Divorce after removal of conditions but before N-400 filed

[Crazy Cat 41,857]

7 minutes ago, Mobius2 said:

If I-751 (joint) gets approved without RFE, without an interview before your divorce gets finalized, then you are fine for N400.

I think Hacking would disagree with that statement.  In fact, I think I have heard him say that it could be a big issue. 

Edited August 6, 2023 by Crazy Cat

[Mobius2 48]

2 minutes ago, Crazy Cat said:

I think Hacking would disagree with that statement.  In fact, I think I have heard him say that it could be a big issue. 

 

 

The rampant spread of misinformation, esp from the usual suspects, on these forums, is not new.

 

FYI, Hacking also says he doesn't take cases that he feels are un-winnable. He was very comfortable taking my case, however, I went with a different (cheaper) lawyer.

 

Under your and Boiler's theory, I am wrong, Hacking is wrong, my lawyer is wrong, IO who approved the case is wrong, and the supervisor that issued the final approval is also wrong. But the self-proclaimed lawyers here, as usual, are right 😄

 

[Crazy Cat 41,857]

6 minutes ago, Mobius2 said:

 

 

The rampant spread of misinformation, esp from the usual suspects, on these forums, is not new.

 

FYI, Hacking also says he doesn't take cases that he feels are un-winnable. He was very comfortable taking my case, however, I went with a different (cheaper) lawyer.

 

Under your and Boiler's theory, I am wrong, Hacking is wrong, my lawyer is wrong, IO who approved the case is wrong, and the supervisor that issued the final approval is also wrong. But the self-proclaimed lawyers here, as usual, are right 😄

 

Usual Suspects....pretty good movie.

I'm just posting what I believe I remember Hacking saying..... How is that misinformation?  

Edited August 6, 2023 by Crazy Cat

[Mobius2 48]

1 minute ago, Crazy Cat said:

I'm just posting what I believe I remember Hacking saying..... How is that misinformation?  

 

 

You as a moderator are de-railing the thread to force your opinion ( a non-lawyer ) to misguide a person. 

I have given you my example and Hacking's personal communication to me. If that's not believable to you then you have already decided your opinion will not change.

[Boiler 45,516]

1 minute ago, Mobius2 said:

 

 

The rampant spread of misinformation, esp from the usual suspects, on these forums, is not new.

 

FYI, Hacking also says he doesn't take cases that he feels are un-winnable. He was very comfortable taking my case, however, I went with a different (cheaper) lawyer.

 

Under your and Boiler's theory, I am wrong, Hacking is wrong, my lawyer is wrong, IO who approved the case is wrong, and the supervisor that issued the final approval is also wrong. But the self-proclaimed lawyers here, as usual, are right 😄

 

I assume you got lucky, happens, begs the question why you think everyone else would get lucky.

 

Hacking I have seen bounce around on this issue, last time I saw him comment we have similar views. I forget when it was now but one of the classic calls was somebody who did exactly this, to complicate matters that person was also sponsoring a new wife. He was in trouble.

 

I did notice last week somebody sent him dice, this is a dice issue, why would you want to roll the dice? There is a clean route.

[Crazy Cat 41,857]

5 minutes ago, Mobius2 said:

 

 

You as a moderator are de-railing the thread to force your opinion ( a non-lawyer ) to misguide a person. 

I have given you my example and Hacking's personal communication to me. If that's not believable to you then you have already decided your opinion will not change.

I'm not a moderator.  I'm not derailing anything.  I just doubt your all-inclusive advice is applicable to every case.  I don't remember all the details about the Hacking case....but I do remember his telling a caller that there were issues with a similar case.  

Edited August 6, 2023 by Crazy Cat

[Mobius2 48]

3 minutes ago, Boiler said:

I assume you got lucky, happens, begs the question why you think everyone else would get lucky.

 

Hacking I have seen bounce around on this issue, last time I saw him comment we have similar views. I forget when it was now but one of the classic calls was somebody who did exactly this, to complicate matters that person was also sponsoring a new wife. He was in trouble.

 

I did notice last week somebody sent him dice, this is a dice issue, why would you want to roll the dice? There is a clean route.

 

Because the other path can lead to a deportation court (yes still approvable but more messy, expensive, time-consuming, and worrisome). While this path also has a clean path. Just differs from your opinon.

 

Funny, you say lucky. Pretty much trashing the hard-earned law degrees, the officers who do this every day. 

[Mobius2 48]

1 minute ago, Crazy Cat said:

I'm not derailing anything.  I just doubt your all-inclusive advice is applicable to every case.  I don't remember all the details about the Hacking case....but I do remember his telling a caller that there were issues with a similar case.  

 

He's a lawyer, and sacring people into contacting him for hire is part of the program.

[Crazy Cat 41,857]

1 minute ago, Mobius2 said:

 

He's a lawyer, and sacring people into contacting him for hire is part of the program.

I certainly can't argue with that that.  LOL!   Some of those guys make that common practice. 

[Mobius2 48]

Just now, Crazy Cat said:

I certainly can't argue with that that.  LOL!   Some of those guys make that common practice. 

 

If there were no legal implications to uploading his firm's contract, I would prove he was willing to take on my case which he in the end (his wife's convo with me as well) believed was winnable. But then again I do not have to prove anything to an online forum where posters get glee out of scaring people.

 

Back to the topic, OP, please contact a law firm. I have sent you a DM with details.

[Crazy Cat 41,857]

2 minutes ago, Mobius2 said:

OP, please contact a law firm.

Which was the point of my first comment.... rather than taking  "You're fine" as gospel.

Edited August 6, 2023 by Crazy Cat

[Mobius2 48]

1 minute ago, Crazy Cat said:

Which was the point of my first comment.... rather than taking  "You're fine" as gospel.

 

Unfortunately, your later comments included your misinformed opinion as well.

[Boiler 45,516]

Why does he need a lawyer if it is not a problem?

 

 

[Mobius2 48]

2 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Why does he need a lawyer if it is not a problem?

 

 

 

Because it's a complicated case yet approvable with no room for mistake. However, given you don't trust our legal/ justice system (law degrees, bar exams, endorsements, approval process), I can see why you think so.

[Family 3,988]

4 hours ago, justmarriedusciti said:

Am I able to revoke my current I-751 and instead apply for ROC with VAWA?

Yes you can send in a request to change/ amend the current I-751 from a joint filing to a waiver of joint filing . This can be done without the need to file a new I-751.

 

But as @Mobius2 Wisely points out, you can wait ..it out if you think divorce will be a quickie. Once divorce is final you MUST amend .