Confirm my suspicions?

[diadromous mermaid 36]

But, I think I could argue that you two *were* in a valid marital union before Lucy's arrival because she could not have come without one!

Yep, I think that may be a valid argument, and if pressed against a wall, I'd certainly make that argument loudly and furiously. But we're not pressed against a wall. Given that the choice is whether to file 90 days early and risk an unfavorable finding, or wait 90 days for clear and unambiguous eligibility, I think we know what to do.

But I'd probably change my mind if I found a clear example where the USCIS handled a case like ours favorably.

Worse yet. I found your case.. I'll let you read it because my head's ready to explode: http://tinyurl.com/yuwtpn

Both our arguments are in there, I didn't look to see which side won.

Yep, I found the case, too. I read it, and concluded that the facts were too far different from ours for me to draw a relevant conclusion. But FWIW, Maduno lost. They decided his marital union was broken and he wasn't eligible for naturalization.

Hmmm... I tend to think your being too narrow in your definition of "marital union". Let's see....

(B) Marital union--(1) General. An applicant lives in marital union with a citizen spouse if the applicant actually resides with his or her current spouse. The burden is on the applicant to establish, in each individual case, that a particular marital union satisfies the requirements of this part.

Ok...seems clear to you that this means living in the same house, right? Well, not necessarily to me. Sometimes what is ommitted is key. Let's propose that there is a person that maintains his permanent address is in the city where his or her US citizen spouse lives and in their 'marital home', but the alien intent on naturalising is currently working in another city. The alien meets all presence tests, has no requirement to change his address and is legally married, although he and his wife are not living toegther under the "same" roof. The alien should be eligible, after all, he or she has met all the requirements per INA 319.

Reading this again....

(B) Marital union--(1) General. An applicant lives in marital union with a citizen spouse if the applicant actually resides with his or her current spouse. The burden is on the applicant to establish, in each individual case, that a particular marital union satisfies the requirements of this part.

Note the last sentence. It would, in my opinion, be the alien's responsibility to meet the burden of proof that the marriage was in place and viable whilst the parties lived in separate residences.

[meauxna 15]

(B) Marital union--(1) General. An applicant lives in marital union with a citizen spouse if the applicant actually resides with his or her current spouse. The burden is on the applicant to establish, in each individual case, that a particular marital union satisfies the requirements of this part.

Ok...seems clear to you that this means living in the same house, right? Well, not necessarily to me. Sometimes what is ommitted is key. Let's propose that there is a person that maintains his permanent address is in the city where his or her US citizen spouse lives and in their 'marital home', but the alien intent on naturalising is currently working in another city. The alien meets all presence tests, has no requirement to change his address and is legally married, although he and his wife are not living toegther under the "same" roof. The alien should be eligible, after all, he or she has met all the requirements per INA 319.

Reading this again....

(B) Marital union--(1) General. An applicant lives in marital union with a citizen spouse if the applicant actually resides with his or her current spouse. The burden is on the applicant to establish, in each individual case, that a particular marital union satisfies the requirements of this part.

Note the last sentence. It would, in my opinion, be the alien's responsibility to meet the burden of proof that the marriage was in place and viable whilst the parties lived in separate residences.

Exactly--I keep thinking of Rene at BE.. she is in Arizona (their 'real' home) and he is working in S California.

[akdiver 3]

I think you are confusing "continuous residence" with "living together". Whether or not you are living together does not matter. What matters is the place of residence.