Sister (U.S. Citizen) Wants to Bring Bolivian Husband and Children to Live in the U.S.

[pushbrk 13,907]

23 minutes ago, SalishSea said:

The OP did not mention moving in with the brother.  She wrote:  

1. "Would my name showing up on an apartment lease be enough to prove U.S. residence? My brother lives in the U.S. and he can likely get me into his current lease."

To me, this sounds manufactured, like a paperwork modification vs an authentic piece of evidence of domicile.  Maybe to you it is not a big deal, but per the TOS rules here at VJ, we cannot recommend creating evidence which is not in good faith.  The best evidence for all steps of US immigration is genuine evidence.  Yes, even for low-fraud, low-risk consulates.

Yes, words mean things.  No mention of actually living with the brother.  Just a "name SHOWING UP on an apartment lease".  Answer is no, that is evidence of nothing, and certainly "proof" of nothing helpful.  All officials involved are skilled at spotting contrived evidence.

 

Edited Tuesday at 04:07 AM by pushbrk

[S2N 515]

General comment: living in a renter heavy town “getting added to the lease” is the slang for how people here talk about moving in with their significant other (or anyone really.) We also frequently tell people to draw up leases with their parents if they’re planning on staying there at first. My point is we shouldn’t be so quick to jump on OP for what’s a fairly normal thing to do when you’re moving 5000ish miles, and at least in my part of the U.S. is normal shorthand for living with someone.

 

Similar on the consulate point: of course no one should present false evidence to a consulate, even if it’s not a high risk consulate. That also doesn’t mean we should be pretending every consulate needs Juarez or Montreal level evidence on domicile. La Paz isn’t going to go in with the assumption that the couple doesn't want to relocate. That means they don’t need to spend excessive amount of time worrying about this.

 

The normal things you do when moving work: a lease, a job offer, emails about schools, etc. and all of those should come about naturally. The consulate officers are well trained and will be able to see OP is taking steps to relocate and that it’s not contrived.

Edited Tuesday at 04:21 AM by S2N

[OldUser 10,663]

1 hour ago, S2N said:

That also doesn’t mean we should be pretending every consulate needs Juarez or Montreal level evidence on domicile.

Nobody (as far as I know) gets denied for building stronger case with compelling evidence.

 

People get delayed or denied every day due to ignorance, laziness or underestimation when they build a weak case.

[S2N 515]

16 minutes ago, OldUser said:

Nobody (as far as I know) gets denied for building stronger case with compelling evidence.

 

People get delayed or denied every day due to ignorance, laziness or underestimation when they build a weak case.

Sure, but as with all things it’s a question of risk tolerance and the amount of effort and money one wants to put into the perceived risk.

 

The risk of being denied for domicile while applying from deep South America is not high. Someone could spend a lot of money establishing proof even to the extent of moving to the U.S. ahead of their spouse or they could do all the normal things one does when moving countries and use that as proof.

 

Speaking personally, if there’s an additional cost to doing things overseas vs. the U.S. for a non-English speaking country where there’s not a cultural history of people splitting time between countries, I wouldn’t pay the extra cost in order to develop evidence beyond what would come up in the normal course of moving.

Edited Tuesday at 05:41 AM by S2N

[pushbrk 13,907]

A person who will contrive evidence for one aspect of the process, is often to have contrived other evidence.  Don't submit contrived evidence.  Stick to real evidence.