randomstairs

Yeah, there's a correlation, but the passport index is garbage. A value of a passport, and how it's judged by COs, doesn't depend on a bunch of micro-states in Pacific recognizing the document. It's all about the particular country of citizenship/origin and its immigration history, especially the frequency of overstays.

I received several of these as a non-citizen, both, in New York and California. In California you simply fill out the online form, which disqualifies you. In New York it was more complicated, as the court wanted to see the proof that you're not a citizen. A copy of a current/recent visa was sufficient. Someone needs to tell the NY courts that visas don't evaporate from one's passport when they become a citizen.

Both are red flags. Beyond cultural norms, age difference is asymmetrically applied because of biological differences between male and female reproductive potentials. Even with extreme age differences of 40+ years, the younger female can still have children with the older male, with *minimally* increased risk of birth defects resulting from his age. Even though they do not plan to have children together, the age difference will most likely prevent them from changing their minds in the future. This is why this is a red flag. Of course, as many others have said, no one can tell how significant this issue will be in the ultimate decision-making by the officer.

The I-485 is for the green card, not the I-130. The waiver might still be filed. If his case was a possession of 30 g of marijuana or less, there is a good waiver for that too.

It may be possible to overcome this based on his full recovery. Again, find a good lawyer. A fine is a conviction.

Was he convicted of a drug offense? Inadmissibility on drug crime basis is a tough one to overcome. But a competent lawyer may find a way, depending on the exact circumstances. This is not a DIY case.

Just go on the court's website and look for the security procedures.

It's hard to tell. Owning a business and a home is one tie to the country, having to provide care for parents is another. On the balance, these ties to their home country must be stronger than their incentive to immigrate to the US. Having their only son in the US is a pretty strong incentive to immigrate. Their business in the home country had been informal for most of the time. You can see how the consular officer will weigh these ties versus the incentives, right? But, they surely can try, and as mentioned before, the more new circumstances they can report, the better.

It means "not guilty" only as it pertains to (Swedish) criminal law. Sure. And, if an OPINION of the consular officer is that you're not admissible, based on the arrests, that opinion is all that matters.

Did they answer positively about owning a home? Can they prove it at all (if needed)? They can try again, but as you seem to know, the previous denial will make the success less likely. The CO would want to see how the circumstances have changed since the last unsuccessful application. Good luck!

These are pretty serious in a sense that they could qualify as Crime Involving Moral Turpitude (CIMT). If the convictions are reversed, it will be up to the CO to interpret them. Because the victims (alleged or actual) are journalists, this can even fall into some other "Have you EVER" question categories. If the threats and harassments were of purely private matter, you might be able to overcome the problem, depending on the exact nature of the crimes, but if the threats were over ideological, political, let alone religious, reasons, your chances to ever legally set foot on the US soil are low.

Criminal history of the sponsoring US citizen doesn't matter for immigration purposes. Technically they can be on a death row and still retain the right to sponsor an immigrant.

The probation is a gray area. If her asylum case is eventually approved by the immigration judge, she will not have accumulated any unlawful presence. If the judge denies her case, all the days of her probationary status will be counted as unlawful presence. So, she has no status AND is currently in the country lawfully.

Yes, especially if you lose the card. When I had it I wasn't traveling for this reason alone. (I wasn't familiar with the land border option then.)

When you entered the US did you get inspected? If you entered without the inspection the unlawful presence is not "forgiven" even with marriage to a US citizen. I would look for a *good* lawyer at this point! If there are grounds for filing for a reconsideration of the decision, a competent attorney should be able to save you.

One of a very few cases when one can in fact lose a US citizenship is accepting a high public office in a foreign state. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/Loss-US-Nationality-Public-Office-in-Foreign-State.html

Wow, what a case! Really makes you think. Kafka would be proud. Fortunately I had heeded the warning about filing on the first day of eligibility before I finally filed. There's another issue with dates: on my GC the date is one day earlier than on the online account and in the email (the approval NoA - the "welcome letter" - has the same date as the GC). I called USCIS twice to confirm, and they did. The date on my GC was the one to go with. Still, for the 90-day window I prudently (as it seems) considered the +1 date as the "resident since" date. Then I added 2 days to that, already conservative, date - just in case. So that's why it's 3-4 days into the window. Anyways, it's almost a year now since I became a citizen.

I think there's more pros than cons to online filing. Assuming that the processing time is not affected by either method (let's call it X), it stands to reason that the (unknown) X + days in mail is more than X + zero (time it takes to upload). Therefore online filing, under this assumption, must be faster - regardless of other factors. But, yeah, a couple of days doesn't make a tangible difference. Granted, the website is between barely workable and atrocious. That is a valid advantage of mailing. (I guess highly skilled IT professionals are not too attracted to gov jobs. Or maybe they're not eligible because they aren't citizens yet due to getting stuck by the glitchy website.)

Online is not only faster but also much safer. You'll find the PDFs of all the critical documents from USCIS (receipts, biometrics, interview notices(!), etc) right in your account online. Mail often gets lost, USCIS can mess up the address (especially if you had moved), or it can get delivered late. The online filing is a no-brainer as far as I can tell.

Why would it get rejected? I filed 3-4 days into the window.

Define "around the time." Due to time zone issues I wouldn't file on THE day the window open. How about the next day? Or 2 days into the window? ...

You should not stay outside the US for more than 6 months at a time to maintain the continuous presence for the naturalization purposes. If you are absent for more than 6 months (and less than a year), the burden of proof is on you to show that you have not broken the continuous presence. For naturalization purposes you have to be physically in the US for 30 months within the last 5 years (if applying based on the 5-year residency). I don't know where the "6 months within a year" is coming from. You can travel abroad for 11.5 months out of a year and you may be just fine in terms of maintaining the LPR status. On the other hand, staying only 3 months abroad, with other factors included (such as working abroad and not having strong ties to the US), can put your status in jeopardy.

As long as she's honest about the illegal entry, I don't see why would they even ask for such detailed descriptions of the events and places, let alone expect her to remember it all. Like I said, she should answer to the best of her knowledge. Yes, my understanding is that the admissibility becomes an issue if a mental illness can result in some form of harmful behavior.

Upload for what? What type of a case?