dawning

Did they also abandon the joint bank accounts, joint credit cards, joint insurance, joint lease? Does that mean that joint bank accounts mean nothing? 
 
Nobody is arguing that children together is enough evidence for bona fide marriage. And no one is saying that without children you can't be approved. Absolutely nobody is claiming that, it's a strawman. But children are a very strong evidence and this has nothing to do with discrimination. In many countries, for example, family approval is very important but that's not considered discrimination against those with bad family situations. It's just that certain things are more convincing than others. 
 
And children from flings are not a good example. We're not talking about people randomly getting knocked up and then deciding not to terminate for whatever reason. We're talking about a couple that's living together. How many couples live together and then have a child without them being an actual couple? I don't know any. 
 
Having pictures together proves nothing but that the two people were somewhere at the same time and a camera was involved. Does that mean pictures are not good evidence? Of course not, they can be great evidence, especially for fiance visas. But they're not enough. 
 
Joint insurance is easy to break. It's really not a complicated thing. Joint bank accounts - also easy to either close or just open your own account and ask your employer to deposit your paycheck there. Joint credit cards? Let's be serious here, people open and close credit cards all the time. Chat logs? I have chat logs with all my friends and family, does that mean I'm married to them? 
 
Living together? People live together as roommates all the time. This doesn't mean they're in a relationship. Having a mortgage together? OK, that's pretty hard to get out of and it's a great piece of evidence, not that scammers would mind being added to a house deed. But let's assume that a mortgage together is a very strong piece of evidence because it just is. Then could you argue that it's discriminatory against: people who can't afford to buy a home (yet or maybe ever); people living in high cost of living cities where real estate prices are insane; people who already have their mortgage paid off before they get married; people who don't want to own and home; people who don't want to borrow money for religious reasons; people who don't believe in shared debt; couples that have decided to have only one person on the mortgage because of credit score or debt issues, etc. Should USCIS stop considering joint mortgages as very strong evidence because not everyone can show it? Certainly not. The fact remains that most people don't take this decision to get a joint mortgage lightly. 

I also find it a little puzzling how insistent some posters on here are that children in common are not any kind of evidence.  While obviously everyone makes decisions differently, anyone wanting to have a child and a relationship to that child should probably think carefully about the who the other parent will be, as shared custody with someone from a different values set can be very difficult. 
 
I don't buy the idea that to accept children as evidence from couples that are able and want to have children is discrimination against those who aren't able or don't want to.  Having both parties' names on the deed to the house is good evidence, probably better than just a rental agreement which is more temporary and easier to modify, but that's not discrimination against those who can't afford a house or prefer to rent.
 
I also find it interesting that OP has had an answer from two USCIS officers that children are excellent evidence, and yet posters here continue to insist they aren't.  Were the officers lying?

I also find it a little puzzling how insistent some posters on here are that children in common are not any kind of evidence.  While obviously everyone makes decisions differently, anyone wanting to have a child and a relationship to that child should probably think carefully about the who the other parent will be, as shared custody with someone from a different values set can be very difficult. 
 
I don't buy the idea that to accept children as evidence from couples that are able and want to have children is discrimination against those who aren't able or don't want to.  Having both parties' names on the deed to the house is good evidence, probably better than just a rental agreement which is more temporary and easier to modify, but that's not discrimination against those who can't afford a house or prefer to rent.
 
I also find it interesting that OP has had an answer from two USCIS officers that children are excellent evidence, and yet posters here continue to insist they aren't.  Were the officers lying?

This entire statement is highly inappropriate for the immigration interview and also is almost entirely incorrect.
 
She herself will almost certainly not be able to get medicaid, since it is a program for low-income individuals. She most certainly will get Medicare (and Social Security) as the federal government literally exists to provide these benefits (they are mandatory and constitute over half of the budget). Suggesting that the system might run out of money is as ludicrous as suggesting that the US government might not be able to either collect taxes or raise debt. With enough luck, soon she will be able to enroll in Medicare for All, and then forget worrying about being able to afford healthcare (much like in most other rich countries).
 
But also, the majority of so-called "chain migration" is spouses and children of US citizens, who are not eligible for any benefits in the years leading to naturalization, while still paying all the taxes (at an income that is on average higher than average in the country). While some people (including older people) will end up using more benefits than they paid in the system, overall immigration is a massive asset to the country. To put it in other words, imagine if you were not allowed to bring your aging parent here -- would you move to the United States, or have to stay in your home country to care for them? Would you want the US government to force you in this choice?
 
The lady in question made the United States her home. She lives here now, and she will probably die here. She deserves to be a citizen, and she deserves the dignity of being able to live well.

That’s incredibly offensive. 
 
First of all, people do what they need to do for survival. Fortunately, I have never been in that position and for that, I am lucky. I am in no position to judge. They are very good people.
 
Second of all, if you have ever lived in NYC, you’ll realize how many people do this. Many people keep it under wraps, but it’s seriously like every third person you meet. It is also prevelant in the bar and restaurant industry, which is what I worked in through college and for a while after. 
 
My choices are not their choices. I’m more than privledged to come from a middle class family in a safe neighborhood where i have never been threatened. I’ll never truly know what it is like to be in their shoes. My husband came on the K1 legally so that’s proof that we make different choices. Do I know where to get a fake SSN? Yes, of course. Everyone in NYC does. Is my husband patiently waiting for his EAD card for month #5? Yes, he is. He could have easily began months ago. But my husband had an “in”  by marrying me. People I know do not have that option. 
 
You have absolutely no place to judge. 

In 2014 I filed 2013 tax year as married filing separately because my husband hadn't come to the US yet and did not have an SSN.  I used Turbo Tax and printed the returns to mail, writing NRA  by hand in the SSN spot.  My state of California also seemed to be a community property state and TT guided my through that part of the return.  It mostly had to do with providing information about my husband's income in the tax year, which was all in his home country.   I used the desktop version.
 
I hope that helps!

I think it's probably more prudent to send it back.  In some counties they have been known to call people who didn't show up on the posted date and demand to know why they weren't there.  Saves hassle and maybe future summons if you let them know you are not eligible.

If her fiance is a US citizen and meets some other requirements (certain amount of residency in the US) his daughter can be registered as a USC at the embassy and could travel with a US passport to the US.  Google CRBA (Consular report of Birth Abroad).  If that hasn't been done then it might be hard for her to travel. 
If he's not a USC he cannot petition for a fiance to immigrate to the US.
 
It's true that the other things he is saying seem odd, both the timeline and the idea that a case that far along would not have a case number, or multiple case numbers.  Does she trust him generally?  Does she think he knows what he's talking about?  
It IS a confusing process, if he has good intentions but genuinely doesn't understand the process perhaps he should join her and read up on it.

I am kind of surprised at the responses OP is getting here.  When a USC posts that his/her immigrant spouse is cheating after a few months of marriage usually they get responses like "good thing you found out about it now, before xyz".  But here the immigrant has been betrayed and several people are telling her she should go home or criticizing her for not having a job, even though it doesn't sound like she has been authorized to work for very long.
 
There were a lot of supportive answers as well.  But the critical ones make me feel like there is a double standard operating.   Why would that be?

I am kind of surprised at the responses OP is getting here.  When a USC posts that his/her immigrant spouse is cheating after a few months of marriage usually they get responses like "good thing you found out about it now, before xyz".  But here the immigrant has been betrayed and several people are telling her she should go home or criticizing her for not having a job, even though it doesn't sound like she has been authorized to work for very long.
 
There were a lot of supportive answers as well.  But the critical ones make me feel like there is a double standard operating.   Why would that be?

I am kind of surprised at the responses OP is getting here.  When a USC posts that his/her immigrant spouse is cheating after a few months of marriage usually they get responses like "good thing you found out about it now, before xyz".  But here the immigrant has been betrayed and several people are telling her she should go home or criticizing her for not having a job, even though it doesn't sound like she has been authorized to work for very long.
 
There were a lot of supportive answers as well.  But the critical ones make me feel like there is a double standard operating.   Why would that be?

I am kind of surprised at the responses OP is getting here.  When a USC posts that his/her immigrant spouse is cheating after a few months of marriage usually they get responses like "good thing you found out about it now, before xyz".  But here the immigrant has been betrayed and several people are telling her she should go home or criticizing her for not having a job, even though it doesn't sound like she has been authorized to work for very long.
 
There were a lot of supportive answers as well.  But the critical ones make me feel like there is a double standard operating.   Why would that be?

I am kind of surprised at the responses OP is getting here.  When a USC posts that his/her immigrant spouse is cheating after a few months of marriage usually they get responses like "good thing you found out about it now, before xyz".  But here the immigrant has been betrayed and several people are telling her she should go home or criticizing her for not having a job, even though it doesn't sound like she has been authorized to work for very long.
 
There were a lot of supportive answers as well.  But the critical ones make me feel like there is a double standard operating.   Why would that be?

I am kind of surprised at the responses OP is getting here.  When a USC posts that his/her immigrant spouse is cheating after a few months of marriage usually they get responses like "good thing you found out about it now, before xyz".  But here the immigrant has been betrayed and several people are telling her she should go home or criticizing her for not having a job, even though it doesn't sound like she has been authorized to work for very long.
 
There were a lot of supportive answers as well.  But the critical ones make me feel like there is a double standard operating.   Why would that be?

I am kind of surprised at the responses OP is getting here.  When a USC posts that his/her immigrant spouse is cheating after a few months of marriage usually they get responses like "good thing you found out about it now, before xyz".  But here the immigrant has been betrayed and several people are telling her she should go home or criticizing her for not having a job, even though it doesn't sound like she has been authorized to work for very long.
 
There were a lot of supportive answers as well.  But the critical ones make me feel like there is a double standard operating.   Why would that be?

I have seen this statement a lot here, and find it puzzling.  Yes, if you are fertile and you can have sex with another fertile person, and it can often result in pregnancy, and this in and of itself does not prove a bona fide relationship. 
BUT, in the context of a marriage it does serve as some (not the only) evidence of a bona fide relationship.  Roel says "You can have a child with everyone, but you get that mortgage or car loan usually only with trusted spouse."   Speaking for myself, I would be more willing to financially co-mingle with someone "just for show" than to have a child.  (Not that I am going to do either one.)  Money is replaceable, and children are not.  Having a child with someone opens you up to custody disputes and painful and costly family drama if the relationship doesn't work out, in the same way that financial co-mingling opens you up to financial loss and financial disputes if the relationship doesn't work out.  Both are risks that genuine couples are more likely to take.
Of course it's always possible that one person is scamming the other, and willing to go through all kinds of motions to gain the visa/green card.  But the same could happen with financial co-mingling: sign the car payment, joint bank account, and then dump the USC once you have the GC.  Especially with a male beneficiary who would not have to go through pregnancy and birth in order to make their evidence more compelling.
Not saying any of this applies to OP.  I am not an immigration officer, but if I were I would look at pregnancy within a marriage as one piece of evidence that would ideally be accompanied by other evidence such as multiple visits.  Financial co-mingling is good evidence too, but tricky to do when both parties are living in different countries.
 

My husband got his ROC approved May 31st with no interview.  He has not filed for citizenship.  That's the most recent data I can give.

My husband got his ROC approved May 31st with no interview.  He has not filed for citizenship.  That's the most recent data I can give.

My husband got his ROC approved May 31st with no interview.  He has not filed for citizenship.  That's the most recent data I can give.

Speaking as a mom, I don't think you should have someone who doesn't like your kids, and is stressed out by them, taking care of them.  I imagine your husband wants you to stay home with the kids because he knew you would take great care of them, and it sounds like your mother might not.  If you don't feel she was a good mother to you, don't put her in charge of your children.
 
Do you want her to work because the household needs the money?  Because you want her to move towards being independent(and maybe move out)?  Because you think she will be happier?  I agree that having her pastor talk with her might be helpful.  Maybe he can facilitate a more respectful conversation between you two as well if that seems useful.
 
Good luck!

I don't think that's strictly accurate.  Yeah, you don't have a RIGHT to be let in to the country as a non-citizen (what about as a citizen?), but hopefully you do have a right not to be tortured, killed, held for ransom, and so forth. 
 
I don't really have anything awful to hide either, in the sense of something like drug-smuggling or child-pornography, but what if they decide not to let me (or anyone) in because they don't like my politics?  Just look at how divisive this discussion has gotten because some think it is blaming the current president for something that was apparently also done during the last administration.  What if the CPB officer has a chip on his shoulder like some of the posters here?
Saying "I don't mind because I have nothing to hide" implies a high level of faith in the ethics of those conducting the surveillance, and I'm not convinced that trust is warranted.

I don't really have an answer for the OP, but I did just want to point out in fairness that small-town Italian restaurants may not really have food very much like what she is used to in Italy.  Quality and authenticity of ethnic foods, especially popular ones like Italian, can vary a lot especially in a region there are not many people of that ethnicity living.
 
Good luck!

I don't really have an answer for the OP, but I did just want to point out in fairness that small-town Italian restaurants may not really have food very much like what she is used to in Italy.  Quality and authenticity of ethnic foods, especially popular ones like Italian, can vary a lot especially in a region there are not many people of that ethnicity living.
 
Good luck!

I don't really have an answer for the OP, but I did just want to point out in fairness that small-town Italian restaurants may not really have food very much like what she is used to in Italy.  Quality and authenticity of ethnic foods, especially popular ones like Italian, can vary a lot especially in a region there are not many people of that ethnicity living.
 
Good luck!

If you want to cut down on paper take the tax transcripts which are just a few pages instead of tax returns.