pushbrk

While that is true, the OP has not stated staying was his intention when he entered. A change of intention after entry is not visa fraud. Intent on entry is the key either way. If he changed his mind after entry, adjusting status is an option, but a person from Ghana who was able to obtain a visitor visa for the USA, presumably had strong ties, likely including a well paying job. The problems associated with adjusting status are that if he leaves before obtaining advance parole, he won't get back in, and second, it will take that same six or more months before obtaining authorization to work in the USA. All that time without a job, and/or the ability to travel internationally, often become deal killers.

Yes, and yes.

No. The Petitioner signs the I-130, not the I-130a.

The petitioner never signs the I-130a.

You've been given the solution. It starts with spending significant time together. If you will not, or cannot do that, then yes, give up on the marriage and go your own ways.

Just being straight here. I doubt you "forgot" anything. I get that you did not submit the form, but I suspect it was because somebody didn't do enough homework to know it was needed. Time to make sure all the homework is done for this and the next stage. Otherwise, you will experience disappointing delays, or worse.

The beneficiary does not need to sign the I-130a unless they are in the USA at the time of filing. What was the RFE for?

You are not going to get a visitor visa to the USA. Perhaps you can meet in a third country, but otherwise, she will be the one traveling to visit you. Time for her to join the discussion as all the next actions are going to be her actions, not yours.

Current income is King in this context, so even just one pay stub showing year to date income that is current as of the interview date, should carry the day at interview. The message you received is a stock message sent anytime the latest tax return does not meet the minimum. That they DQ'd the case anyway, and the "suggestion" that you "may want" to get a joint sponsor are the key portions. Personally, I would not want to obligate a joint sponsor unless absolutely necessary. It's not.

Lack of time together and other evidence of relationship is your problem, not late submission of a US tax related document.

As things are and have been since 2015, this set of circumstances screams (Marriage for immigration purposes only) Perhaps it's not, but that's how it will look to both USCIS and a Consular Officer....UNLESS....they find a way to spend significant time together, multiple times, with at least a couple months together before filing another petition, then significant additional visits between filing and visa interview. An attorney cannot manufacture relationship evidence. The couple must behave like people in genuine marriages behave. That would represent a tremendous change in mostly the life of the the US Citizen Petitioner. Divorce and trying a K-1 visa, will absolutely assure failure. Don't spend another second thinking about that.

Well a proper situational example would be "None" for children rendering their address, and so on not applicable, but my advice is to leave blank instead of trying to type anything at all in those fields. The instruction to not leave things blank is an artifact from long ago when may filings were hand written rather than typed into PDF forms.

No box on the online or PDF I-130 allows "N/A" as the / is not allowed. You can type "Not Applicable" or simple leave it blank when, for example, the previous answer is "NONE". It's important that sometimes the answer is NONE, rendering later related answers not applicable. The two terms are not interchageable. "No Children" or "NONE" are correct answers at certain times. When that's the correct answer the question is "applicable" and the answer is "NONE".

Will add my confirmation the lawyer is wrong. Sponsors need current income to qualify unless they are using liquid assets instead. Income that will not continue once in the USA will not be considered "current income". It is not "current year" or most recent year's income. It's current income YOUR ARE USING TO QUALIFY. Sound like the lawyer is not familiar with family based immigration. Even most Immigration Lawyers are not.

A typed name is ok when filing the I-130 online, but not when filing by mail.

Yes, print, sign, scan, and then upload all pages.

Total non-issue regarding the visa process.

Correct, but another option is to let the petition get approved, then just login to the CEAC portal once a year, to keep the approved petition alive, once USCIS has approved it. This allows you to change your mind later, without refiling and waiting a year for approval. Nothing negative either way. Just another option.

Yes, I think it is worth trying, but I also like S2N's answer.

Yes, information from three years, but since there is no qualifying past income to document, only the latest transcript is required. No problem including all three though.

Pay stubs are only to document current income. If you don't have current income, sounds like you will also need a qualified joint sponsor.

You are going to need information from three past tax returns, but are only required to provide the latest year's transcript. Pay stubs are used as evidence of current income. What you will need depends on the full circumstances you have not mentioned.

Yes, that's the more efficient way to complete the immigration process.

The most crucial evidence is the evidence you were staying together long term. You entry and exit stamps in your passport are primary evidence of that, as are airline boarding passes. Photos are secondary but include if you have. Leave out the wire transfers. They are evidence of money going one way, not comingling of finances. Evidence you are supporting the foreign spouse are not helpful to the foreign spouse showing a bona fide relationship with a US Citizen Petitioner. Skip the chats. Your time together is far more important.

I understand the belt and suspenders mind set, but I don't subscribe to it in this context. Avoiding obligating a joint sponsor when not absolutely necessary would be my priority. YMMV