pushbrk
-
Posts
40,346 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
55
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Partners
Immigration Wiki
Guides
Immigration Forms
Times
Gallery
Store
Blogs
Everything posted by pushbrk
-
It was an example of what would hurt, not an accusation. The way you asked your initial question was suspicious. Now that you have clarified, don't expect a problem. Others have tried saying they are married when they are not, then they get caught lying and it's all over. Since your husband told the truth both times, nothing to worry about. His denials were for immigrant intent, meaning he could not overcome the required assumption. Immigrant intent is good, not bad in a spouse visa case. -
Correct. The difference in this case is the petitioner is not a US Citizen. If the husband had a child, the child could be a derivitive.
-
If you are looking for a reason he was denied, then it is because he clearly has immigrant intent. If there were no actual inaccuracies in either application, then they become irrelevant to the immigrant visa application. The key is for all three applications to be accurate at the time they are/were completed. Obviosly they don't match because things changed in between.
-
So, did he properly state his marital status on the second application? If not, that's not "forgetting" and yes, that's a major lie that can be considered "material". Don't be cagey with us. What was inaccurate on either application?
-
Yes, they will check all previous applications. There's no way to know which details might be noticed not to match. If you "forgot" something trivial, it's probably no big issue. If you intentionally omitted something relevant, that's enough for a denial.
-
And is would NOT be too late, if the answer was yes. The answer is no.
-
A person who will contrive evidence for one aspect of the process, is often to have contrived other evidence. Don't submit contrived evidence. Stick to real evidence.
-
Conflicted please help
pushbrk replied to Kitty350's topic in General Immigration-Related Discussion
Concur. Filing to remove conditions will only add to the confusion. -
Yes, words mean things. No mention of actually living with the brother. Just a "name SHOWING UP on an apartment lease". Answer is no, that is evidence of nothing, and certainly "proof" of nothing helpful. All officials involved are skilled at spotting contrived evidence.
-
Yes, likely a sentence structure issue. Unless there is also an error in stating the relationship, the solution is the same. After the mother arrives, she can, as a permanent resident, file an I-130 for her husband.
-
Unless your mother's husband is actually, your father, you can do nothing. She will need to file an I-130 for him. Will take about 4 years for spouse of permanent resident. If he was your father, you would have filed for both at the same time.
-
Looks like you lived together for at least a short time. Enter that address and the start and end date of you both living there. Just read carefully, interpret literally, and answer accurately.
-
How can we meet the sponsor requirement?
pushbrk replied to natanbr's topic in IR-1 / CR-1 Spouse Visa Process & Procedures
You are going to need a qualified joint sponsor. Your savings are only barely enough to meet the minimum requirement. That's not going to work, as they know you will blow through a lot of that in the first couple months. The "Loan" will not help with meeting the sponsor requirements. -
Yes, if the idea is to enter, then leave for six or seven months, that's a very different story, and probably will work. I would stick to no more than six months, if possible though. Cleaner that way. Once you've already arrived with them, they can precede you the next time, if necessary. Surely, if you are going to all this trouble to leave the employer on good terms, you can negotiate this timing with them, or even negotiate some of the costs to be reimbursed by them.
-
Another option is for the immigrants to stay long enough to apply for a re-entry permit.
-
Another confirmation that 12 months from first entry to actual relocation is dangerous. Less than six months is preferred. Another option is to leave the immigrants in the USA with only the petitioner going back for the work obligation. Surely, the employer is aware of the complication, and will be supportive.
-
If that is an option, sure. Is it?
-
I already answered that the petitioner is submitting additional forms.
-
I understand that different government jurisdictions handle birth certificates differently. However, the vast majority of those jurisdictions understand that a "birth certificate" would naturally show the name given at birth. Those that change birth certificate names, must have a coronary, when a woman marries six different husbands.
-
Yes, is correct. For his current location, answer "deceased".
-
GC and Passport in the same name is the key. I'm assuming she only uses her Russian passport when traveling to Russia or FSU countries. GC is irrelevant once she has Russian Passport. Did she ever return to the USA with her Russian Passport and GC? Details matter.
-
Remember that for international travel, reservations and tickets must be in the same exact name as the passport. Imagine traveling back to the USA with a passport in the maiden name and a green card in the married name. It actually does work, but you have to travel with the marriage certificate and/or name change documents too.
-
Follow the instructions on your RFE.
-
Unless you have a lawyer, the petitioner is submitting additional forms. The I-130a is an "additional form" you failed to submit as required for a spouse petition. Get real though. If you knew you needed to submit the form and "forgot" that's one thing. If you didn't do your homework, and didn't KNOW to submit it, that's very different. If so, there's a lot more homework to do for the next stages of the process.
-
It would have made things easier, only if you also changed the name in her passport. Next opportunity to make an official name change without going to court, is when she naturalizes. Visas and green cards always match the passport name. Evidently, "the lady helping you" was not fully informed, or did not fully inform you.
