S2N

Ask USCIS for an expedite. Then contact your senator or member of Congress and explain the situation. If you have a Republican senator or representative those are apparently getting preferential treatment by USCIS legislative affairs now from what I’ve heard through the grapevine. USCIS tracks cases with congressional inquiries in a different system than they track cases without inquiries. It doesn’t guarantee approval, but it does guarantee more scrutiny in a positive sense. Also, yes, check this page for the category that describes you and see if you meet the physical presence test to see if your children are already citizens: link

I wouldn’t upload the remittances personally. Chile’s a very low fraud risk country with a stable economy. Remittances can be a double-edged sword on the fraud factor so no need the put them there when you have plenty of other evidence for a country where the consular officer isn’t likely to ask that many questions once it gets to the Santiago consulate stage. We upload plane tickets for every trip I take down there and his I-94 for every time he enters the U.S. with some photos. We filed taxes jointly so uploaded that as well as some additional estate planning stuff. Does your wife speak English or do you speak Spanish? Might be worth uploading some basic text messages showing you have a way to communicate since Chile has a very low English-speaking level. I uploaded some certifications I had in Spanish as well as a few WhatsApp discussions in Spanish (my husband has extremely basic English so we communicate in Spanish.)

Transcripts from the IRS are preferred, but if you need to send in W-2s the downloadable W-2 transcripts from the IRS reflect what the employer reported to them so should be fine.

It’s worth noting there are some cases where MFS vs. single would create a material underpayment when filing single. As an example the options I had were: Single: $50 refund MFS: $100 owed to the government MFJ: $4000 refund. We went with MFJ since Mr. S2N has an approved ESTA and we travel back and forth. All that to say: if someone files single and they live in a community property state or make more than $100,000 they actually need to amend to MFJ and not just forget to do it since in those cases single could lead to underpayment as MFS has some cases where they need to pay more.

At this stage it’d be too late for the transcripts to change; it’d have to be paper filed plus an ITIN if they want MFJ, so you’re looking February since 1040-X takes even longer than 1040. They’d submit the 1040-X plus W-2s and 1099s. For context, we filed MFJ in person applying for an ITIN on 4/26/25 and the transcripts generated on 8/28/25. Like I said, amendments would take longer.

USCIS isn’t populated by political people. ISOs tend to be clocking in for a job and not much more. Yah: the political appointees might change how they distribute cases or the policies, but they’re constrained people enforcing them don’t tend to care about the why behind any of that. Said another way, taking political feelings out on petitioners or beneficiaries takes more time than most ISOs care to devote. Usually the issues people face with USCIS have more to do with incompetence than politics.

It doesn’t help that the guidance is contradictory as to what to do. An accountant that told you to do either would be right. Some states take a hard stance on this, though. My general view is that there are several ways to file things that are accepted by the IRS but not on the forms as written. All 9s, NRA, declaring 1 as interest income if you have 0 in order to file, etc. those are workarounds that the IRS permits as they don’t materially impact tax, but the standard is to follow the form as written. 99/100, this type of thing doesn’t matter, but we’re dealing with the 1/100 where it might. Rather than argue about the theoretical here, it’s best to look at what would help OP. An MFS filing as NRA wouldn’t help OP for immigration purposes as it doesn’t show joining of finances. It also could hurt them for tax purposes, and they’d need to amend again once their spouse is here to get MFJ. There’s really just no benefit to the MFS status for them at all at this point, and it’d be better just to wait to amend.

It’s an approved workaround, but it’s still a workaround. Like entering 1 in the interest income box if you want to file taxes when you have no income. I linked you to the policy on foreign spouses above. It clearly states it’s required on all returns, even MFS. That’s been the longstanding guidance. Just like the publication you linked to provides a way not to do that if the NRA spouse doesn’t have any tax ID. That makes it a sanctioned workaround. Its unfortunately an area where there’s tension in the IRS’ guidance on what people should do. If OP is being told they can’t just write “NRA” on a return or amendment, that’s in line with what the agency has published. Not taking a hard line on that particular issue would also be in line with what they’ve published. Sometimes it’s easier just to do what the government officials say than argue with them which of their multiple sets of instructions they should be following.

I think there’s pretty solid anecdotal evidence for the Texas Service Center processing an I-130 when it receives I-129F if it is already the service center assigned the I-130. Seen several cases in other sites that really have no other explanation than Texas trying to close two cases at once and letting someone “skip the line” by filing for K-3. I think what makes this case interesting is that 1) it’s a California assigned I-130 and 2) they called.

At the very least this is an interesting datapoint on K-3. My view has largely been aligned with yours that it’s a waste of time for virtually all cases. The fact they’re calling on K-3 for a December case suggests they are looking at them in some way. OP — keep us up to date on how it plays out.

It hasn’t changed but the turn a blind eye work around is to paper file with 999-99-9999 or write NRA. IRS is less stringent in enforcing its own rules on this than some states are. In OP’s case if the IRS is actually enforcing the policy that you can’t file MFS without an ITIN, which honestly wouldn’t shock me given that the current administration wants to use IRS records for immigration enforcement, there’s almost certainly no benefit to amending as MFS. They’d have to do the ITIN process with no monetary benefit and no additional evidence for the NOID. If they want to use tax returns for evidence they’d need to go to a CAA in Sweden before the deadline and have them refile as MFJ. I’m assuming that’s not really practical at this point, so they should focus on other types of evidence.

Reference from the IRS website on MFS: link If your spouse is neither a U.S. citizen nor a U.S. resident within the meaning of IRC section 7701(b)(1)(A) and you file a joint or separate return, your spouse must have either a Social Security Number (SSN) or an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN). Emphasis mine.

Technically need an ITIN for MFS since the 1040 requests it. This delayed us filing my state taxes this year as both of the states I file in don’t accept MFS with all 9s or NRA written in the spouse SSN/ITIN field. Though the IRS has been known to accept the 999-99-9999 trick for MFS spouses on paper. At this stage I wouldn’t bother with an amendment until she gets here unless they can amend with a CAA in Sweden for MFJ to get an ITIN. MFS wouldn’t help either the immigration case or the taxes. Easiest at this stage is to wait tor the NOID to be resolved and amend electronically in the U.S. after a SSN is issued.

Yep. The geographies I was referencing were northern South America, parts of Southeast Asia, and MENA. There’s a subculture in all of those areas of women looking for older American men. More related to OP, Central America doesn’t tend to have it for people in Central America looking for consular processing, but once they’re here trying to find a spouse and adjust is also a cultural thing for many — that even impacts gay Central Americans in the U.S., which isn’t usually a thing for consular processing. And then Nigeria is its own thing, but usually you don’t get many older men looking for wives there. The most common thing there is people paying for friends of people they know in the U.S. to marry them. All that to say, online dating is great, and there’s no issue doing it internationally. Worked for me. But people should be aware of what the culture surrounding it and immigration is if it’s something they’re going to do.

The issue is with the classification of foreign taxes paid and whether or not they’re eligible for the credit or other deductions. People also often screw up things like improperly deducting health care withholding/tax or retirement for foreign spouses. There’s just a lot of words that have technical meanings in the Internal Revenue Code that don’t really translate well to taxes where one of the couple lives overseas. TurboTax will guide you through it, but it won’t tell you what counts to put in the boxes for foreign items. Like all things with the government, people are free to DIY it, but just because you can doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to do it.

Re: your last paragraph, It’s a thing. Go to r/passportbros if you want to see the cringier side of international relationships. Not judging any particular relationship or people who find international love online I fall in that camp, so I’d be hypocritical if I was. But there’s a subculture both within the U.S. and in some specific countries of marriages where the older financially established male U.S. citizen marries a younger woman from one of a handful of countries who is madly in love with him. If a 25 year old woman wouldn’t fall in love with a 55 year old man from her own country, I doubt they’d fall in love with a 55 year old man from a foreign country. That’s my view at least.

9 FAM 601.14-5.b(1) and 9 FAM 601.14-12.a(1) allow copies. A printed PDF is the same as a photocopy. You should be fine. Link to relevant FAM chapter

Weird. I’d upload it all again as well as anything else that’s happened since and any additional financial documents you have. Sometimes the easiest solution is just to give them what they want.

When did you submit the I-130? If it was right after the marriage the consulate probably just wants you to submit evidence of a relationship after the marriage (i.e. more than 3 weeks of proof) so they have written documentation of it.

It depends on the specifics of her most recent entry into the U.S. if there was a procedurally correct inspection and admission she might not have to leave. Procedurally correct means that she was physically in front of CBP (or their predecessor), did not lie to them, and was told she could enter. Whether or not they had a legal right to enter isn’t at issue unless they lied. The standard in AOS is procedural correctness. It’s the totality of the circumstances. This would be your third green card marriage. You just ended your last one 4-5 months ago. The person you want to marry and sponsor is out of status. She is also 27 years younger than you. On its own it might raise a concern, but it’s very much not the norm for someone to have two green cards marriages and start on a third one 4 months after a divorce with someone almost 3 decades younger who is here without status.

It isn’t an issue in itself, but it absolutely is an issue the government can take into account when assessing likelihood of immigration fraud. There are plenty of people with age differences that get green cards through AOS or consular processing. Most of them don’t have a petitioner with two former green card marriages that ended in divorce. The age difference is a yellow flag on most applications that can be overcome. I think it’s a pretty large red flag here given the totality of the circumstances and I can’t imagine an ISO or consular officer not giving it significant weight.

Ignoring the other concerns, re: AOS, it’s important to know how exactly she entered the U.S. if we’re talking about someone who overstayed a visa or was waved through at the southern border without questions when that was a thing, then a lawyer might be able to get AOS here. The key is whether she was procedurally inspected and admitted, and that’s why talking with a lawyer matters legally. If she didn’t enter at a point of entry and was never inspected, I’d agree with @Crazy Cat, leaving the US and applying is likely your best option, but still consult a lawyer. Also second everything @appleblossom said about the optics of this. I think you should ask yourself some really tough questions, but if you’re committed to this course of action, this case is not a DIY case and the best thing to do would be consult legal counsel.

This would be a good case to consult with a lawyer on. Aside from the things Crazy Cat brought up, it’s not the norm for 28 year-old Honduran women in the United States without status to marry 55 year-old American men for love. That’s not a judgment on your relationship, but a statement of fact about the overall societal norms here. Combined with the multiple green card marriages and divorces, this is going to raise multiple red flags for USCIS and State.

If you prefer I say it more formally: USCIS doesn’t agree with BIA’s reading of the law on this, but they’re bound by BIA precedent. How they’ve dealt with it in some cases with published internal rulings is they’ve denied AOS for misrepresentation at the POE, like @Crazy Cat mentioned. USCIS cited misrep by omission and stated the BIA precedent on pre-conceived intent isn’t applicable since misrepresentation makes someone inadmissible and as such there was no need for USCIS to perform the balance of equities analysis required by BIA for cases of spousal pre-conceived intent. But you’re correct: the law is that if an intending immigrant is admissible, pre-conceived intent is presumed not to create a bar to adjustment of status for spouses assuming there are no other factors weighing against adjustment when USCIS performs an analysis based on the balance of equities. It’s not fraud and I really wish people would stop saying it was. The better way to phrase it is that for obvious cases of pre-conceived intent that are flagrant, USCIS has claimed that omission is sufficient to create a ban for misrepresentation. I’m not familiar with any BIA precedent ruling on this, but it’s the historical stance of their internal review board.

It needs a bit more nuance in there. It is a matter of settled immigration law that intent to adjust at the POE is not sufficient grounds for USCIS or an IJ to deny AOS to the spouse of a USC if preconceived intent is the only bar to AOS. People like calling this fraud here and on other parts of the immigration internet for some reason. It’s not. BIA has a precedent ruling on this, so you’re correct to that extent. USCIS does not like this ruling so they rarely cite preconceived intent as a reason to deny adjustment. If they think you had preconceived intent and don’t want to grant AOS they now will claim misrepresentation at the POE as no one says “I’m going to adjust status since BIA says I can on balance of equities creating this grey area in the law!” when CBP asks why they’re visiting. This is where a lot of the fraud confusion online comes from. I’m not aware of a BIA precedent ruling dealing with USCIS finding thus loophole to the previous BIA ruling. In OP’s case it wouldn’t matter as there’s precious little evidence that anything was misrepresented. They usually only claim that in egregious cases of straight from the airport to the courthouse to the post office.