Demise

Overstayed what, that is the main question. Secondary question is overstayed when. Ordinarily he will likely need an I-601 due to a 10 year ban for unlawful presence. It can be sought on either IR1 or K-1, the process basically looks the same as normal until the consular interview, where he'll have to go, get denied, then file I-601 with USCIS, then when I-601 is approved reschedule with the consulate, attend another interview and hopefully get the visa approved then. I wouldn't recommend trying to DIY a hardship waiver, tell your friend to get a lawyer, but ultimately, yeah it is possible. Now there are some cases where it doesn't apply and that's in cases where either you are admitted with no concrete expiration date and there's two groups where that's the case: 1. Admitted for "duration of status", I-94 instead of having an expiration date it'll just say "D/S" (F, J, and M nonimmigrants) 2. Not issued an I-94 to begin with (Canadian tourists, possibly some others?) Due to a quirk in the regulations the two groups above do not accrue unlawful presence until one of the following happens: 1. USCIS makes a formal finding that they're out of status, which only happens if they apply for something else and get denied. 2. IJ orders removal. Then it starts to count from the following day. So in case like this someone can overstay an F-1 for years, never apply for anything with USCIS and never end up in removal proceedings, leave, and not get banned. @Crazy Cat K-1s are eligible for the I-601.

Cursory - surface level. Now, I will just say it - I haven't naturalized yet, I haven't been to any naturalization appointments otherwise, I've been kinda on and off with this site since I got my green card, so I have no idea what it actually looks like on the ground. If you're worried bring a lawyer with you.

Gonna post my DM reply here just for the record: Just to add: For B21, BX1, B26, BX6 - you'd need to attach proof that ex naturalized more than 3 years ago. For Z14 you'd need to attach proof that ex is a citizen, has been a citizen for 3+ years, and proof that you were married. For IR1, IR6, IF6 following an I-751 battery/abuse waiver you'd need the I-751 approval notice stating as such. They shouldn't really ask more than cursory questions about the stuff in the prior VAWA.

Believe me, nothing is more grating than news reporting on something you are actually knowledgeable about. They conflate different terms constantly and rarely know anything about anything. Then again the average viewer of cable TV is a complete moron and their knowledge of immigration is limited to the fact that great grampa showed up at Ellis Island one day. That's also how the current president is able to go on TV and whine about illegal immigration due to a group that is unequivocally not illegal immigrants - you know, all the asylum seekers on the southern border who'd show up at the crossing, present themselves for admission, get paroled in, and remain legal while their asylum cases are working their way through the backlog. Hell, even the parole revocations don't magically make them illegal immigrants because pending asylum still makes you legal. However, yes DACA would've given her authorized stay but not much aside that. DACA AP is extremely iffy with an outstanding order, from the cases I've seen that'd normally result in getting detained coming back and you would ultimately get paroled back but you'd also end up also executing your removal order. If it's a normal order then in that case you can file for AOS and include an I-212, with in-absentia order then you've got a problem because the only way to get rid of that 5 year ban is to reopen the removal proceedings. They also won't give you a reopen just to seek an AP prospectively of future AOS. Also, I really don't trust the current administration to abide by grants of DACA. They've kidnapped a guy with an approved withholding of removal to the very country the withholding order said he is not to be deported to.

Strictly speaking #5 if you take VD for the period of VD only, otherwise #6. Still, in any case you have to remember that if you've been in US illegally to begin with you have to act accordingly. I originated from the DACA community so the question there wasn't "how do I stay above water" it was "I've already sunk, how do I resurface". There's the law as written (you shouldn't be here to begin with), law as applied (I-601A might not grant you any kind of legal presence, but it exists solely to let you stay in US while the waiver application is pending, I-130 might not grant you anything on its own but it makes getting rid of a final order easier, etc), and the reality - if you are already in a mess like this leaving will just give you two re-entry bans. Still, she's done the correct things given the circumstances: got petitioned as soon as legally able to and likely planned to do an I-601A on either F2A or IR since you can do it in either case. Now, I would never recommend that someone enter without inspection or otherwise violate the terms of their visa, but well, it already happened, and you have to act accordingly.

So, speaking from experience - they will interview you for a standalone I-130 if you were in removal proceedings previously (or pre-1997 proceedings). Regarding DACA - good question, some googlefu points to Alvarado being 42, so she'd be at the upper end of age eligibility. Still, it's iffy traveling on AP with a prior order. Still, you have to remember that most people aren't really well versed in immigration law, they know half of what their lawyer told them. It's also possible she didn't meet the education requirements or was just concerned about presenting herself to the government, finally there are people who just sleepwalk through life like that. Regarding the re-petition, I think that her husband petitioned for her shortly after becoming an LPR (in F2A), and then filed an amended I-130 after naturalizing, that then moved the petition from F2A to IR. Still, she was whisked away by ICE after an interview where the USCIS officer said that everything looks good and would likely approve the I-130. So it's less that it was approved at the time, more that absent ICE chicanery the whole thing could continue along. I guess the overall game plan was: 1. Attend the standalone interview for I-130 and get approved 2. Use the I-130 to reopen the old proceedings. 3. Get an admin closure to file I-601A 4. Get the I-601A approved. 5. Recalendar and then either terminate or take VD. 6. Attend the consular interview and get the IR1 visa.

Strictly speaking nothing legally prevents you from doing that, but it does look pretty suspicious. First VAWA got denied because you've de facto committed bigamy. Now, I won't pretend to be an expert on matrimonial law but divorce from the first marriage didn't cure the second one unless you've basically remarried with the second spouse after getting the divorce from the first (since the second was void from the start, so it never really existed). So yeah, that first VAWA denial was justified. Now you're married to a third spouse from whom you're trying to seek a second VAWA. Like, I don't think it's insurmountable but do get a good lawyer and be ready to questioned pretty heavily about the validities of the second and third marriage because they might try to hit you with a 204(c) (marriage fraud). For what it's worth, messy situations happen, legal mistakes happen (especially with countries that end up having multiple coexisting legal systems (e.g. civil, sharia, and tribal)), lightning might strike twice, but you will need to dot all the i's and cross all the t's, and likely convince USCIS that you were sure that you were divorced at time of the second marriage, and you didn't enter into the second and third just for papers.

You can. Just scan the yellow letter and attach it and a scan of I-485 receipt notice as evidence. Or alternatively if the system is faulty maybe it'd make more sense to just send in a paper application.

VAWA Cancellation of Removal (EOIR-42B) is subject to the 4,000/yr cap. VAWA Adjustment of Status (I-360/I-485) is either not subject to numerical caps or gets counted into F2B (depending if the spouse was a US Citizen or an Permanent Resident). Honestly, the best solution in this case would be to motion for a termination with the court and then file I-485 with USCIS. Second alternative is to file I-485 with the court, you first file just the form I-485 (and possibly filing fee, not sure if they want one) with USCIS's Irving, TX lockbox. They will issue you a receipt notice. Then you take the receipt notice and file the I-485 and all related documentation with the court. Then the actual review of the I-485 will happen in court during an individual hearing, with the judge issuing a decision on the I-485. Then once a judge approves it, you wait a few days, schedule an infopass appointment, bring the judge's order and the I-485 receipt notice to the infopass, they will mark off the I-485 as approved, and print you your green card. Either way, Cancellation of Removal is likely heavily backlogged, so going via I-485 with either USCIS or the court will be faster.

You mention just the I-130 so I presume that it was a consular processing case, in case of which you or she should write to the consulate in question that the I-212 was approved, include a copy of the notice, and ask that they schedule her for another interview. This case should not be subject to automatic termination due to not doing anything with it for over 1 year (INA 203(g)) because the refusal reason was due to an admissibility (9 FAM 503.13-2(a)(2)(b)(8)). In the unlikely event that the case was sent back to the USCIS you should check on their website to make sure that it didn't otherwise get revoked and file I-824 seeking to have it sent back to the NVC.

Honestly in general I'd recommend just avoiding unnecessary travel until you have the green card in hand, however Matter of Arrabally (BIA, 2012) remains controlling and travel on AP doesn't trigger unlawful presence related re-entry bans. Only real concerning scenario that could happen is the current administration trying another blanket ban if you're from one of the countries they don't like (like the prior muslim ban) since those did exempt permanent residents but were completely silent on those in possession of advance parole.

First and foremost you should have her file a FOIA with CBP to see what exactly happened there, basically did they give her an expedited removal or did they have her withdraw her admission and depart on her own. First one comes with the 5 year ban, second comes with no ban. Now, it's unlikely that the consulate got it wrong, but you never know. I do question the 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) as that's more of a "didn't have the correct documents" bar to entry, though I guess it could be applied as "you are likely to work in US, but you don't have the right visa for that". On the bright side that's something that doesn't come with any further time bans on its own. So basically do the FOIA and see what falls out. If she was allowed to depart on her own then you'll want to schedule another appointment with the embassy and bring proof of that. If not then write to the embassy at least once a year asking that they keep the case open and she'll plan to immigrate after October 2026 when her 5 year ban expires. I don't see a misrep (212(a)(6)(C)(i)) anywhere here. While it's a good question if a misrep happened anywhere in the process doesn't seem like the consulate decided to slap her with that.

So those things are similar but unrelated and can run at the same time. In removal proceedings seeking VAWA you've generally got two options and you can both: You can file I-360 with USCIS and file I-485 with the court. Jurisdiction over I-360 always rests with USCIS. Jurisdiction over I-485 rests either with USCIS (not in removal proceedings or not in pre-1997 deportation proceedings) or with the Immigration court (if in removal/deportation proceedings). You can also file EOIR-42B to seek cancellation of removal, which is what you've done in this case. Now, both of these have similar but not identical requirements, cancellation of removal for example lets you get around the 2 year deadline to file after death/divorce, it also allows you to seek adjustment even if you were never married to the abuser as long as you have a child together, cancellation of removal also requires a finding of extreme hardship with VAWA cases. So what now, well you've got a few options: 1. You can file I-485 with the court, refer to this instruction sheet: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/legal-docs/DEFA-pre-order-instructions.pdf or, 2. Alternatively if you don't mind abandoning the EOIR-42B you can file a motion to terminate with the immigration court, and if you get that then removal proceedings will end and you can just file I-485 with USCIS. To answer this directly, no that's not exactly correct. I-360/I-485 and EOIR-42B are two different processes, both result in a green card but they're independent from each other. There is no requirement for you have a pending EOIR-42B to file I-485 with the court. Nor does an EOIR-42B require an I-485, if an EOIR-42B is approved then that approval will result directly in an issuance of a green card.

Hey so I wasn't able to get a copy of their denial notice but I got this reply from the person in question (K-2 who tried DACA AP to wipe the original K-2 entry): "I got the denial notice. USCIS basically wrote me a denial letter saying DACA is not valid immigration status, and going back to the states with AP does not overwrite the legal entry of K-2, so they rejected my AOS application." So, ngl, still not sure what the best course of action is here. Try to AOS and if that fails be ready to do I-824, once that's approved pay for DS-260, then file I-601A, then once I-601A is approved file DS-260.

It's a bit more complicated than that. It doesn't protect you on its own, but in absence of other options you can make a request for deferred action.

Then you will disclose that travel during the naturalization interview, they will add that to the calculations, and unless you're right on the edge of time actually spent in US (minimum 18 months out of 3 years) you'll be fine. Basically: 1. You need to be an LPR for a period of time (3 years under VAWA, 5 years under the general provision) (this is the continuous residence requirement referenced below) 2. You need to have resided in US for at least half of the time (18/36 months or 30/60 months) 3. Trips under 6 months do not break the continuous residence requirement 4. Trips over 6 months but under 12 months may break continuous residence requirement. Basically then it's up to you that you didn't intent to break it and still maintain a job, home, etc in US, or family members stayed in US. If you can rebuff it your naturalization eligibility date stays the same, if you cannot rebuff it then your naturalization eligibility date slides back 6 months. 5. Trips over 12 months do break continuous residence and then you have two options: a. Try to file 2 years 1 day after return (VAWA) or 4 years and 1 day after return and then try to rebuff the break since the absent period in scope is over 6 months and under 12 months so basically the same requirements as in point 4 apply. b. Wait 2 years and 6 months (VAWA) or 4 years 6 months after return to file. tl;dr: Be in US for at least half the time and don't take trips over 6 months if you want to naturalize fast. Disclose trips after filing N-400 at the interview.

I mean custody is only a requirement for citizenship. Nothing really prevents a noncustodial parent from doing I-130/I-485. Can always try some kind of split custody agreement, like dad gets every second weekend and try if that'll be enough for N-600. Law only says legal and physical custody, not sole custody.

Not in this case. It is a factor for children born out of wedlock while the father is a citizen and acquisition of citizenship at birth. Even that requires the father's acknowledgement of paternity and consent to support the kid until 18, not that he does actually follow through with it. For Child Citizenship Act (acquisition after birth via a citizen parent) then all of these have to hold true at once at some point: 1. Parent is a US Citizen 2. Child is a permanent resident 3. Child is under 18 4. Child is residing in legal and physical custody of the citizen parent So yeah, in this case the best option would be to file a standalone I-130 and proceed via consular processing, issuance of the visa would require mother's consent and ideally you'd want another statement from her that she is fine with the kid living with the father. Then once the kid is in US file N-600 and apply for a US Passport, strictly speaking he only needs a passport but N-600 is a good additional proof to have, especially if somewhere down the line he'll want to work for the federal government and it's easiest to apply for it when everything is fresh rather than try to hunt down all the old documents later. It also wouldn't be the worst idea for the father to add the kid to his insurance, do some check ups, enroll the kid in school. Like if mother wants to come over an F-1 visa that might be a better idea rather than try to shuffle the kid around. Just come to some kind of split custody agreement once she does.

I wouldn't worry too much about the DS-2019 in this case. The J-1 visa itself should list whether you are subject to 212(e) or not. DS-2019 in other adjustment cases (e.g. via work) serves mainly as proof of continuous lawful status that's not required here. Regarding the birth certificate: That's associated with the I-485, I-765 is basically based solely upon a pending or concurrently filed I-485. Yes, it has to be translated if it's not in English. USCIS doesn't prohibit self-translation however it's best to get it done by a third party. The translator doesn't have to be licensed or anything, they just have to attach a signed statement that they're fluent in English and the language of the document and that the attached translation is accurate. Regarding the "thin file", basically don't have many joint documents, once you get an EAD and SSN just get that sorted and bring them to an interview. Like when it comes to the proof of the marriage the only thing you have to submit at the initial stages is the marriage certificate.

I wouldn't say that it is impossible but it'll be very hard. Biggest issue would be dodging a finding of marriage fraud, or more correctly "having entered into marriage with intent of evading immigration laws" which can get her banned under INA 204(c) and that is a tough bar because there's no waivers available for it and it doesn't expire on its own. Only way around it is to disprove that finding in the course of some other subsequent visa petition which can very well end up with having to provide a lot more evidence for the legitimacy of the previous marriage(s) than for the current one. So like what happened with the first one, why was that one annulled? Was an I-130 filed? Second one, what happened there exactly? How did the ex allege fraud? It's all a totality of circumstances. Lets say with the first one they got married, decided that they don't vibe with each other and went their separate ways and no I-130 was filed, in that case the marriage wasn't ever really even attempted to be used for immigration purposes so it'd pass the smell test. Second one could be very well be a case where a marriage doesn't need to be healthy in order to be legit and ended up being a coabusive mess. Then you know, if you marry 3 different US citizens in a 5 year period then it really looks like you're just trying to get anyone with a pulse and US citizenship who can sponsor you. Now, I'm not saying that is definitely the case but that's how USCIS will look at it and it'll be on her to prove that all of those marriages were entered into in good faith and not just for a green card.

Do a FOIA with CBP. It will take a bit but it's free to file. https://www.cbp.gov/site-policy-notices/foia/faq-foia

Unless something changed recently he shouldn't be subject to a bar. F-1s are generally issued with an I-94 for "Duration of Status" (D/S). Due to a quirk in regulations (this part was never migrated properly to the policy manual so 40 AFM p. 76 remains controlling. For Dept of State that handles visa issuance for abroad that'd be 9 FAM 302.11-3(B)(1) . Basically, persons admitted for D/S do not begin to accrue unlawful presence until one of the following happens: 1. USCIS makes a formal finding that the person fell out of status in the course of some other benefit application (e.g. files for AOS and gets denied) 2. Immigration judge orders removal In case of which it begins to count from the following day, so the finding is not retroactive. If there's less than 180 days of unlawful presence then there's no re-entry ban for it and in this case it sounds like it was exactly 0 days. Definitely do print out the relevant FAM section above and the prior I-94 since it might take some arguing but as the law and regulations exist he shouldn't be subject to a re-entry ban unless he somehow got admitted as an F-1 for a concrete period of time. So the question whether to wait is moot since there's no ban to wait out, if there was then yes, the ban expires on its own and he'd need to at worst prove that he left US on a certain date and there's no additional forms to file. There was an attempt to make the unlawful presence start ticking automatically back in 2017, but after a lawsuit that was vacated.

I looked and saw nothing. Even if, all of his previous bans did exempt already existing permanent residents.

Taking an aside from the thread at hand: This is kinda the difficult point where the site TOS (depending how strictly you read it) meets the law as applied. Sure, I-601A does give you no status, but also I-601A exists specifically to let you stay in US while the waiver is pending (compared to the I-601 that required you to leave first, get banned, attend a consular interview, and then file, then once approved attend another interview). This is similar to something like 245(i) grandfathering with a backlogged petition where waiting in US until you can file for AOS is the best option for you. Now, I would never recommend that someone should overstay or otherwise violate their status, but if that violation has already happened then you have to react accordingly and give the best advice through whatever path exists in the law. Anyways back to the topic at hand. OP, here's USCIS policy manual for what USCIS looks for: https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-9-part-b-chapter-5 Also keep in mind that extreme hardship sounds scary but it's not an insurmountable standard to clear and everything gets reviewed as a totality of circumstances, so a pile of things that wouldn't really be all that horrible on their own will generally be enough to move the needle enough for an approval.

N-662 is what they give you if you request a name change as a part of N-400. If you don't have it then you don't have it and marriage cert would be the right document for this case (possibly more, basically all the documents bridging the name listen on your birth certificate to your current legal name). I'd also include a cover letter that you didn't change your name as a part of N-400, instead that happened by marriage, so you were never issued an N-662.