

 

 

Second bold: How cool, now you can't even appeal your denial on a K-1 case....yet you can on a spousal visa, and apparently always could?

 

I say, yeah, send in the minimum, you will always have a chance to send in more.....on your next application. It is nothing but a matter of time to get approved. Some get the visa quickly (not by their own smarts or well laid out case mind you) and some get the visa....later. More a matter of luck....of the draw. LOL

 

 

tsap seui

Glad my time spent on the US State Department is light years behind me. I hated spending my time dealing with criminals that hide behind terroristic words like "Homeland Security"