New Policy: Marriage and Living in Marital Union Requirements for Naturalization

[lierre 224]

14 hours ago, geowrian said:

There is no requirement to live together (although not living together better have a good explanation). The requirement is to live in marital union. Circumstances like you describes are covered.

 

I tried to circle the paragraph which states living in marital union = living together. If “living together” is not what the policy memo meant, why was it placed within parentheses like that?

 

Also, read footnote 1.

 

This is ridiculous. What decade are we in?? The 1950s?

 

Edited October 21, 2018 by ivyyy

[Dashinka 24,493]

16 minutes ago, ivyyy said:

 

I tried to circle the paragraph which states living in marital union = living together. If “living together” is not what the policy memo meant, why was it placed within parentheses like that?

 

Also, read footnote 1.

 

This is ridiculous. What decade are we in?? The 1950s?

 

Personally, I think it means that if one files based on marriage, but they are legally separated, or in divorce proceedings at the time of filing, then they are not eligible under the 3 year rule even if the divorce is not final (I.e. they are married, but not living together in a marital union).  Of course if the divorce is finalized prior to the oath, then they are also not eligible under the three year rule.  They will still be eligible under the five year rule.  Overall, I am not sure what the big deal is here, I think it really only applies to someone filing under the three year rule then decides to get divorced after filing which means they may still be eligible as long as they were in a marital Union at the time of filing and the divorce is not finalized at the time of the oath. 

[geowrian 22,337]

1 hour ago, ivyyy said:

I tried to circle the paragraph which states living in marital union = living together. If “living together” is not what the policy memo meant, why was it placed within parentheses like that?

 

Also, read footnote 1.

 

This is ridiculous. What decade are we in?? The 1950s?

It's a summary. The USCIS policy manual further defines "marital union".

https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartG-Chapter2.html

"There are limited circumstances where an applicant may be able to establish that he or she is living in marital union with his or her citizen spouse even though the applicant does not actually reside with the citizen spouse. ^[20] "

...

"Factors to consider in making this determination may include:

 

•The length of separation;

 

•Whether the applicant and his or her spouse continue to support each other and their children (if any) during the separation;

 

•Whether the spouses intend to separate permanently; and

 

•Whether either spouse becomes involved in a relationship with others during the separation. ^[31]

 

Involuntary Separation

 

Under very limited circumstances and where there is no indication of marital disunity, an applicant may be able to establish that he or she is living in marital union with his or her U.S. citizen spouse even though the applicant does not actually reside with citizen spouse. An applicant is not made ineligible for naturalization for not living in marital union if the separation is due to circumstances beyond his or her control, such as: ^[32]

 

•Service in the U.S. armed forces; or

•Required travel or relocation for employment.

 

USCIS does not consider incarceration during the time of required living in marital union to be an involuntary separation."

 

[lierre 224]

1 hour ago, geowrian said:

It's a summary. The USCIS policy manual further defines "marital union".

https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartG-Chapter2.html

"There are limited circumstances where an applicant may be able to establish that he or she is living in marital union with his or her citizen spouse even though the applicant does not actually reside with the citizen spouse. ^[20] "

...

"Factors to consider in making this determination may include:

 

•The length of separation;

 

•Whether the applicant and his or her spouse continue to support each other and their children (if any) during the separation;

 

•Whether the spouses intend to separate permanently; and

 

•Whether either spouse becomes involved in a relationship with others during the separation. ^[31]

 

Involuntary Separation

 

Under very limited circumstances and where there is no indication of marital disunity, an applicant may be able to establish that he or she is living in marital union with his or her U.S. citizen spouse even though the applicant does not actually reside with citizen spouse. An applicant is not made ineligible for naturalization for not living in marital union if the separation is due to circumstances beyond his or her control, such as: ^[32]

 

•Service in the U.S. armed forces; or

•Required travel or relocation for employment.

 

USCIS does not consider incarceration during the time of required living in marital union to be an involuntary separation."

 

 

Thanks!

 

I feel like that should be pinned somewhere. Especially for folks on here that say outright that a couple living separately is indicative of a doubtful marriage.

[Dashinka 24,493]

15 hours ago, ivyyy said:

 

Thanks!

 

I feel like that should be pinned somewhere. Especially for folks on here that say outright that a couple living separately is indicative of a doubtful marriage.

Most people including IOs will make that assumption on first glance which is why @geowrian mentioned that if it applies, there better be a good explanation with supporting documents (paraphrased with my additions).

[Dashinka 24,493]

18 hours ago, geowrian said:

 

USCIS does not consider incarceration during the time of required living in marital union to be an involuntary separation."

 

This was one I hadn't considered, and might be the reason for the policy clarification.  If one is married to an incarcerated convicted criminal, then they would not be considered living in a marital union and therefore not eligible to file under the 3 year rule.  They could still file under the 5 year rule.