Is there a requirement that the LPR and USC spouse have ever lived together?

[dimbmw 1]

56 minutes ago, Bugs said:

Of course they are always on the lookout for evidence of fraud, and, yes, that would likely result in revocation/deportation.  There is no question on this.

 

However, absence of such clear evidence, such revocation/deportation will not occur.  This is because burden of proof lies on them in this regard.

 

It is your duty, however, to provide enough evidence of the contrary for them to grant status, whether for entry visa, initial LPR status, or citizenship.

 

What does the law say about this? 

 

The law explicitly states that any entry visa or LPR status that is marriage based must be based on evidence of a bona fide marriage.  It also states that the burden of proof is on the applicant when seeking to gain this type of visa or LPR status.  

 

USCIS adjunctator guides also state that the entire history of a naturalization applicant's immigration file will be looked at when reviewing an N-400.  This means that they revisit previous applications for visa, LPR, and any evidence provided with them, as well as entries, interviews, and so on.  Therefore any discrepancies between this previous information and new information provided in and with the N-400 may result in a request for evidence to resolve these discrepancies before choosing to grant citizenship.   This means they may ask for evidence of a bona fide marriage again if they find that, since the LPR status was granted, the marriage didn't look like a genuine marriage after all (such as living apart).  

 

There is no law that explicitly states that the USCIS officer must ask for such evidence in a 5 year N-400 review, because it is not blanket and is up to the discretion of the USCIS officer to decide if that is needed, as is the case for any discrepancy. Nor is there a law that says they cannot.  Does this mean they will ask for this in your case?  Maybe, maybe not.  They are not required to, but they are not prohibited from doing so and can delay your citizenship until it is provided by you.

 

Why do we know this?  Because there are numerous 5 year N-400 applicants on here that explicitly state they were asked for such evidence and which resulted in delays and/or denials without such evidence.  This is the benefit of something like this website, with thousands upon thousands of experienced applicants can share their stories and advice.  It would be prudent to listen, because, usually consensus on a answer is the correct one here. 

 

Again, you may pass through the N-400 process easily, and wonder what all the fuss was about.  But you may not.  And, due to the latter, it would always be better to be prepared for the worse than sorry.  

 

Something tells me, though, that you don't feel you would be able to provide such evidence, or, worse, did actually commit fraud, or you wouldn't be so up in arms against such advice.  Hopefully it is just the former - and if so, I believe I presented to you options at your disposal for providing such evidence despite living apart.  

 

Again, take heed.

 

 

 

 

You are wrong in both of your assumptions. The reason I am asking about what the law actually is is because in my opinion some interviewers are going too far in asking irrelevant and useless questions. By doing that they actually waste their time and applicants time. Not to mention that they just spoil a good day to the applicant, and a pretty important one. So I was wondering whether that is allowed by law to act like that or is it their own initiative. It seems that the IOs have limited descretion on which particular civics questions to ask, as they have to choose a sheet of questions with the 10 questions on it, but then they are only allowed to ask these 10, and not the other ones. But with that their well organized workflow ends, as they allow themselves to ask questions that really do not make much sense to ask. I would expect the scope of questions to be limited with what makes sense to ask. Clearly, it makes sense to only ask questions the answers to which can verify if certain conditions are fulfilled, and there is no sense to ask things that are irrelevant. If the law would have required certain things, for example for a couple to live together no less than N% of days,  then there should have been a question on how many days they've actually spent under one roof. But if there is no such requirement, there should be no such question. Maybe if they will not waste that much time during the interview on useless questions, then they will give less N-652s with the "decision cannot be made at this time", explaining the aplicant that they've ran out of time and the file  had too many pages so they will have to review it some time later.

[Bugs 455]

50 minutes ago, dimbmw said:

 

You are wrong in both of your assumptions. The reason I am asking about what the law actually is is because in my opinion some interviewers are going too far in asking irrelevant and useless questions. By doing that they actually waste their time and applicants time. Not to mention that they just spoil a good day to the applicant, and a pretty important one. So I was wondering whether that is allowed by law to act like that or is it their own initiative. It seems that the IOs have limited descretion on which particular civics questions to ask, as they have to choose a sheet of questions with the 10 questions on it, but then they are only allowed to ask these 10, and not the other ones. But with that their well organized workflow ends, as they allow themselves to ask questions that really do not make much sense to ask. I would expect the scope of questions to be limited with what makes sense to ask. Clearly, it makes sense to only ask questions the answers to which can verify if certain conditions are fulfilled, and there is no sense to ask things that are irrelevant. If the law would have required certain things, for example for a couple to live together no less than N% of days,  then there should have been a question on how many days they've actually spent under one roof. But if there is no such requirement, there should be no such question. Maybe if they will not waste that much time during the interview on useless questions, then they will give less N-652s with the "decision cannot be made at this time", explaining the aplicant that they've ran out of time and the file  had too many pages so they will have to review it some time later.

Perhaps.  So what?  Are you planning on suing USCIS or interested in gaining citizenship?  Seems just sticking with the latter is much less a headache if it is your primary goal.

 

 

 

Edited July 7, 2017 by Bugs

[dimbmw 1]

33 minutes ago, Bugs said:

Perhaps.  So what?  Are you planning on suing USCIS or interested in gaining citizenship?  Seems just sticking with the latter is much less a headache if it is your primary goal.

 

 

 

 

Besides getting what I am eligible for I am interested in the government service to stop acting foolish and waste tax money.