Dashinka

Is 21 the age a majority in Singapore?

Not on the I130, that comes later when you are actually applying for a visa for him and he is under 21, or whatever age family law in Singapore is the age a majority. As to what you need custody wise, as @Boiler mentioned, that is best asked of a family law attorney in Singapore, but I do believe legal sole custody would suffice if required. However if your ex- is allowing this it is really a moot point. Good Luck!

As long as the marriage takes place before he turns 18, your USC spouse can file for him. The custody question will come up when your son actually applies for a visa at the consulate.

They are still suggesting a complete re-filing of the package making sure all pages are included. You do not have to redo all N400 pages, hopefully you kept a copy of what was previously submitted, you just need to send a new, complete package (do not just send in pg. 12). Good Luck!

If the check was not cashed, then the filing was rejected. You need to include all pages of a form when filing, so if you saved a copy of your filing, add page 12 and re-submit with a new check. You can cancel the old check just to make sure. Alternatively, since it does not appear you are required to file by mail, maybe fill out the form online, and scan and upload all the evidence you included with your first filing. Good Luck!

Many on the left are easily gaslighted. Stolen Valor perpetrator Tim Walz is really weird, and his wife is even more so.

So can anyone shed light on what are the rules? It seems extreme leftist rhetoric fine, any rhetoric from the right bad. Btw, still waiting on a policy or position from Kackling Kamala. What Are the Rules? Consider this a forlorn cry for exposition and specificity. Will someone, somewhere, in the name of all that is good and true, tell me what the bloody rules are for determining whether rhetorical bombast counts as mere everyday hyperbole or as the ineluctable prerequisite to political violence? I have looked and looked for a pattern, but, despite having pried up the floorboards and scoured the attic and investigated every last corner of the basement, I can find no standard that I find satisfactory. Surely, there must be more undergirding all this than just Calvinball? Yesterday, Donald Trump’s life was threatened for the second time in two months. In response, I have seen two lines emerge from the media. The first is that the attempt should not be blamed on his critics but on the would-be shooter, who is crazy. The second line is that, by some extraordinary alchemy that I evidently lack the intellect to comprehend, the blame for his having been targeted lies with Trump himself. As a writer who has uniformly rejected the idea that political arguments ought to be blamed for the actions of vicious criminals, I am in instinctive agreement with the first approach. But I am also aware that, unlike myself, those who are currently advancing that case do not do so consistently. Thus, my inquiry: If my one-size-fits-all rule has not been adopted writ large, then what has been? Back when Nancy Pelosi’s husband was attacked with a hammer, I was informed that, if the victim of an attack had at any point been “demonized” by a political party, then that political party was responsible for what follows. Indeed, in the immediate aftermath of that ugly incident, the Washington Post recruited no fewer than three of its top writers to draw a direct line between the assault on Paul Pelosi and a series of anti-Nancy political commercials that were run in 2010 — twelve years earlier. The “years of vilification,” the Post proposed, “culminated Friday when Pelosi’s husband, Paul, was attacked with a hammer during an early-morning break-in at the couple’s home in San Francisco by a man searching for the speaker and shouting ‘Where is Nancy? Where is Nancy?’” Lest anyone misunderstand what it meant by “culminated,” the paper made sure to spell it out. “For many Democrats,” the piece concluded, “the attack on Nancy Pelosi’s husband represents the all-but-inevitable conclusion of Republicans’ increasingly violent and threatening rhetoric toward their political opponent.” https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/09/what-are-the-rules/

I am going to post this in two places since it fits in both threads. I would also like to understand the rules. What Are the Rules? Consider this a forlorn cry for exposition and specificity. Will someone, somewhere, in the name of all that is good and true, tell me what the bloody rules are for determining whether rhetorical bombast counts as mere everyday hyperbole or as the ineluctable prerequisite to political violence? I have looked and looked for a pattern, but, despite having pried up the floorboards and scoured the attic and investigated every last corner of the basement, I can find no standard that I find satisfactory. Surely, there must be more undergirding all this than just Calvinball? Yesterday, Donald Trump’s life was threatened for the second time in two months. In response, I have seen two lines emerge from the media. The first is that the attempt should not be blamed on his critics but on the would-be shooter, who is crazy. The second line is that, by some extraordinary alchemy that I evidently lack the intellect to comprehend, the blame for his having been targeted lies with Trump himself. As a writer who has uniformly rejected the idea that political arguments ought to be blamed for the actions of vicious criminals, I am in instinctive agreement with the first approach. But I am also aware that, unlike myself, those who are currently advancing that case do not do so consistently. Thus, my inquiry: If my one-size-fits-all rule has not been adopted writ large, then what has been? Back when Nancy Pelosi’s husband was attacked with a hammer, I was informed that, if the victim of an attack had at any point been “demonized” by a political party, then that political party was responsible for what follows. Indeed, in the immediate aftermath of that ugly incident, the Washington Post recruited no fewer than three of its top writers to draw a direct line between the assault on Paul Pelosi and a series of anti-Nancy political commercials that were run in 2010 — twelve years earlier. The “years of vilification,” the Post proposed, “culminated Friday when Pelosi’s husband, Paul, was attacked with a hammer during an early-morning break-in at the couple’s home in San Francisco by a man searching for the speaker and shouting ‘Where is Nancy? Where is Nancy?’” Lest anyone misunderstand what it meant by “culminated,” the paper made sure to spell it out. “For many Democrats,” the piece concluded, “the attack on Nancy Pelosi’s husband represents the all-but-inevitable conclusion of Republicans’ increasingly violent and threatening rhetoric toward their political opponent.” https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/09/what-are-the-rules/

Hmm, they go after right wing extremist early, but let the left wing/Democrat extremist free to do their damage even when on the FBI's radar. Makes a lot of sense, no wonder the FBI has become a laughingstock. Btw, nice deflection.

Just a tip, don't go to the SSA early in the morning when it opens as they tend to be very busy, wait until after lunch. Good Luck!

Depends, was the entire package rejected, and the check not cashed, or did you receive and RFE? If the latter, then yes, send in a new complete application, or file online if that is possible (i.e. requesting a fee waiver or reduced fee you cannot file online). If an RFE, you need to follow the instructions on the RFE and respond accordingly. Good Luck! Q. Can I file online? A. Yes, you can file the Form N-400 online. However, if you are requesting a fee waiver (Form I-912) or a reduced fee, you cannot file online and must file a paper Form N-400. You can download the N-400 form and instructions at https://www.uscis.gov/n-400. https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/questions-and-answers/Form-N400-FAQ-6-18-24.pdf

Personally, I would not worry about it as by the time you apply you will have been married 9-10 years, so you will have plenty of marital evidence. Back when my wife applied, she had taken multiple trips outside of the US alone to visit our family there which was more than 120 days in total over three years (I joined her on a couple of those trips), and we had no issues. Also, back then, my wife filed by paper, and the marital evidence was only required at the interview, so we did not include any of that evidence of our marriage with the filing, but we did bring it to the interview, with the online filing, most people upload all that information up front which is fine. Now to be absolutely safe, you might want to wait 120 days, but IMO that is not necessary in your case unless the 120 days was spent all at one time. Good Luck!

Not sure now post Covid, but I always found that the SSA offices had a big line first thing in the mornings and were much less busy after lunch. I remember walking into my nearest office around 9:30am and it was SRO, then after my wife got her GC we went back to get the DHS note removed and we went around 2pm to the same office and there was like three people in line. YMMV.

The main beneficiary is the mother (fiancé) with a K1. The son would be a K2 and should be included in the main I134 if he is coming with the mother, so only one I134 from the USC petitioner and one from you that applies to the main beneficiary (mother). To my knowledge, the K2 is a derivative of the K1. Good Luck!

Thoughts and prayers, but I am not sure if the Democrats do prayers nowadays.

Not a high priority, she can update the CO at the interview of the change to the DS260, but it should not be an issue. Good Luck!

So apparently this petulant Democrat believed all the left/Democrat hyperbole about Trump colluding with Russia and being in the pocket of Putin.

Maybe he was mad that his primary vote was ignored by the Democrats.

So you are talking about an I134, and yes, my comments above still apply, the USC petitioner still needs their own I134, and you as the co-sponsor will provide a separate I134. Good Luck!

Please clarify, is this a K1 visa or an IR5 visa? I assume your God son is the petitioner, and you indicate he is petitioning his mom, but you call her a fiancé and posted it in the K1 forum.

It is confusing, the OP states the petitioner is a son, but calls the beneficiary a fiancé.

We used photocopies back when we did it, but consulates sometimes require originals, so YMMV. I would go with originals if you can swing it logistically. There is no need for the petitioner to note they are using a co-sponsor, they just need to submit the co-sponsor’s I864. Also, you cannot be the sole sponsor as you are not the petitioner, the petitioner has to fill out their own I864 even if they make zero dollars, so you are doing it properly by being a co-sponsor to the main, petitioning sponsor. Good Luck!

We got married 2 weeks after my now wife arrived and since those two weeks were very busy, we left the SSA visit to after the wedding (about two weeks later). The point is getting the SSN while the K1 entry, married or not, has more than 30 days left in their authorized stay according to their I94. Good Luck!

Yep, see what the left gaslighting can do? I guess we should all just fall in place behind the rhetoric of the political elite left who attacks anyone that strays off their reservation. The U.S. is looking more and more like Russia in how the political elite are calling for limits to free speech, and other changes in the U.S. Constitution.

Another petulant Democrat gaslighted by the lies on the left and their MSM allies. Hmm, we are told the extreme right groups are a threat to our Republic' and yet it is the left that seems to be more unstable. Ryan Wesley Routh, the man named as the suspect in a possible assassination attempt near Donald Trump's Florida golf club, was calm and emotionless when he was arrested Sunday. Registered Democrat Routh, 58 is in custody after the terrifying incident at Trump International Club almost exactly two months after a separate assassination attempt against Trump during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13853645/Ryan-Wesley-Routh-Trump-golf-course-shooter.html