pushbrk

You're going to need to enhance your evidence. Are their bank records showing these deposits? What kind of business is this? How will her absence impact future profits (from which her income will continue)?

OK. @Boiler asked about the 75k, and whether that's the amount she paid income tax on ie Profits. I mentioned other potential problems for you to consider. I still don't think the I-864a is the real problem. It's something else. Probably something Boiler or I mentioned. Given the children haven't reached NVC, they are definitely NOT considered to be "accompanying" her.

I asked if you filed three I-864 packages, one for each immigrant. I presume you did or you wouldn't have cleared NVC.

Right. Sorry. I neglected to consider the children. I'm not certain here children are CONSIDERED accompanying children, as they have their own petitions. Did you submit three sets of financial forms? I do NOT think the 864a is the actual problem though.

Another consideration in this kind of case is that the Consular Officer may not have said, but may have believed that BECAUSE the immigrant is the breadwinner, they entered into the relationship primarily for the immigration benefit, instead of a bona fide relationship. This also is part of the "totality of circumstances".

If you do that, submit a new properly completed I-864 with the wife's business income included. Don't use an I-864a. That was a mistake you made. Then, provide plenty of enhanced evidence that income will continue with her in the USA. An immigrant absolutely CAN effectively "self sponsor". It happens frequently, when the breadwinner is the immigrant, and their income will continue, or when the immigrant's liquid assets are used to qualify. Understand also, you are reading USCIS instructions. Consular Officers have similar guidelines but it is always a judgment call. In the situation you describe, an officer is going to consider the impact of your wife's absence on the continuing profitability of the business. Remember also, it is not the business revenue that counts. It's the profit. Officers are trained and required to consider the totality of circumstances in all cases, not just what you want them to consider.

First, you might be right about April, but any prediction of when in April is useless. Second, I advise filing the tax return as soon as possible, and take either a complete copy of the Return or Tax Return Transcript to the interview along with a more current pay stub.

I concur with the consolidated description of the relevant issues above. Do note though, there's no guarantee on the DCF part. I suspect your ultimate course, will simply be to wait to file anything until the child is adopted, and you have had legal custody for two years. Note also that the child becomes a citizen upon arrival as an immigrant, but husband gets a green card. (Lawful Permanent Resident Status).

Looks like a good list to me. But, for 8. stick to examples. Don't overdo it. For 9, leave it out. You sending money to her is not evidence of comingling finances. It is not YOUR sincerity that's being evaluated. It's hers.

If this is a spouse and step child or children, there should only be one AOS fee for the group. How are you related to these beneficiaries?

You send it to your fiancée to submit at the interview.

The visa for your spouse will be valid for six months past the medical exam date. Plenty of time to do the CRBA and passport before the visa expires. Get on it now though. You could have had this done already. Not sure what you mean by having time, but make time.

I'm talking about the next tax return, the year they are sponsoring an immigrant. That is actually a different topic. You can NOW file your 2023 tax return.

This context is a person expecting to file an affidavit of support early next year. So, the more up to date their affidavit is, the less they'll need to worry about updating it for an interview that will occur AFTER the filing deadline.

Since YOU receive the income for both of you and he is under 18, you would state your occupation as disabled and your current income is the total you show above. If your fiancée has no children, you would qualify.

Absolutely true if planning to remarry in the same country. Not necessarily true if remarriage were to happen in a different country. Invalid marriages are not "marriages" that need to be listed on the I-130, but if asked, the truth must not be hidden. It's an easy answer.

Correct. But the current bigamist marriage would need to be cleared from the books in the country where it took place, in order to marry again with a date later than the first divorce date. If they were to remarry in a different country, the could well simply ignore the invalid marriage.

Right, but even with the husband filing and upgrading, the son can come AFTER turning 18 with only the father liable as the sponsor. Since the husband will naturalize before the NVC, stage, the process would NOT take LONGER than if the stepmother files.

As soon as you have your W2. Employers have until the end of January to get those to you.

Absolute truth 1 above. Absolute truth 2, is that the year you sponsor an immigrant is NOT the year to delay filing your tax return. File as early as you can.

No issue at all, but she WILL include a current pay stub from the new employer as evidence of her current income. Tax related documents are about the past.

I don't know why it wouldn't be.

It doesn't expire. No need to update. If some important information has changed like an address or something, just deal with it in person. What needs to be updated is the Affidavit of Support. With this much time passing, complete and upload a new one with current information.

First, the vast majority of immigration lawyers know little about family based immigration. That's not where the money is. Mostly their clients are businesses seeking work related visas, or fighting deportation. Canada specific family based, probably doesn't exist.

Experiences prove over and over again that filing as single has NO IMPACT on the spouse immigration process. This is because Consular Officers understand why people do this.