N400 – Where to file if my spouse and I are living in different states?

[manty 0]

The larger picture is being missed here. Those involved in the adjudication and examination of immigration applicants and applications are charged with the duty to prevent immigration fraud. This means that they will not just examine applications in light of specific CFR sections, but rather will examine applications using the full spectrum of tools provided to them under the law.

And from a plain old common sense standpoint, why try and push the envelope? Better to stay on solid ground, file when the application is certain to be approved with no fuss, and save yourself time and money.

Pick your battles. If you need to beat "The Man", then challenge your next parking ticket in court or do something else where the consequences of being wrong really don't matter. Don't screw around and try and be "clever" when something as important and life-changing as naturalization is concerned.

[mawilson 2,133]

The larger picture is being missed here. Those involved in the adjudication and examination of immigration applicants and applications are charged with the duty to prevent immigration fraud. This means that they will not just examine applications in light of specific CFR sections, but rather will examine applications using the full spectrum of tools provided to them under the law.

And from a plain old common sense standpoint, why try and push the envelope? Better to stay on solid ground, file when the application is certain to be approved with no fuss, and save yourself time and money.

Pick your battles. If you need to beat "The Man", then challenge your next parking ticket in court or do something else where the consequences of being wrong really don't matter. Don't screw around and try and be "clever" when something as important and life-changing as naturalization is concerned.

If you have not committed any fraud or deception, why should you be afraid of "The Man"?

The law is on the OP's side - he's not trying to be "clever" or "screw around".

[jamieswith 0]

IOs have been known to see a subjective truth different from the reality.

If you get an IO with the wrong attitude, the problem is convincing the IO what the truth really is.

The larger picture is being missed here. Those involved in the adjudication and examination of immigration applicants and applications are charged with the duty to prevent immigration fraud. This means that they will not just examine applications in light of specific CFR sections, but rather will examine applications using the full spectrum of tools provided to them under the law.

And from a plain old common sense standpoint, why try and push the envelope? Better to stay on solid ground, file when the application is certain to be approved with no fuss, and save yourself time and money.

Pick your battles. If you need to beat "The Man", then challenge your next parking ticket in court or do something else where the consequences of being wrong really don't matter. Don't screw around and try and be "clever" when something as important and life-changing as naturalization is concerned.

If you have not committed any fraud or deception, why should you be afraid of "The Man"?

The law is on the OP's side - he's not trying to be "clever" or "screw around".

[manty 0]

If you have not committed any fraud or deception, why should you be afraid of "The Man"?

Because part of the IO's job is to investigate and discover reasons to deny approval. Their job is not merely to rubber stamp applications. And it's not the fact that an applicant has committed fraud or deception that keeps them from being approved - it's the appearance of fraud or deception that keep them from being approved. And to be honest, the OP's application has more than a few "red flags" that will raise eyebrows with the authorities.

I'm not concerned about "The Man" myself. I get the impression that you are, and that you're trying to encourage the OP to toss a poorly-executed, risky application into the process simply because of your reading of one particular provision of the CFR, rather than in light of the entire body of law affecting immigration. You have an attitude of "this tiny part of the law says I'm entitled to something, so I'm gonna damn well make sure I get it", and screw everything else - you want this applicant to "stick it to the man" and fight the system.

The OP should read your posts and ask "how badly will I be screwed if I follow this guy's advice?" And the OP should also ask "and what happens to this guy if the naturalization application doesn't go through?" That is, the OP has everything to lose by following your advice, but you have no risk whatsoever. You're free to give out what I consider to be bad advice and if it doesn't work, there's nothing the OP can do about it. You can merely say "my bad!" and disappear, leaving the OP holding the bag.

The law is on the OP's side - he's not trying to be "clever" or "screw around".

That one particular regulation you quoted is on the OP's side. There's plenty of other parts of the law that are not on the OP's side - you should read more widely because the law is not a "pick the applicable parts" system.

And I do think the OP is trying to be clever. He and his spouse are trying to be clever by pushing the limits of cohabitation and bona-fide marriage by living so far apart for so long. He and his spouse are trying to bend the rules and be overly-creative to fit their particular goals (i.e. naturalization as fast as possible, which in itself is a red flag), and trying to rush through the system without really thinking.

I know enough about immigration law and procedure to know that it's wise to tread very carefully.

[mawilson 2,133]

I'm not concerned about "The Man" myself. I get the impression that you are, and that you're trying to encourage the OP to toss a poorly-executed, risky application into the process simply because of your reading of one particular provision of the CFR, rather than in light of the entire body of law affecting immigration. You have an attitude of "this tiny part of the law says I'm entitled to something, so I'm gonna damn well make sure I get it", and screw everything else - you want this applicant to "stick it to the man" and fight the system.

Drama queen, much?

The worst that can happen is he will have to reapply in 2 years... which is something

you guys are encouraging him to do anyway.

[manty 0]

mawilson - it seems you've joined this thread for the sole purpose of starting a disagreement, then desperately trying to "win" and prove that everyone else is completely and utterly wrong.

Why are you here?

[manty 0]

Why are you here?

Actually, after a little research, I can answer my own question. It seems you're here to start plenty of threads with a sexual topic and to post tedious conservative articles.

In fact, I had great trouble finding even one immigration-related post made by you.

Yup, exactly the kind of person I'd go to for immigration advice...

[mawilson 2,133]

mawilson - it seems you've joined this thread for the sole purpose of starting a disagreement, then desperately trying to "win" and prove that everyone else is completely and utterly wrong.

Why are you here?

The OP wrote

"My wife has been a green card holder for 3 years and wants to apply for her citizenship. 6 months

ago she moved to California because she got into pharmacy school while I stayed in Florida because

of work. I visit her once a month and she comes down to Florida during breaks. After she is done

with school, she will move back to Florida.

...

She prefers to file in California. Is this ok?"

The correct answer is "yes, it's ok".

You're the one trying to start a disagreement by arguing that it's not ok when it clearly is.

[mawilson 2,133]

Yup, exactly the kind of person I'd go to for immigration advice...

Well maybe you should since you all you have offered so far is caution bordering on paranoia.

[manty 0]

The correct answer is "yes, it's ok".

Er, no. The correct answer is "it depends - we need to know more info."

Stick to what you know best: clearly, starting multiple threads about penises.

Thanks for playing! Goodbye!

[mawilson 2,133]

The correct answer is "yes, it's ok".

Er, no. The correct answer is "it depends - we need to know more info."

Er, yes. The OP has provided more than enough info.

Stick to what you know best: clearly, starting multiple threads about penises.

Thanks for playing! Goodbye!

Can we please keep personal attacks out of this discussion?

Edited January 12, 2009 by mawilson

[jamieswith 0]

Everyone needs to stop getting emotional.

Actually the risks if the IO descides he thinks there is fraud (which is what it is called if she is applying on the basis of a current marriage and the IO thinks that they are not properly in marital union while claiming they are) include a potential of more than just the N400 being denied - immigration fraud can also be a basis for deportation and loosing of her current Permanent Resident status.

She surely can apply for N400 while away in California, applying in California - the real question here is, what are the risks involved and what are the chances of getting approved.

The law is theoretically on the side of the OP here, but the real question is, will the IO see it that way? Quite possibly... but as others have said - in order to avoid the risk, and make things a lot simpler and easier... it might be better to just wait until she is either back with her husband or has completed 5 years (minus 90 days) of residency.

I'm sure, even if denied by a moody IO, that following an appeal they could probably be approved on appeal, so even then it would not be the end of the road - but is it really worth it? the extra time? trouble and stress?

In defense of mawilson I personally have seen him give much good advice - and while I personally would encourage more caution, I think the characterization of him here by some is false.

[manty 0]

Can we please keep personal attacks out of this discussion?

Hardly a personal attack - more of a brief summary of your contributions to the site thus far.

(And yeah, I'd be embarrassed too if I spent most of my time for the past few years posting sex-related topics on an immigration discussion board.)

[jamieswith 0]

(And yeah, I'd be embarrassed too if I spent most of my time for the past few years posting sex-related topics on an immigration discussion board.)

Then perhaps you had a much more sheltered upbringing lol

[mawilson 2,133]

Actually the risks if the IO descides he thinks there is fraud (which is what it is called if she is applying on the basis of a current marriage and the IO thinks that they are not properly in marital union while claiming they are) include a potential of more than just the N400 being denied - immigration fraud can also be a basis for deportation and loosing of her current Permanent Resident status.

Only if they can prove it was fraudulent to begin with, not if they got separated or even divorced

AFTER her I-751 had been approved (which, again, is perfectly legal.)

There's nothing in the OP's post that suggests any fraud or wrongdoing. The only question is,

is she eligible for naturalization after only three years of residence or five.

Edited January 12, 2009 by mawilson