pushbrk

Photos are secondary evidence, I would keep them all in one document.
 
Good Luck!

Correct.

I'm aware some people prefer belt AND suspenders.  My advice is not based on that.  The choice is with the OP.

I will assure the OP, that courier tracking is enough.  Certified mail can delay delivery.

"I've heard" is a well known source of misinformation.  The instructions for the I-130 will tell you what you need.  Download and become an A-student of that document. Click on the word "Guides" at the top of any page here.  No letter of intent in a spouse case, when filing an I-130.  In a year or so, you'll need to provide evidence of your intent to re-establish domicile in the USA.

How far along are you on the F2A for your spouse?  It appears the I130 was filed in 2022, so still a good two years out by my math.  I am wondering if an opt-out request of the automatic conversion to IR1 would be an option here to maintain your step-daughter as a derivative.  Depends of course on your family priorities.
 
 

I will assure the OP, that courier tracking is enough.  Certified mail can delay delivery.

While the submitted form remains valid, certain changes can disqualify the sponsor.  Consular Officers very commonly ask for updated affidavits and supporting documentation. Not having already uploaded an updated affidavit, when there are significant changes, can cause delays of several weeks or months in visa issue.  That's why I gave the advice I gave.  It's based on current and past actual knowledge.  OP is wise to follow the advice already given.
 

Exactly.  Wait until you have the interview scheduled.  Somebody mentioned them asking.  They won't until the interview, but do it before anyway.  Before interview but after you have the interview letter.

It seems you would have had the option to proceed with the original, if you did not notify NVC to upgrade the petition.  Maybe the Naturalization occurred BEFORE the petition was approved??
 

Critical question.

Critical question.

Critical question.

My wife has lived most of her life in the US and been living in Canada for the last 10 years 
 
- She had a valid state Voter ID card
- She has a US bank account and credit card 
- US student loans 
- Kept a mailing at her parents address 
- We travel to the US to see her parents every year
 
We plan on providing proof that we are looking for apartments and daycare for our child stateside. 

There is no 90 day or 60 day rule anyway, but the fictional rules don't fit this situation anyway.

I disagree.  The reason is that it is perfectly legal to marry and leave.  There has been no abuse.  You are no more required to mention you will attend a wedding, even your own, than that you may visit a public library.  A truthful more generic answer, coupled with a round trip ticket for a relatively short visit, is usually not a problem.  If you've been saying you are visiting your boyfriend, then that is STILL true this time.  (It won't be next time.)

You need not disclose every activity on your itinerary.  If specific questions are asked, then of course, you must give truthful answers, but failing to mention a wedding as part of a legitimate "visit" is no different than failing to mention going to a movie or library.

"Omission" is NOT a misrepresentation, and certainly not a material misrepresentation, if the person leaves as scheduled, or even later, but within the time granted.  Again, it is not illegal to marry while in the USA.  What's illegal is to overstay and what "may be perceived" as illegal "intent" is only applicable when adjusting status.

I'm not implying or otherwise saying your advice was to volunteer information.  It's just that you were not CLEAR about what direct question, would necessitate mentioning the wedding.  I've been clear. If you meant the same, then great. No disagreement here.
 
If asked for the purpose of her visit, "to visit my boyfriend" is currently still a truthful, concise answer, for next visit.
 

"Omission" is NOT a misrepresentation, and certainly not a material misrepresentation, if the person leaves as scheduled, or even later, but within the time granted.  Again, it is not illegal to marry while in the USA.  What's illegal is to overstay and what "may be perceived" as illegal "intent" is only applicable when adjusting status.

I'm not implying or otherwise saying your advice was to volunteer information.  It's just that you were not CLEAR about what direct question, would necessitate mentioning the wedding.  I've been clear. If you meant the same, then great. No disagreement here.
 
If asked for the purpose of her visit, "to visit my boyfriend" is currently still a truthful, concise answer, for next visit.
 

I disagree.  The reason is that it is perfectly legal to marry and leave.  There has been no abuse.  You are no more required to mention you will attend a wedding, even your own, than that you may visit a public library.  A truthful more generic answer, coupled with a round trip ticket for a relatively short visit, is usually not a problem.  If you've been saying you are visiting your boyfriend, then that is STILL true this time.  (It won't be next time.)

You need not disclose every activity on your itinerary.  If specific questions are asked, then of course, you must give truthful answers, but failing to mention a wedding as part of a legitimate "visit" is no different than failing to mention going to a movie or library.

I disagree.  The reason is that it is perfectly legal to marry and leave.  There has been no abuse.  You are no more required to mention you will attend a wedding, even your own, than that you may visit a public library.  A truthful more generic answer, coupled with a round trip ticket for a relatively short visit, is usually not a problem.  If you've been saying you are visiting your boyfriend, then that is STILL true this time.  (It won't be next time.)

You need not disclose every activity on your itinerary.  If specific questions are asked, then of course, you must give truthful answers, but failing to mention a wedding as part of a legitimate "visit" is no different than failing to mention going to a movie or library.

"Omission" is NOT a misrepresentation, and certainly not a material misrepresentation, if the person leaves as scheduled, or even later, but within the time granted.  Again, it is not illegal to marry while in the USA.  What's illegal is to overstay and what "may be perceived" as illegal "intent" is only applicable when adjusting status.

I'm not implying or otherwise saying your advice was to volunteer information.  It's just that you were not CLEAR about what direct question, would necessitate mentioning the wedding.  I've been clear. If you meant the same, then great. No disagreement here.
 
If asked for the purpose of her visit, "to visit my boyfriend" is currently still a truthful, concise answer, for next visit.
 

"Omission" is NOT a misrepresentation, and certainly not a material misrepresentation, if the person leaves as scheduled, or even later, but within the time granted.  Again, it is not illegal to marry while in the USA.  What's illegal is to overstay and what "may be perceived" as illegal "intent" is only applicable when adjusting status.

I'm not implying or otherwise saying your advice was to volunteer information.  It's just that you were not CLEAR about what direct question, would necessitate mentioning the wedding.  I've been clear. If you meant the same, then great. No disagreement here.
 
If asked for the purpose of her visit, "to visit my boyfriend" is currently still a truthful, concise answer, for next visit.
 

I disagree.  The reason is that it is perfectly legal to marry and leave.  There has been no abuse.  You are no more required to mention you will attend a wedding, even your own, than that you may visit a public library.  A truthful more generic answer, coupled with a round trip ticket for a relatively short visit, is usually not a problem.  If you've been saying you are visiting your boyfriend, then that is STILL true this time.  (It won't be next time.)

You need not disclose every activity on your itinerary.  If specific questions are asked, then of course, you must give truthful answers, but failing to mention a wedding as part of a legitimate "visit" is no different than failing to mention going to a movie or library.

"Omission" is NOT a misrepresentation, and certainly not a material misrepresentation, if the person leaves as scheduled, or even later, but within the time granted.  Again, it is not illegal to marry while in the USA.  What's illegal is to overstay and what "may be perceived" as illegal "intent" is only applicable when adjusting status.

I'm not implying or otherwise saying your advice was to volunteer information.  It's just that you were not CLEAR about what direct question, would necessitate mentioning the wedding.  I've been clear. If you meant the same, then great. No disagreement here.
 
If asked for the purpose of her visit, "to visit my boyfriend" is currently still a truthful, concise answer, for next visit.
 

I disagree.  The reason is that it is perfectly legal to marry and leave.  There has been no abuse.  You are no more required to mention you will attend a wedding, even your own, than that you may visit a public library.  A truthful more generic answer, coupled with a round trip ticket for a relatively short visit, is usually not a problem.  If you've been saying you are visiting your boyfriend, then that is STILL true this time.  (It won't be next time.)

You need not disclose every activity on your itinerary.  If specific questions are asked, then of course, you must give truthful answers, but failing to mention a wedding as part of a legitimate "visit" is no different than failing to mention going to a movie or library.