alizon

LOL that's the first thing I thought when I read his comment. Then he replies again with this gem, "A job is not a right. It is a gift from someone more ingenious than yourself." LOLWTFBBQ. That's got to be dumbest thing I ever heard.
Anyway, he's only been looking for 3 months. I wouldn't be thinking it's the end of the world just yet. It takes longer to find a job now (try a year)... and he's lucky enough to even get a job right now. I would suggest looking for lower paying jobs that require manual labor, since those are the ones that are currently hiring. While he's working and back to a routine and steady money in his pocket to help out with bills, he can still apply for jobs that pay more while still working at his job.

The guy is looking for advice. Not political opinions.
Hang in there. It's not easy for anyone to find work right now. You've only been looking for three months. That's not long in today's economic climate.

****UPDATE****
INTERVIEW SCHEDULED: 17APRIL2012 AT 1230
:dance: :dance: :dance: :dance: :dance:
****END UPDATE****

http://www.irs.gov/p...rs-pdf/p501.pdf
Click on Filing Status

It's not 2012 all over the world, if you catch my drift.

True. Though, I was thinking more along the lines of FAQ in addition to the links. Of course, that presumes people will read it instead of just jumping to the end of the thread with questions..

You need to be very careful, running away to another country with your kids without their father's consent is abducting them, you're facing a hell lot of trouble... You should really talk to a lawyer.

But we aren't talking about "MOST" countries, we're talking about the US, where people -- including non-citizens -- have the right to express their like or dislike of government or its policies. This extends well outside the ballot box, which, though an integral part of the citizenry's dialogue with its government, is not the only means of expression for those who are in the US. To say that we should sit down, shut up and be thankful we've got what we do have is decidedly un-American in sentiment.
My ex, when he first came to the US, was unsure about how to express what he found uncomfortable or just not right about American institutions as an immigrant. I told him that as he was planning to become an American some day, he should let rip. He's to the right of me, which has led to some interesting debate, but we both think it's been great training for being an involved and active citizen. He's applying for citizenship in a few months and I think he'll make a great, opinionated and informed American later this year, not least because he's felt free to become express both support and dissent.

These arguments like "it's not inappropriate/invasive/unjust because it's common/not illegal" aren't particularly logical. Just because their ability to ask these questions has not yet been challenged, doesn't mean that it is right or that there is no ground to challenge them. Even if questions about sex life are helpful to root out fraud, they still might not stand up if challenged in an American court. Consider the question of marital status in a job interview: potentially helpful to employers who want to avoid having their employee take time off for children? Yes. Legal? No. In that case, the person being interviewed doesn't have the "right" to the job (just as people are arguing that interviewees don't have a "right" to a green card), but because of the difference in power between the person offering the job and the person trying to get it, there has to be some protection for the interviewee built into the process.
I can't remember if I got this link off this thread or another on VJ, but this article on marriage fraud talks about a CO that was using interviews to extort sexual favors, and the other article from the NYTimes mentioned in this thread says that officers are trained to avoid questions about sex...it's not entirely impossible that the CO is using his/her power to get their...jollies. With gynecologists, you can always go to another if you get creepy vibes from yours; not so with consular interviewers.

I disagree. Why shouldn't someone want to better their adopted country by participating in open discourse, a protected right of all people here? I suppose I wouldn't do this in China, for fear of retribution, but the US does not punish people for disagreeing, thank god. If these immigrants obtain citizenship, then they can vote and lobby for changes to the way things are done. I think the real issue is that some people are trying to make a solution without understanding why the current solution is in place, and that comes off poorly.

These arguments like "it's not inappropriate/invasive/unjust because it's common/not illegal" aren't particularly logical. Just because their ability to ask these questions has not yet been challenged, doesn't mean that it is right or that there is no ground to challenge them. Even if questions about sex life are helpful to root out fraud, they still might not stand up if challenged in an American court. Consider the question of marital status in a job interview: potentially helpful to employers who want to avoid having their employee take time off for children? Yes. Legal? No. In that case, the person being interviewed doesn't have the "right" to the job (just as people are arguing that interviewees don't have a "right" to a green card), but because of the difference in power between the person offering the job and the person trying to get it, there has to be some protection for the interviewee built into the process.
I can't remember if I got this link off this thread or another on VJ, but this article on marriage fraud talks about a CO that was using interviews to extort sexual favors, and the other article from the NYTimes mentioned in this thread says that officers are trained to avoid questions about sex...it's not entirely impossible that the CO is using his/her power to get their...jollies. With gynecologists, you can always go to another if you get creepy vibes from yours; not so with consular interviewers.

These arguments like "it's not inappropriate/invasive/unjust because it's common/not illegal" aren't particularly logical. Just because their ability to ask these questions has not yet been challenged, doesn't mean that it is right or that there is no ground to challenge them. Even if questions about sex life are helpful to root out fraud, they still might not stand up if challenged in an American court. Consider the question of marital status in a job interview: potentially helpful to employers who want to avoid having their employee take time off for children? Yes. Legal? No. In that case, the person being interviewed doesn't have the "right" to the job (just as people are arguing that interviewees don't have a "right" to a green card), but because of the difference in power between the person offering the job and the person trying to get it, there has to be some protection for the interviewee built into the process.
I can't remember if I got this link off this thread or another on VJ, but this article on marriage fraud talks about a CO that was using interviews to extort sexual favors, and the other article from the NYTimes mentioned in this thread says that officers are trained to avoid questions about sex...it's not entirely impossible that the CO is using his/her power to get their...jollies. With gynecologists, you can always go to another if you get creepy vibes from yours; not so with consular interviewers.

These arguments like "it's not inappropriate/invasive/unjust because it's common/not illegal" aren't particularly logical. Just because their ability to ask these questions has not yet been challenged, doesn't mean that it is right or that there is no ground to challenge them. Even if questions about sex life are helpful to root out fraud, they still might not stand up if challenged in an American court. Consider the question of marital status in a job interview: potentially helpful to employers who want to avoid having their employee take time off for children? Yes. Legal? No. In that case, the person being interviewed doesn't have the "right" to the job (just as people are arguing that interviewees don't have a "right" to a green card), but because of the difference in power between the person offering the job and the person trying to get it, there has to be some protection for the interviewee built into the process.
I can't remember if I got this link off this thread or another on VJ, but this article on marriage fraud talks about a CO that was using interviews to extort sexual favors, and the other article from the NYTimes mentioned in this thread says that officers are trained to avoid questions about sex...it's not entirely impossible that the CO is using his/her power to get their...jollies. With gynecologists, you can always go to another if you get creepy vibes from yours; not so with consular interviewers.

These arguments like "it's not inappropriate/invasive/unjust because it's common/not illegal" aren't particularly logical. Just because their ability to ask these questions has not yet been challenged, doesn't mean that it is right or that there is no ground to challenge them. Even if questions about sex life are helpful to root out fraud, they still might not stand up if challenged in an American court. Consider the question of marital status in a job interview: potentially helpful to employers who want to avoid having their employee take time off for children? Yes. Legal? No. In that case, the person being interviewed doesn't have the "right" to the job (just as people are arguing that interviewees don't have a "right" to a green card), but because of the difference in power between the person offering the job and the person trying to get it, there has to be some protection for the interviewee built into the process.
I can't remember if I got this link off this thread or another on VJ, but this article on marriage fraud talks about a CO that was using interviews to extort sexual favors, and the other article from the NYTimes mentioned in this thread says that officers are trained to avoid questions about sex...it's not entirely impossible that the CO is using his/her power to get their...jollies. With gynecologists, you can always go to another if you get creepy vibes from yours; not so with consular interviewers.

I wonder why always that someone bring a controversial post the OP never comes back again. It's more like dropping a bomb and running. On the other hand we seem love drama or we just need to drain our frustation. either way I still wonder why some OP doesn't come back to deal with the mess.

The only ones I am aware of are in the Canada Regional forum with Can Am couples deciding to live in Canada instead of the US after a while in the US. I am sure there are a few in other regional forums although I suspect the Canada option is probably higher due to proximity. The individual requirements for immigrating to other countries are so variable I don't know if a separate forum would be helpful, or if it would be best to have threads in the appropriate Regional forums.

Dude...four year old thread...

You can HAVE a joint sponsor and still fill out the EZ form as the petitioner (that's what I did, with no problems at NVC). You can't BE the joint sponsor and fill out the EZ form.

There are far too many variables at play here, and I think anyone who takes a black-and-white view fails to see the whole picture. I, for one, am grateful that the USCIS understands the great variation among its petitioners and tries to accommodate these differences.
I have lived abroad for five years, and would now like to return home to the USA to enter into a PhD program. As a PhD student, I will barely meet the poverty guidelines. I met my husband abroad, and while there are arguments floating around here stating "You could have found your love in the USA," this was not the path my life took. Should I have stopped myself from falling in love with him, because I somehow should have known that I would struggle to meet the poverty guidelines if and when we wanted to move the USA?
My husband's earning potential is high (fingers crossed he will find a job quickly), but is it possible for the two of us to survive on 125% of the poverty line? Absolutely. I have lived on less. However, if the USCIS did not allow me the option to have a co-sponsor, I would probably not be approved and my husband and I would look elsewhere to move.
I think it's fair to say that no two cases are the same. Are there people getting married who can't even support themselves? Sure, but I don't think povery requirements will stop that.
Anyway, I'm just grateful that the USCIS sees each case as individual, and does not apply a one-size-fits-all policy. I would likely fall through the cracks that way.

I think you should revisit your assumption that getting a "better education" equates with being rich, especially at the early stage, when many people are considering starting families. I am in my mid-20s, and am half-way through a Ph.D. program at a prestigious university, after getting a BS at another well-acclaimed university. It would be hard to deny that I am highly educated. It would also be hard to deny that I am of an appropriate age to get married. However, based on the policy you propose, I could not bring my fiancé here to come live with me, even though I can comfortably enjoy my current lifestyle with him as an addition. I do NOT make 200% of poverty line. I make $30k a year as a student now. Academia (education for education's sake) is not a high-profitting career track.

I concur the level is very low but I guess it takes into consideration college students and others whose circumstances are legit.

No it's not. It's a misinterpretation of that link. "unmarried" is different to "single".

Yes it's a problem. She is married NOT single. She must file "married filing separately" or "married filing joint". Separately would be better if she isn't in the US. She can file for head of household but she STILL needs to file as "married"
This is incorrect. You need to amend your tax returns to file "married filing separately". Aside from it being the proper legal route you should get a bigger return.
Which is incorrect advise for them to give her. They would write "NRA" (for Non-resident Alien) in the SSN section when filing married filing separately.

Completely agree. An agent told me that preparers don't understand how to file married,if the spouse is overseas. Most preparers don't know about the W-7, or ITIN number because they see it so infrequently. They're telling people to do that, because they don't want to say, "I don't know". But if you are married, and file single, like Foobaz said, it could look suspicious to the VO.
Matt