S2N

Yes, agreed on that. The easiest thing is always to give the government what they want.

Yeah, if the income is the same or higher it definitely doesn’t hurt to include additional proof to preempt. I was more pointing out that the public adjudication guidelines operate under the assumption that W-2 income included in a tax return continues in the next year unless the CO has reason to believe otherwise. For a white collar job making over $100k, looking at the tax transcript on its own without additional proof would likely carry the day on its own, since those style jobs tend to be stable and the CO wouldn’t have reason to doubt. Doesn’t hurt to include a current paystub at all to preempt like you suggest. Just wanted to reassure OP that under the guidance they’re very likely going to be fine based on the transcript, and everything else is icing on the cake.

The tool is very accurate based on the reports online. They’re probably just in early October.

For what it’s worth, the Foreign Affairs Manual instructs the consular officer only to request paystubs and proof of current income if they have reason to doubt the income on the tax return continues beyond solely passage of time (9 FAM 601.14-6(3)) and specifically includes salary in that. Basically an engineer with $137,000 in wages on their transcript has a presumption of being a well qualified unless the CO discovers something else to raise doubt. Of course there’s zero harm in uploading recent paystubs and other proof of employment, and that’ll strengthen it, but want to reassure OP that they’re in decent standing based on the guidance in FAM. The CO if they’re following the guidance should approve based on the transcript and any recent paystub is even better. The main thing at this point is to accurately answer all the I-864 questions as written and as instructed by the instructions.

3rd to recommend a CPA; also would suggest proactively filing for an extension given that it’s relatively late in individual tax season and you have a complex return where you probably want someone familiar with the foreign reporting rules, so giving yourself time to shop around is useful. An extension is free and automatic, but worth noting that its extension to file, not extension to pay. The reason it’s worth consulting a CPA on a foreign business is there’s all sorts of rules about what qualifies as a valid expense to deduct. They’re relatively straightforward for rental properties in the US, but when you throw in the foreign aspect it’s worth consulting a professional because that can change whether something qualifies or to what extent it qualifies. As a general example, foreign medical insurance paid is only deductible after the medical expense haircut is made. That means even if it was taken out tax free in a foreign paycheck, you need to pay tax on it in the US most of the time. Stuff like that is why you hire a CPA. Knowing the definitions of what qualifies is really important with foreign items.

Unlimited from a practical standpoint. You just have to log into CEAC once a year. Every log-in resets the clock for how long since you last contacted them. Recommendation is to also send NVC an email once a year saying you want the case to remain open so there’s a paper trail.

I’m not misleading anyone: the 40% “unprocessed” every month where almost always the more difficult cases for USCIS to process one reason or another. Almost every time anyone comes on here or another forum with a complaint about being significantly delayed past the other approvals around there date, there’s a reason. That graph doesn’t show what you think it does. It shows that USCIS prioritized the straightforward cases, and cases that took more processing time were deprioritized in favor of clearing more cases that were straightforward the next month. USCIS has now started going back through the deprioritized cases, which should be a positive for people who are in that group. It will also likely go slower and not be at the same pace we saw a few months ago, because yes, the cases that got skipped were the more difficult cases that take more time for USCIS to process.

The 40% that you’re referencing are the not straightforward cases… the ones that are more difficult for USCIS to process. ”Still pending adjudication” just means they haven’t made a decision yet. Not that it hasn’t seen an officer. You haven’t shared anything about your case, so we can’t give you much help, but in almost every case online of someone processing more than a month behind the same PD, there’s a complicating factor.

The standard response to these from USCIS when inquiries are given by Congress is pending background investigations. That can either mean they found something, there was a mismatch on a name, or they’re having difficulty with the background investigation. Others come from countries with higher fraud rates and get greater degrees of scrutiny even in the consular process. Your profiles doesn’t list a country, but your first post was on a thread about Nigeria. Nigeria is arguably the highest fraud risk country in the world for spousal visas. That essentially makes every case from there not straightforward. It’s also worth noting I don’t think there’s any reason to doubt the background check reasoning. From everything that has been publicly revealed by USCIS and/or leaked by IOs, pending background checks and resolving things that might come up in them is one of the most common delays.

Other piece of advice is that consular officers are reasonable people who live in or near the countries they’re assigned to process visas for. If it’s happened to to your wife, it’s probably happened to someone else, so they’ll recognize it.

There’s been a slow down in new months being approved. They are now apparently prioritizing the difficult cases they put to the side when they were prioritizing speeding things along.

Also, on FBAR, does she have a government sponsored retirement account? A format called AFPs is popular in a lot of Latin America and it does trigger FBAR reporting requirements (they’re the equivalent of mandatory 401(k)s.) We’ll have lifetime FBAR requirements because of the Chilean AFP my husband has and can’t touch until his 60s as it has more than $10,000 USD after the mandatory contributions for the time he’s been working. A lot of people only look at bank accounts and don’t think about how different retirement accounts impact it. In the case of Latin America, multiple countries have these government sponsored 401(k) equivalents that are mandatory and since the format is investments, it triggers FBAR. No one thinks of the mandatory account you can’t touch being reportable, but it can be.

This doesn’t even matter for spouses as you can always elect to treat a foreign spouse as a tax resident under 6013(g) if they’re not resident or 6013(h) if they became a resident that year. In this case 6013(h) allows the treatment of an NRA as a tax resident the year they become a permanent resident if they are married to a US citizen as of 12/31. Technically you have to attach a signed statement to the return by both spouses, but unlike 6013(g) I can’t ever imagine them enforcing that part of their internal procedure since it’s a once in a lifetime election and if they ever decided to audit you ever all you’d have to do is file an amended return with the signed statement. OP — if you want to cover all bases upload a statement signed by both of you stating that you’re married and the LPR started the year as an NRA, ended it as a resident, and you’re jointly electing to treat the LPR spouse as a tax resident for the entire year under Internal Revenue Code 6013(h) for the purposes of filing a joint return. OnlineTax, FreeTaxUSA, TurboTax, etc. should have a section where you can upload statements/attachments with your return. I don’t think it’s necessary just because of how impractical ever enforcing that part of the IRS regulation would be, but it’d cover all bases. The short answer is: you can definitely file MFJ. This is not tax advice and you should consult a tax advisor if after your own research you are unsure how to proceed.

Did you get a refund and if so how substantial?

Yes, that’s almost always the best outcome, but some of them like to know you’ve done something first. Best is to call them and see what they need.