SalishSea

I'm sorry if you didn't understand my response, but what I wrote is in face relevent. Here is the crux of your issue: as a USC, you are eligible to receive benefits without repaying them (unlike LPRs), BUT: as a petitioner and sponsor of an immigrant, receiving benefits COULD make the consular officer feel that you are not in a financial position to support an immigrant. In other words, they may think that if you have to rely on public benefits, the immigrant might try to do this also, which is not permitted. This is why I brought up making a plan to provide insurance for your beneficiary. It is all connected and part of the totality of circumstances that inform the public charge evaluation made at the interview. YMMV.

I would not cancel the appt. I believe they will inform you during whether you have an inadmissibility, and if a waiver is available. You can submit the new DS-160 before the interview. @Boiler, @Family, @Crazy Cat, any thoughts?

I believe you can submit a corrected DS-160, yes.

What do you mean sponsor? Aren't you filing to remove conditions?

Yes. The issue is though that even if the incident is not an inadmissibility, lying about it on a form is a misrepresentation, which is an inadmissibility.

If you lied on the form, that will definitely be a problem.

How did you answer the questions about criminal/arrest history?

Nope.

Not sure what you heard, but for low-fraud consulates like UK, that isn't true. CR-1 would have been a much better choice all round, but water under the bridge. We have never sent any photos during our entire process and it has never been an issue.

How does he qualify for VAWA?

You will want to come up with a plan for providing your beneficiary with health insurance, since they will not be eligible for programs or to work for up to 8 months. The best way to do this is via an employer-based plan, which it sounds like you do not have. The totality of circumstances and your financial ability to support an immigrant will be evaluated.

Absolutely. After all, both your 751 and N400 petitions are based on that marriage, right?

Why contact congressperson when you are still well within normal processing time? Ours took 18 months at Nebraska. US immigration is an exercise in patience…..

This sounds like a marriage for the purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit, which is fraud. If you do choose to go this route, expect scrutiny with that misrep history.

Joint sponsor. Seattle is a HCOL area, and even with the PFML added in, that is not a living wage around here.

I think you still do not understand. Your parent is NOT eligible to adjust status when they get here on the B visa. The ONLY legal option you have is to submit an I-130 petition for consular processing in their home country. You can submit this any time. They can continue to visit on the B visa, at the discretion of CBP.

NO. It will be fraudulent for the rent to enter with the intent to adjust status. That is NOT allowed per the terms of the B visa.

Common for your consulate. You may need to marry and reapply after you have more time spent together.

No letters of invitation are required or accepted. She will be approved or denied entirely on her immigration intent. It is doubtful that anyone could accompany her into the consulate. She has a better chance now than if/when the daughter naturalizes.

Yes, and this is precisely what was seen during Covid.

USCIS petition approval time was also linked above, with a net difference of half a month. There is no measurable difference currently.

Whatever the finding was during the first medical (TB for example) will not "go away" by having a new one. The consulate already has the results.

Something doesn't make sense about this. If they're requiring you wait 6 months to do a new medical, it sounds precisely like a TB-related issue.

What a strange question. Why would you suspect a friend of creating a fraudulent visa interview document?

The risk would be if she overstays, and then the naturalization is delayed or denied. She would be out of status, and not as an immediate relative. It’s a gamble, IMHO.