N400 Case Denied for 3 years marital union after evidence submitted

[nastra30 2,271]

48 minutes ago, Team A Forever said:

It is a question of whether the Permanent Resident has lived in the U.S. for at least 3 years. (If using the 3 years married to US Citizen rule).

While this is true. The below is also required. If filing for naturalization based on marriage to a USC, it is required to be living in marital union with the USC for at least 3 years preceding time of filing.

 

48 minutes ago, Team A Forever said:

For Naturalization, it is not a question of whether the US Citizen has lived with the Permanent Resident in the 3 years proceeding the application for naturalization.  - This is also required so it's part of the ''question"

 

------------------

https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-g-chapter-3

"Living in marital union with the citizen spouse for at least 3 years preceding the time of filing the naturalization application (the citizen spouse must have been a U.S. citizen for those 3 years)."

 

Edited November 16, 2022 by nastra30

[Mike E 11,739]

2 hours ago, Team A Forever said:

 . For Naturalization, it is not a question of whether the US Citizen has lived with the Permanent Resident in the 3 years proceeding the application for naturalization

Well the ISO of OP’s case disagrees. 

[Team A Forever 59]

Well it seems, I have indeed oversimplified things. I was speaking only as someone who is currently going through the process with my husband, and not as an expert. I wasn't aware that there are multiple avenues involving the 3 year rule.  When I read the original post, I was confused on the 90 day prior to 3 year as that is not something I had seen before (and I'm pretty diligent with reading and re-reading). My apologies for any confusion. Blessings on all of your journeys.  @Mike E @nastra30 @Family

Edited November 16, 2022 by Team A Forever

[Mike E 11,739]

24 minutes ago, Team A Forever said:

  I had seen before (and I'm pretty diligent with reading and re-reading).  

@CadeMcNown’s (the OP) post was transformational to our understanding of the 3 year  marital union requirement.
 

 That transformation has produced some interesting responses.  Some folks have trouble  processing all the stages of grief.

 

Sounds you have either achieved acceptance in the stages of grief or your case is not affected by the new understanding.  However your timeline is missing the date of entry under the immigration visa.  

[Family 3,988]

37 minutes ago, Team A Forever said:

Well it seems, I have indeed oversimplified things. I was speaking only as someone who is currently going through the process with my husband, and not as an expert. I wasn't aware that there are multiple avenues involving the 3 year rule.  When I read the original post, I was confused on the 90 day prior to 3 year as that is not something I had seen before (and I'm pretty diligent with reading and re-reading). My apologies for any confusion. Blessings on all of your journeys.  @Mike E @nastra30 @Family

Edited 35 minutes ago by Team A Forever

The work around this seemingly rare but naughty marital union/ shared bed “trap” has always been to file on the 3 year mark and disregard the 90 day early filing .

Good Luck and Good Wishes @Team A Forever

[Parcarina 2]

3 hours ago, Family said:

The work around this seemingly rare but naughty marital union/ shared bed “trap” has always been to file on the 3 year mark and disregard the 90 day early filing .

Good Luck and Good Wishes @Team A Forever

There is no trap. It is circumstantial. Each case is different. Each case has its own story. There are couple who don't share the same house, couples that spend time apart for various reasons and still get their citizenship under the 3 year rule.

[Mike E 11,739]

6 minutes ago, Parcarina said:

 There are couple who don't share the same house, couples that spend time apart for various reasons and still get their citizenship under the 3 year rule.

Are there some timelines or threads of VJ to where you can point us?

[OldUser 6,455]

25 minutes ago, Parcarina said:

There is no trap. It is circumstantial. Each case is different. Each case has its own story. There are couple who don't share the same house, couples that spend time apart for various reasons and still get their citizenship under the 3 year rule.

Hi Peli88 / Vagarinam, I don't think this is the case. No marital union = no citizenship under 3 year rule.

Edited November 17, 2022 by OldUser

[Parcarina 2]

17 minutes ago, Mike E said:

Are there some timelines or threads of VJ to where you can point us?

No. But for sure there are couples who spend time apart

1 minute ago, OldUser said:

Hi Peli88, I don't think this is the case. No marital union = no citizenship under 3 year rule.

You don t even know what marital union means :))

[Family 3,988]

32 minutes ago, Parcarina said:

4 hours ago, Family said:

The work around this seemingly rare but naughty marital union/ shared bed “trap” has always been to file on the 3 year mark and disregard the 90 day early filing .

Good Luck and Good Wishes @Team A Forever

There is no trap. It is circumstantial. Each case is different. Each case has its own story. There are couple who don't share the same house, couples that spend time apart for various reasons and still get their citizenship under the 3 year rule.

You got the wrong  ca/tiger by the tail..here

My position is somewhat like  yours ,..if you read the thread attentively. 
Different only in that statute does not apply to circumstances or better stories 

Edited November 17, 2022 by Family

[Sunisa 0]

On 11/8/2022 at 11:26 PM, CadeMcNown said:

We reapplied. There was no point in contesting because it might take longer, we might lose, it costs roughly the same, and we are pretty much guaranteed to succeed on reapplication. We got a very fast interview scheduled in September, then they cancelled it. Months later we are still waiting with no interview. Don't risk it over the 3 months.

How is your interview? Can you share you timeline please

[CadeMcNown 39]

3 hours ago, Sunisa said:

How is your interview? Can you share you timeline please

We actually finally got our (2nd) letter for interview a few days ago. We will interview March 13 if no further BS occurs.

 

The screw job is great with this case.

• Interview for November 2021
• Asked for evidence we were in marital union together for the full 3 years, which was sent
• Rejected April 2022 as described in this thread.
• Reapplied May 2022
• Interview Scheduled September 2022
• Interview mysteriously cancelled
• New Interview March 2023

It's like they canceled the first interview then put us back at the end of the list for no reason at all. Hopefully it won't be cancelled again.

 

For those thinking something I promise there's nothing complicated about our case. I met my wife while vacationing in her country. Both single, never married, no children, 3 years age gap. I visited her 5 times in a year for roughly 6 months total time together in her country. Many photos and receipts. We got the CR-1 no problem. We lived together the whole time in the US and have a house in both names, a child together (now 2!), filed taxes jointly, etc. There is no red flag. This can happen to anyone.