lucyrich

I don't know about other nationality, but for Japanese tourist,

Phillipines required 6 months + stay remaining lifetime of the Passport to enter.

But that's not for a green card holder.

For tourists, they want to make sure your passport will remain valid long enough for you to make your return trip.

Not necessarily. Depends on the state and depends on the measures they would take.

For some states, they get pretty much 100% of their money back that goes to the Fed, so essentially, they could just stop sending it to begin with. An ultimate form of protest per se.

But the money they send is largely in the form of income and FICA taxes paid by the state's residents and corporations. Are you saying the states will forbid individuals from paying Federal taxes and instead force them to remit that money to the state treasury?

She got married to a US citizen and he turned out a jerk.

To remove the conditions, she had to apply for a waiver based on extreme cruelty and she got it approved.

Her lawyer told her that she is eligible to apply for citizenship after 3 yrs of the marriage.

I saw the citizenship application but it says that she needs to be living with her husband to apply after 3 years.

Can someone please help me how I should file her application so that she can get approved?

First thing, she needs to fire the lawyer.

Then wait until she's eligible to check one of the boxes in part 2 of the N-400. My guess is that the five years with green card will be her first opportunity. She can mail the paperwork up to 90 days before completing the 5 years.

There's no waiver to allow filing after three years if the marital union dissolved, regardless of the reason for dissolution.

http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo

As a moderate, libertarian-leaning person who has consistently voted Democratic for the past decades, I never thought I'd find myself actually agreeing with points made by, of all people, a G.W. Bush speechwriter speaking out to conservatives. But he's got some points...

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

...

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

...

Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.

No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

...

Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.

So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.

push, sorry, that's not entirely the case.

PPL who were out of status, on the K-3, have had to file the I-130 in conjuction with the I-485. It's not consistent though (which bothers me, a bit).

If they've got an approved I-130 which hasn't expired, then they should be able to check box 1 and include the approval notice. And they had to file the I-130 in order to get the K-3.

I don't know how long an approved I-130 is good for, though. I'm not even sure if it's got an expiration date, though I assume it has some sort of finite lifetime after which it's no good, and a new I-130 would have to be filed if you wanted to adjust status. In all the cases I'm familiar with, people want to use it ASAP, so expiration doesn't become an issue.

Nope.

The K-1 and K-3/CR-1 paths are completely separate (even though they share some forms).

The K-1 is for fiancees only. Once you marry, then the alien is not eligible to get a K-1 visa, or if he/she already has the visa, then he/she is ineligible to use it to enter the US. On the day you marry outside the US, the K-1 paperwork becomes invalid and completely useless. The paperwork that was started can't be switched over to be used to get a K-3.

If you marry at any time before entry to the US, then you've got to start the process all over from the very beginning as a married couple. File a new I-130, and optional I-129F, along with new supporting documents.

That may not be so logical or fair, but that's the way the laws are.

It's the showdown between Americans who want bigger government and those who want smaller government.

Baloney.

It's a showdown between Republicans and Democrats, as shown by the entirely partisan voting. Republicans stand for bigger government, as do Democrats. Many of the Republicans who voted against the healthcare reform actually supported George W. Bush, and some still cling to the belief that he was an OK president.

Nobody who really wants smaller government would support the biggest spending president in our history like that.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa543.pdf

http://mercatus.org/publication/spending-under-president-george-w-bush

Some of those Republicans actually failed to support Bill Clinton, the last president who actually succeeded in cutting the size of government, and who actually ran a budget surplus. In fact, some of them voted for his impeachment!

I'm not claiming the Democrats want to shrink government. Just that this is not a "big government vs. little government" showdown. It's a "big government vs. big government" showdown. The Republicans and Democrats vary somewhat in where they want government to grow, but they both want it to grow.

Where the signatures of either of you are required on documents prepared fresh for the immigration process, such as on the petition, the bio information form, and the letter of intent, the signatures must be original. Scanned copies won't work. In order to make sure there's absolutely no doubt that the signature is original, it's best to sign in blue ball point ink, and to place the paper on a slightly soft surface while signing (a magazine will work), so that the signature gets "embossed" into the paper. For many couples, this will mean sending a package via an international courier service, like DHL or something.

Supporting documents, such as birth certificates, don't have to be originals. Ordinary photocopies will work fine when you mail the package to the USCIS. You'll bring the originals to the interview for verification.

I assume you meant you were married in December of 2009, not December of 2010, since December of 2010 is in the future.

Since you were married as of December 31, your choices are to file as "married filing jointly" or "married filing separately". Perhaps if you have a qualifying relative living at home with you (not your spouse), you might be eligible for "head of household", but there are other requirements which must be met for that status.

Note that the filing status "single" is not available to legally married persons, regardless of the place of residence of the spouse, or the immigration status of the spouse. And note also that you'll probably be showing your tax returns to immigration, either for an affidavit of support, an I-751 petition for removal of conditions, or an N-400 naturalization petition, or some combination of these, so you probably want your return to correctly reflect your marital status.

Filing as "married filing separately" is straightforward, but probably expensive. While there's a place for your spouse's SSN, you don't need to put anything in there if your spouse does not have and is not required to have a SSN or ITIN. (see pub 17 http://www.irs.gov/publications/p17/ch02.html#en_US_publink1000170777 )

Filing as "married filing jointly" requires that your wife also sign the return, and declare her worldwide income. She may not have to pay tax on income earned outside the US, but she'd still have to declare it. It would also require that the two of you sign a paper saying you elect to treat her (a nonresident alien spouse) as a resident for the 2009 tax year, since otherwise, a nonresident alien is ineligible to file a joint return. It probably also requires that she file a W-7 to get an ITIN.

Publication 519 gives details.

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p519/ch01.html#en_US_publink100038991

A K-1 is not "APPROVAL TO MARRY YOU" He does not need approval to marry you from the government. He needs approval to enter the USA, marry you and apply for a green card. You can marry him today, or maybe tomorrow, depends how long it takes you to travel there.

It isn't?

Pray tell me then what other reason the visa is issued for?

As Gary and Alla said, the visa is issued only for the purpose of entering the US legally.

A couple can marry without a visa. Most couples do marry without a visa. They can marry abroad, or they can even marry inside the US. True, for some couples, getting INTO the US without a visa could present a problem, and in some cases might or might not involve breaking a law or two that might or might not cause serious immigration difficulties, but it wouldn't cause difficulties in getting married.

We would require all U.S. citizens and legal immigrants who want jobs to obtain a high-tech, fraud-proof Social Security card. Each card's unique biometric identifier would be stored only on the card; no government database would house everyone's information. The cards would not contain any private information, medical information, nor tracking devices. The card will be a high-tech version of the Social Security card that citizens already have.

Prospective employers would be responsible for swiping the cards through a machine to confirm a person's identity and immigration status. Employers who refused to swipe the card or who otherwise knowingly hired unauthorized workers would face stiff fines and, for repeat offenses, prison sentences.

That's wishful thinking. If the information is not stored in a central database, but instead is in the card itself, then the card isn't so tamper-proof. The incentive would be huge for starting up a factory somewhere (perhaps overseas?) that would produce valid-looking cards that would swipe just like the real ones. Where the incentive is strong enough, someone will do it.

We propose a zero-tolerance policy for gang members, smugglers, terrorists and those who commit other felonies after coming here illegally. We would bolster recent efforts to secure our borders by increasing the Border Patrol's staffing and funding for infrastructure and technology. More personnel would be deployed to the border immediately to fill gaps in apprehension capabilities.

Other steps include expanding domestic enforcement to better apprehend and deport those who commit crimes and completing an entry-exit system that tracks people who enter the United States on legal visas and reports those who overstay their visas to law enforcement databases.

"Zero tolerance" has a sound that will appeal to some, but stop with the silly assumption that deportation exports the problem to another country. If the penalty is just deportation, you're merely giving them the opportunity to repeat the journey across the border. They've already demonstrated that they have the ability and motivation to make this journey, so why does anyone think they'll stay where they're deported to? No, if people commit serious crimes in our nation, let's hold them in prison. Only after they've served their prison sentence should they be eligible for deportation. As an aside, US authorities can't properly supervise someone on parole while they're in another country, so parole should probably not be an option for those who can't legally remain in the US for the entire duration of their parole period.

Also of interest to VJ'ers should be the last sentence quoted above. A K-1 entrant who sends in the adjustment of status paperwork 91 or more days after entry is an overstayer.

It's a PRIVATE restaurant, not a public one. There are no 'public' restaurants the last time I checked.

A "private restaurant" would be the dining room of your home or apartment, where you ARE allowed to smoke. You can invite your friends to come eat with you, too, and they can smoke.

But if a restaurant is open to the public, and allows members of the public to come in off the street, and accepts money from members of the public in exchange for its food/services, then it's a public accomodation, even if it may be privately owned. There are lots of rules about health and sanitation that apply to public restaurants which don't apply to private residences. There are rules about having lighted exit signs, fire extinguishers, stainless steel food prep surfaces, handwashing sinks, and a bunch of other rules established for the public health and safety. If you don't like the idea that restaurants open to the public can be regulated for the public health, you're free to move to a jurisdiction that doesn't have or enforce such rules.

The problem here is the same entitlement mentality that's been sweeping this nation for the past 60+ years. People think they are entitled to go into a private restaurant and have a cigarette, spewing their smoke into everyone else's lungs. When in reality they have no such entitlement whatsoever. If the lack of smoking opportunities bothers you, simply don't eat there. It's that simple. If you don't like the idea of clean air in bars/restaurants, you have the choice and the ability to smoke in your own private property. That's the beauty of how things are supposed to work.

Some people seem to think laws against public smoking are somehow a problem for smokers, or are targeted toward them. Baloney. Virtually all of us urinate at some time or another, but laws against public urination are not seen as discriminatory against urinators. Laws against public nudity aren't seen as discriminatory against those who occasionally are nude in their homes.

During the Waxman hearings, the chairmen of the tobacco companies all swore under penalty of perjury that smoking was not addictive. Therefore, it's obvious that smokers, just like nonsmokers, have no problem whatsoever going without a cigarette for a few days, nevermind the time it takes to have a meal in a restaurant. Just wait until you get home to smoke.

I assume she has already entered the US?

The K-1 visa expiration date is just the last date she can use the K-1 visa to enter the US. If she hasn't yet entered the US, she should do so before the K-1 visa expiration date.

Once she enters the US, the visa expiration date is irrelevant.

Her I-94 also has an expiration date, and that becomes the important date after she's in the US, because it determines when her K-1 immigration status expires. The I-94 expiration date should be 90 days after her entry date. You need to marry before the I-94 expiration date. You ought to file the I-485 before the I-94 expiration, as well, to make sure she continuously has valid immigration status, but a small gap doesn't matter as long as she's able to avoid contact with law enforcement/immigration authorities during the gap.

Those people who don't fill out their census form are doing a disservice to their local community.

Yes, but they're simultaneously doing a service to the rest of the nation.

If the count in my community is disproportionately high, my community will receive a disproportionate share of Federal tax dollars for various services, and will receive a disproportionate share of representation in Congress and in my state's legislature. Likewise, if my community's count is low, then we lose Federal dollars and lose legislative power.

But getting the overall nationwide count up does NOT actually create wealth or power. And having a low count doesn't reduce our nation's wealth or power. The census count doesn't change the size of the pie, it just changes how it gets divied up.

When people refuse to be counted, they don't reduce the nation's wealth or power, but they allow Federal wealth and power to be distributed to the other communities which are more fully counted. Hey, that's quite noble, spreading wealth and power around to all the rest of the USA except their own local community.

Yes, you can stay outside the US up to one year. If you would like to stay outside the US for one year or longer you need to apply for a re-entry permit. Link to CBP FAQ

It's true that it's possible to maintain residence as you say, but it's also possible to abandon LPR status in a shorter trip. It depends on where your "residence" is, and that's something that depends on a lot of specific facts of the case. So a green card holder is not automatically safe leaving the US for less than a year and returning on that green card.

From the USCIS "Maintaining your Permanent Residence" page:

You may be found to have abandoned your permanent resident status if you:

* Move to another country intending to live there permanently

* Remain outside of the United States for more than 1 year without obtaining a reentry permit or returning resident visa. However, in determining whether your status has been abandoned, any length of absence from the United States may be considered, even if less than 1 year

* Remain outside of the United States for more than 2 years after issuance of a reentry permit without obtaining a returning resident visa. However, in determining whether your status has been abandoned any length of absence from the United States may be considered, even if less than 1 year

* Fail to file income tax returns while living outside of the United States for any period

* Declare yourself a “nonimmigrant” on your tax returns

If you do intend to leave for an extended time while trying to maintain your permanent residence, at least be sure and file your US taxes. It's probably worth a quick consultation with an immigration attorney who has experience with abandonment of status issues, to get advice BEFORE you leave.

Everyone else raises the illegal point but they're missing the worst part.

Approval for AOS can take a while. Lets say by the time they interview him it's over 180 days past his I-94 date. If they deny the visa he will be given 30 days to leave AND he will get a 3 year ban on entry. (more than 365 days past I-94 is a 10 year ban but I highly doubt it should take that long).

No, a person with an active petition for adjustment of status does NOT accrue unlawful presence time for the purposes of 212(a)(9)(B) while the petition is pending. Until a decision is reached on the I-485, they're considered in a period of legally authorized stay for the purpose of the 9B bars. See here, among other sources.

http://www.immigrationlinks.com/news/news309.htm

So if the I-485 is filed before the expiration of the I-94, and the I-485 is then denied, the alien would only start counting the 180 days toward the 3 year bar beginning on the date they denied the I-485, NOT beginning with the I-94 expiration.

I think the rest of your points are accurate. Certainly, filing an I-485 makes it pretty nearly impossible to enter again as a tourist any time soon.

I'm not sure about the issues around rescheduling, but I believe it's possible. Be careful not to let an appointment letter go unanswered, though.

As far as travel, the rules are the same as they were any time before you filled out the N-400. In other words, as long as the trip doesn't cause you to abandon your LPR status, and as long as it doesn't cause you to fail to meet the physical presence requirement, then it won't cause a problem with naturalization. A trip of a month or two ordinarily wouldn't be a problem. At your interview and at your oath ceremony you'll be asked about any international travel -- you'll need to mention your trip next time you speak with them.

I have arrived on a CR-1 visa on 02/25/2010, when will I receive my GC?

You should receive it very soon now. But the date the plastic card arrives in the mail doesn't matter so much. You already have green card STATUS, AKA LPR status. Your endorsed CR-1 visa with the "admitted" stamp serves as proof of this until you get the card in your hands.

It probably doesn't hurt anything, but what in the world does it accomplish?

Anyone can write anything on a census form. Census information is private, so the USCIS is prohibited from verifying the info with the Census bureau. So at best, you're saying "I told the Census bureau that we both lived at the same address, but you'll have to take my word that I told the Census bureau this."

A fraudulent couple could easily fake this with no problem at all. They could lie to the Census bureau. Or if they wanted to, they could photocopy the Census form, then fill out one copy for immigration purposes, and fill out a separate truthful copy for the Census bureau.

So I don't see how a copy of a Census form could separate you from a fraudulent couple. The best evidence is something that would be difficult for a fraudulent couple to fake.

No real argument, except that the N-400 probably wouldn't be first on my list of forms the USCIS should handle via computer. They ought to computerize virtually all of their transactions. For one first little baby step, they ought to allow you to submit passport-style pictures (for visas, G-325 forms, passports, naturalization certificates) electronically as .jpg files.

They ought to completely omit the requirement that you send in a copy of your green card for the N-400, since they're the ones who issued it to you anyway, they should just keep a record of what's on it.

But the N-400 has so many optional additional evidence things (read the checklist in the M-476), many of which are going to be paper records. I don't see e-filing coming any time soon.

If they ever DO allow e-filing, watch them charge an extra fee, maybe $100.00, in order to give you the privilege of saving them the trouble of handling paper and of doing the data entry.

No I'm not kidding.

Aliens don't muck about getting a green card for no reason, you know. A permanent resident is a permanent resident. They have the same rights (save for voting) as any US citizen.

http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/FHLaws/yourrights.cfm

In Mortgage Lending: No one may take any of the following actions based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status or handicap (disability):

* Refuse to make a mortgage loan

* Refuse to provide information regarding loans

* Impose different terms or conditions on a loan, such as different interest rates, points, or fees

* Discriminate in appraising property

* Refuse to purchase a loan or

* Set different terms or conditions for purchasing a loan.

Yep, they're prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status or handicap (disability). But immigration status isn't among those listed things, so it doesn't put one into a "protected class". They are NOT prohibited from discriminating based on any grounds other than those listed, even if the other grounds are unfair. For example, a lender might lend only to left-handed people. That would be unfair, morally wrong, indefensible, and wouldn't make much business sense, but it wouldn't be against the law. Being left-handed doesn't put you into a protected class, just like being a conditional permanent resident doesn't put you into a protected class.

Discrimination based on citizenship status, current nationality, or immigration status is NOT against the law. It may not be right, it may not be fair, but it's not illegal. The government does it all the time (voting, certain government jobs, security clearances, etc.)

That said, it may be worth clarifying to the lender that you DO have valid legal immigration status. They may have misunderstood the meaning of the expiration of the conditional green card. If it's explained to them properly, they might reconsider and not use that grounds to deny the loan. But they're under no legal obligation to do so.

3. Your conditional GC is good until it's taken away. Your card could be *not taken away* up until 1 year of absence per border patrol discretion. Once you are divorced, the USCIS may be compelled to cancel your GC, but it takes some time.

What you say is ordinarily true of an unconditional green card, but for a conditional green card, there's another thing to consider. If the conditional GC is allowed to expire without having an I-751 filed, then the conditional GC is immediately no good. INA 216( c )(2)(A)(i).

Others have pointed out most of the relevant points. I'll point out one further thing. You cannot adjust status from your current conditional green card based on husband #1 to a new green card (conditional or not) based on husband #2. INA 245(d) explicitly prohibits that. If you gain status based on the second husband, it's got to be a brand new visa, or else an entrance on some other non-immigrant basis followed by an adjustment of status from that (and note that an entrance on another non-immigrant status would probably be illegal if, at the time of entrance, you planned to adjust status based on your marriage to husband #2).

Another point: Your current status will not automatically be revoked due to the divorce. In fact, the divorce gives you the right to file an I-751 immediately, without having to wait for the "two years less 90 days" time period.

You have two basic routes: remove conditions on the existing green card while avoiding abandonment of status, or get a brand new status based on the new marriage. I don't know which would be better. You may want to consult with a couple of attorneys to weigh the pros and cons. Obviously, whatever you do, you don't want the authorities to suspect that you're marrying for the green card instead of getting the green card to support your marriage.

We've stayed at New York New York, very nice, close to a lot of other big resorts on the strip. We've also stayed at Circus Circus, which bills itself as the cheapest place on the strip. It's well past its prime, but cheap and comfortable, not luxurious or impressive.