jan22

With the possible exception of he first year, you will not qualify for the foreign income exclusion, as that only applies to income when you are living and earning outside the US. 
 
IMO, a main consideration -- for which I believe you should seek professional advice -- is how you can deal with paying into Social Security, Medicare, etc., to protect your future retirement needs (even if that's a long way off).

It is unlikely that a C1 would be issued when it is not the usual, logical flight pattern to get from Point A to Point B.  As others have said, since the requirements are exactly the same for a C1 and a B1/B2 visa, it makes no sense from a consular officer's viewpoint. Since the starting point for either visa adjudication is the assumption that the applicant intends to go to the US and stay, they need to not only be convinced that there are strong reasons to leave the US (and, no -- onward tickets are not a strong reason), but also that a transit visa is needed for the travel itinerary.  Since there are, clearly, several routes from Cali to Puerto Vallarta that do not require transiting the US, it will be difficult to justify why one is needed.
 
This can also appear to be an attempt to "game the system" and using a C1 appointment -- which is much quicker to get since they are usually needed/used by crew members to get to their immediate assignment -- to get into the US quickly and avoid the long wait for a B visa interview. 
 
 

It is unlikely that a C1 would be issued when it is not the usual, logical flight pattern to get from Point A to Point B.  As others have said, since the requirements are exactly the same for a C1 and a B1/B2 visa, it makes no sense from a consular officer's viewpoint. Since the starting point for either visa adjudication is the assumption that the applicant intends to go to the US and stay, they need to not only be convinced that there are strong reasons to leave the US (and, no -- onward tickets are not a strong reason), but also that a transit visa is needed for the travel itinerary.  Since there are, clearly, several routes from Cali to Puerto Vallarta that do not require transiting the US, it will be difficult to justify why one is needed.
 
This can also appear to be an attempt to "game the system" and using a C1 appointment -- which is much quicker to get since they are usually needed/used by crew members to get to their immediate assignment -- to get into the US quickly and avoid the long wait for a B visa interview. 
 
 

It is unlikely that a C1 would be issued when it is not the usual, logical flight pattern to get from Point A to Point B.  As others have said, since the requirements are exactly the same for a C1 and a B1/B2 visa, it makes no sense from a consular officer's viewpoint. Since the starting point for either visa adjudication is the assumption that the applicant intends to go to the US and stay, they need to not only be convinced that there are strong reasons to leave the US (and, no -- onward tickets are not a strong reason), but also that a transit visa is needed for the travel itinerary.  Since there are, clearly, several routes from Cali to Puerto Vallarta that do not require transiting the US, it will be difficult to justify why one is needed.
 
This can also appear to be an attempt to "game the system" and using a C1 appointment -- which is much quicker to get since they are usually needed/used by crew members to get to their immediate assignment -- to get into the US quickly and avoid the long wait for a B visa interview. 
 
 

It is unlikely that a C1 would be issued when it is not the usual, logical flight pattern to get from Point A to Point B.  As others have said, since the requirements are exactly the same for a C1 and a B1/B2 visa, it makes no sense from a consular officer's viewpoint. Since the starting point for either visa adjudication is the assumption that the applicant intends to go to the US and stay, they need to not only be convinced that there are strong reasons to leave the US (and, no -- onward tickets are not a strong reason), but also that a transit visa is needed for the travel itinerary.  Since there are, clearly, several routes from Cali to Puerto Vallarta that do not require transiting the US, it will be difficult to justify why one is needed.
 
This can also appear to be an attempt to "game the system" and using a C1 appointment -- which is much quicker to get since they are usually needed/used by crew members to get to their immediate assignment -- to get into the US quickly and avoid the long wait for a B visa interview. 
 
 

It is unlikely that a C1 would be issued when it is not the usual, logical flight pattern to get from Point A to Point B.  As others have said, since the requirements are exactly the same for a C1 and a B1/B2 visa, it makes no sense from a consular officer's viewpoint. Since the starting point for either visa adjudication is the assumption that the applicant intends to go to the US and stay, they need to not only be convinced that there are strong reasons to leave the US (and, no -- onward tickets are not a strong reason), but also that a transit visa is needed for the travel itinerary.  Since there are, clearly, several routes from Cali to Puerto Vallarta that do not require transiting the US, it will be difficult to justify why one is needed.
 
This can also appear to be an attempt to "game the system" and using a C1 appointment -- which is much quicker to get since they are usually needed/used by crew members to get to their immediate assignment -- to get into the US quickly and avoid the long wait for a B visa interview. 
 
 

It is unlikely that a C1 would be issued when it is not the usual, logical flight pattern to get from Point A to Point B.  As others have said, since the requirements are exactly the same for a C1 and a B1/B2 visa, it makes no sense from a consular officer's viewpoint. Since the starting point for either visa adjudication is the assumption that the applicant intends to go to the US and stay, they need to not only be convinced that there are strong reasons to leave the US (and, no -- onward tickets are not a strong reason), but also that a transit visa is needed for the travel itinerary.  Since there are, clearly, several routes from Cali to Puerto Vallarta that do not require transiting the US, it will be difficult to justify why one is needed.
 
This can also appear to be an attempt to "game the system" and using a C1 appointment -- which is much quicker to get since they are usually needed/used by crew members to get to their immediate assignment -- to get into the US quickly and avoid the long wait for a B visa interview. 
 
 

It is unlikely that a C1 would be issued when it is not the usual, logical flight pattern to get from Point A to Point B.  As others have said, since the requirements are exactly the same for a C1 and a B1/B2 visa, it makes no sense from a consular officer's viewpoint. Since the starting point for either visa adjudication is the assumption that the applicant intends to go to the US and stay, they need to not only be convinced that there are strong reasons to leave the US (and, no -- onward tickets are not a strong reason), but also that a transit visa is needed for the travel itinerary.  Since there are, clearly, several routes from Cali to Puerto Vallarta that do not require transiting the US, it will be difficult to justify why one is needed.
 
This can also appear to be an attempt to "game the system" and using a C1 appointment -- which is much quicker to get since they are usually needed/used by crew members to get to their immediate assignment -- to get into the US quickly and avoid the long wait for a B visa interview. 
 
 

It is unlikely that a C1 would be issued when it is not the usual, logical flight pattern to get from Point A to Point B.  As others have said, since the requirements are exactly the same for a C1 and a B1/B2 visa, it makes no sense from a consular officer's viewpoint. Since the starting point for either visa adjudication is the assumption that the applicant intends to go to the US and stay, they need to not only be convinced that there are strong reasons to leave the US (and, no -- onward tickets are not a strong reason), but also that a transit visa is needed for the travel itinerary.  Since there are, clearly, several routes from Cali to Puerto Vallarta that do not require transiting the US, it will be difficult to justify why one is needed.
 
This can also appear to be an attempt to "game the system" and using a C1 appointment -- which is much quicker to get since they are usually needed/used by crew members to get to their immediate assignment -- to get into the US quickly and avoid the long wait for a B visa interview. 
 
 

He is probably referring to a visa common in parts of Europe and former colonies also referred to as a "gap year" visa. The US has no equivalent.
 
The length of the program does not control when a student visa is required.  A course that Iasts only a few weeks can require a student visa. It all depends on the couse structure and the outcome upon successful completion of it.  More importantly, I'm sure your school has clear procedures/requirements for foreign student admittance-- if it has I-120 issuing authority granted by DHS, which it must if it has foreign students.  Those procedures should be clearly communicated to him and followed, regardless of what he or anyone else tells you or asks you to do. 

There is no annual limit for non-immigrant visa issuance for any country -- totally depends on the number of qualified applicants.
 
Please use the space bar!

There is no annual limit for non-immigrant visa issuance for any country -- totally depends on the number of qualified applicants.
 
Please use the space bar!

There is no annual limit for non-immigrant visa issuance for any country -- totally depends on the number of qualified applicants.
 
Please use the space bar!

I'm coming into this discussion late, but have read the entire thread carefully.  At the risk of repeating what others have already said and of being thought to be negative in my response, I would like to review and perhaps clarify a couple of points from immigration's point of view..
 
"They" are not saying she was already legally married to another person -- SHE said in 2018 and 2019, under penalty of perjury, that she was married to Mr. B. USCIS is informing you that the earlier marriage was unknown at the time the I-130 was approved and are now giving you the opportunity to show the legal termination of that marriage.   In order to move forward, you must show how that previous marriage ended so she was free to marry you.
 
While an agent filling out the 2018 form might lead to credible deniability of the misrepresentation on her part, the fact that she repeated this on the 2019 application and added to it by saying her husband was going to pay for her studies, demolishes the idea of her being a vIctim of an agent's "mistake". It also makes any claims she makes now suspect; they likely will not be deemed credible. (The old lawyer's trick question of, "Were you lying then or are you lying now?" comes to mind.)
 
Relying on the idea that the current marriage is legally recognized in Rwanda and, therefore, must be accepted as valid by USCIS would mean that if you successfully commit fraud or misrepresentation on your own government (not saying this is the case here, just as illustration), it cannot ever be questioned by US immigration. As others have said, Rwanda can only record marriages legally performed in Rwanda. The Rwandan government cannot know, unless otherwIse reported to them, legal marriages solemnized elsewhere. USCIS will, in fact, recognize your marriage in Rwanda once you document the legal termination of the previously claimed marriage. The US government does not have to prove the first-claimed marriage actually occurred; rather, you have to prove it was legally ended. Proving it never occurred anywhere in the world is a pretty big hurdle.
 
Hope you get things worked out.

I'm coming into this discussion late, but have read the entire thread carefully.  At the risk of repeating what others have already said and of being thought to be negative in my response, I would like to review and perhaps clarify a couple of points from immigration's point of view..
 
"They" are not saying she was already legally married to another person -- SHE said in 2018 and 2019, under penalty of perjury, that she was married to Mr. B. USCIS is informing you that the earlier marriage was unknown at the time the I-130 was approved and are now giving you the opportunity to show the legal termination of that marriage.   In order to move forward, you must show how that previous marriage ended so she was free to marry you.
 
While an agent filling out the 2018 form might lead to credible deniability of the misrepresentation on her part, the fact that she repeated this on the 2019 application and added to it by saying her husband was going to pay for her studies, demolishes the idea of her being a vIctim of an agent's "mistake". It also makes any claims she makes now suspect; they likely will not be deemed credible. (The old lawyer's trick question of, "Were you lying then or are you lying now?" comes to mind.)
 
Relying on the idea that the current marriage is legally recognized in Rwanda and, therefore, must be accepted as valid by USCIS would mean that if you successfully commit fraud or misrepresentation on your own government (not saying this is the case here, just as illustration), it cannot ever be questioned by US immigration. As others have said, Rwanda can only record marriages legally performed in Rwanda. The Rwandan government cannot know, unless otherwIse reported to them, legal marriages solemnized elsewhere. USCIS will, in fact, recognize your marriage in Rwanda once you document the legal termination of the previously claimed marriage. The US government does not have to prove the first-claimed marriage actually occurred; rather, you have to prove it was legally ended. Proving it never occurred anywhere in the world is a pretty big hurdle.
 
Hope you get things worked out.

I'm coming into this discussion late, but have read the entire thread carefully.  At the risk of repeating what others have already said and of being thought to be negative in my response, I would like to review and perhaps clarify a couple of points from immigration's point of view..
 
"They" are not saying she was already legally married to another person -- SHE said in 2018 and 2019, under penalty of perjury, that she was married to Mr. B. USCIS is informing you that the earlier marriage was unknown at the time the I-130 was approved and are now giving you the opportunity to show the legal termination of that marriage.   In order to move forward, you must show how that previous marriage ended so she was free to marry you.
 
While an agent filling out the 2018 form might lead to credible deniability of the misrepresentation on her part, the fact that she repeated this on the 2019 application and added to it by saying her husband was going to pay for her studies, demolishes the idea of her being a vIctim of an agent's "mistake". It also makes any claims she makes now suspect; they likely will not be deemed credible. (The old lawyer's trick question of, "Were you lying then or are you lying now?" comes to mind.)
 
Relying on the idea that the current marriage is legally recognized in Rwanda and, therefore, must be accepted as valid by USCIS would mean that if you successfully commit fraud or misrepresentation on your own government (not saying this is the case here, just as illustration), it cannot ever be questioned by US immigration. As others have said, Rwanda can only record marriages legally performed in Rwanda. The Rwandan government cannot know, unless otherwIse reported to them, legal marriages solemnized elsewhere. USCIS will, in fact, recognize your marriage in Rwanda once you document the legal termination of the previously claimed marriage. The US government does not have to prove the first-claimed marriage actually occurred; rather, you have to prove it was legally ended. Proving it never occurred anywhere in the world is a pretty big hurdle.
 
Hope you get things worked out.

I'm coming into this discussion late, but have read the entire thread carefully.  At the risk of repeating what others have already said and of being thought to be negative in my response, I would like to review and perhaps clarify a couple of points from immigration's point of view..
 
"They" are not saying she was already legally married to another person -- SHE said in 2018 and 2019, under penalty of perjury, that she was married to Mr. B. USCIS is informing you that the earlier marriage was unknown at the time the I-130 was approved and are now giving you the opportunity to show the legal termination of that marriage.   In order to move forward, you must show how that previous marriage ended so she was free to marry you.
 
While an agent filling out the 2018 form might lead to credible deniability of the misrepresentation on her part, the fact that she repeated this on the 2019 application and added to it by saying her husband was going to pay for her studies, demolishes the idea of her being a vIctim of an agent's "mistake". It also makes any claims she makes now suspect; they likely will not be deemed credible. (The old lawyer's trick question of, "Were you lying then or are you lying now?" comes to mind.)
 
Relying on the idea that the current marriage is legally recognized in Rwanda and, therefore, must be accepted as valid by USCIS would mean that if you successfully commit fraud or misrepresentation on your own government (not saying this is the case here, just as illustration), it cannot ever be questioned by US immigration. As others have said, Rwanda can only record marriages legally performed in Rwanda. The Rwandan government cannot know, unless otherwIse reported to them, legal marriages solemnized elsewhere. USCIS will, in fact, recognize your marriage in Rwanda once you document the legal termination of the previously claimed marriage. The US government does not have to prove the first-claimed marriage actually occurred; rather, you have to prove it was legally ended. Proving it never occurred anywhere in the world is a pretty big hurdle.
 
Hope you get things worked out.

I'm coming into this discussion late, but have read the entire thread carefully.  At the risk of repeating what others have already said and of being thought to be negative in my response, I would like to review and perhaps clarify a couple of points from immigration's point of view..
 
"They" are not saying she was already legally married to another person -- SHE said in 2018 and 2019, under penalty of perjury, that she was married to Mr. B. USCIS is informing you that the earlier marriage was unknown at the time the I-130 was approved and are now giving you the opportunity to show the legal termination of that marriage.   In order to move forward, you must show how that previous marriage ended so she was free to marry you.
 
While an agent filling out the 2018 form might lead to credible deniability of the misrepresentation on her part, the fact that she repeated this on the 2019 application and added to it by saying her husband was going to pay for her studies, demolishes the idea of her being a vIctim of an agent's "mistake". It also makes any claims she makes now suspect; they likely will not be deemed credible. (The old lawyer's trick question of, "Were you lying then or are you lying now?" comes to mind.)
 
Relying on the idea that the current marriage is legally recognized in Rwanda and, therefore, must be accepted as valid by USCIS would mean that if you successfully commit fraud or misrepresentation on your own government (not saying this is the case here, just as illustration), it cannot ever be questioned by US immigration. As others have said, Rwanda can only record marriages legally performed in Rwanda. The Rwandan government cannot know, unless otherwIse reported to them, legal marriages solemnized elsewhere. USCIS will, in fact, recognize your marriage in Rwanda once you document the legal termination of the previously claimed marriage. The US government does not have to prove the first-claimed marriage actually occurred; rather, you have to prove it was legally ended. Proving it never occurred anywhere in the world is a pretty big hurdle.
 
Hope you get things worked out.

I'm coming into this discussion late, but have read the entire thread carefully.  At the risk of repeating what others have already said and of being thought to be negative in my response, I would like to review and perhaps clarify a couple of points from immigration's point of view..
 
"They" are not saying she was already legally married to another person -- SHE said in 2018 and 2019, under penalty of perjury, that she was married to Mr. B. USCIS is informing you that the earlier marriage was unknown at the time the I-130 was approved and are now giving you the opportunity to show the legal termination of that marriage.   In order to move forward, you must show how that previous marriage ended so she was free to marry you.
 
While an agent filling out the 2018 form might lead to credible deniability of the misrepresentation on her part, the fact that she repeated this on the 2019 application and added to it by saying her husband was going to pay for her studies, demolishes the idea of her being a vIctim of an agent's "mistake". It also makes any claims she makes now suspect; they likely will not be deemed credible. (The old lawyer's trick question of, "Were you lying then or are you lying now?" comes to mind.)
 
Relying on the idea that the current marriage is legally recognized in Rwanda and, therefore, must be accepted as valid by USCIS would mean that if you successfully commit fraud or misrepresentation on your own government (not saying this is the case here, just as illustration), it cannot ever be questioned by US immigration. As others have said, Rwanda can only record marriages legally performed in Rwanda. The Rwandan government cannot know, unless otherwIse reported to them, legal marriages solemnized elsewhere. USCIS will, in fact, recognize your marriage in Rwanda once you document the legal termination of the previously claimed marriage. The US government does not have to prove the first-claimed marriage actually occurred; rather, you have to prove it was legally ended. Proving it never occurred anywhere in the world is a pretty big hurdle.
 
Hope you get things worked out.

I'm coming into this discussion late, but have read the entire thread carefully.  At the risk of repeating what others have already said and of being thought to be negative in my response, I would like to review and perhaps clarify a couple of points from immigration's point of view..
 
"They" are not saying she was already legally married to another person -- SHE said in 2018 and 2019, under penalty of perjury, that she was married to Mr. B. USCIS is informing you that the earlier marriage was unknown at the time the I-130 was approved and are now giving you the opportunity to show the legal termination of that marriage.   In order to move forward, you must show how that previous marriage ended so she was free to marry you.
 
While an agent filling out the 2018 form might lead to credible deniability of the misrepresentation on her part, the fact that she repeated this on the 2019 application and added to it by saying her husband was going to pay for her studies, demolishes the idea of her being a vIctim of an agent's "mistake". It also makes any claims she makes now suspect; they likely will not be deemed credible. (The old lawyer's trick question of, "Were you lying then or are you lying now?" comes to mind.)
 
Relying on the idea that the current marriage is legally recognized in Rwanda and, therefore, must be accepted as valid by USCIS would mean that if you successfully commit fraud or misrepresentation on your own government (not saying this is the case here, just as illustration), it cannot ever be questioned by US immigration. As others have said, Rwanda can only record marriages legally performed in Rwanda. The Rwandan government cannot know, unless otherwIse reported to them, legal marriages solemnized elsewhere. USCIS will, in fact, recognize your marriage in Rwanda once you document the legal termination of the previously claimed marriage. The US government does not have to prove the first-claimed marriage actually occurred; rather, you have to prove it was legally ended. Proving it never occurred anywhere in the world is a pretty big hurdle.
 
Hope you get things worked out.

I'm coming into this discussion late, but have read the entire thread carefully.  At the risk of repeating what others have already said and of being thought to be negative in my response, I would like to review and perhaps clarify a couple of points from immigration's point of view..
 
"They" are not saying she was already legally married to another person -- SHE said in 2018 and 2019, under penalty of perjury, that she was married to Mr. B. USCIS is informing you that the earlier marriage was unknown at the time the I-130 was approved and are now giving you the opportunity to show the legal termination of that marriage.   In order to move forward, you must show how that previous marriage ended so she was free to marry you.
 
While an agent filling out the 2018 form might lead to credible deniability of the misrepresentation on her part, the fact that she repeated this on the 2019 application and added to it by saying her husband was going to pay for her studies, demolishes the idea of her being a vIctim of an agent's "mistake". It also makes any claims she makes now suspect; they likely will not be deemed credible. (The old lawyer's trick question of, "Were you lying then or are you lying now?" comes to mind.)
 
Relying on the idea that the current marriage is legally recognized in Rwanda and, therefore, must be accepted as valid by USCIS would mean that if you successfully commit fraud or misrepresentation on your own government (not saying this is the case here, just as illustration), it cannot ever be questioned by US immigration. As others have said, Rwanda can only record marriages legally performed in Rwanda. The Rwandan government cannot know, unless otherwIse reported to them, legal marriages solemnized elsewhere. USCIS will, in fact, recognize your marriage in Rwanda once you document the legal termination of the previously claimed marriage. The US government does not have to prove the first-claimed marriage actually occurred; rather, you have to prove it was legally ended. Proving it never occurred anywhere in the world is a pretty big hurdle.
 
Hope you get things worked out.

I'm coming into this discussion late, but have read the entire thread carefully.  At the risk of repeating what others have already said and of being thought to be negative in my response, I would like to review and perhaps clarify a couple of points from immigration's point of view..
 
"They" are not saying she was already legally married to another person -- SHE said in 2018 and 2019, under penalty of perjury, that she was married to Mr. B. USCIS is informing you that the earlier marriage was unknown at the time the I-130 was approved and are now giving you the opportunity to show the legal termination of that marriage.   In order to move forward, you must show how that previous marriage ended so she was free to marry you.
 
While an agent filling out the 2018 form might lead to credible deniability of the misrepresentation on her part, the fact that she repeated this on the 2019 application and added to it by saying her husband was going to pay for her studies, demolishes the idea of her being a vIctim of an agent's "mistake". It also makes any claims she makes now suspect; they likely will not be deemed credible. (The old lawyer's trick question of, "Were you lying then or are you lying now?" comes to mind.)
 
Relying on the idea that the current marriage is legally recognized in Rwanda and, therefore, must be accepted as valid by USCIS would mean that if you successfully commit fraud or misrepresentation on your own government (not saying this is the case here, just as illustration), it cannot ever be questioned by US immigration. As others have said, Rwanda can only record marriages legally performed in Rwanda. The Rwandan government cannot know, unless otherwIse reported to them, legal marriages solemnized elsewhere. USCIS will, in fact, recognize your marriage in Rwanda once you document the legal termination of the previously claimed marriage. The US government does not have to prove the first-claimed marriage actually occurred; rather, you have to prove it was legally ended. Proving it never occurred anywhere in the world is a pretty big hurdle.
 
Hope you get things worked out.

I'm coming into this discussion late, but have read the entire thread carefully.  At the risk of repeating what others have already said and of being thought to be negative in my response, I would like to review and perhaps clarify a couple of points from immigration's point of view..
 
"They" are not saying she was already legally married to another person -- SHE said in 2018 and 2019, under penalty of perjury, that she was married to Mr. B. USCIS is informing you that the earlier marriage was unknown at the time the I-130 was approved and are now giving you the opportunity to show the legal termination of that marriage.   In order to move forward, you must show how that previous marriage ended so she was free to marry you.
 
While an agent filling out the 2018 form might lead to credible deniability of the misrepresentation on her part, the fact that she repeated this on the 2019 application and added to it by saying her husband was going to pay for her studies, demolishes the idea of her being a vIctim of an agent's "mistake". It also makes any claims she makes now suspect; they likely will not be deemed credible. (The old lawyer's trick question of, "Were you lying then or are you lying now?" comes to mind.)
 
Relying on the idea that the current marriage is legally recognized in Rwanda and, therefore, must be accepted as valid by USCIS would mean that if you successfully commit fraud or misrepresentation on your own government (not saying this is the case here, just as illustration), it cannot ever be questioned by US immigration. As others have said, Rwanda can only record marriages legally performed in Rwanda. The Rwandan government cannot know, unless otherwIse reported to them, legal marriages solemnized elsewhere. USCIS will, in fact, recognize your marriage in Rwanda once you document the legal termination of the previously claimed marriage. The US government does not have to prove the first-claimed marriage actually occurred; rather, you have to prove it was legally ended. Proving it never occurred anywhere in the world is a pretty big hurdle.
 
Hope you get things worked out.

I'm coming into this discussion late, but have read the entire thread carefully.  At the risk of repeating what others have already said and of being thought to be negative in my response, I would like to review and perhaps clarify a couple of points from immigration's point of view..
 
"They" are not saying she was already legally married to another person -- SHE said in 2018 and 2019, under penalty of perjury, that she was married to Mr. B. USCIS is informing you that the earlier marriage was unknown at the time the I-130 was approved and are now giving you the opportunity to show the legal termination of that marriage.   In order to move forward, you must show how that previous marriage ended so she was free to marry you.
 
While an agent filling out the 2018 form might lead to credible deniability of the misrepresentation on her part, the fact that she repeated this on the 2019 application and added to it by saying her husband was going to pay for her studies, demolishes the idea of her being a vIctim of an agent's "mistake". It also makes any claims she makes now suspect; they likely will not be deemed credible. (The old lawyer's trick question of, "Were you lying then or are you lying now?" comes to mind.)
 
Relying on the idea that the current marriage is legally recognized in Rwanda and, therefore, must be accepted as valid by USCIS would mean that if you successfully commit fraud or misrepresentation on your own government (not saying this is the case here, just as illustration), it cannot ever be questioned by US immigration. As others have said, Rwanda can only record marriages legally performed in Rwanda. The Rwandan government cannot know, unless otherwIse reported to them, legal marriages solemnized elsewhere. USCIS will, in fact, recognize your marriage in Rwanda once you document the legal termination of the previously claimed marriage. The US government does not have to prove the first-claimed marriage actually occurred; rather, you have to prove it was legally ended. Proving it never occurred anywhere in the world is a pretty big hurdle.
 
Hope you get things worked out.

Per the OP, she does not have the scholastic or experiential background that would qualify her for an H1, regardless of the family's business and their willingness to pay her.  And, should mention that an H1 would not likely be available until October 1st even if she and the business qualified -- long after she left the US.