afrocraft
-
Posts
815 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Partners
Immigration Wiki
Guides
Immigration Forms
Times
Gallery
Store
Blogs
Posts posted by afrocraft
-
-
11 hours ago, yemathums said:
Ok, thanks a lot to both of you! We will get some better bank statements and the full tax returns and check out the links you provided.
One more question I had was that our IDs show different addresses because I did not update the address that was on it from before, and since she got hers later on she had our newer address on it. We have leases from 9 months after she got here until now, is that sufficient, or will the IDs be a potential problem? She was not able to be on the lease for the first place we lived together since she did not have a social security number yet, so the first official record of cohabitation we have is from around 9 months after she arrived in the US. Does anyone have any recommendations on how to deal with that?
Please reread my previous post and be creative.
If your goal is to show cohabitation (i.e., living in the same place), it stands to reason that submitting government IDs with different addresses works against that. You can submit her ID (with the newer address) if the address matches your current one. But remember: There is no requirement to submit IDs (or any one document), so choose only documents that help your case.
Start with what you have on cohabitation: I assume it's a lease from 9 months + Year 2 lease + Year 3 lease. So there is a (small) gap in your evidence. Think creatively about how you can fill that gap. Do you have utilities in her name from earlier? Did she receive any official letters addressed to her at that address? Any other correspondence/packages -- anything that has her name and the address within a few months from marriage (not just since she got here). In the end, if you can't find any evidence, include an explanation in your cover letter for the gap. Then move on to other aspects (financial co-mingling, shared experience, etc.).
Remember that USCIS considers the total picture, not just one type of evidence.
-
16 hours ago, Zaidba said:
There is confusion about this rule. I have discussed it with several lawyers, some think it applies and others said it applies ONLY if you have been denied!
It does not make sense, but the wordings of the rule says that. Therefore, if you don't mind the application fees, it is worth a try, otherwise waiting one more year is safer. Good luck.
Really interesting point, but I think OP can apply after 2 years + 1 day. The source of the confusion is the USCIS Policy Manual, which says in Vol 12 Chapt 3 C. Breaks in Continuous Residence:
Quote3. Eligibility after Break in Residence
An applicant who is required to establish continuous residence for at least 5 years and whose application for naturalization is denied for an absence of one year or longer, may apply for naturalization four years and one day after returning to the United States to resume permanent residence. An applicant who is subject to the three-year continuous residence requirement may apply two years and one day after returning to the United States to resume permanent residence.
However, the regulations, which are superior to the Policy Manual, and from which the Manual is derived, are clearer. They do not include the requirement that the application be denied. See 8 CFR 316.5(c)(1)(ii):
Quote(c) Disruption of continuity of residence—(1) Absence from the United States—(ii) For period in excess of one (1) year. Unless an applicant applies (to preserve residence), absences from the United States for a continuous period of one (1) year or more during the period for which continuous residence is required... shall disrupt the continuity of the applicant's residence. An applicant... who must satisfy a five-year statutory residence period may file an application for naturalization four years and one day following the date of the applicant's return to the United States to resume permanent residence. An applicant described in this paragraph who must satisfy a three-year statutory residence period may file an application for naturalization two years and one day following the date of the applicant's return to the United States to resume permanent residence.
To be safe, OP should cite and quote the regulations in a cover letter when s/he applies.
-
2 hours ago, yemathums said:
1...Is this enough evidence, or should we be getting more detailed bank statements, more official tax return documentation, or something from the place we lived together for the first 8 months?
See my comments below on I-751 evidence.
2. Should we include the full tax returns for the last 2 years, or is just the summary page from our accountant enough? Are the W2s also helpful even if they each show our individual information?
See my comments below on I-751 evidence.
3. I also saw on the USCIS I-751 page something saying not to submit the checklist of evidence with the initial filing, but they do want us to send the form and the evidence all at once right?
Yes. I think you misread the checklist thing.
4. I did not see anywhere on the USCIS I-751 page about a cover letter, but I have read here in a few places that it is required. No problem to do that but was looking to clarify.
A cover letter is typically not required, but including one is good practice. I say typically because there is one instance I can think of when you need one: Explaining a late submission.
The thing with I-751 evidence is that, aside from a copy of your green card, no one document is required. You just have to show, through a preponderance of the evidence, that your marriage is a bona fide relationship. So rather than tell you what to submit, I'll tell you how to think about I-751 evidence regardless of your situation.
There are 2 basic rules with I-751 evidence:
- Provide documents that cover 4 main areas of a bona fide marriage: cohabitation, financial co-mingling, shared life experiences, and planning together for the future (first two being most important); and
- For each type of document provided, where possible, provide documents from marriage to the time of your application (e.g., evidence of cohabitation from Year 1, Year 2, and Year 3.)
That's it! Follow those 2 rules to the letter and you'll be fine. But if you want suggestions of specific evidence to submit, see my previous comment below (click on the arrow to go to the comment).
-
On 10/5/2019 at 3:07 PM, Cyberfx1024 said:
Which is leniency because if it were hetero couple they would have been denied but because they are same sex couple it is ok. Why are you intent on trying to disagree with everyone today?
Drop the personal attack. I disagree with you because you're factually wrong.
Leniency would be a reduction in the standard of review or the burden of required documentation. There is no requirement for any applicant, straight or gay, to produce family pics. None whatsoever. The standard of review for all applications is a totality of the circumstances, so a reviewer considers the applicant's total context to decide the likelihood that they have a bona fide relationship.
-
- Popular Post
Anyway this news is just a smokescreen. No one with any serious knowledge about healthcare costs in America thinks that access by immigrants is a major cost driver. But because this administration won't go after excess profiteering by health insurers, drug & device makers, and other providers in health care, they want you to focus your ire instead on poor migrants "taking your health care away from you." From the discussion on this forum, that strategy appears to be working.
- Mr and Mrs S, Fogi, Meg101 and 5 others
-
8
-
6 minutes ago, missileman said:
Not everyone qualifies for every type of plan.........Even USCs are excluded from some plans....
But there is a common yardstick we usually use for eligibility determination: Income, not immigration status.
-
3 minutes ago, Sarah n Ryan said:
Not being a smart xss here but what plan can my fiancé not get that USC’S can?
Good question. Under the new "proclamation" you'd lose access to most plans in the ACA health exchanges. They were intended for working people who don't have employer-sponsored health plans and don't make enough to buy market-rate commercial plans.
They should just say it: Poor people stay out.
-
1 minute ago, missileman said:
They can.........as already proven.......
You're saying they can only get certain plans but not others. You're supporting their exclusion from some of the commonest plans we have access to. What's next -- require them to wear a gold star?
-
2 minutes ago, missileman said:
Oh, please!!! Requiring new immigrants to be responsible for their own medical care/insurance is not unreasonable....logic has consumed us......
So, you who cares so much about immigrants, why not let them get health coverage like everyone else?
-
3 minutes ago, ohcoffeeeyes said:
I don't think they're saying that at all... they are wrong though. Legal immigrants pay as much tax as an American citizen, why should you put money into taxation and follow the laws of the land and not get something as basic as healthcare in a time of need? We're all humans.
You're wasting your time. These people have long passed reasonableness. Something else has consumed them.
-
Just now, Cyberfx1024 said:
Actually there is especially in countries or regions where same sex marriages are very much against the cultural norm.
That's not leniency. You're just taking into account their inability to provide certain discretionary documents because of their circumstances.
-
15 minutes ago, SusieQQQ said:
Yes, it includes
an unsubsidized health plan offered in the individual market within a State;
So it undercuts those who game the system by bringing in zero income retired parents and having them get subsidies - on tax they’ve never paid - to cheapen it up. For everyone else, there’s ACA.
If you exclude Medicaid and subsidized plans, you're very much closing the non-employer plans to many new immigrants.
So just say it: You only want rich people to come here. Just say it.
-
12 minutes ago, missileman said:
What exclusions? Medicaid for adults?
Certain incone-based commercial plans on the exchanges too.
And here I was thinking you and Mr. Trump cared so much about immigrants.
-
3 minutes ago, SusieQQQ said:
Why should a brand new immigrant who’s never paid a cent of tax yet (and some never will) get a subsidy?
But they pay taxes from Day 1: Sales tax, VAT, income tax if they work. We're not other countries; we have a unique legacy when it comes to immigration.
-
2 minutes ago, missileman said:
Yes, there are MANY healthcare options which would satisfy the requirement....many.........
Why all the exclusions? Surely if they're good enough for Americans, they're good enough for immigrants?
-
14 minutes ago, SusieQQQ said:
Nonsense, they can. Read the list of approved insurance plans again.
Sigh. Please read the full proclamation, not just the spin on the press release:
-
4 minutes ago, missileman said:
https://www.healthcare.gov/immigrants/coverage/
Most people in the following groups are eligible for coverage through the Health Insurance Marketplace:
- U.S. citizens
- U.S. nationals
- Lawfully present immigrants
I think we know the focus of the new policy/our discussion is on those seeking entry.
-
11 minutes ago, Jorgedig said:
lt should be part of the public charge consideration.
I agree. My only point is that we, nation of immigrants, should treat immigrants no different than we do ourselves. Give them access to the healthcare that we have.
What the administration is doing is different. They're saying that immigrants must have healthcare coverage (which is fine) but they can't even buy it on the healthcare exchange like we all can. What's next -- barring immigrants from using the emergency room?
-
10 minutes ago, Jorgedig said:
This was before a cancer diagnosis could easily cost one million dollars to treat. And a time when immigrants who got sick were much more likely to die. The world has changed, and health care should be a right, not a luxury.
I agree. Health care should be a right. That means all people have that right: Let immigrants get health care the way we get care. Simple.
-
-
21 hours ago, Cyberfx1024 said:
Some of the basics that hetero couples need like pictures with family are not really needed or if the family knows of the relationship at all are two big things that they are more lenient on for same sex couples
There is no "leniency" for same-gender couples. There is also no requirement whatsoever that you show pics with family for any couple. You just have to show that your relationship is legit given the context you live in. So an opposite-gender couple who eloped to get married cannot reasonably be expected to show pics with family.
-
-
-
How much evidence is needed? Help preparing I-751 & evidence
in Removing Conditions on Residency General Discussion
Posted
One last tip: It's not required, but I recommend you include an "Evidence Guide" with your application right after the cover letter. Trust me: USCIS officers are as lazy as the rest of us, and don't want to wade through pages upon pages of evidence. Having a summary of your evidence helps, and it's easy to create one. The post below (click on the arrow!) describes one way to do this.