daru

I never filed I-360, and my AOS was a regular one with I-130, and my spouse came to that interview in 2021. VAWA provisions of the N-400 don't only stem from I-360 filings, they also apply to cases with the I-751 battery and extreme cruelty waiver.

And second, I guess it's time I give some feedback on VJ (I already provided some in other places). 10/21/2021 - I-485 Approved (I-130) 8/4/2023 - I-751 Receipt (filed jointly) 9/11/2024 - I-751 Receipt of amendment request to Battery / Extreme Cruelty waiver (without a new I-751 form in the amendment packet) 9/19/2024 - N-400 Receipt (VAWA provision, 3 years) 7/29/2025 - I-751/N-400 Combo Interview 8/20/2025 - I-751 Administratively closed 8/21/2025 - I-751 (B/EC) Received 8/21/2025 - I-751 (B/EC) Approved 8/21/2025 - N-400 (VAWA) Approved 8/21/2025 - N-400 (VAWA) In line for oath ceremony scheduling 8/22/2025 - N-400 (VAWA) Oath ceremony notice was mailed What you will read below will make it obvious why I won't disclose my oath ceremony date before it takes place. My interview was scheduled for 10:45am. I came with an attorney. At 11:45am, she tells me that after an hour we have the right to ask what's going on. She comes back after a few minutes and tells me that the interviewer who has our case is reviewing it and that we're next (for that particular interviewer anyway). At 12:15 we're called in. She was friendly overall but was always a lot more formal when addressing my attorney. At the start she went back and forth a bit with my attorney, acknowledging that since I had filed an amendment request, "it wasn't a regular filing anymore". She started by asking me a range of biographical questions like my name and DOB, that of my spouse, the wedding date. She asked whether I had new evidence. In the following hour, she often asked follow-up or redirect questions but, overall, because I came with 4 thick binders (which I had titled "Bona fides", "Abuse", "Matrimonial suits", and "GMC", with the second being a lot thicker than the others), she gave me leeway in handing her exhibit after exhibit as I specifically explained what each was about and how it was relevant to the overall case. The evidence I handed most notably included: Leases - Several leases, including some already on file. The last one showed I had moved, and I explained that my spouse withheld his signature off of the lease even a year after having moved out due to a criminal order of protection; by doing that, he forced me to move out as the landlord couldn't renew the lease for just me without first doing an eviction. Despite his withholding his signature off, asserting his tenant rights, he didn't pay a dime toward the 2024 rent. Diagnoses Most notably one cognitive (ADHD + autism) and one trauma-related (VAWA evaluation, diagnosing GAD + PTSD + MDD and establishing that these were caused by the abuse) Financial worksheet That spreadsheet was focusing on 3 things. (1) his undercontributions to rent. I established that over several years he generated 40% of the household revenue and paid 25% of the rent/utility expenses, underpaying by about $10k over the few years together; he also paid $0 toward the 2024 rent once he moved out but kept himself on the lease, so based on 2023 figures he was supposed to pay $25k in 2024 to cover his share. (2) his undercontributions to Amazon expenses (I happened to have asked him to pull his order log right before we filed the joint I-751). Based on the same estimated income ratio, he underpaid by about $9 over 3 years (he spent $8k including 45% on individual stuff, while I spent $36k including 15% on personal stuff and 5% for him; the rest are household expenses; based on a 40% share target he should have spent $9k more in my stead) (3) the money I spent since mid-2024 on rehousing (~$5k, + another $10k if we count the time it took me to make and rent out the flex bedroom of the new unit to make the rent manageable) and on his legal abuse ($17k). Matrimonial suits I showed that I filed for no-fault divorce in NY, and I clarified that I have been planning to amend the suit to abuse-based once the suit moves forward. I showed 40 service attempts at like 5 or 6 different addresses, including several blatant indications of overt service evasions. I showed the successful service attempt where he assaulted the private investigator who staked out his place. I showed the filings and transcripts of his frivolous TX suit where he alleged fraud (and had it so in case of no annulment it would fallback to no-fault divorce), and the dismissal of that whole suit based on my claim that a State that I have no tie with has no business hearing about my marriage in which I have claims as well, abuse-related, which would be best heard in the State where I already filed my suit because that's where all the evidence and witnesses are. I showed the more recent CA filing where he alleged fraud AND force, indicated requesting alimony, and put his student debt in the alleged marital debts. I also showed the filing I made in response to that suit (with the same jurisdictional defenses as in TX, explaining the suit belongs in NY), as well as the perjurious affidavit of service he filed in that action. 2 weeks after this combo interview, I had the entire CA case dismissed based on lack of jurisdiction. For context, for each of the annulment suits, I had a couple weeks to do dozens of calls and e-mails to find attorneys with a retainer I could manage, to file specific motions that given the circumstances were very obviously going to lead to complete dismissal, each time throwing mid to high 4 figures out the window and giving me dozens of hours of work during business hours. Oh and as a reminder, autism + ADHD + flaming trauma-induced anxiety and executive dysfunction. All of this was on top of the content of my amendment request from September 2024 which contained overwhelming evidence of several assaults including one with kitchen knives, one time where he almost slit our puppy's throat, a good dozen acts of criminal mischief, one time where I called 911 after an assault where he talked over me telling the dispatcher that we had a bunch of AK-47 and were ready for a shootout, also many death threats, coercion attempts, instances where after assaulting me he would punch himself in order for me to be arrested as well if police showed up, etc. The original joint case was about 100 pages of bona fides, standard stuff. The battery/extreme cruelty amendment request was 428 pages including: Photos (98 across 34 pages) Transcripts of audio recordings (200 pages covering 12 recordings for over 10 hours; links to the audio files were provided, and these audios include dog shrieks, criminal mischief, assault, death threats etc) Personal statement (48 pages; most abuse statements are 8-12 pages long) Cover letter (16 pages, includes list of exhibits as well as list of qualifying acts of abuse with the list of exhibits relevant to each act) Several worksheets partly redundant with the cover letter but with more details and providing case law references IM screenshots (40 pages of Whatsapp, FB Messenger, texts) Domestic Incident Reports Orders of Protection ER summaries Amazon order logs And then some. And in person at the interview I probably gave another ~150-200 pages (the TX transcript alone was 60 pages, my CA response filing was 60 pages too, so it goes up fast). The grand total was close to 800 pages I think, roughly, give or take 50. The most serious moment in the interview was went I handed the transcript of the Dec 2024 TX hearing where I got that case dismissed. I said that the transcript features the specific allegations that my husband was making in that suit, and that he was alleging immigration fraud on my part. I asked if she would like me to elaborate, she said yes. So I explained the following back and forth, stressing that I might not be using the exact words that were uttered but that I was remitting a version of the transcript were those bits were highlighted, thus readily reviewable. Spouse said, prompted by my attorney, that, because allegedly we virtually never had sex, he came to the realization that I, allegedly, had ulterior motives and married him for papers. Then, briefed by me, my attorney adopted roughly the following line of questioning: Attorney: What do you think of your spouse's concerns about your not always taking your HIV medication? Spouse: instead of talking about my concerns, he lectured the court on HIV being untransmittable when undetectable; however he did not address his skipping pills, or the possible interference of heavy alcohol and drug abuse, or the bloodwork being every 6mo when HIV can go up and back down within a month, or the fact I was never given free, continuous, unmonitored access to said bloodwork, etc... Attorney: You have been having affairs throughout the relationship, correct? Spouse: No Attorney: Have you been STD tested? Spouse: Yes, I've been doing that routinely. Attorney: But you said you haven't been intimate with him though, right? Spouse: Right. Attorney: So you've been having affairs with other people? Spouse: ... but he agreed to it! I like to quote that exchange because it summarizes so many of his red flags in so few lines. Also because this exchange seems to be all-encompassing, clarifying his deal to other people without requiring for me to add a single word of interpretation or speculation or contextualization. After about an hour the interviewer went "I wanna do the citizenship" and told me to stop handing her any more evidence, because I wasn't slowing down. I was confused because I could have gone for another 5 hours as I had a lot I wanted to share about, but my attorney seemed very happy of the implication that there already was more than enough. The tests (listening writing reading civics IIRC) went smoothly, as did the rest. There isn't much to say, I guess she had already looked at my background check and read my personal statement and I had been very detailed in the past hour so she mostly just went through the questions already in the N-400 form. At the end of the interview she explained to me that she intended to approve me for both but couldn't do it on the spot because they need to first put a new I-751 in the system with the battery waiver, before they can process the N-400. During the interview there had been some back and forth between her and my attorney as she instructed my attorney to prepare another form I-751 but with the waiver. At the end of the interview the interviewer also pointed out that this was the most well-documented VAWA filing she had ever seen. I replied to this that in preparing my case (which took me over half of 2024), I didn't want to take any chances. The interview lasted a grand total of about 1h30'. I requested a name change btw (the addition of an English middle name). I was expecting the status change to occur within a couple days of the interview and it took 3 weeks so I spent most of that time wondering what more interference my spouse could have run that time around, but apparently it was all just about VAWA-related form processing. Toward the end of these 3 weeks, the first hearing on the CA annulment suit took place, my motions were granted and the suit was dismissed. During that hearing, my spouse testified that the same day he filed for annulment, he also filed for a restraining order. Then because he didn't like that he couldn't get whatever his vexatious suits through all the way across the country without first establishing jurisdiction over me, he came up with a legal theory about the existence of the restraining order suit giving the court jurisdiction over me in the allegedly related annulment case. The judge rolled his eyes, asked a few questions relevant to the matter of jurisdiction, and dismissed a minute or two after. So now you know what I meant by "My interview was different from the one you'll have". 🙃

I'm realizing that I ended up not following up here with updates. First regarding these questions: You could still upload new unsollicited evidence online, but if your only reason to upload documents right now is for the interview rather than because of new developments, then I think you should rather, as they are telling you to do in the appointment notice, come to the interview with a new batch of all your typical evidence, for the new applicable date range (presumably, from your filing date to your interview date). Have a printout or photocopy of all of the new batch, and expect that you will remit those to the interviewer. Don't just hand them a bundle. You can hand them your whole binder toward the end if they are prompting you for new evidence to add to your casefile, but if they prompt for new evidence toward the beginning, then you should present that evidence, so you should pull from your binder, in the order that makes most sense, your exhibits, explaining the context, significance, relevance of each as you hand them to the interviewer. I suggest you start chronologically with the ones with the most evidentiary value (so for a joint case that would be birth certificates, leases, mortgages, tax returns), then moderate evidentiary value (bank statements, utilities), then the softer evidence (travel tickets, photo album, affidavits). The interviewer presumably already glanced at your casefile and should know stuff from before your filing, so if you have a good amount of evidence from after the filing date, just introducing that evidence as prompted will simplify things greatly as it will provide you a set of events based on which to structure your showing of the bona fides of your marriage. Still always keep in mind that you should let the interviewer lead the interview and will sometimes have to refrain to go into long narratives on stuff they're not interested in asking about. But introducing evidence when requested, and provide concise context each time in order to paint a picture and preemptively address questions while leaving room for the interviewer to choose which details to ask about, will go a long way. Also come with the original for all documents that are typically protected, sensitive, or for which matters of authentication are very relevant (typically mostly just gov-issued stuff, or ). For the I-130, as recommended by our attorney, we bought a photo album, laid out the photos in the album, brought the album for the interviewer's review, and provided (letter-size) photocopies of it. I don't know how you organized your filing but I remember that a good way to categorize what you're looking to demonstrate (aside from the base evidence such as the spouses's vital records and proof of status) is: Evidence of cohabitation (same mailing and physical address, same fridge, both have a toothbrush and an underwear drawer at that address, there is a marital bed) Evidence of romantic involvement (you guys go on dates, support each other, don't take separate flights/seats when traveling, gossip with third parties about the life plans you have together, share offspring/pets, are each other's emergency context/will beneficiary/etc) Evidence of financial co-mingling (taxes, mortgages, leases, insurance, but it's not just or necessarily that both names appear everywhere; it's more that a substantial amount of each spouse's paycheck is overtly set up to provide for the needs of both spouses; can be with income landing onto the same joint account, or one's name on one utility and the other's on another utility, one paying the rent and the other doing all the grocery spendings, the husband's Amazon orders showing purchases of tampons for the marital address Note that the financial co-mingling bears the most weight to them because it's typically contracts, statements, etc, they're more of a black-or-white kind of evidence from which neither spouse can easily extricate themselves. Then evidence of cohabitation, which is more of a mixed bag between soft and hard evidence. Then evidence of romantic involvement, which often is mostly soft evidence which typically is not gonna weigh that much in the adjudicative process. And I did go to a combo interview very recently (like 3-4 weeks ago) but it was a battery/extreme cruelty waiver one, so a fairly different format from yours.

There's no legal requirement anymore, indeed. I'm just saying there is a /need/, although not a /legal requirement/, to keep your address up to date with whoever you need to have issue your US passport. You must send them your original certificate of naturalization so don't take any chances. I think it's the Dept of State rather than the Dept of Homeland Security, though.

FYI, I still have a pending N-400 from mid-Sep 2024 and a pending I-751 from Aug 2023 which I requested in early Sep 2024 to be amended to Battery/Extreme Cruelty waiver. I also notified them of a (slight) change of address that occurred in late Jan 2025. Still no update to either filing. Both filings are starting to be overdue based on average processing times so I'm assuming it means they did receive everything and it's all being delayed by their reviewing my abuse claims, which I guess is good given that in the absence of acknowledgement of receipt of these I spent a lot of time wondering whether I had done everything right. My order of protection against my husband expires in a couple of weeks and I'm pretty anxious.

I'd say to receive your certificate and your passport but I guess this is with DOS and not DHS. Maybe this line is just added to all status changes automatically.

By "don't be moving on" I don't mean "don't divorce", I mean "don't remarry". I don't know how this flies with I-751 but I know that with I-360, remarrying is disqualifying. In the eyes of USCIS, your qualifying relationship doesn't end with divorce but does end with remarriage. Even if with I-751 a remarriage is not disqualifying (which I'm not certain of), it's going to be very frowned upon.

If I were you I would avoid remarrying before the I-751 is approved. If it's denied and you're remarried and file stuff based on second marriage, your case will be looking a lot like it's a fraudulent one. You're currently in the process of having a major immigration benefit assessed for your based on a certain relationship. That relationship didn't work out, but don't be too eager to move on from it while filing paperwork tied to it.

People use the expression VAWA to refer to the I-360. However, the VAWA and its renewals also regulate the I-751 Battery and Extreme Cruelty waiver (and an abuse-based cancellation of removal). I'm not too sure about the third but the first two are very similar. They share almost the same requirements and the resulting immigration benefit (10y GC) is the same. Although both these filings are VAWA ones, usually I refer to one as I-360 and the other as I-751 B/EC waiver for clarity. There are significant upsides to amending with B/EC waiver rather than divorce waiver, and vice-versa, depending on your situation. Also, I-751 filings are systematically approved based on a single waiver even if one qualifies for, and requested, more than one. The B/EC waiver is always reviewed before the divorce waiver, so if you request both, they won't look at your divorce waiver request before denying your B/EC waiver request (but if you requested both in the same filing they won't issue a denial unless the whole petition is denied). The main upside of filing for more than one waiver at a time is for the scenario where you get denied. If you get referred to immigration court before you get the time to refile following a denial, you will only be able to fight it, in a way that is kind of an appeal, based on waivers that were reviewed and denied by USCIS. For this reason, a lot of people who file with B/EC waiver but aren't so sure they will get approved also request a divorce waiver as a fallback, to make sure that even if they are put on removal proceedings, by the time they start to have hearings they will likely already be divorced.

People, including like adjudicators on Reddit and elsewhere, have been saying that the estimate is completely unreliable and meaningless (but they're lawyers, not engineers nor mathematicians, so they don't know how it's calculated or how much relevant data is being used to compute it). However, it obviously was based on /something/. The formula seems to have changed a few weeks ago so I'm hopeful that it's now more reliable. Maybe the estimate was based on all N-400 rules rather than specifically the one we selected, and/or was nationwide rather than specific to our field office. Also, maybe the estimate was based on the average processing speed of the last 12 or 24 months. The longer the period the smoother and stabler it is. If it's based on the last few weeks for instance, then the estimate is gonna very greatly within weeks if the amount of resources focused on processing this form varies. I've read on the overall Processing Times public page that 80% of the cases ending up at my field office were completed within like 6.5mo iirc. I filed in mid-September, and it's now telling me the case decision will be in 3mo. That sounds fairly accurate to me. A week or so ago, before the formula change, it was telling me something like 25 days. I imagine that it was either a median (50% of cases filed on my filing date rather than 80%), and/or based on the 5y rule, and/or based on everybody...

Also, the answer is always no if you requested a name change as only federal judges can adjudicate name changes.

If you check tomorrow you might find out that you had your oath ceremony yesterday 🙃

I don't have an update but I have new information. Someone in an immigration-related FB group asked a question yesterday and shared about their situation. They filed jointly in early 2023, then sent a request to amend their case to the B/EC waiver in January 2024. In June 2024, they received the following notice (they provided a screen capture, I'm typing "(...)" on all the parts that they scrambled): So it seems it's protocol for them to play dead while doing something resembling a prima facie on ROC cases before they convert them (although I'm not sure they mean to play dead for this long; but they do adjudicate the amendment request separately from the amended case and only get back to the applicant after that).

An annulment does not prevent you from removing conditions but it would likely be based on a claim that you married under false pretenses and you don't want a court document to state such a thing. An annulment may prompt for you to provide more justifications to USCIS. Also, an annulment will give your spouse a clean slate to do it all over again with his next victim as your marriage will have never happened in the first place so he will get to deny everything for the rest of his life, and you will be deprived of closure.