Dashinka

My wife had a similar experience, K1, AOS, and ROC during Obama's second term, and N400 under Trump's first term, and we really didn't notice anything different other than the fact that when my wife filed her I751 (Dec. 2016), it was right when USCIS was deprioritizing that process, so many folks around that same time or after were working to get ADIT stamps since USCIS only issued 12 month extension letters. Beyond that, a lot of hype and noise out there from many sources.

Don't Lions eat Monkeys?

Most folks here on VJ have done it themselves. That being said, yes, often times USCIS or the Consulate (not sure what phase you are in) will ask for what amounts to duplicate evidence. It might be helpful for you to share the RFE you received with personal information redacted to help you better (often letters are templated, and they are actually only requesting specific information). If you end up not going through with the K1/I129F, it will not impact your ability to travel to the US, but there could be questions at the border since US CBP will be able to see you once had immigration intent. Good Luck!

Here is the thread explaining the WoM. Are you the father or mother? Were there any RFE's along the way? Do you have a common name that could slow down background checks? Have you contacted your local representative, or US Senator from Michigan? Just some of the questions I would be asking myself before taking the WoM route. Good Luck!

Mark Mills is spot on as usual. We’ll Never Have an Energy Transition In his March 4 address to Congress, President Trump proclaimed that he had “terminated the ridiculous Green New Scam,” referring to assorted Biden-era Green New Deal policies directed at an “energy transition.” The weekend before, the Wall Street Journal featured a lengthy essay with a title seemingly calibrated to pre-bunk Trump’s expected remarks: “The Clean Energy Revolution Is Unstoppable.” The authors, two Oxford professors, asserted that the “clean energy revolution is being driven by fundamental technological and economic forces that are too strong to stop,” and that “large segments of fossil fuel demand will permanently disappear . . . in the next two decades.” Two weeks later, the Wall Street Journal featured another op-ed, this one coauthored by former vice president Al Gore, proclaiming the “energy transition is inevitable.” So, which is it? Inevitable or a “scam?” We find a useful referee in this war of words with the recently released Eye on the Market 15th Annual Energy Paper by Michael Cembalest, J. P. Morgan’s chairman of market and investment strategy. As this 70-slide, deep-dive report pointedly notes, “after $9 trillion globally over the last decade spent on wind, solar, electric vehicles, energy storage, electrified heat and power grids, the renewable transition is still a linear one; the renewable share of final energy consumption is slowly advancing at 0.3%–0.6% per year [emphasis added].” One does not need a mathematics degree to understand that such anemic growth rates are not the hallmarks of an “unstoppable” juggernaut. Hence, Cembalest’s bottom line: “Growth in fossil fuel consumption is slowing but no clear sign of a peak on a global basis.” That is to say, no “energy transition” is in sight. https://www.city-journal.org/article/energy-transition-green-new-deal

Grifters and grafts. I do wonder how many people are getting rich off the US taxpayers. The Greenhouse Gas Windfalls Blew Hard for Solar in the Biden EPA Fresh off its decision to claw back $20 billion in “greenhouse gas reduction” money the Biden Environmental Protection Agency parked at Citibank, the Trump administration is setting its sights on another massive chunk of planned green spending receiving less attention. The $7 billion Solar for All program – part of the $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund -- is meant to “enable over 900,000 households in low-income and disadvantaged communities to benefit from distributed solar energy,” according to the EPA’s website. The $27 billion fund was created by Congress in 2022 as part of a massive tax and spending measure called the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Some $20 billion of it was moved to Citibank late in the Biden administration and is now the focus of a high-profile legal battle by the Trump administraton to get it back. On Tuesday, a federal judge temporarily blocked its effort. https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2025/03/20/the_greenhouse_gas_windfalls_blew_hard_for_solar_in_the_biden_epa_1098678.html

Just an inferior primate's journal.

Writ of Mandamus? Not a general thing for the Detroit field office. Are there red flags?

Shouldn't take too long, but could be a few days to a couple weeks. Good Luck!

Hard to say. Don't consulates process K1's in the IV unit? They did back when my now wife went through that process.

A person married to a USC and received their GC via marriage can file the N400 under either the 3yr rule or 5yr rule. The big difference is the 3yr rule requires more evidence of a bonafide marriage (the basis for the GC). Overall, getting a GC via marriage to a USC is the fastest way to gain citizenship other than some foreign spouses of active duty military members.

I think you meant to say interview being waived for the I751. To the OP, the as @OldUser stated, the N400 processing times is governed by your local field office. In my wife's case, she filed her N400 with her I751 pending, and had a combo interview, and both were approved. Of course YMMV, but you can upload a letter in the USCIS system after the N400 reaches the interview scheduled phase and request a combo interview if the I751 is still pending. Good Luck!

If you are following the process you should be fine. Good Luck!

I don't see China or India promoting legal immigration, and really don't see a lot of illegal immigration going on there (at least as reported). I consider myself a conservative with libertarian views, and really just want to see less government. If the NGOs actually did their jobs according to their charters, and did not act like government money laundering entities (should be called GFOs) then let them support the legal immigrants that do not have a support system. The comparison of Austria to the US is really apples and oranges, and is essentially the same as a US state doing something. If the entire EU did it, then let's compare, but otherwise, the states, or EU countries can do what they want. I work with a lot of folks from all over the world. I have never witnessed any denigration of language skills of someone from outside the US. I suppose it happens, or is thought about it. Honestly, I feel lucky that English is the business language. I guess we can thank the British Empire for that.

Were you immigrating legally to Austria? Does every country in the EU do this? I am not sure, but I doubt it. I know when my wife came over, her English was proficient, but she wanted to learn more, so she signed up for some ESL classes at the local CC which we paid for. Should it be provided by the government? Maybe if a government is promoting immigration, but here in the US is there really a need to promote legal immigration?

Or is it just an increase of scrutiny, and MSM attention due to obvious reasons.

Hmm, Mann and his lawyers were admonished pretty hard by the judge. Mark Steyn’s Last Laugh Isn’t Over Yet: The Latest Twist in the Hockey Stick Legal Saga If that visitor would have gone to Mr. Steyn’s home last night (March 12th), he would probably have heard more popping of corks and clinking of glasses celebrating a further decision by the same judge. In an eviscerating judgement, the court ruled that Dr. Mann and his counsel acted in “bad faith” on multiple occasions in presenting false claims related to the plaintiff’s grant funding. Judge Irving said: “Here, the Court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that Dr. Mann, through [his lawyers] Mr. Fontaine and Mr. Williams, acted in bad faith when they presented erroneous evidence and made false representations to the jury and the Court regarding damages stemming from loss of grant funding. . . The Court does not reach this decision lightly.” The judge wasn’t mincing his words in writing of Mann and his two lead lawyers as follows: “They each knowingly made a false statement of fact to the Court and Dr. Mann knowingly participated in the falsehood, endeavoring to make the strongest case possible even if it required using erroneous and misleading information.” The judge further admonished Dr. Mann in the latter’s claims denying these charges of bad faith and false representation of losses in grant funding, accusing of conduct “bordering on frivolity”: "Dr. Mann's assertion that there was no falsehood or misrepresentation in his testimony or his counsel's conduct borders on frivolity…the record plainly shows the deliberate and knowing misconduct of Dr. Mann's counsel in eliciting false testimony from Dr. Mann and misrepresenting his grant funding…Dr. Mann's counsel's bad faith misconduct is an affront to the Court's authority and an attack on the integrity of the proceedings warranting sanctions." The court was convinced that “the record plainly shows deliberate and knowing misconduct of Dr. Mann’s counsel in eliciting false testimony” which was presented to the court and jury. The court awarded monetary sanctions to each defendant (Mr. Rand Simberg and Mr. Mark Stein) who can now sue for expenses incurred in responding to Dr. Mann’s bad faith and conduct. The monetary sanctions awarded to each defendant were appropriate in the Court’s view because “the misconduct of Dr. Mann and his counsel (1) was extraordinary in its scope, extent, and intent; (2) subjected a jury not only to false evidence and grievous misrepresentations about a crucial part of Dr. Mann’s case, but also to additional trial proceedings for correcting the record and the jury’s impressions thereof that otherwise likely would have been unnecessary; (3) further complicated a trial already rife with convoluted and difficult legal and factual issues; and (4) burdened Defendants and the Court with the time-and resource-intensive task of ascertaining the true extent of the misconduct and determining appropriate remedial measures for the same, all without any meaningful acknowledgement of the nature of the misconduct by Dr. Mann or his attorneys.” https://tilakdoshi.substack.com/p/mark-steyns-last-laugh-isnt-over

Ignore the USCIS account now. My wife received random notices up to six months after her oath ceremony. Congratulations on becoming a USC!

Hmm, so is USCIS scrutinizing AOS's from NIVs more (not K1's)? Possibly. Hacking seems to think so.

I may have mentioned this before in other threads, in my job, I often have Australians and Koreans together in a meeting, and I often have to act as the translator as my Korean colleagues have a hard time understanding the Australian accent of some of my Australian colleagues.

Honestly, I do not see all the hype with Aldi. I realize it is anecdotal, but I was not impressed by anything there the few times I ventured in. I can say similar things about Trader Joes. Early to bed....

OK, I looked at the website, and have some questions. First of all, what are "functional mushrooms"? I know edible mushrooms a bit, and like them, I guess I never heard edible things described as functional. Secondly, their website claims Holy! Water contains ketones. Which ones? I am not apt to be drinking acetone (dimethyl ketone). I suspect she didn't pursue the EB5 is that she doesn't meet that bar yet.

Yes, take everything with you just in case. In fact you should take a complete copy of the package you submitted. As to the GC, I am pretty certain you should get a 10 yr GC. Good Luck!

Another source for a template. Good Luck!

Do a quick search on you favored search engine of "I751 affidavit letter", and there should be examples in the photos/images section. Yes, they should be notarized. Is USCIS specifically asking for these? Good Luck!