Boiler

They need the passport to put the visa in. For UK domestic flights If you are flying solely within the UK, including Northern Ireland, you do not need a passport but we advise that you carry photographic identification with you when travelling, such as your passport or driving licence. This may be requested at certain points in your journey. Children under the age of 16 years do not require identification to travel within the UK. https://www.britishairways.com/en-us/information/passports-visas-and-api#:~:text=If you are flying solely,certain points in your journey.

You may have missed this

Plenty of time for lots more visits.

I know lots of people who have been to Cuba, a friend used to travel there on business, not sure if it is now but quite a popular travel destination, now it can be a bit more complicated for USCs and LPRs.

No

Not how the DV works, it is based in your birth country.

Yes you can

All the ones I recollect served their time

2 years I would expect.

It is a year later, what are the circumstances beyond your control?

Normally I would go for a B but here the issue is a major difference in appointment times, or so it appears, so seems your only option.

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2022/03/03/secretary-mayorkas-designates-ukraine-temporary-protected-status-18-months Individuals eligible for TPS under this designation must have continuously resided in the United States since April 11, 2022. Initial applicants for TPS under this designation must demonstrate that they have been continuously physically present in the United States since April 19, 2022, the effective date of this designation of Ukraine, before USCIS may grant them TPS. Ukraine’s 18-month designation will go into effect on the publication date of the forthcoming Federal Register notice. The Federal Register notice will provide instructions for applying for TPS and an Employment Authorization Document (EAD). TPS applicants must meet all eligibility requirements and undergo security and background checks. It seems to say what it says but I have never seen this discussed. Applying to adjust would seem the logical route, most wars are going to be over by Christmas, which Christmas?

Not sure where you are getting 6 years. Timeline does not change according to where she is, she needs to wait for her Priority Date to become current. OPT and being sponsored for an immigrant visa are not related. She should not get married, well a USC would be OK.

It was my assumption that this was the plan from your very first post, I have seen it so many times it is not funny. Can you imagine how often somebody who does this all day sees this situation?

I think she could go to Canada or Mexico, no need for a long flight. Asylum is a whole other game, my suspicion is that most Ukrainians would not be eligible, some may, but that is definitely Lawyer territory. If her daughter is a USC that is an obvious route. Or becomes a USC.

I agree applying for a B was silly, you cut your ties and then applied. Being denied a B does not mean ESTA will be denied forever, quite how long is an unknown. Applying in a foreign Consulate, well you never know but on the face of it your situation is worse than when you obtained the first denial.

You are relying on her prior visits to qualify, out of my area, I do not know if this is possible.

I wonder if they are questioning her eligibility. I may be misreading your initial post but when exactly did she arrive, was it before the continuous residency date?

Probably filling in the blanks which may be reasonable but who knows

TPS is not common here but I assume they are asking for evidence of her residing in the US prior to the qualifying date, not at your house. I assume she has a I 94.

Nobody here knows whether they will be approved, they can certainly apply.

I would imagine they will ask her to go to Community College and why in Oregon. I assume she can fund her study.

Another vote for name on your pay check

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/23/politics/biden-asylum-policy-ukraine-poland/index.html On Tuesday afternoon, the Homeland Security and Justice Departments announced the administration’s most restrictive policy yet aimed at curbing the number of migrants seeking to apply for asylum at the US-Mexico border. The newly proposed rule – which would take effect in May and is reminiscent of a controversial policy dating back to Donald Trump’s administration – largely bars migrants who traveled through other countries on their way to the US southern border from applying for asylum in the US. It marks a significant departure from longstanding protocol, which allows migrants to request asylum regardless of how they arrived on US soil. Immigrant advocates and former Biden officials have slammed the new policy, calling it a pivot from Biden’s pledge to restore asylum and a move toward Trump-era policies. Biden has long promised to take a humane approach to the situation at the border – a promise that some critics say the current White House could risk breaking with some of their restrictive border policies. Anu Joshi, deputy director of the National Political Advocacy Department at the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement: “This asylum ban is, at its core, Trump’s asylum ban under a different name.”