“But That’s Not What She Said”: When Inconsistent Testimony Derails Your K-1 or I-130 Immigrant Visa CR-1 Case

Posted on June 29, 2025

In a previous post, we explored how poor documentation and weak evidence can sink K-1 fiancé and I-130 spousal visa cases. But even couples who believe they’ve submitted everything required often get blindsided during the visa interview—especially when their answers don’t line up. Inconsistent testimony is one of the most common reasons a consular officer begins to suspect fraud.

It may seem like a small thing to forget a date or get nervous in front of an officer, but when a petitioner says they met at a friend’s party in Lagos in January and the beneficiary claims they met on a dating app in May, this contradiction immediately casts doubt on the relationship. The “how we met” story is foundational. If the couple can’t agree on something so basic, the officer may start to suspect that the relationship is more transactional than romantic.

Another key issue is the first in-person meeting. This is especially critical in K-1 visa cases, where U.S. immigration law requires the couple to have met physically within the past two years. If the petitioner claims they met in 2022 and the beneficiary says 2023, or if there’s no proof like passport stamps, hotel receipts, or photos to back it up, the officer may suspect misrepresentation. In serious cases, this could lead to a refusal under INA §212(a)(6)(C)(i), a permanent ground of inadmissibility for fraud.

Discrepancies also arise when discussing visits and time spent together. For example, one party may say they visited Paris in August for two weeks, while the other says it was September for just a few days. If there are no flight itineraries, receipts, or consistent recollections to support these claims, the officer may begin to doubt whether the trip occurred at all. Worse, if the case involves alleged cohabitation, but neither party can correctly state the address, describe the apartment, or provide any records like leases or utility bills, it may appear that the couple fabricated the claim of living together.

A particularly glaring issue is the lack of communication history. Many couples fail to retain chat logs, emails, or call records, assuming their relationship is self-evident. But in consular processing, the absence of any traceable correspondence—combined with an inability to recall which platforms they used to communicate—can be fatal to a petition. It suggests the relationship was sporadic or hastily arranged for immigration purposes, rather than sustained over time.

Then there’s the matter of photos. Some couples submit just a few pictures, often from their wedding ceremony. But officers expect to see photographic evidence of a relationship that existed before the marriage: photos of trips together, outings with family or friends, casual moments, or events over time. Without that, the relationship can appear staged for immigration.

Consular officers don’t expect perfect memory, but they do expect consistency on the basics. Sometimes the US citizen petitioner will travel for the visa interview. While that can show serious intent, if the US citizen attends the interview, it is possible that the consul can arrange separate interviews. Officers then compare their answers, especially concerning how they met, how often they talk, when they visited, what they did together, and whether their accounts match the evidence submitted. A few small inconsistencies can be overlooked. But major contradictions — especially in the absence of supporting documentation — often result in suspicion and denial.

Couples can avoid these pitfalls by preparing carefully. It’s important to talk through your shared timeline before the interview, reviewing key events, trips, and milestones. You don’t need to memorize a script, but both parties should have a clear and honest understanding of their history together. Saving evidence—photos, messages, receipts, travel records—as the relationship progresses makes a big difference later. It's also critical not to fabricate or rehearse answers. Consular officers are trained to detect insincerity and forced or unnatural responses can trigger further scrutiny.

If your case has unusual circumstances—such as a long separation, limited time spent together, or a relationship that developed quickly—it’s essential to consult with an experienced immigration attorney. Legal guidance can help you present a truthful and well-supported case that acknowledges any red flags upfront and addresses them directly.

Even genuine couples can be derailed by inconsistent answers and a lack of evidence. If your visa application rests solely on saying, “We love each other,” you're on fragile ground. For consular officers, love may be part of the story—but what really matters is whether your facts match, your evidence supports your claims, and your relationship stands up to scrutiny. Don’t hesitate to contact us to assess your case.