JD2

The title of the post says B1/B2. There is one big problem with consular processing in Ghana. There is a 2+ year wait for an interview.

I-864 is only the form to financially sponsor. You should fill all of these: I-130, I-130A, I-485, I-864, I-765, I-131, and G-1145 (plus forms for your payments). An alternative is to file an I-130 for your spouse then he goes back home and consular processes. He can continue to visit during that time using his visitor visa. I suggest you review the guide here:

I just don't see this. I have not been able to find any announcement or news article explaining that this is their goal for this policy. (or that they even have a goal for this policy). I was responding to the previous poster. But the key issue with your theory is it also affects some people who have already done what you say they want them to do. They could have exempted spouses of work visa holders. They didn't. My theory: they just don't like immigrants (both legal and "illegal") so they will do whatever they can get away with to make things harder for immigrants, no matter if it's good policy or not.

In your first post you talked about "family based and other immigrant petitions." Now, you're talking about TPS and "grey areas." In any event, I don't see the connection between this policy and encouraging consular processing. Some of the people this affects, such as the spouses of work visa holders, have already gone through consular processing. It also affects asylum seekers and they have no consular processing route. People on TPS have no consular processing route. Who cares if it is legal for Trump to do? It was also legal for Biden to parole in millions of people. Doesn't make it good. The question we should be asking is is it good policy? What are the benefits? I imagine renewals have very low denial rates so what is the point? And how do these unexplained benefits outweigh the costs to employers and lost tax receipts (not to mention the costs to the workers themselves).

I don't think you understand who this affects.

No one is doing that.

Page 5, Part 7, Item 1 of the paper N-400

I'm not sure if the website will let you enter a future date for the foreign trips in Part 8. Also, just easier for me to print out things than format PDFs. But no real reason other than habit and that's how we did the I-130 and I-751.

She'd have to fly back but I think it's highly unlikely. I've never seen a case where the I-751 had biometrics done and they were not reused for N-400.

We are thinking of paper filing my spouse's N-400 89 days early based on the 3 year rule. Two weeks before that, we have a foreign trip planned that is a 2 months long. We don't want to wait for our return to file. We're eager to get her citizenship for several reasons including filing for parent. We know our exact departure and return dates so we can fill in those dates in Part 8 of the form. But, the return date would obviously be in the future (after the date of signing the paper N-400). We expect biometrics to be reused because they were just collected less than a year ago for I-751, which was already approved. Does anyone see any issues with this?

President's don't "create new law." They can only enforce them differently. And this is a stupid way to enforce the law. I don't know why you think in the previous system EAD renewals were "approved without scrutiny." Per my understanding, the previous system simply gave an auto extension to your EAD after you filed a valid renewal application. They did that because of the huge backlogs and processing times. You can only file 6 months before expiry but often the process took longer so they gave an extension this so there's no gap between expiry and renewal decision. This person already has had an EAD approved once. There's value in avoiding that gap in employment authorization. The obvious value to the applicant, but also to the employer in not losing an employee who they've invested in training, and also to the government in the form payroll tax receipts. How is this new system better? and do you really think those benefits outweigh these costs?

So if this person is approved, my spouse wants to go for it and apply 89 days early. The N-400 asks for 3 years of work history so she wants to put her 2 years 9 months of US work history but also the 3 months of employment in home country so if this is an issue at the interview, we can claim involuntary separation. It was exactly 3 months from CR-1 issuance to move to US and those 3 months were due to her business back home so I think we qualify for involuntary separation for those 3 months. 8 CFR 319.1(b)(2)(ii)(C) and 12 USCIS-PM G.2(D)(3) and US. V Onabanjo, 351 F.3d 1064 (11th Cir. 2003) all back us up I believe.

I would not do that. Either put the property in both your names or just leave this out. We live with my parents who own our home and it's never been an issue for us. I never put any lease or mortgage in any of our I-130 or I-751.

You're mixing me up with the OP

But what was the misrepresentation?

I met someone who has their naturalization interview coming up at the same field office where my spouse will be filing. They arrived on a CR-1, already have their 10 year GC since their I-751 was approved quickly, and applied 90 days early for N-400. They did not have 3 years of living together at the time of filing. Let's say they approve their N-400. Would y'all apply early too? Are these office wide policies or individual officer by officer enforcement decisions?

Fill out your timeline please

So did he not disclose this arrest? was that the misrepresentation?

We have such a crazy system.

Don't you want it to take longer if you have nieces and nephews for CSPA?

Why do you have to do that if you're not technically a sponsor yet?

Try to renew it online right now. You may not even need to go in.

She has months under treatment, less than a year since diagnosis. If you saw her, she looks like a light breeze would tip her over due to the chemo. Is there any harm in trying? Even if it's a long shot? Tell the doc to be honest, if it's not enough, oh well. What's the downside?

I noticed the lockboxes for N-400 paper filings are incorrect. And, some are not available in the drop down menu.

They don't have a fee listed for online filing yet. Only for paper. If we had to file soon, we'd probably stick to paper unless good feedback comes through.