S2N

For clarity on timing on my answer: I’d try to time it so that you have enough time to get your taxes ready and the transcripts generate. Assuming you get all 1099s on 2/15 and you or your tax accountant can do a quick turnaround and get everything filed before 3/15, that’d look like: —12/30: upload everything to NVC —1/31: DQ’d with the asset based form, sent to Madrid. —Between 2/15-3/15: file taxes —2 weeks after taxes accepted: transcripts generate —Day transcripts generate upload new I-864 and new transcripts to CEAC —3/31-4/30: interview in Madrid, bring updated I-864 and transcripts. If needed, you could file 1040-X after the beneficiary moves but it might not be needed here if you originally file MFJ — standard dedication is above the I-864 threshold so if you’re at $31.5k or less there’d be no need to amend for tax reasons. Also for the record, nothing in this post is not legal or tax advice.

@pushbrk has a lot more experience on this than I do, but speaking personally, I’d try for both the assets method and since we’re so close to tax season relatively speaking, stalling at NVC and talking a less aggressive approach to taxes this year. My assumption on the latter is that the actual tax inflows are a lot more than $14k as you couldn’t pay the property taxes, utilities, and condo fees in Miami and also have enough money for food on $14k. If that’s the case it’s absolutely possible to claim less deductions and then amend once the beneficiary is here. Taking the “both/and” approach will give you more security in case you run into pushback on the assets or make a mistake in the preparation of the I-864 that makes the CO question whether the assets qualify. You can then present a case that both is above the income threshold and has assets to make it stronger if it’s just barely above it.

The general rule of thumb with the government is that the people adjudicating these forms have seen a lot of them and can tell the difference between a mistake and an intentional omission.

There’s theoretically more on the way, but as I said in another post on a similar topic… I don’t see much changing. USCIS can only take administrative measures. Like making it 12/20 instead of 6/10 and increasing the pool of questions. Small stuff like that has to go through all the standard red tape, but is relatively straightforward. They really can’t really do much more, and while changing the test is an administrative measure, a full revamp of the naturalization exam would take significant time: they’d have to both remake it and then probably have to go through the rule making process and then deal with inevitable challenges in court. Honestly 12/20 is easier than 6/10 because it gives you more room for errors (i.e. bad luck of the draw is less likely to disqualify you.) My read of the noise the USCIS director is making on the changes he wants to see on this and other issues is that he’s making a lot of noise to signal to those in the West Wing he’s ready for the big leagues when the DHS secretary spot opens up in a year or two.

So quick turnaround. Still, that brings us pretty close to tax filing season. If going through your 2024 taxes you see areas where you were being aggressive on deductions that would bring you above the income threshold for 2025, it might be worth stalling at NVC until November/December and then uploading a new I-864 with the 2025 tax return in February if you want to avoid the ambiguity of the assets. How you want to handle it is your choice and not trying to dissuade you from trying to qualify on assets or with a joint sponsor. Just trying to provide options.

IIRC from another post OP was trying to have the interview in Madrid. Does anyone know how long that usually takes? If the issue on income was being aggressive on business deductions, we’re getting around the timeframe where the 1040 for 2026 might be able to resolve the issue. Being less aggressive with deductions and then doing a 1040-X once immigration is complete might be a path forward that makes the asset question not an issue.

The thing is, as much as USCIS might like to try to be more than this, they’re functionally a paper pushing organization within the immigration system that has limited discretion in what they can actually do on their own. What their director wants has limited actual impact on anything other than the administrative levers he can pull because so much of immigration is decided by other parts of the government. Those can impact the timing and process for people in the system, but there’s little substantial policy impact for the system. Most of USCIS’ functions are ministerial or are collecting information to be provided by them to other agencies that actually have power. In all honesty they’re in need of a total overhaul and it’d make the most sense to transfer them and ICE back to DOJ into a unified immigration agency with direct quasi-judicial oversight by BIA. That way the entire domestic side would be all under one roof and you might have an agency that can tackle stuff in a timely and consistent manner. Don’t get me wrong, I read the transcript of this and wasn’t exactly pleased by it, but I’m skeptical there’s much USCIS can do without congressional intervention. They’re an almost powerless agency outside of being the first line customer service people that we all get frustrated with. There’s only so much their director can do.

Ask USCIS for an expedite. Then contact your senator or member of Congress and explain the situation. If you have a Republican senator or representative those are apparently getting preferential treatment by USCIS legislative affairs now from what I’ve heard through the grapevine. USCIS tracks cases with congressional inquiries in a different system than they track cases without inquiries. It doesn’t guarantee approval, but it does guarantee more scrutiny in a positive sense. Also, yes, check this page for the category that describes you and see if you meet the physical presence test to see if your children are already citizens: link

I wouldn’t upload the remittances personally. Chile’s a very low fraud risk country with a stable economy. Remittances can be a double-edged sword on the fraud factor so no need the put them there when you have plenty of other evidence for a country where the consular officer isn’t likely to ask that many questions once it gets to the Santiago consulate stage. We upload plane tickets for every trip I take down there and his I-94 for every time he enters the U.S. with some photos. We filed taxes jointly so uploaded that as well as some additional estate planning stuff. Does your wife speak English or do you speak Spanish? Might be worth uploading some basic text messages showing you have a way to communicate since Chile has a very low English-speaking level. I uploaded some certifications I had in Spanish as well as a few WhatsApp discussions in Spanish (my husband has extremely basic English so we communicate in Spanish.)

Transcripts from the IRS are preferred, but if you need to send in W-2s the downloadable W-2 transcripts from the IRS reflect what the employer reported to them so should be fine.

It’s worth noting there are some cases where MFS vs. single would create a material underpayment when filing single. As an example the options I had were: Single: $50 refund MFS: $100 owed to the government MFJ: $4000 refund. We went with MFJ since Mr. S2N has an approved ESTA and we travel back and forth. All that to say: if someone files single and they live in a community property state or make more than $100,000 they actually need to amend to MFJ and not just forget to do it since in those cases single could lead to underpayment as MFS has some cases where they need to pay more.

At this stage it’d be too late for the transcripts to change; it’d have to be paper filed plus an ITIN if they want MFJ, so you’re looking February since 1040-X takes even longer than 1040. They’d submit the 1040-X plus W-2s and 1099s. For context, we filed MFJ in person applying for an ITIN on 4/26/25 and the transcripts generated on 8/28/25. Like I said, amendments would take longer.

USCIS isn’t populated by political people. ISOs tend to be clocking in for a job and not much more. Yah: the political appointees might change how they distribute cases or the policies, but they’re constrained people enforcing them don’t tend to care about the why behind any of that. Said another way, taking political feelings out on petitioners or beneficiaries takes more time than most ISOs care to devote. Usually the issues people face with USCIS have more to do with incompetence than politics.

It doesn’t help that the guidance is contradictory as to what to do. An accountant that told you to do either would be right. Some states take a hard stance on this, though. My general view is that there are several ways to file things that are accepted by the IRS but not on the forms as written. All 9s, NRA, declaring 1 as interest income if you have 0 in order to file, etc. those are workarounds that the IRS permits as they don’t materially impact tax, but the standard is to follow the form as written. 99/100, this type of thing doesn’t matter, but we’re dealing with the 1/100 where it might. Rather than argue about the theoretical here, it’s best to look at what would help OP. An MFS filing as NRA wouldn’t help OP for immigration purposes as it doesn’t show joining of finances. It also could hurt them for tax purposes, and they’d need to amend again once their spouse is here to get MFJ. There’s really just no benefit to the MFS status for them at all at this point, and it’d be better just to wait to amend.

It’s an approved workaround, but it’s still a workaround. Like entering 1 in the interest income box if you want to file taxes when you have no income. I linked you to the policy on foreign spouses above. It clearly states it’s required on all returns, even MFS. That’s been the longstanding guidance. Just like the publication you linked to provides a way not to do that if the NRA spouse doesn’t have any tax ID. That makes it a sanctioned workaround. Its unfortunately an area where there’s tension in the IRS’ guidance on what people should do. If OP is being told they can’t just write “NRA” on a return or amendment, that’s in line with what the agency has published. Not taking a hard line on that particular issue would also be in line with what they’ve published. Sometimes it’s easier just to do what the government officials say than argue with them which of their multiple sets of instructions they should be following.

I think there’s pretty solid anecdotal evidence for the Texas Service Center processing an I-130 when it receives I-129F if it is already the service center assigned the I-130. Seen several cases in other sites that really have no other explanation than Texas trying to close two cases at once and letting someone “skip the line” by filing for K-3. I think what makes this case interesting is that 1) it’s a California assigned I-130 and 2) they called.

At the very least this is an interesting datapoint on K-3. My view has largely been aligned with yours that it’s a waste of time for virtually all cases. The fact they’re calling on K-3 for a December case suggests they are looking at them in some way. OP — keep us up to date on how it plays out.

It hasn’t changed but the turn a blind eye work around is to paper file with 999-99-9999 or write NRA. IRS is less stringent in enforcing its own rules on this than some states are. In OP’s case if the IRS is actually enforcing the policy that you can’t file MFS without an ITIN, which honestly wouldn’t shock me given that the current administration wants to use IRS records for immigration enforcement, there’s almost certainly no benefit to amending as MFS. They’d have to do the ITIN process with no monetary benefit and no additional evidence for the NOID. If they want to use tax returns for evidence they’d need to go to a CAA in Sweden before the deadline and have them refile as MFJ. I’m assuming that’s not really practical at this point, so they should focus on other types of evidence.

Reference from the IRS website on MFS: link If your spouse is neither a U.S. citizen nor a U.S. resident within the meaning of IRC section 7701(b)(1)(A) and you file a joint or separate return, your spouse must have either a Social Security Number (SSN) or an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN). Emphasis mine.

Technically need an ITIN for MFS since the 1040 requests it. This delayed us filing my state taxes this year as both of the states I file in don’t accept MFS with all 9s or NRA written in the spouse SSN/ITIN field. Though the IRS has been known to accept the 999-99-9999 trick for MFS spouses on paper. At this stage I wouldn’t bother with an amendment until she gets here unless they can amend with a CAA in Sweden for MFJ to get an ITIN. MFS wouldn’t help either the immigration case or the taxes. Easiest at this stage is to wait tor the NOID to be resolved and amend electronically in the U.S. after a SSN is issued.

Yep. The geographies I was referencing were northern South America, parts of Southeast Asia, and MENA. There’s a subculture in all of those areas of women looking for older American men. More related to OP, Central America doesn’t tend to have it for people in Central America looking for consular processing, but once they’re here trying to find a spouse and adjust is also a cultural thing for many — that even impacts gay Central Americans in the U.S., which isn’t usually a thing for consular processing. And then Nigeria is its own thing, but usually you don’t get many older men looking for wives there. The most common thing there is people paying for friends of people they know in the U.S. to marry them. All that to say, online dating is great, and there’s no issue doing it internationally. Worked for me. But people should be aware of what the culture surrounding it and immigration is if it’s something they’re going to do.

The issue is with the classification of foreign taxes paid and whether or not they’re eligible for the credit or other deductions. People also often screw up things like improperly deducting health care withholding/tax or retirement for foreign spouses. There’s just a lot of words that have technical meanings in the Internal Revenue Code that don’t really translate well to taxes where one of the couple lives overseas. TurboTax will guide you through it, but it won’t tell you what counts to put in the boxes for foreign items. Like all things with the government, people are free to DIY it, but just because you can doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to do it.

Re: your last paragraph, It’s a thing. Go to r/passportbros if you want to see the cringier side of international relationships. Not judging any particular relationship or people who find international love online I fall in that camp, so I’d be hypocritical if I was. But there’s a subculture both within the U.S. and in some specific countries of marriages where the older financially established male U.S. citizen marries a younger woman from one of a handful of countries who is madly in love with him. If a 25 year old woman wouldn’t fall in love with a 55 year old man from her own country, I doubt they’d fall in love with a 55 year old man from a foreign country. That’s my view at least.

9 FAM 601.14-5.b(1) and 9 FAM 601.14-12.a(1) allow copies. A printed PDF is the same as a photocopy. You should be fine. Link to relevant FAM chapter

Weird. I’d upload it all again as well as anything else that’s happened since and any additional financial documents you have. Sometimes the easiest solution is just to give them what they want.