Edward and Jaycel

The USCIS policy manual states that the interpreter should be a disinterested party: “An applicant may not be fluent in English and may require use of an interpreter for the adjustment interview. At the adjustment interview, the interpreter should: Present his or her valid government-issued identity document and complete an interpreter's oath and privacy release statement; and Translate what the officer and the applicant say word-for-word to the best of his or her ability without adding the interpreter's own opinion, commentary, or answer. In general, a disinterested party should be used as the interpreter. An officer may exercise discretion, however, to allow a friend or relative of the applicant to act as interpreter. If the officer is fluent in the applicant's preferred language, the officer may conduct the examination in that language without use of an interpreter. USCIS reserves the right to disqualify an interpreter provided by the applicant if the officer believes the integrity of the examination is compromised by the interpreter's participation or the officer determines the interpreter is not competent to translate.” You yourself cannot be one as you are a direct party to the application. A friend might be considered to interpret as the officer has discretion to allow it BUT if the officer does not allow it, you will then be forced to make a choice; hold the interview without an interpreter or reschedule the interview. Neither are great options. I would hire a truly disinterested party so that there is no chance you will be forced into one of those choices. Best of luck! Let us know what happens.

Try this… Select Immigrant Visa and put “NA” for the passport number and surname fields

I have seen many people in other forums who filed online around that time who are reporting the same issue. Please let us know if you get the receipt notice or if/when you contact USCIS

One piece of advice we got from an immigration attorney was to have me read the Yes/No Questions from the "General Eligibility & Inadmissibility" section out loud to Jaycel and have her answer them. He said that, especially to a non-native English speaker, it is one thing to read them to yourself and answer them in your head but it's very different to listen to them without the print in front of you, interpret them and then answer them correctly. Jaycel said this was one of the most helpful parts of the prep that we did. Especially since our IO asked like 20 or so of those questions You guys will do great... like @appleblossom said, don't overthink it.

Another big provision: Illegal entry - DHS proposes to exclude from (c)(8) EAD eligibility any alien who entered or attempted to enter the United States without inspection on or after the effective date of the final rule, unless the alien, without delay but no later than 48 hours after entry, expressed to an immigration officer an intention to apply for asylum or expressed to an immigration officer a fear of persecution or torture; or unless the alien establishes good cause for the illegal entry or attempted entry; or unless the alien meets the definition of, or at any time since their most recent entry was determined to be, a UAC as defined in 6 U.S.C. 279(g)(2).

Changes to work permits would reduce meritless applications, processing times, and backlog WASHINGTON – The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is proposing a rule to reduce the incentive for aliens to file fraudulent asylum claims so they can obtain work authorizations. “For too long, a fraudulent asylum claim has been an easy path to working in the United States, overwhelming our immigration system with meritless applications,” said a DHS Spokesperson. “We are proposing an overhaul of the asylum system to enforce the rules and reduce the backlog we inherited from the prior administration. Aliens are not entitled to work while we process their asylum applications. The Trump administration is strengthening the vetting of asylum applicants and restoring integrity to the asylum and work authorization processes.” Applications for employment authorization based on a pending asylum application have reached a historic high, straining U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS) resources. Nearly every illegal alien attempts to exploit the system by applying for asylum. USCIS currently has more than 1.4 million pending affirmative asylum claims, which is equal to the entire population of the state of New Hampshire. This rule, if finalized, would reduce the incentive to file frivolous, fraudulent, or otherwise meritless asylum claims by changing filing and eligibility requirements for aliens requesting employment authorization based on a pending asylum application. The agency would focus more of its finite resources on reviewing pending asylum applications, including backlog cases and other pending applications and petitions, and allow our asylum system to prioritize those actually seeking refuge from danger. The proposed rule supports President Trump’s Executive Order 14159, Protecting the American People Against Invasion. For more information, please see the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register. The 60-day public comment period starts following publication of the Notice. DHS Proposes Rule to Prioritize Americans' Safety by Strengthening Screening of Asylum Seekers Link to the proposed rule: https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2026-03595.pdf

Congrats!!

That's fine.... if you don't have evidence to submit detailing your current income then using your most recent total income amount that you report on the I-864 tax section is acceptable because they can see that in the transcripts you provide. Current annual income is usually an estimate anyway even with W-2s because that can vary too with overtime, bonuses, commissions, etc.

It would be whatever you have evidence to support... if you have Paystubs to support the number, and you are paid every other week then you would take your gross earnings and multiply it by 26. If you don't have evidence to support your current income and it's going to be similar to your most recent tax year filing, then you would put your total income from the most recent tax year because that's what you have evidence to support.

1. Yes but if you haven’t filed 2025 TY yet do it as soon as you can because it doesn’t mean they won’t RFE you for 2025’s tax return (tax return transcripts or 1040 plus supporting documents) 2. You are only required to include the transcripts from the most recent year. When we filed, we included the 3 most recent to establish that I have a stable income well over the requirement because I’m OCD like that. 3. Yes, if you are just submitting tax return transcripts to prove your income that is the figure to use 3a. Yes 4. It is true, while you only have to provide evidence of your most recent tax year (tax return transcript or 1040 with supporting documents), if you check yes to the box that you have filed your taxes for the last 3 years you need to put the amount from the total income line in each of those boxes 5. If your income is comfortably above the requirement, you can put N/A over the assets section. That’s what we did.

Yes… usually they do this

This is especially important if you need to file a Mandamus suit later. You will want documentation of every attempt to get resolution via the "normal" channels.

And remember, after you file and get your online account, you can always upload "Unsolicited Evidence". I agree with everyone else here, don't delay your filing

I second this and if you don't like calling, most representatives have a help form with the authorization available online where you can submit your request. On their website it will usually say something like "Help with a US Government Agency" or something similar. You can find out here at this link and then that will give you a link to their official website: https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative

I second this suggestion

I'm concerned like @appleblossom is because in the picture here, it looks like they are telling you to submit a waiver for not meeting the requirement for having met in person within the 2 years prior to your filing the petition.

RFIE is usually for something missing or unclear that is required to be submitted with the application.... Were you able to recall all of your previous addresses during the interview? I remember you said you had trouble recalling them all or something? If not, that may be a trigger for an RFIE.

Generally USCIS accepts the Panel Physician's blanket waivers. In rare cases, the adjudicating officer is permitted to override the physician's decision but as a practical matter it hardly ever happens. I was worried about the same thing because Jaycel had "D" blanket waiver for one of her vaccines on her DS-3025 when she came over.

Fingers crossed! Keep us posted.... Jaycel and I will be doing our ROC & N-400 in Denver over the next couple of years

Do you know what it's for?

And they contradict themselves right in this answer because the DS-3025 is also a Department of State Form 🤪

@Crazy Cat explained it better than I could, but yes, having gone through the K-1 process I am sure

This is becoming more and more common. I am still part of several FB and Reddit immigration communities and this is a common theme. Friends of ours here in Denver who had their interview a week after us ended up waiting 126 days after their interview until they got their approval. Enhanced security checks, supervisor reviews of most cases before approval seem to be slowing the process significantly. Our friends reached out to their Congressional Representative’s office via their website and opened an inquiry at the 90 day mark and got their approval 36 days later. Hang tough

Are you using assets to qualify financially on the I-134 or is your income enough? If your income is enough, you do not need to bother with this.

I think you made a typo in the title correction? It should be 02/06/2026