Mrsjackson

37 minutes ago, Jorgedig said:

The parameters of the K-1 and subsequent AOS are no different for Canadians than for people of other citizenships.  That’s what folks are trying to get at.

And that’s what I’ve learned here. Which is what the purpose of this whole post was. This is seriously all the information I was looking for. People have gotten ultra defensive because I’ve asked them to clarify their answers. I haven’t argued with any of the information given to me here. This is ridiculous. 

Just now, Lemonslice said:

They're still only allowed 6 months at a time.

Okay. Never argued that? 

3 hours ago, TL2016 said:

You absolutely should ask any and every question you may have in order to clarify a situation. However, I think people are getting a bit stern because it looks like you’re pushing back on an answer that has been given a few times in this thread already. 

As others have said, your citizenship does not matter at all when entering in a K-1 visa. The visa comes with certain requirements and restrictions, such as the 90 day restriction for example. If you entered as a visitor that’s a totally different scenario, but it simply does not apply here. 

 

Edit: Overstays are forgiven for spouses of US citizens anyway, so it’s not a huge concern in the long run unless you didn’t get married within 90 days on a K-1.

I was getting specific but not pushing back at all. Completely accepted all information. 

Just now, belinda63 said:

Begs the question of why does it matter? If you leave prior to obtaining your AP or green card you will be considered to have abandoned your AOS. Doesn't matter if you had an overstay or not. 

I have my AP. This is just out of curiosity. 

Just now, USS_Voyager said:

Yes. Another way to put it is, you do not get the benefits of being a Canadian if you entered on K1. You are treated the same as any other K-1 holders from any country. Being Canadian does NOT grant you additional days of staying on top of the K-1 I-94.

Okay, that’s what I was looking for. Thanks. Do you happen to know where I can read more about this? How did you know that entering on a K1 means my usual benefits as a Canadian citizen are not in place? I only ask because I searched for a long time and couldn’t find anything on the subject, hence why I posted here.. 

1 minute ago, payxibka said:

A k1 is 90 days. Period,  no exceptions 

Yes I know that a K1 is 90 days. I’m asking about being a Canadian on a K1. So are you saying it doesn’t matter that I’m a Canadian and can normally be in the states legally for more than 90 days? That’s my specific question here. 

Just now, USS_Voyager said:

If you entered on K-1, the I-94 attached with the K-1 is what's in control. You would have to enter as a Canadian for all the other stuff to be in control. You can't have it both way. It's either or.

Not trying to have anything both ways just trying to ascertain how it all works. Entering on a K1 with a Canadian passport. It’s not cut and dry to me. So your assertion is the expiry on the K1 is when I started accruing unlawful presence? Do you know for certain? 

3 minutes ago, payxibka said:

Even as a Canadian you are not guaranteed maximum allowable stay every time you enter 

Okay, so just to expand on that, do you mean to say that entering on a K1 visa might have altered my usual maximum allowable stay? 

I filed my AOS a little late (literally one day under 180 days). So normally that would be an overstay. But what I’m curious about is this: as a Canadian, I have always been allowed to stay in the US for up to eight months (a lot of Canadians are nicknamed “snowbirds” because they have homes or timeshares in the southern US and just ensure they come back up for a few months for tax/overstay reasons). So my I-94 expired on September 9th, but would it actually be accruing unlawful presence being that I am still a Canadian? Does my Canadian benefit of being able to stay up to eight months in the US change because I entered on a K1? 

10 minutes ago, Allaboutwaiting said:

Overstay is forgiven when a USC petitions a spouse whithin the US.

Some people adjust status after overstaying tourist visas FOR YEARS! 

 

So you have nothing to worry about, you have authorized presence based on your AOS NOA1.

 

 

I know you’re right. 

There is a blurb on the approval notice about unlawful presence. It freaks me out a little although I know it shouldn’t. Over thinker. But that’s why I’m calculating my unlawful presence. If it was under 180 days I won’t think twice about it. 

Thank you all. The I94 is what I should have referred to in my original post. Not the K1 visa. 

So to understand correctly, sep 10th was my first day accruing unlawful presence up until when USCIS received my case on March 8th? So I was technically at 179 days unlawful presence, not 180? 

I have no idea where to post this- sorry. 

When exactly are you out of status? The day your visa expires or the day after? My k1 expiry date is sep 9th and my received date at uscis (filed 485, AP and EAD) is March 8th. That’s exactly 180 days. I know about matter of arrabelly and don’t anticipate a problem travelling on AP. I’m just curious about calculating my unlawful presence.  

Family based visas were created to reunite family members. 

1 hour ago, Allaboutwaiting said:

Certain areas are actually scrutinized. Some people, are asked for their full curriculum vitae at embassy interviews due to their profession.

For work based visas, yes? 

1 minute ago, yuna628 said:

I always assumed that if they asked such questions, to take it seriously, as in they would make some attempt to verify, or else they wouldn't ask it at all.

 

I betcha if you put down ''NUCLEAR SCIENTIST" or something like that, they'd put some scrutiny in it.

 

I’m still in contact with my former employer and she would have told me if she’d been contacted. Other than that I don’t know how they would have verified anything, as I didn’t provide them with my taxes. Who knows. 

36 minutes ago, geowrian said:

Presumably the same way they do so in the US? Take them at their word + cross referencing info they do have access to + investigation if there is reason to believe it is false.

I would think that it would be much easier and reliable to verify that kind of information in the US than some of countries they would have to now? It just seems odd to me. I can see them asking for academic credentials in the form of a university transcript which I plan on bringing to my AOS interview. But cross referencing various companies all over the world? 

I guess I’m thinking of the time I was a reference for my friend. She had given my number and I pretended to be her superior when the prospective employer called. Not proud! I was very young. I just don’t see why they think it would add any credibility. A US company’s legitimacy seems easier to verify. 

21 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Well as I said this info is typically entered on the DS160 anyway, so there must be some way for them to verify.

Entered is not the same as verify. If they’re using it as a basis to approve or deny I would assume they’re going to want to verify. Like ok cool I’m an engineer? 

How are they going to verify an alien’s employment history in their own country?

Go with the transcripts. I got an RFE for sending in the copy (even though it says that’s acceptable some CO’s want the transcript I guess). Made an account for my husband online and printed it right from there. Visit the IRS website. 

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article234058747.htmlp

The state of California is suing Trump because of this.  

32 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Okay I answer a lot of health insurance questions on this forum and I'd like to clarify something in this thread before it gets worse.

 

Some facts:

 

1) Using Obamacare/ACA WITH or WITHOUT the subsidy (which very few qualify for anyway) is NOT considered being a public charge and it is NOT a means tested benefit. Why? Because the LAW says so. Go to the ACA website and look at the immigrant portion and it says so. Look at numerous court case rulings and it says so.

 

2) It was NEVER at any point AGAINST the law to NOT purchase health insurance. You have the option to not purchase health insurance - if you do not then the law previously stated (up until this FY when the administration changed it) that you would pay a penalty in taxes. Is it a fine? No. Would you be hauled away to jail for not paying it? Nope. Would you be hauled away for not having health insurance? Nope. Do we know why? To know why you'd need to go back to the SCOTUS ruling about WHAT Obamacare is and how it is defined to begin with. Justice Roberts wrote a pretty neat opinion about this. He kept the teeth knocked out of the penalty portion and acknowledged that Obamacare really is just like a window browser for insurance plans you could pretty much buy from the insurance company if you window shopped yourselves. The subsidy was so convoluted it really barely helped, when it does help. I'm sure many are thankful when it does, but most of us are still paying through the nose no matter if you use this system or not. SCOTUS also clearly found that a government cannot compel a person to buy a product (any product), because it strips a person of their free will and right to choose for themselves - bad or good choices. This made the penalty (big lawyerly debate about how to define a penalty, fine, or surcharge) lack any if all enforceable power.

 

3) When this USCIS policy change came up last year, I was GREATLY concerned. The badly written document wanted to lump Obamacare in with all of it. It had confusing language that implied it could be considered a public charge CONTRARY to the law. Do we see the problem? A government cannot exist in two bubbles. It cannot state that a product is allowable to use by all by one agency and then deny use of it via another agency. Suddenly stating Obamacare was a public charge would absolutely be contrary to the court's ruling and would cause a slew of lawsuits that I didn't believe the administration could ever defend. I remain skeptical to some degree they will win some of the next arguments about this policy, but we shall see.

 

4) My second great concern with the original draft was not just the credit score thing - which is stupid, wrong, and invasive - and not the extra required burdens and paperwork - but that the wording of the draft strongly implied public charge and self sufficiency would be put towards things like ROC ect. It further implied that the couple would have to maintain health insurance (private health insurance) at all times, that CHIP and forms of allowable Medicaid, and even Medicare (which is off limits for five years but allowable thereafter) would be considered if used by the applicant or petitioner at any time. We can now see that the government backed off of this stupid idea. However...

 

5) The new policy as it is written, still utilizes confusing lingo (probably purposefully). It states that a greater positive weight will be considered if a person has private health insurance (it makes sneakily no mention of Ocare here).We have to consider what they actually mean by that, and it is true that in confusion people will become frightened and dump their Ocare plans, or scramble to go private. How do we define private insurance? The majority of plans offered on Ocare without subsidy are the same exact plans you can buy at the same prices on the insurer's website. They are no different. How a subsidy works - it's a tax credit: https://www.kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/explaining-health-care-reform-questions-about-health/

 

In short: Obamacare still is not a means tested benefit. Never was. And this administration still says it isn't. From a personal liberty standpoint I find a lot of what this new rule change asked for none of our government's dang business. It will do nothing about backlog, well meaning immigrants, stopping illegal immigration, or making this process less of a challenge or easing confusion.

 

You have the choice whether or not to be stupid in this country. That includes being stupid and not purchasing health insurance. And I hear ya, it's expensive. I once was without it, but when you bring your spouse, or family member to this country YOU have the responsibility for their care. Maybe you don't care about yourself, but you should care about them and their health future. I, nor.. should the government for that matter, force a person to be responsible, but if you went through this process and cared enough about another HUMAN BEING to get them to a country away from everything they have ever known, then you should be struggling like the rest of us to pay the monthly premium or finding a job that offers something. Don't like the cost of those premiums and insurance? Then you probably should be making different choices at the ballot box.

You are so spot on. The original draft of this rule was horrendous in its wording. It actually sounded completely illegal (many interpreted them as saying they were going to apply the law retroactively which DHS has to clarify). It’s no secret this garnered a lot of attention when it was published in the federal registry, and they definitely made some alterations to what they had originally planned. The final rule seems logical, but I believe the backlash and the threat of never ending courtroom battles played a part in that to be perfectly honest. 

56 minutes ago, azblk said:

Before this new rule, For most immigrants the public charge bar was overcame with an i-864 completed by your sponsor or joint sponsor. As long they could show they earned over 125% of the poverty level for your household you would get approved. Under the new rules - The i-864 stops being sufficient on its own and the consular/DHS officer must now consider other factors like age, income, health, job skills, job history , credit score and the like.  Each of those factors is assigned a positive/negative rating.

 

So in my thinking a house wife/husband who stays home has a lot of negative factors and almost no positives based on the guidance from the new rule - she has no personal income, no employment history, no job skills, is unemployed blah blah. So with all those negative factors and one positive factor it is hard to see that person getting approved.

I have also seen some interpretations that the applicant(immigrant) must have an income of 125% level as well.

Ah I see. So other users have most likely tried to explain this already but the other factors that go along with affidavit (such as age, health, etc) have always been a part of the process. They’re just reiterating it in the new rule. If the 864 is currently sufficient but the applicant had a lot of the other negative factors the CO might still decide to deny. 

7 hours ago, azblk said:

Good luck getting a house husband/wife approved if you file after October. 

 

I hope you are right about how this new standard will be implemented because based on my personal experiences the in are going to interpret this in ways most disadvantageous to intending immigrants. 

 

I just don’t see how these new rules will be better at preventing any one from becoming a public charge in the future. Lazy is lazy regardless of the level of education blah blah. I have seen people with masters degrees homeless and people with less than a high school education very successful.

 

Based on the totality of circumstances I see about the changes at the uscis over the last  2.5 years, I believe the USCIS sees itself as the gate keeper keeping out the unwashed hordes trying to overrun America , protecting the American worker from foreign competition et al.

 

Hi there, 

What about the new rule makes you think housewives or husbands are going to have a harder time being approved? The onus is still on the petitioner, as it has always been. There is a section in the final rule where it is explained that being a “primary caregiver” (for example to small children, which is what I am) will be considered as contribution to the household. A lot of green cards are currently being issued before EAD so none of those people would be working. Just wondering what’s made you think that? 

It’s not at all something we all need to become panicky about. People have really become stuck on the 250% positive factor thing because they’ve never heard that number before and it seems to be being interpreted as “oh #### now I have to make 250% of the poverty level instead of 125%.” This is not at all what’s happening here. What DHS has said is that if you have any negative factors weighing against you it can be overcome by making 250% of the poverty level. 

What I found repugnant about the PROPOSED rule was the inclusion of minors on Medicaid. Leave the kids the heck out of it. US citizen children should be able to be on Medicaid if needed even if one of their parents is a non citizen who can’t or shouldn’t be on it. They seem to have come to this realization (with a lot of help from an outraged public I’m sure) because they changed this part in the FINAL rule and will not be including minors under 21 and pregnant women.