Crazy Cat

***One comment removed as the member already has a topic thread***

But you actually lived and worked there for 5 months. Your "agency" told you to just omit that information? That means your residence history is inaccurate.

Where is your local field office?

Here is more information directly from USCIS. https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-7-part-b-chapter-3

If you are not currently living there, it is 12 months. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/immigrate/the-immigrant-visa-process/step-5-collect-financial-evidence-and-other-supporting-documents/step-7-collect-civil-documents.html

A K-1 is a NON-immigrant visa which means the I-94 expires after 90 days. When an I-94 expires, the visa holder is immediately out of status.....and deportable....as is the case with any non-immigrant visa. Marriage to a US citizen confers no right to remain in the US. By DOS/DHS policy, a K-1 entrant is granted "authorized stay" ONLY after submission of a proper I-485. "Authorized Stay" is not a legal status, but allows the applicant to remain in the US until the I-485 is either approved or denied. This is a DOJ/DHS POLICY....not law. To fulfill the conditions of the K-1, you must marry within 90 days....but that gives NO right to remain in the US. Even after submitting a proper I-485, the applicant can be out of status, but not accruing additional unlawful presence. It is strongly advised to submit a proper I-485 before the 90 days after entry have elapsed to avoid accruing any unlawful presence. This is especially important with the current administration. FYI- Search "spaceage" here on VJ for an example of someone who married after a K-1, yet did NOT file an I-485 within 90 days. That person was apprehended by police and spent weeks in jail.

I don't think you spent enough time there to trigger the need for a police certificate per DOS rules. It was less than 6 months. I don't think there will be an issue.

Omar should be sued for defamation.

***One comment edited to remove personal information as requested by poster****

The lawless left.......but polls continually show that the majority of the population is in favor of enforcing immigration laws.

That's a good question. Consulates operate in different ways.

The officer who interviewed us wanted to see a continual trail of leases or address evidence from the date of initial I-751 submission until day of interview.

Personally, I would wait to spend the money on a medical exam at this time unless your spouse has citizenship from a non-banned country..

I don't remember this being worded like that in the past either. The wording suggests, to me, a person who was taken out of their birth country at 7 months old requires a police certificate.....odd.

I hope you kept copies. USCIS has been known to lose things.

Typo. I meant paper trail...LOL. My mistake. A continual chain of evidence from date of submission of the I-751 until current date. He wanted to ensure we were still living in marital union.

During our I-751 interview, the officer wanted to see a paper trial of our living together from the time we submitted the I-751 until the day of the interview. He also wanted to driver licenses, bank accounts, signed leases, deeds, etc. Good luck.

This is the full chart for police certificates:

@pushbrk How do you interpret this? I'm not sure this has always been phrased like this. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/immigrate/the-immigrant-visa-process/step-5-collect-financial-evidence-and-other-supporting-documents/step-7-collect-civil-documents.html

Sounds like normal processing after the interview. Just keep watching the CEAC status for "Issued".

Excellent idea.....

I mean it makes sure the spouse knows about the I-864 obligation.

That is always at the discretion of the Consulate Officer. For one thing, It protects the spouse of the joint sponsor since they are using joint finances.

If needed, you just submit the name change document to show a link between your old and new legal names. Besides, the NVC stage mostly concerns the beneficiaries......not the petitioner.

***I moved this thread to Tax and Finances During US Immigration*****