T+E

I would also write a letter to the director of your field office explaining why you did not go to the interview.
 
Did you check the document tabs in your account? Are you sure the notification is not there? Although you’d still get a paper copy of it In the mail 

The G-1145 is just for notification via Text message that your payment was processed, and case number assigned. I did my wifes N400 online on November, and have been getting all mailed notices, and all of the online and email notices without issue. I assume you filed the paper N400 as you used the G-1145. All your other steps sound good, and should get you a rescheduled interview. and as @Rocio0010 said, a letter to the local field office would definitely help because they have your case file there in house.

Unfortunately,  the email or text alert is not reliable. I never received my N400 interview, I guess the postman lost it. However I have a app that alerted me when my case was updated so I was able to print the interview notice from my USCIS account. Try calling USCIS and ask to be transfer to Tier 2/ supervisor 

when you apply for a visa, always stick with ur name on the passport. 
if u want to show/proof ur GC status, then include the copy of marriage certificate

Remember that a card is proof of status and not the status itself...
So, although your 10 year card is technically valid, in that you are indeed a lawful permanent resident and still very much in status, it is not really a valid document, as it has an erroneous expiry date.  So although you are indeed a permanent resident, you don't have that crucial clear unambiguous proof of your current status.
Many think they don't really need clear proof of your status...until they suddenly do, in which case it can be too late for something, or is hurried in an emergency. 
In your situation (and mine) I would rather have an I-551 stamp as absolute peace of mind of proof of status, rather than relying on an erroneously issued card coupled with a confusing extension letter/receipt. 
Make an infopass and get a stamp. It shouldn't be an issue in this complicated scenario. After all, the 10  year card is technically invalid, and the extension letter/receipt is useless by itself when not used in conjunction an expired 2 year card.
 
If you do want to travel internationally without getting a stamp, I would be very, very hesitant to use the 10 year card for either check in (where it will be swiped and submitted as part of the APIS) or at CBP (where it will be swiped and then verified). Their system knows you are conditional resident and it may well result in an extended and awkward visit to secondary, or worse. Will it work? Yes, in all probably it would - after all, you can even board a flight to the US with an expired 10 year card - but the one time it doesn't and it causes you massive issues you will wish you had got it sorted sooner. 
 
No. Card is proof of status and not the status itself. You remain a LPR, and (assuming you meet the N400 criteria, AND meet the 3 year filing criteria) you remain N-400 filing eligible 
 
Conflicting, incorrect and confusing information is one thing USCIS does exceptionally well. 

I don’t see a need for a stamp. Worst case when you enter a USA port of entry, CBP will confiscate the card, and give you a temporary alternative such as a stamp in your passport or a paper I-94 with a stamp.  
 
When you check in for a flight, don’t show the airline your I-751 and I-90 receipts.  Your 10 year green card is your boarding document 
 
The I-90 has no effect and I don’t expect, now they your I-751 is pending, USCIS to ever act on your I-90.  
 
In some field offices, filing N-400 while there is a pending I-751 does slow down the process. Seattle is notorious for this. 
 
Why do you need an Infopass?

USCIS is preparing to furlough 70% of its 20,000 person workforce unless Congress provides additional funding, according to a spokesperson.  Congress was notified of USCIS's projected budget shortfall last month. While conversations with the Hill are ongoing, according to the agency's statement, preparation is underway for furloughs.
 
Approximately 13,400 employees will be notified whether they'll be furloughed beginning August 3, an agency spokesperson said.  USCIS is primarily fee-funded and typically continues most operations during lapses in funding, such as last year's government shutdown. But during the pandemic, the agency suspended its in-person services, including all interviews and naturalization ceremonies.
 
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/24/politics/uscis-immigration-citizenship-furlough/index.html
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration/u-s-agency-prepares-for-massive-staff-cuts-in-blow-to-legal-immigration-system-idUSKBN23V2XI

USCIS is preparing to furlough 70% of its 20,000 person workforce unless Congress provides additional funding, according to a spokesperson.  Congress was notified of USCIS's projected budget shortfall last month. While conversations with the Hill are ongoing, according to the agency's statement, preparation is underway for furloughs.
 
Approximately 13,400 employees will be notified whether they'll be furloughed beginning August 3, an agency spokesperson said.  USCIS is primarily fee-funded and typically continues most operations during lapses in funding, such as last year's government shutdown. But during the pandemic, the agency suspended its in-person services, including all interviews and naturalization ceremonies.
 
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/24/politics/uscis-immigration-citizenship-furlough/index.html
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration/u-s-agency-prepares-for-massive-staff-cuts-in-blow-to-legal-immigration-system-idUSKBN23V2XI

USCIS is preparing to furlough 70% of its 20,000 person workforce unless Congress provides additional funding, according to a spokesperson.  Congress was notified of USCIS's projected budget shortfall last month. While conversations with the Hill are ongoing, according to the agency's statement, preparation is underway for furloughs.
 
Approximately 13,400 employees will be notified whether they'll be furloughed beginning August 3, an agency spokesperson said.  USCIS is primarily fee-funded and typically continues most operations during lapses in funding, such as last year's government shutdown. But during the pandemic, the agency suspended its in-person services, including all interviews and naturalization ceremonies.
 
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/24/politics/uscis-immigration-citizenship-furlough/index.html
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration/u-s-agency-prepares-for-massive-staff-cuts-in-blow-to-legal-immigration-system-idUSKBN23V2XI

Things have slowed down significantly unfortunately. My wife's AOS process took 4 months back in 2015, and that was "normal" then. I doubt you'll have an interview either.
 
 

If you go to https://egov.uscis.gov/processing-times/ and look up processing times for I-485 at the San Francisco office, you can see the official range they give for processing times for family-based AOS is 17 to 35.5 months. So you probably have a long wait ahead.

That is normal. We've been " ready for the interview" since July and no updates since. Each city processes at a different rate. Check processing time online.

Sept 21 2018- Department of Homeland Security announced a proposed rule that will clearly define long-standing law to ensure that those seeking to enter and remain in the United States either temporarily or permanently can support themselves financially and will not be reliant on public benefits.
 
Here is the unofficial proposed rule- https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/18_0921_USCIS_Proposed-Rule-Public-Charge.pdf 
The next step if for it to be published in the federal registrar and be open for comments. When it does a link will be posted on VJ and I encourage members to comment on it.
 
Here is a summary of the proposed changes by Protecting Immigrant Families Campaign. 

PROPOSED CHANGES TO PUBLIC CHARGE: QUICK ANALYSIS
Last updated: 9/23/2018
How the public charge rule is applied today
Under the current policy, the only benefi­ts considered in determining who is likely to become a “public charge” are:
Cash assistance -- such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and comparable state or local programs.
Government-funded long-term institutional care.
How public charge could change
On September 22, several news outlets released a breaking story on the status of the public charge rule. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has also issued a press release and the text of the proposed rule that will soon be published for comment.  
If the rule is ­finalized in its proposed form, this would mark a significant and harmful departure from the current policy. For over a hundred years, the government has recognized that work supports like health care and nutrition help families thrive and remain productive.  And decades ago the government clarified that immigrant families can seek health and nutrition benefits without fearing that doing so will harm their immigration case. If this rule is finalized, we can no longer offer that assurance.
Here are some key points from the latest version of the rule:
It radically expands the list of programs that may be considered to include not only cash and long-term care but also certain health care, nutrition and housing programs.
Benefi­ts that could be considered in a “public charge” determination include key programs that help participants meet their basic needs. These programs include:
Non-emergency Medicaid (with limited exceptions for Medicaid benefits for treating an "emergency medical condition," certain disability services related to education, and benefits received by children of U.S. citizens who will be automatically eligible to become citizens);
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP);
Medicare Part D Low Income Subsidy;
Housing assistance, such as public housing or Section 8 housing vouchers and rental assistance
DHS will not consider disaster relief, emergency medical assistance, benefits received by an immigrant’s family members, or entirely state, local or tribal programs other than those specifically listed.  DHS asks for input on inclusion of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), but this program is not included in the current regulatory text.
The rule will not be retroactive. This means that benefits -- other than cash or long-term care at government expense -- that are used before the rule is final and effective will not be considered in the public charge determination.
Adopts a new bright-line threshold for households that hope to overcome a “public charge” test - by requiring that the immigrant (not just the sponsor) earn at least 125 percent of the Federal Poverty Level - and by weighing as “heavily positive” a household income of 250 percent of the Federal Poverty Level. This means, to avoid scrutiny under the public charge test, a family of 4 would need to earn nearly $63,000 annually.
Applies a similar test to applications for extensions of non-immigrant visas, and changes of non-immigrant status (e.g., from a student visa to an employment visa)
Does not interpret or expand the public charge ground of deportability. Under current law, a person who has become a public charge can be deported only in extremely rare circumstances.
Sets forth standards for immigration officials to consider when evaluating criteria such as age, health, income, and education. The rules would negatively consider applicants with limited English proficiency, as well as applicants with physical or mental health conditions that could affect their ability to work, attend school or care for themselves.
Elevates the use of public charge bonds for people applying for lawful permanent residence (a green card). This means that people deemed inadmissible as a public charge, such as because of their income, or a health condition, may be required to pay a minimum of $10,000 for admission, and would risk losing this bond if they use any benefits listed in the rule.
Receipt of benefits above a certain minimal threshold in the 36 months prior to applying for status would be counted as “significant negative factors” in the public charge determination.  Any non-cash benefits used prior to the rule becoming final would not be considered in this “look back” period. The threshold for counting these benefits is 15% of the poverty level for a single person (currently $1,821) in a 12-month period for cash and cash-like (“monetizable benefits”).  For benefits with an undetermined value (“nonmonetizable benefits”) such as health insurance and public housing, the limit is 12 months in a 36 month period or 9 months if you receive both kinds of benefits.
How does this differ from previous drafts of the rule?
In several ways, the rule released on September 22 is narrower than the drafts that were leaked to the media this spring. However, any expansion of the public charge rule will have a devastating impact on children, families and communities. Children will be harmed under this proposal, as parent and child health are inextricably linked. If adults lose access to nutrition supports under SNAP, the entire family will have less to eat.  And immigrant families already have been dropping off of programs in response to press accounts about public charge. Even though the proposed changes would not take effect until the rule is finalized -- and would apply only to benefits received after that point -- the threat of changes will cause more fear and confusion about how this test works.
 
Things to keep in mind
Some immigrant groups are not subject to “public charge.” Certain immigrants—such as refugees, asylees, survivors of domestic violence, and other protected groups—are not subject to “public charge” determinations and would not be affected by this proposed rule.  Public charge is also not a consideration when lawful permanent residents (green card holders) apply to become U.S. citizens. The regulation also proposes to exclude benefits received by active duty servicemembers, their spouses and children.
 
Overall circumstances considered. The public charge statute — which cannot be changed by regulations — requires immigration officials to look at all factors that relate to noncitizens’ ability to support themselves, including their age, health, income, assets, resources, education/skills, family to support, and family who will support them. They may also consider whether a sponsor has signed an affidavit of support (or contract) promising to support the noncitizen. Since the test looks at the person’s overall circumstances, no one factor is definitive. Any negative factor, such as not having a job, can be overcome by positive factors, such as having completed training for a new profession.
 
What happens next?
Once the proposed rule is officially published in the Federal Register, the public will be able to submit comments for 60 days. After DHS carefully considers public comments received on the proposed rule, DHS plans to issue a final public charge rule that will include an effective date at least 60 days after the date the final rule is published. In the meantime, and until a final rule is in effect, USCIS will continue to apply the current public charge policy (i.e., the 1999 INS Interim Field Guidance).

Under the proposed rule, Medicaid will be considered a public benefit, but not ACA tax subsidies.
 
However, many states administer Medicaid through their ACA portal, so people may be receiving Medicaid without being aware (Oregon Health Plan, NY State of Health, etc).
 
Also, the proposal says they are considering adding CHIP (Childrens Health Insurance Program) to the list, and requesting comments. CHIP covers children of families who make up  to and sometimes even over 250% of poverty, depending on the state, and again, is administered by some states through their ACA portal, so people may be receiving CHIP for their children without being aware.
 
Importantly, appears that DHS will not be applying these new definitions retroactively, but rather after the date of the rule change which is Jan 1 2019, to give people time to stop receiving benefits that may disqualify them. However, they also say they are looking at the totality of each case, and weighing all relevant factors in making public charge determinations.
 
I read most of the 447 page draft and will post important excerpts shortly. https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000166-0380-d9ba-a1ee-43ab14080000

Having just seen the NBC article, I am also concerned. When I signed my AOS spouse and myself up for health insurance, Coverage California asked for our combined household income (my spouse is waiting for EAD so I estimated his at $0), and they advised us that we qualified for premium assistance tax credit...  now I’m wondering if I should just revert to paying the full premium, or whether my spouse will be blacklisted as a “public charge” for getting health insurance under the ACA... 

Having just seen the NBC article, I am also concerned. When I signed my AOS spouse and myself up for health insurance, Coverage California asked for our combined household income (my spouse is waiting for EAD so I estimated his at $0), and they advised us that we qualified for premium assistance tax credit...  now I’m wondering if I should just revert to paying the full premium, or whether my spouse will be blacklisted as a “public charge” for getting health insurance under the ACA... 

Kept tabs on this topic during the day and I'm glad to see it didn't disappoint, since I got through at least three bags of popcorn reading all this.
 
My two cents:
 
It's a basic tenet of law in America (and much of the western world) that you cannot punish someone in the future for actions that were legal and approved of in the past. Given that Obamacare subsidies, TANF/food stamps, even EIC on your income tax returns (yeah, they're going after this... seriously) have never been subject to public charge concerns, I don't think it's possible or probably even legal to retroactively punish those people by holding it against them today. Certainly, this administration can, by executive order alone, redefine 'public charge' so that from this point onwards those programs are included, but retroactively to the past? I doubt it. This would be one sure fire way to be able to challenge this policy in the courts.
 
A second way would be how they plan to consider family members' use of these programs, including US citizen relatives, for public charge considerations of the alien. It's yet another central tenet of law that you cannot punish person X for the actions of person Y. This might be an even stronger argument than the one above about how to challenge such a policy, if it were to be enacted.
 
Fortunately, since Drumpf and his administration are largely incompetent, and he has hacks and white-supremacist-adjacent-people like Stephen Miller coordinating policies like this, it's a virtual certainty that this would be challenged in court. At a minimum, it will be delayed for months, perhaps years, until the Supreme Court eventually rules on it. And by then, if sanity returns and a Democratic (big and small d) president is elected in 2020, they could render the whole thing moot by yet again redefining 'public charge' with the stroke of a pen on day 1.
 
And to re-iterate what was already said, these changes would apply to AoS and immigrant visas only, not naturalisation. To make them apply to naturalisation would require an act of Congress, and there is zero chance of anything like this getting through the Senate; no Democrat would vote for it. That's largely why Trump's trying to use his executive authority to make this change.
 
Additionally, this policy likely wouldn't apply to pending cases. It would instead take effect on some arbitrary date the administration would choose, and so any case filed on or after that date would be bound by these new rules, and cases filed or pending before that date would be bound by the existing rules.
 
It's just the latest example of anti-immigration policies and rhetoric espoused by Trump and his supporters. As I said, with someone like Stephen Miller at the helm, a man who would cut immigration to zero if it were possible, with the use of this chart as his second choice, it's going to be a constant rut of things like this churning through the news over and over and over again until Trump leaves office. Or is, ahem, made to leave office.

Hi T+E -- 
 
I had 2 health checks performed for my K-1 Visa:
 
Prior to taking the FIRST test (June 2016), I was told by the hospital that the result will be available 6 days after the test at the earliest. However the morning following my test date, I received a phone call that the test result was done and was able to be collected at the hospital. It was literally within the 24 hours of the test. So I.....
Scheduled interview with Embassy >> Attended the interview >> Visa was approved >>
Can't travel before the expiration date due to working commitment >> Have to extend my K-1 Visa AND....
have to undergo another health check in Jakarta. (uuugghhh.....)
 
 
My SECOND test (approx. March 2017) was performed at the same hospital. Within the period of June 2016 - March 2017 there's a change in the health check regulation for US Visa, the only difference that I can remember is that I don't have to get fully nude during the test... I even asked my doctor, "Should.. Should.. I take my clothes off??" and she responded casually, "No, we don't do that anymore. They changed the test requirements." I then inquire whether the test result will be available the next morning as I have to fly back for work. She was puzzled and insisted that it is impossible that the test result will be available within 24 hours. She then phoned someone and the person on the phone explained that beginning in 2017, some of the tests will be sent to the University of Indonesia (in Jakarta), hence the result will take a little longer than usual. I took that explanation as, "Oh, well... what can I do about it..."
But from reading your post I'm not sure whether that means the test will be performed by Medical students or it will be handled by the professional at the university's lab... But I believe my test result was done and completed within 2 weeks (or maybe a little longer)...
 
 
ANYWAY -- From my experience, you have nothing to worry about. I know the waiting period is STRESSFUL!!! Believe you me, I've been in your position. But hey it will work out. Just trust the process. and.. SPOILER ALERT: There will be even MORE waiting period once your fiance arrived in the US.  As long as you guys are together and working together to complete all the required documentation there's nothing else to do. 
 
TIPS: If your fiance is not based in Jakarta, get familiar with the area of the US Embassy. and MAKE SURE that you have EVERY document (and maybe more) requested/listed in your interview notice. There's nothing more stressful than not having complete documents on the day of your interview. And even during the day of the interview, you will wait a long time (approx. 2-3 hours) after you checked in at the gate. 
 
Good luck and CONGRATULATIONS!!
J/G
 
 

Unfortunately I can't answer your question directly, but Jakarta is a pretty laidback embassy. As long as you have other documentation showing you have sufficient assets (like bank statements), the embassy will probably be OK with it. The documentation Capital One provided sounds good enough. 

1. Yes, you can use your current salary for the Affidavit of Support.
2. Have you been filing taxes?
3. If you have been filing taxes then this shouldn't be a problem. 

They don't credit your foreign salary as future US income unless you are working for a US company and transferring home, but they want to see your current salary and see your tax returns to verify that you are paying taxes.  They will focus like a laser on your assets, what form they are in, and how accessible they are though.
 
Declare enough assets to be comfortably (well) over the 3X 125% poverty for your household size to avoid having to go back and declare more, and they really like it if your assets are already in the US.  If they are not, move them there first.  You will have a minor burden/hurdle to establish "intent to domicile" with the embassy as the petitioner and you need to have a plan ready to lay out and discuss with the CO.  CO isn't going to want to talk to her about it, they're going to be talking to you.
 
Your case should be smooth, none of the "proof of meeting, proof of relationship" issues because you live and work there.  It will be a straight up meat and potatoes case hinging more on you (intent to domicile, support assets) than on her.
 
Good luck! 
 
 

Hello A_F --
 
First CONGRATS!!! Good luck and enjoy the process of applying for your K-1 visa. It won't be a walk in the park but it's definitely not an impossible undertaking. Do it together and have fun!!
 
Here's an email from August 2016 that I received from the US embassy in Jakarta in reference of the K1 Visa Interview, I doubt that it has changed drastically since then BUT do not quote me on that. I've posted this in this Indonesian Portal sometime ago but I can totally relate with you as sometime I too am too lazy to dig deep into the many pages of the portal's archive.
Here it is:
 
 
Some of the documents mentioned above can be prepared ahead of time, some you have to wait until you received the email from the US embassy. 
 
VJ website / forum offers MANY informations and solution to different issues / inquiries you will have regarding your application / process but at this stage the most reliable source information for you is the US Embassy in Jakarta. Based on my experience they are INCREDIBLY efficient, helpful and informative. All my email have always been responded within the hour or never later than 24 hours. It always help to have a specific question when contacting the US Embassy. Their email address / contact numbers are listed above in the email (check the US Embassy also incase there are changes). 
 
Hope this helps. Let me know if you need further advice / have more questions. 
 
GOOD LUCK.
J/G