CadeMcNown

We actually finally got our (2nd) letter for interview a few days ago. We will interview March 13 if no further BS occurs.
 
The screw job is great with this case.
Interview for November 2021 Asked for evidence we were in marital union together for the full 3 years, which was sent Rejected April 2022 as described in this thread. Reapplied May 2022 Interview Scheduled September 2022 Interview mysteriously cancelled New Interview March 2023 It's like they canceled the first interview then put us back at the end of the list for no reason at all. Hopefully it won't be cancelled again.
 
For those thinking something I promise there's nothing complicated about our case. I met my wife while vacationing in her country. Both single, never married, no children, 3 years age gap. I visited her 5 times in a year for roughly 6 months total time together in her country. Many photos and receipts. We got the CR-1 no problem. We lived together the whole time in the US and have a house in both names, a child together (now 2!), filed taxes jointly, etc. There is no red flag. This can happen to anyone.

We actually finally got our (2nd) letter for interview a few days ago. We will interview March 13 if no further BS occurs.
 
The screw job is great with this case.
Interview for November 2021 Asked for evidence we were in marital union together for the full 3 years, which was sent Rejected April 2022 as described in this thread. Reapplied May 2022 Interview Scheduled September 2022 Interview mysteriously cancelled New Interview March 2023 It's like they canceled the first interview then put us back at the end of the list for no reason at all. Hopefully it won't be cancelled again.
 
For those thinking something I promise there's nothing complicated about our case. I met my wife while vacationing in her country. Both single, never married, no children, 3 years age gap. I visited her 5 times in a year for roughly 6 months total time together in her country. Many photos and receipts. We got the CR-1 no problem. We lived together the whole time in the US and have a house in both names, a child together (now 2!), filed taxes jointly, etc. There is no red flag. This can happen to anyone.

We actually finally got our (2nd) letter for interview a few days ago. We will interview March 13 if no further BS occurs.
 
The screw job is great with this case.
Interview for November 2021 Asked for evidence we were in marital union together for the full 3 years, which was sent Rejected April 2022 as described in this thread. Reapplied May 2022 Interview Scheduled September 2022 Interview mysteriously cancelled New Interview March 2023 It's like they canceled the first interview then put us back at the end of the list for no reason at all. Hopefully it won't be cancelled again.
 
For those thinking something I promise there's nothing complicated about our case. I met my wife while vacationing in her country. Both single, never married, no children, 3 years age gap. I visited her 5 times in a year for roughly 6 months total time together in her country. Many photos and receipts. We got the CR-1 no problem. We lived together the whole time in the US and have a house in both names, a child together (now 2!), filed taxes jointly, etc. There is no red flag. This can happen to anyone.

We reapplied. There was no point in contesting because it might take longer, we might lose, it costs roughly the same, and we are pretty much guaranteed to succeed on reapplication. We got a very fast interview scheduled in September, then they cancelled it. Months later we are still waiting with no interview. Don't risk it over the 3 months.

We are the ones linked to as a warning of what might happen. We're still waiting on the second application to get an interview scheduled after reapplying. I wouldn't recommend risking the 3 months. I believe we were in the right, but our officer didn't and it's probably going to cost us 1 year and $700.

We reapplied. There was no point in contesting because it might take longer, we might lose, it costs roughly the same, and we are pretty much guaranteed to succeed on reapplication. We got a very fast interview scheduled in September, then they cancelled it. Months later we are still waiting with no interview. Don't risk it over the 3 months.

I would definitely recommend waiting the full three years to avoid any risk of this! I'm glad this can help you. We have received so much help from here that even if our case is unfortunate it can help as a warning for others.

We reapplied. There was no point in contesting because it might take longer, we might lose, it costs roughly the same, and we are pretty much guaranteed to succeed on reapplication. We got a very fast interview scheduled in September, then they cancelled it. Months later we are still waiting with no interview. Don't risk it over the 3 months.

We reapplied. There was no point in contesting because it might take longer, we might lose, it costs roughly the same, and we are pretty much guaranteed to succeed on reapplication. We got a very fast interview scheduled in September, then they cancelled it. Months later we are still waiting with no interview. Don't risk it over the 3 months.

We reapplied. There was no point in contesting because it might take longer, we might lose, it costs roughly the same, and we are pretty much guaranteed to succeed on reapplication. We got a very fast interview scheduled in September, then they cancelled it. Months later we are still waiting with no interview. Don't risk it over the 3 months.

We reapplied. There was no point in contesting because it might take longer, we might lose, it costs roughly the same, and we are pretty much guaranteed to succeed on reapplication. We got a very fast interview scheduled in September, then they cancelled it. Months later we are still waiting with no interview. Don't risk it over the 3 months.

I would definitely recommend waiting the full three years to avoid any risk of this! I'm glad this can help you. We have received so much help from here that even if our case is unfortunate it can help as a warning for others.

Exact message from USCIS:
 
You are required to live in marital union with NAME REMOVED for 3 years prior to the filing of your N-400. The affidavits and documents submitted show that when your statutory period started on July 21, 2018 you and your spouse were not living together. The documents show that NAME REMOVED was in the United States from the beginning of the statutory period until August 23, 2021, when he returned to the Philippines. The documents show that you and your spouse stayed in an Airbnb from August 23, 2018 until you both came to the United States on October 18, 2018. You did not provide sufficient evidence to show that you lived in marital union with NAME REMOVED for the 3 years prior to filing your N-400. Therefore, you do not qualify for naturalization at this time. See INA 319(a) and Title 8, Code of Federal Regulations (8 CFR), sections 319.1(a)(3) and (b)(1) and (2)(i) and (ii).
 
They completely disregarded all trips except the most recent. The evidence was outlined clearly to show the other trips also. As outlined in the initial post, here are my most recent 2 trips where we lived together (not my only ones!)
 
2018/05/12 – 2018/06/22 (42 days in marital union)
2018/08/24 – 2018/10/18 (55 days in marital union)

Hello, I am seeking advice on how to proceed. Our case was denied today with the option to request a hearing. My inexperienced interpretation of the law makes me think they should have accepted. Here is the backstory.
 
We applied for my wife 90 days before 3 years of her arrival. This advice is all over the internet and even on the USCIS website. At her interview, they said she needed to be in marital union for 3 years prior to applying. This came as a surprise since there were no warnings of this next to the 90 days advice. We were not overly concerned, however, because I visited her many times since being married, more than 90 days worth. I sent in evidence for 127 days of living together in the Philippines after our marriage.
 
Today we received a denial. They only counted the final visit. I had visited for 55 days before we flew back home together. Even at the interview, the interviewer told my wife the combined time together would be acceptable to fulfill the 90 days. We made it very clear in the evidence submitted how many days I had been there, where I stayed, when I flew, etc, so she could not have overlooked the other trips. We also made it clear that I have work and could not be there continuously, so I had to return home periodically. To give you an idea, here are my final 2 trips there which add up to more than 90 days:
 
2018/05/12 – 2018/06/22 (42 days in marital union)
2018/08/24 – 2018/10/18 (55 days in marital union)
 
We were never separated after 2018/10/18 which was her arrival date in US. So there is only around a 2 month gap when I had to return home, then we were continuous for the entirety of the 90 days. We have a bank account, house, taxes, and baby together.
 
I find it hard to believe a significant amount of Americans move to the foreign country for more than 90 days before immigration. How can this not be mentioned clearly when giving advice of applying 90 days early?
 
FYI my wife said the interviewer asked the toughest civil questions (which she got correct), then went into this 90 day business and was unfriendly the whole time. Then she took a long time to review the submitted evidence before denying today. Could it be just a bad case officer?
 
Was denial a correct decision? Should we do the hearing or just reapply? That's another $800, but how long would the hearing take to receive? Will I be allowed with my wife for the hearing? I am better at presenting the evidence since she is shy.

Applying N400 while I-1751 is pending is perfectly fine. Sometimes it actually simplifies the process if you a get combo interview whereby you have one interview for both at the same time and you get both approved at the same time or within days of each other. Op, just got screwed by USCIS IO.

1. I am citizen since birth.
 
2. Married 08/22/2017
 
3. Filed 07/21/2021
We filed 07 / 21 / 2018. This is why we are so confused.

You qualified and the mistake/ problem is with USCIS. Marital Union is not not subject to the bedroom test or “ living in under SAME ROOF “ . USCIS has been challenged and THEY LOST. See attached 
 
Pragmatic decision to pay $700 for a DIY N-336  ( can be filed online ) or start over is in your hands ..no matter what you raised awareness. Thank you 
 
 
https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20160210a97
 
 
 
The Court notes recent Supreme Court cases calling into question but not overruling the Seminole Rock rule. See, e.g., Perez v. Mortg. Bankers ###'n, ___ U.S. ___, 135 S.Ct. 1199, 1210-25, 191 L.Ed.2d 186 (2015) (Alito, J., concurring in part and in the judgment) (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment); Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., ___ U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 2156, 2168-69, 183 L.Ed.2d 153 (2012).   2. The Court also notes that the agency's policy interpretation appears to lead to untenable results:A couple who has lived together under the same roof for three years applies for the non-citizen spouse to naturalize. One night, sometime before the interview for naturalization, the spouses have a terrible fight; they informally separate, and the alien spouse leaves the household and spends the night alone in a hotel. Thereafter, the spouses resume residence under the same roof.At the naturalization interview, the alien spouse is asked if the couple has lived in marital union — actually resided together — for the three years prior to applying and since applying. Would the alien spouse be lying if he or she responded no? What if the stay at the hotel was for a week, a month, a year? What if it preceded the application to naturalize?Under the plain language of the USCIS policy, it appears that the one night of nonresidence — meaning not under the same roof — could be fatal to this application. The policy does not include any indication of a minimum time that the spouses have to not share the same roof to restart the clock on marital unity, or even just fully end marital union. That is an untenable result logically, and not called for based on the plain language of the regulation.    

Yeah we had no idea it was even a risk. We did 89 days actually just to be a little safe with the math. I understand many have applied like us with no issue. I think we just got a bad agent. I would definitely recommend not taking the risk unless you really are in a hurry. We are now delayed by a year trying to save a few months, not to mention the added expenses. Now the consideration is whether to contest at a hearing or apply again. We will contact a lawyer as it seems an uncommon case, and I'm sure they can tell us whether it's worth pursuing.

I agree OP’s wife should have been allowed to naturalize.  However she wasn’t.  Notwithstanding successful examples like yours, the risk of filing less than 3 years after POE can be likened to wagering $3600 on a race horse that pays back a $300 profit if you win or costs you $3600 if you lose. Versus betting $300 on a horse that is guaranteed to win, and pays back a profit of zero dollars.  
 
So given OP’s experience, it seems prudent to wait until the 3 year anniversary of the point of entry.  Costs 90 days versus potentially costing years if the IO breaks the law.  
 
There is a safe mitigation. 94 or so  days before the anticipated POE, the petitioner travels to the beneficiary’s country and lives with the beneficiary for a week or so.  Problem solved.  

This is messed up.
I normally usually would have said file about a week inside the 90 window.
 
Now I think especially for those who travel outside the country, we have to count all those days carefully.
Messed up.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-8/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-319/section-319.1
 

If the fee for N-336 is ok for you , then I would challenge the narrow, ambiguous and capricious definition of the Officer’s interpretation of “ marital union “ . There is nothing in Regs that says physically sharing a room( residence) is a condition for marital union. 
She clearly met the physical presence test and marital union does not require the bedroom test ( physical presence in the bedroom ) . Occasional trips abroad DO NOT BREAK physical presence , and MARITAL UNION should not be at the discretion of interpretations most convenient to USCIS. 
 

I would definitely recommend waiting the full three years to avoid any risk of this! I'm glad this can help you. We have received so much help from here that even if our case is unfortunate it can help as a warning for others.

My husband is preparing to submit his N-400 next month, 90 days before his 3-year green card date anniversary.  However, this thread and the denial of the N-400 for the OP's spouse have caused us to re-think this timing.  If my husband files on May 20th, 2022 as planned, 3-years prior to that date (May 20th, 2019) he was living in Brazil, working at his job and waiting for his CR-1 visa interview which was in June, 2019, and I was living and working in the US.  Based on the officer's logic in OP's denial, we need to include evidence that we were "living together in marital union" on May 20th, 2019.  We do not have such evidence because he did not have his CR-1 visa yet.  We were not living together until he arrived in the US with his approved CR-1 visa on August 19, 2019.  I just checked the N-400 instructions and saw the requirement below, in bold:
 
A. Spouse of a U.S. Citizen. Bring the following items to your interview if you are applying for naturalization on the basis of your marriage to a U.S. citizen: (1) Evidence that your spouse has been a U.S. citizen for at least 3 years at the time you file your Form N-400. Such evidence may include: a birth certificate (if your spouse never lost U.S. citizenship since birth), Certificate of Naturalization, Certificate of Citizenship, or Form FS-240 Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America; (2) Evidence of the termination of all your prior marriages; and (3) Evidence that you and your spouse have lived in marital union for at least 3 years at the time you file your Form N-400. Such evidence may include: (a) Joint bank and credit card statements; (b) Leases or mortgages; (c) Birth certificates of children; (d) Insurance policies; and (e) Internal Revenue Service (IRS)-certified copies of the income tax forms that you and your spouse filed for the past 3 years (or an IRS tax return transcript for the last 3 years).
 
I will now advise my husband not to file the N-400 until August 20, 2022, to avoid the potential for a denial.  He is also waiting for the ROC interview to be scheduled, like many others.  OP, you're not alone in overlooking this requirement, so thank you for sharing your experience.  There are many who filed the N-400 based on the 3 years minus 90 days from green card date rule, who were approved without issues, despite the fact that the couple was not "living together in marital union" three years before the filing date.  I checked some VJ timelines to confirm this.  So maybe some officers check this carefully, and others don't.  Maybe your trips abroad triggered a higher degree of scrutiny in your case, who knows?  I'm sure you'll be fine with the second N-400 application.  Good luck!

Hello, I am seeking advice on how to proceed. Our case was denied today with the option to request a hearing. My inexperienced interpretation of the law makes me think they should have accepted. Here is the backstory.
 
We applied for my wife 90 days before 3 years of her arrival. This advice is all over the internet and even on the USCIS website. At her interview, they said she needed to be in marital union for 3 years prior to applying. This came as a surprise since there were no warnings of this next to the 90 days advice. We were not overly concerned, however, because I visited her many times since being married, more than 90 days worth. I sent in evidence for 127 days of living together in the Philippines after our marriage.
 
Today we received a denial. They only counted the final visit. I had visited for 55 days before we flew back home together. Even at the interview, the interviewer told my wife the combined time together would be acceptable to fulfill the 90 days. We made it very clear in the evidence submitted how many days I had been there, where I stayed, when I flew, etc, so she could not have overlooked the other trips. We also made it clear that I have work and could not be there continuously, so I had to return home periodically. To give you an idea, here are my final 2 trips there which add up to more than 90 days:
 
2018/05/12 – 2018/06/22 (42 days in marital union)
2018/08/24 – 2018/10/18 (55 days in marital union)
 
We were never separated after 2018/10/18 which was her arrival date in US. So there is only around a 2 month gap when I had to return home, then we were continuous for the entirety of the 90 days. We have a bank account, house, taxes, and baby together.
 
I find it hard to believe a significant amount of Americans move to the foreign country for more than 90 days before immigration. How can this not be mentioned clearly when giving advice of applying 90 days early?
 
FYI my wife said the interviewer asked the toughest civil questions (which she got correct), then went into this 90 day business and was unfriendly the whole time. Then she took a long time to review the submitted evidence before denying today. Could it be just a bad case officer?
 
Was denial a correct decision? Should we do the hearing or just reapply? That's another $800, but how long would the hearing take to receive? Will I be allowed with my wife for the hearing? I am better at presenting the evidence since she is shy.