pushbrk

Whoever said that was grossly incorrect.
 
The only passport that will be required for the interview is the valid one; no need to bring the expired one unless it contains entry/exit stamps from trip the two of you took together.

That policy started in November, 2006.  The two files are adjudicated together.  Currently, the I-129F is almost always simply cancelled in favor of the I-130.  If an I-130/I-129F for spouse case is adjudicated early, the logistics of locating the I-130 to put it together with the I-129F, results in both files being on the same desk.  When that happens, it seems more efficient to simply deal with them both on the spot instead of returning them both to the original storage location for the I-130.  Nobody is "grabbing the I-129F first".  Both files get together through some logistic process.

That policy started in November, 2006.  The two files are adjudicated together.  Currently, the I-129F is almost always simply cancelled in favor of the I-130.  If an I-130/I-129F for spouse case is adjudicated early, the logistics of locating the I-130 to put it together with the I-129F, results in both files being on the same desk.  When that happens, it seems more efficient to simply deal with them both on the spot instead of returning them both to the original storage location for the I-130.  Nobody is "grabbing the I-129F first".  Both files get together through some logistic process.

I already understood and answered your question.  I made no assumptions and advise against you doing so, as your assumptions are incorrect.

Yes, you choose one of those options, but not "depending on where the BENEFICIARY will have their interview".  You chose the option that is applicable, then enter the applicable information.  If adjusting status, the COUPLE has an interview, not just the BENEFICIARY.
 
It's understandably confusing though because if adjusting status is the goal, the case will be sent to the correct office, based on the current address, regardless of what you enter there.  Unless you've actually looked up the correct office based on your county, you could guess wrong and it still will go where it is supposed to go.  If Chinese, and you put Beijing, the case will still go to Guangzhou for a visa interview, so the same principle applies to the visa process.

"Owing" is not a problem.  If there is an IRS Tax lien, then the full amount of the lien is subtracted from their income.  If they are making payments against a lien, the payments will be subtracted from their qualifying income.  No lien, no problem.

Nice theory, but USCIS started joining the two petitions and adjudicating them together, in November of 2006.  It's pulling the I-130 to join it with the I-129F that gets it on somebody's desk sooner.  Whether they go ahead and kill the I-129F and approve the I-130 at that time, is a crapshoot, probably worth the trouble of completing and mailing another form.

Denying or closing the I-129F is an EXPECTED thing by everybody who files it for a spouse.  The reason for filing it is to get faster approval of the I-130.  The actual K3 visa, has been virtually unavailable for several years.  What changed was that USCIS is now killing the progress instead of NVC.  NVC started killing it February 1, 2010.

This is the logical explanation.  Since the two files have to be joined, in order to kill the I-129F, somebody already has the files on their desk.  Since it only takes about 30 minutes to adjudicate an I-130, they might as well deal with what is in front of them, instead of returning both cases to storage.  Whether this is happening, I have no information, but it IS logical.

This is the logical explanation.  Since the two files have to be joined, in order to kill the I-129F, somebody already has the files on their desk.  Since it only takes about 30 minutes to adjudicate an I-130, they might as well deal with what is in front of them, instead of returning both cases to storage.  Whether this is happening, I have no information, but it IS logical.

Denying or closing the I-129F is an EXPECTED thing by everybody who files it for a spouse.  The reason for filing it is to get faster approval of the I-130.  The actual K3 visa, has been virtually unavailable for several years.  What changed was that USCIS is now killing the progress instead of NVC.  NVC started killing it February 1, 2010.

Correct.  Do expect the Consular Officer to consider the child part of the household when making the judgment call on public charge, but you are not required to submit an updated I-864.  Belt and suspenders approach would be to have an updated signed affidavit in the applicant's hands on the interview date.
 
Too late for the OP to follow that advice but others tend to read these responses.

This is the logical explanation.  Since the two files have to be joined, in order to kill the I-129F, somebody already has the files on their desk.  Since it only takes about 30 minutes to adjudicate an I-130, they might as well deal with what is in front of them, instead of returning both cases to storage.  Whether this is happening, I have no information, but it IS logical.

Yup. The illogical aspect is why are they looking at the I-129F in the first place.  

See bold above. This is my experience as well. If you are out of processing standards for time, often the Senator's inquiry will get things moving quickly. They would rather report back something positive, if possible. When within processing times, USCIS tends to remind the Senator's staff member of exactly that. After a few of those, the staff knows not to bother.

Either should be fine
 
You are correct.  Student loans do not count as income

The devil is in the details.  If they can see the self employment on your 2018 tax return, then they see the impact to your line 6  total income.  If this is something new and temporary, then there IS NO "INCOME" from contract work (self employment) UNTIL it shows on a tax return.  If this contract work is new this year don't include it.  

Ask the wrong question and you're likely to get the wrong answer.  This is not a "sidekick JOB".  It's contract work, meaning not a job, but a "business".

Always ok to tell the truth.

Receipt number and case number are the same.  
That stopped years ago.  Checks aren't deposited like they used to be, so no endorsement either.  Maybe ten years ago that would work.

Nobody wants to wait, but the delays are primarily due to high demand / large backlog. Long term fixes for that are difficult to come by, especially in something so regulated. It is what is it. 🤷‍♂️
 
First, make sure wherever you travel permits remote work on the intended visa, and any tax consequences of doing so. Just because it's available remotely does not mean a country can't consider it as employment within the country. You don't want to get in any trouble while waiting things out, or to end up with unexpected tax documentations and/or liability.
No (caveat below). Possibly. The CO would look at your current income and work history to make a decision if the beneficiary is likely to become a public charge. It doesn't particularly raises a concern IMO, but others might disagree. Not directly, although it may or may not trigger extended background checks depending on where, how often, etc. Nobody can say with certainly what triggers these or how long they will take in any individual case. B-1 or B-2 is fine to marry so long as she intends to leave. Entering with intent to stay would be an issue, but entering to marry then complete the process abroad is permitted fine. No need to register or record a foreign-obtained marriage in the US. If it's not in English, it will need a translation is all. Specific marriage documentation needed varies by country: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/Visa-Reciprocity-and-Civil-Documents-by-Country.html

Current income has nothing at all to do with 2019.  See bold above.  Your current income is what you will make in the next 12 months, based on what you make now.
 
If you lost your job just before you filed the affidavit your income is zero, no matter whether you've already made over the requirement so far this year.  If you got a job yesterday paying 50k, your income is 50k, no matter what you've made so far this year.
 
So, what I would do is provide an updated I-864 with your current income correctly stated, and have your spouse carry that to the interview with a current pay stub.
 
He can then ask if they will accept you alone and discard the joint sponsor.  If they say yes, your joint sponsor is off the hook.
 

Current income has nothing at all to do with 2019.  See bold above.  Your current income is what you will make in the next 12 months, based on what you make now.
 
If you lost your job just before you filed the affidavit your income is zero, no matter whether you've already made over the requirement so far this year.  If you got a job yesterday paying 50k, your income is 50k, no matter what you've made so far this year.
 
So, what I would do is provide an updated I-864 with your current income correctly stated, and have your spouse carry that to the interview with a current pay stub.
 
He can then ask if they will accept you alone and discard the joint sponsor.  If they say yes, your joint sponsor is off the hook.
 

I can't speak for everybody as to what they're concerned about, but some items I've seen mentioned by several members in the megathread are below:
Expansion of programs that are considered to make somebody a public charge, including use of certain housing/food/healthcare programs that were not considered previously. I-944 being necessary (disclosure of all sorts of information, including various debts, health insurance, etc.). Draft version here (final form not yet released): http://lallegal.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/I944-FRM-PubCharge-60Day-09262018.pdf Use of credit scores of applicants as a factor. Certain factors being considered a "heavily negative" factor, although it also establishes a "heavily positive" factor if the income is 250% of the FPL for the household size. Additional guidance on the education and skills of the applicant, such as their English proficiency

I can understand why you would think, feel, or wish "it really shouldn't be that complicated or subjective".  It is what it is though.  For a spouse sponsoring a spouse, there's a clear reason to believe the petitioner/sponsor is highly motivated to actually support their spouse.  Unless a joint sponsor is a close family member, or very close friend, the motivation to actually provide support is far less.  Consular Officers are making a judgment call on how likely it is the immigrant will become a public charge, not how likely it is the government will be able to collect from the joint sponsor.  Totality of circumstances can include lots of things, and does.

Anybody can argue what should and should not be, but that gets us nowhere.  It does not "help" the person wanting to understand what to do next.

Which, in my mind, means the primary Sponsor financial documents are more important than some people think......