Demise

No, contrary to popular belief there's no concrete 1 year absence rule to lose your LPR status. Basically anything above 6 months is subject to the discretion of CBP whether to admit you as an LPR (good) or parole you as an arriving alien for removal proceedings (bad) which then lets an IJ deal with the issue whether to admit you or deport you or consider any other form of relief. If they let you back in you're in the clear. Naturalizing under the 3 year rule only the last 3 years matter, form asks for 5 years of travel history, give it to them, but only the last 3 years matter for calculating the physical presence to naturalize in this case.

There is a memo from 2018 that planned to do so - clock would start once a D/S falls out of status. However that memo got struck down in court so an older memo from 2009 which states what I've been saying (clock starts once USCIS denies an application from you or when an IJ issues a removal order) remains controlling. So yeah, if D/S there's no ban and the government drone made an error.

I imagine it could be re-visited down the line as a part of some other visa application, in case of which OP should bring proof of admission for D/S and copy of the relevant parts of the AFM. Getting a tourist visa after any overstay is hard, but the ban should not be an issue for a work visa or a family petition. Like none of you knew this is the policy, you think the low level government drone knows about it?

https://fam.state.gov/fam/09FAM/09FAM030211.html 9 FAM 302.11-3(B)(1)(b)(2): b. (U) DHS has interpreted "period of stay authorized by the Secretary of Homeland Security," as used in this context, to include: (2) For individuals inspected and admitted for "duration of status" (DOS), any period of presence in the United States, unless DHS, an IJ, or the BIA makes a formal finding of a status violation, in which case unlawful presence will only being to accrue the day after the formal finding is made; 9 FAM 302.11-3(B)(1)(d): For persons who have been admitted for duration of status (DOS) (as is usually the case with individuals in A, G, F, J, and I visa status), unlawful presence will not accrue unless DHS, IJ, or the BIA finds a status violation in the context of a request for an immigration benefit or during removal proceedings. This finding of status violation by the DHS, an IJ, or the BIA will cause a period of "unlawful presence" to begin. In DOS cases where DHS or an IJ or the BIA makes a formal status violation finding, the individual begins accruing unlawful presence on the day after the finding (i.e., the date the finding was published /communicated). For example, if an applicant presents a letter from DHS dated December 1, 2008, that says the applicant was out of status starting on May 28, 2001, the applicant began to accrue unlawful presence as of December 2, 2008, not May 28, 2001. In fact I'm not sure if the 2018 policy ever applied to the DOS but I suspect that it did because it's up to DHS to define what is and isn't unlawful presence. Moreover the bars don't trigger until after departure which would create a weird scenario where literally the only people who the DHS memo would apply to would be those who'd fall out of the F-1 status, depart, and then return to US legally somehow (e.g. via 212(d)(3) waiver).

So yeah to summarize and undo the mess I made: There was a memo that would make unlawful presence in case of D/S admitted non-immigrants start counting as of the day they drop out: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/memos/2018-08-09-PM-602-1060.1-Accrual-of-Unlawful-Presence-and-F-J-and-M-Nonimmigrants.pdf That memo got tied up in a lawsuit where a court issued a permanent injunction stopping it and returning to a prior 2009 policy: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/injunctions/Guilford-College-v.-Nielsen-summary-judgment-permanent-injunction.pdf The 2009 memo that came back into effect: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/memos/revision_redesign_AFM.PDF USCIS did appeal the decision to the 4th circuit but withdrew the appeal later leaving 2009 memo as the current state of affairs. So yeah, we're here because the source I wanted to use decided to put the document I had saved behind a login so I grabbed something else without reading it fully. Back to the topic at hand I guess.

Disagree all you want but that doesn't change the fact as to how this all works. Unlawful presence after a D/S overstay doesn't start ticking until there's a formal finding of it by USCIS or an immigration judge, and these findings only happen in one of two cases: 1. You apply for something with USCIS (like AOS) and get denied. 2. You end up in removal proceedings and get a removal order. Then it starts counting from the following day. If it were to happen today first day of unlawful presence would be tomorrow and the unlawful presence bans would come into play after departure after staying in US for another 180+ days. If there's no unlawful presence then there's no bar. Edit: @Chancy Yeah hold on I'm a moron, let me get you the right one... Sorry about that one, the one I wanted to use got put behind a login so I figured I'd look right for the source. https://www.nafsa.org/professional-resources/browse-by-interest/accrual-unlawful-presence-and-f-j-and-m-nonimmigrants Text to get around login requirements: Injunction in question: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/injunctions/Guilford-College-v.-Nielsen-summary-judgment-permanent-injunction.pdf

Were you admitted for D/S or until a specific date. If D/S then the 10 year ban does not apply and the consulate erred in the decision, doesn't mean you'd get the visa, but the bar just shouldn't apply: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/memos/2018-08-09-PM-602-1060.1-Accrual-of-Unlawful-Presence-and-F-J-and-M-Nonimmigrants.pdf

No. I-94 is unnecessary for I-131, and with I-765 it's only necessary for categories where the EAD is contingent upon the non-immigrant status (e.g. E visa for derivative spouse), (c)(9) is contingent only on having a pending I-485. In this case only things you need to send are the forms I-765 and I-131, copy of I-485 receipt, and copy of the previous combo card.

They'll definitely get sued and it will likely get struck down. Those fee increases, especially considering that they want to make AOS based EAD/AP no longer free, are ridiculous. Like seriously, those things exist in the first place because they like to sit on AOS applications forever, they recently had to change them from 1 year validity to 2 year validity because of how long it takes them to approve an AOS. They tried this same nonsense a while back and a court struck it down.

The soon to be 21 year old will be covered by CSPA. Just make sure they stay unmarried until they're in US. Have her file I-131 for a re-entry permit, denote to send the re-entry permit to a consulate in her country, wait in US to do biometrics, once biometrics are done she can leave and have two years to come back. USCIS doesn't really keep a record of who's abandoned their permanent residency. But if a determination like that is made by USCIS or the Department of State then yeah those petitions will be denied.

No, AP from pending I-485 doesn't require a justification. The only reason why it may say that is because the law says that, but in practice if you have a pending I-485 and are not in removal proceedings they will just rubber stamp it.

No, there's no self-petition for an orphan. 204(l) doesn't apply either because that requires the beneficiary to have lived in US at the time of the petitioner's death.

Another thing you can do is register an account with USCIS and add this paper filed case to your account. It will show a history overview, so if you see "notice was returned", that'll give you some idea what that notice was.

Sibling is what I call a "second-degree relationship". Basically you are related because you share at a common parent-child relationship to the same parent, so it's you->parent(s)->sibling. You cut one of those connections and you're no longer legally related. AFM 21.9(c)(1)(A) says "...Therefore, officers should carefully review the supporting documents to ensure that both the petitioner and beneficiary have a parent-child relationship with the claimed common parent(s), as defined at INA 101 (b)(1)-(2).". INA 101(b)(1-2) is a long list of what qualifies as a child for immigration purposes. Going further Policy Manual Chapter 4.B. says adoption severs the legal link between parent and child. Siblings don't have any direct link to each other, it's basically two parent-child relationships with the same parent. But there is one exception that lets you undo it if: No immigration benefit was obtained or conferred through the adoptive relationship; A natural parent-child relationship meeting the requirements of INA 101(b) once existed; The adoption has been lawfully terminated under applicable law; and The natural relationship has been reestablished by law (citing Matter of Xiu Hong Li). She never immigrated to US so point 1 is good. Point 2 depends but I assume that at some point your parents did raise her before giving her up and didn't just leave her unclaimed at the hospital. Point 3 and 4 would basically require her to go to court in the Philippines and basically seek to have the adoption order reversed and make her biological parents her legal parents again. From some cursory googling it looks like this can be done. https://www.manilatimes.net/2022/09/05/legal-advice/can-an-adoption-of-a-child-be-rescinded/1857260 Still, I would recommend getting a good immigration lawyer (particularly one that deals with international adoptions), this stuff is above the paygrade of this site and above the paygrade of most average lawyers. But to answer your question, is it possible, yes with a very large but.

No, that's only conditional on the I-485 being pending. Well for starters you need to have a good cause for seeking the waiver, which generally means that you are broke. Also, if your I-485 ends up pending for more than 2 years you will have to pay for EAD/AP renewal(s) or get another I-912 fee waiver. From the options you've provided, it should be less than a month for them to review your fee waiver.

The two cases just kinda run in parallel. If you get asylum first and technically nothing prevents you from adjusting via VAWA.

The I-864 you signed went poof the moment she naturalized. Financially speaking she's no longer your problem, she can go on welfare and Uncle Sam can't do anything to you. When it comes to her parents if you chose not to sign either an I-864 or I-864A then she can get a job or get someone else to cosign, but you do not have to nor will you be liable for her parents if you chose not to. If you don't sign and she tries to use your joint tax return as evidence of income, without your I-864 or I-864A they will most likely ask her for a W2. Even if they do somehow accept it they won't be able to come after your assets.

I-485, I-765, I-131, and I-693 are not applicable in this case of consular processing. You will file I-130 and I-130A, wait for approval on the I-130, wait for USCIS to pass the approved I-130 to National Visa Center, which then will pass it it to the consulate abroad. Then you or your spouse will get a letter from DOS to file DS-260 and I-864 with the Department of State. For medical it has to be done abroad by a panel physician that's authorized by the consulate to perform these. I have no idea what form they use for it. Then your spouse will get their consular interview date, attend it, get his F21 visa, then he gets onto a plane, comes to US, and will be a permanent resident as soon as he gets through customs. So basically for now, just file I-130 and I-130A and everything else will come later.

No, it wouldn't have to, the only requirement is that you're in valid status on the day USCIS gets your AOS forms. Once that happens USCIS puts you into a period of authorized stay and your underlying status can expire and you no longer have to abide by it and get to remain in US by the virtue of pending I-485. E.g. an F-1 can just drop out of college once their AOS is accepted. Still, moot point because OP's husband is abroad so consular would be the right thing to do. Just letting you know that you misunderstand how AOS works in general.

Ah okay so here's the issue. Considering that he's abroad the best option would be to file I-130 and I-130A alone right now, wait for them to be approved, then wait for NVC to get it and forward it to the relevant consulate, have him file DS-260 and you file I-864, and do his medical examination in his home country (not sure what form is used for that if any), get his interview date with a consulate abroad, get his immigrant visa, and come back to US as a permanent resident. If he was still in US I'd totally say: go ahead and file for AOS, but now since he left and you know that adjustment from B-2 is an option, him coming back on B-2 with the intent to adjust would constitute immigration fraud, so don't do that, you can really screw up a lot of things if you get caught, he will likely get slapped with a permanent bar for fraud. So yeah, do it right and do the consular process.

Actually OP I have one question for you - where is your husband in right now. Is he in the United States on his B-2 or is he in his home country right now?

Why not? B-2s can AOS assuming their period of admission is still valid and F2A is current (which it is). If he entered on a ESTA/VWP then yeah I'd agree with you because 245(c)(4) prohibits that for F2As. If he were to overstay before filing then 245(c)(2) would prevent adjustment as an F2A. I also don't smell any "entry on tourist visa with intent to adjust" here either because we wouldn't be having this thread of "hey, is this possible to do". So presuming he is still in valid B-2 they could file the whole AOS package (I-130, I-130A, I-485, I-765, I-131, I-864, and I-693) and adjust in US. Pending I-485 will put him into period of authorized stay while that's being processed, the only caveat is that he'll be unable to leave until at very least the I-131 for advance parole is approved. The important thing is that it gets to USCIS while his period of admission (as per his I-94 and/or admission stamp) is still valid. @TBoneTX care to explain what's up? I see @dwheels76 talk about an overstay but OP neither said that nor affirmed it. I don't see any other blocks, so what the ****?

Yeah I meant for an EB not for any work non-immigrant visa (H, L, O, etc). Yes it's possible, I-601A can be used for IR, F1-F4, EB1-EB5, and DV Lottery. In most cases the sponsor and the qualifying relative are one and the same (e.g. USC spouse or parent) but they don't have to. So being sponsored by an employer in lets say EB3 and using your LPR father as a qualifying relative for I-601A is a valid option.

Have father file I-130 for you as an F-2B (unmarried son or daughter over) wait for the priority date to become current (6+ years), pay for DS-260, file I-601A using your LPR father as your qualifying relative, have it approved, file DS-260, get your interview date, leave, attend your consular interview, get your immigrant visa, and come back. If you leave before then you will get a 10 year ban, in case of which the process is similar: wait for I-130 priority date to become current, file DS-260, get date for consular interview, show up, get denied, file I-601 using your father as a qualifying relative, wait for it to get approved, get another consular interview date, get your immigrant visa, come back. Only important thing here is that you don't remarry before your father naturalizes as that will kill the F2B petition. If you marry after he naturalizes that'll drop you down to F3. Alternatively if you can find an employer to sponsor you the process will be the same, shorter, and with an labor certification and I-140 rather than I-130. Alternatively you could marry some other US Citizen. Just keep receipts that your first marriage was legit while it lasted. I will point out that parent's naturalization after an F-2B I-130 has already been filed and the beneficiary remains unmarried is not a detriment. Section 6 of CSPA (INA 204(k)) lets the beneficiary opt out at any point of the upgrade from F2B to F1. So in this case it's their choice whether they want to be treated as an F1 or F2B.

Unless your relative is a man under the age of 26 and US gets into a major war requiring a draft sometime soon I wouldn't worry about it. This will literally never come up. In the exceptionally unlikely scenario that it does, if he wants to claim conscientious objector status then really nobody will dig up his N-400 to say "In 2022 you checked yes for #48 on your N-400", where even if that were to happen the correct answer would be "Yeah, I developed a much more pacifist view since then due to [whatever, religion, all the gun violence, etc, etc], put me into army corps of engineers or some other noncombat role".